Who is the greatest ODI bowler of all time?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I massively rate Kapil as ODI all rounder but he was inferior batsman to Klusener but better bowler.

Slightly inferior with bat, easily better as a bowler.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

we can all agree that Kapil wasn't the greatest ODI bowler of all time, right? please try to stay on topic

 

[Bolo.]

Starc is really hard to assess. May still have a big chunk of his career to play still. Hasnt played what I would regard as enough games in modern cricket for GOAT discussions, but thats on the selectors... been around for a while.

Breaking careers into patches of form is so flawed but the WC is so much more important that it is hard to ignore.

He has played at a time when SR has probably been more important than ER. So he has been as good in his era as the best were in others. In some ways its not fair to judge based on conditions they didnt experience. But he wouldnt adapt to other eras as well. Stick, say, Wasim into Starcs (or any other) era and he would be about as good. Stick Starc into a slower era and he would look a lot worse to me.

 

[ankitj]

SR has probably been more important than ER

Is it really the case?

 

[stephen]

Is it really the case?

In the first 10 overs yes, after that, not really.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Best way to stop runs is to take wickets, especially in the modern game. I think having a high SR has always been very important in ODIs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is where Richard is needed with his theory of how the fall of wickets has zero impact on run rates.

 

[stephen]

The value of wickets on the run rate diminishes greatly over the course of the game. It's highly valuable in the first ten overs, highly valuable between overs 35 and 40 and then not particularly useful after over 45.

 

[honestbharani]

The value of wickets on the run rate diminishes greatly over the course of the game. It's highly valuable in the first ten overs, highly valuable between overs 35 and 40 and then not particularly useful after over 45.

I think you are speaking purely from the perspective of how much the batting team would feel the loss of a wicket relative to scoring runs, but the thing is there are many pitches where a new batsman can never get going like a set batsman, last T20I between Eng and India a good example of that. Wickets always help, how much can be up for debate and interpretation depending on game situation etc but I dont think the value ever diminishes greatly even in LO cricket at any time.

 

[stephen]

I think you are speaking purely from the perspective of how much the batting team would feel the loss of a wicket relative to scoring runs, but the thing is there are many pitches where a new batsman can never get going like a set batsman, last T20I between Eng and India a good example of that. Wickets always help, how much can be up for debate and interpretation depending on game situation etc but I dont think the value ever diminishes greatly even in LO cricket at any time.

But the loss of a wicket in over 45 vs over 40 is massive. The way teams play these days they expect 50 runs off the last 5 overs. A wicket at 45 probably cuts it to 40 runs. If the wicket falls at over 40 it probably only has a 3-5 run impact by comparison.

 

[honestbharani]

But the loss of a wicket in over 45 vs over 40 is massive. The way teams play these days they expect 50 runs off the last 5 overs. A wicket at 45 probably cuts it to 40 runs. If the wicket falls at over 40 it probably only has a 3-5 run impact by comparison.

But what about the impact of a slightly worse batsman batting longer and a slightly better batsman not batting as long?

 

[Flem274*]

bit harsh to say starc wouldn't adapt to wasim's era when we're hearing about modern pitches, modern bats, modern shot selection, no reverse swing etc every other post some days.

of the two, it is pretty clearly wasim who is most likely to be found wanting. imagine starc bowling 150kph yorkers with a ball that has time to age and reverse. yea nah.

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, that was the era of Shoaib and Brett Lee and batsmen were kinda used to facing 150+ kph very often.

What will be a big differentiator is the bouncer restrictions, given Starc's height. He would have a very hard time if he was not allowed to bowl short due to the extra bounce he would get due to his height.

 

[Flem274*]

they're used to facing quick bowling now too. anyone who was anyone at the 2019 wc had a genuine quick in their squad.

im going to say the thing we're not supposed to say because it will upset the dangerously nostalgic cricket fandom - the bar for odi bowlers is harder now than ever. you couldn't just drop mid career brett lee or shoiab in to the modern game and expect them to be up to speed immediately.

shane bond wrote about this. he spent two years out of the game and on return quickly discovered what used to be a dot ball was now a dilscoop or some other meme shot for a boundary. bond adjusted with a few series practice, but the progression in batting tactics was very pronounced.

i think you could drop 2015 starc into the 1999 world cup and he would be player of the tournament. in the era of 250 being a good score because conditions and rules were more balanced and the standard odi batsman just wasn't as good (there are so many random 25-35 averaging batsmen with 583 odis in this period), good ****ing luck facing starc with more in his favour.

 

[honestbharani]

they're used to facing quick bowling now too. anyone who was anyone at the 2019 wc had a genuine quick in their squad.

im going to say the thing we're not supposed to say because it will upset the dangerously nostalgic cricket fandom - the bar for odi bowlers is harder now than ever. you couldn't just drop mid career brett lee or shoiab in to the modern game and expect them to be up to speed immediately.

shane bond wrote about this. he spent two years out of the game and on return quickly discovered what used to be a dot ball was now a dilscoop or some other meme shot for a boundary. bond adjusted with a few series practice, but the progression in batting tactics was very pronounced.

i think you could drop 2015 starc into the 1999 world cup and he would be player of the tournament. in the era of 250 being a good score because conditions and rules were more balanced and the standard odi batsman just wasn't as good (there are so many random 25-35 averaging batsmen with 583 odis in this period), good ****ing luck facing starc with more in his favour.

That is not how I do ATG rankings though. When you consider someone from yesteryear in comparison to someone today, you have to assume they will have grown up with the same facilities and mindset etc. Same when you want to put a player from today in that scenario. And honestly, we have lesser 150+ kph bowlers now than we did in the 1999-2007 WC cycles. That is just a fact.

I am talking about Starc's height causing him issues with bowling bouncers. Of course, conversely, with reverse swing his yorkers will have been that much more potent. But overall, I feel there is more adjustment if you had a Starc playing in the 90s than there is for an Akram playing today, simply because Akram was the better test match bowler and that still matters, at least in the first half of ODIs.

 

[Migara]

I would say the choice will be between Flintoff, Kapil and Klusener for me. And it could down to something as simple as, is the left handed batsman better? Do I need this guy at 7 to bowl with the new ball or be the middle overs enforcer? Questions like that which go beyond basic stats. But I am ok with any of the 3 in my line up. Especially if I have a Jayasuriya at the top instead of a Lara or Gilchrist, it just makes it easier as I feel the ATG ODI side middle order usually has way too many right handers. Maybe Klusener does become the more appealing option overall.

More like Shakib Al hasan

 

[TheJediBrah]

The value of wickets on the run rate diminishes greatly over the course of the game. It's highly valuable in the first ten overs, highly valuable between overs 35 and 40 and then not particularly useful after over 45.

I don't get the point of this post. Taking wickets is extremely valuable for the vast majority of a 50 over innings. Don't know why you're focusing on the very end of the innings, it doesn't change that fact.

An extra wicket or 2 in the first 10, or in overs 10-20, or 20-30 or 30-40 or any stage of the innings really can have a huge impact on the final score. More so than bowling a little bit tighter and going at 0.5 rpo less for a few overs.

 

[stephen]

I don't get the point of this post. Taking wickets is extremely valuable for the vast majority of a 50 over innings. Don't know why you're focusing on the very end of the innings, it doesn't change that fact.

An extra wicket or 2 in the first 10, or in overs 10-20, or 20-30 or 30-40 or any stage of the innings really can have a huge impact on the final score. More so than bowling a little bit tighter and going at 0.5 rpo less for a few overs.

Taking wickets is vitally important of course. Taking a wicket with an over left is nowhere near as important as one in the first over. This is even reflected by the DLS, which punishes sides who have lost early wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Taking wickets is vitally important of course. Taking a wicket with an over left is nowhere near as important as one in the first over. This is even reflected by the DLS, which punishes sides who have lost early wickets.

Yeah you said that. Just didn't really get why you said it, it's stating the obvious and didn't seem relevant to anything.

 

[honestbharani]

More like Shakib Al hasan

Feel I wont need him if I already have Jayasuriya opening.