All time ODI XI

[ZK$]

Both ICC ratings and peer ratings are usually useless.

 

[Sunil1z]

You are a smart poster so you should know the flaws in this argument.

Isn't ranking relative to your opposition and competitors at a time? Also the other quality of peers? And doesn't how long you remain at a level matter also? And how are these rankings calculated? I prefer to look at actual record.

Posters only seem to resort to rankings when they can't justify their argument by having a better record, similar to what Migara was doing before to prove Saqlain is inferior to Murali. It's a bad argument.

See my next post . I use ICC ratings for rough idea. You told Imran was much superior to Kapil as bowler and ICC ratings disagrees. This means that both Kapil and Imran were nearly equal as bowler in ODIs.
I am not saying Kapil was superior to Imran as ODI bowler .

 

[Sunil1z]

Wtf is it with people posting the dumb ICC rankings/ratings in every comparison thread these days as though it's some credible evidence of a player's quality? You dont even really know what formula they use ffs. Use publicly available info like PEWS or DoG rankings instead, atleast they're clear on how they've calculated things.

ICC ratings will easily help you to compare McGrath vs Akram or Ambrose vs Akram . Try it . However you need to use it only when other factors like home/away split and quality of opposition factors are nearly same . Use it as 3rd priority.
It won’t help you distinguish between Ambrose vs McGrath because both have nearly same ratings ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wtf is it with people posting the dumb ICC rankings/ratings in every comparison thread these days as though it's some credible evidence of a player's quality? You dont even really know what formula they use ffs. Use publicly available info like PEWS or DoG rankings instead, atleast they're clear on how they've calculated things.

Same reason anyone uses any rating method. It supports their preconceptions

 

[Sunil1z]

@TheJediBrah

If in year 2035 , someone says Bairstow (batting average 46) is much superior to Gilchrist (batting average 36 ) in ODI , you can disprove by Using these 2 data points

Highest ICC ranking
Gilchrist:1
Bairstow :5

Highest ICC ratings
Gilchrist:820
Bairstow:796

So ICC ratings can be good starting point for comparison of players across eras ( However don’t use this for definite conclusion)

 

[Prince EWS]

@TheJediBrah

If in year 2035 , someone says Bairstow (batting average 46) is much superior to Gilchrist (batting average 36 ) in ODI , you can disprove by Using these 2 data points

Highest ICC ranking
Gilchrist:1
Bairstow :5

Highest ICC ratings
Gilchrist:820
Bairstow:796

So ICC ratings can be good starting point for comparison of players across eras ( However don’t use this for definite conclusion)

There are much better ways to do this than the ICC rankings though.

 

[Sunil1z]

There are much better ways to do this than the ICC rankings though.

Which is why I am saying use ICC ratings as one of your support arguments not the only argument.

 

[subshakerz]

Which is why I am saying use ICC ratings as one of your support arguments not the only argument.

The problem is you are using it as a primary argument to suggest Imran and Kapil are near equals as ODI bowlers. So you are contradicting yourself.

 

[subshakerz]

Which is why I am saying use ICC ratings as one of your support arguments not the only argument.

But in principle I agree. I look at player records and peer ratings as more important factors tho to bring up first. For example, I bring up Tendulkar reaching number one ranking in two different peaks in his career as a side argument for him being the best since Bradman.

 

[Sunil1z]

The problem is you are using it as a primary argument to suggest Imran and Kapil are near equals as ODI bowlers.

No, you claimed that Imran was much superior bowler to Kapil in ODI . I disproved you by using just 1 data point because it was so easy .
How can a player with highest ranking 4 be much superior to a guy who was ranked 1 for few years ?
If you had said that Imran was a slightly better bowler than Kapil, I wouldn’t have bothered.
How can A be much better than B when B highest ranking was 1 for few years and A highest ranking was 4 .

Which is correct statement according to you :
1. Tendulkar was slightly better batsman than Ponting
2 . Tendulkar was much superior batsman than Ponting.

I believe 1st is more accurate because Ponting peak was much better than Tendulkar but Tendulkar was more all condition batsman than Ponting

 

[Prince EWS]

Ranking systems are good. The ICC one sucks.

In fairness, we haven't had as many people really put the time into making good alternate systems for ODIs in the way we have for Tests.

@ankitj has a career list (does it have a thread? make a thread!) - but nothing to really directly compete with the rolling peaks/current ratings thing the ICC thing has done. I've done stuff for Tests but not ODIs yet.

 

[Godard]

Thank you. Buried in your analysis is the fact that Imran is a better bat, just not more 'revolutionary'.

Also at their respective bowling peaks Imran was at least a slightly better bowler, even by your figures. Though I would argue he was notably better.

And Imran was better at maintaining batting form while in his bowling peaks, which you didn't reference.

Based on the above, to me he is clearly better as an all-rounder than Kapil. To bat well in the top six while being a worldclass opening bowler in ODIs is a great achievement that you can acknowledge, just like how Kapil was unusually destructive, though not that productive, down the order for his time.

The only thing debatable is who was a better lower order bat, which you claim is Kapil based on his high SR, which is fine.

As I said Imran isn’t a better bat, he was more suited to bat in the top 5, but wasn’t half as good at 6 or 7, with a similar average as Kapil at that position, but an SR of 75 and 81 respectively. So they are suited to bat at different positions,. He was a decent batsmen for his era at two positions, but Kapil was a far more valuable batsmen at 6 or 7, than Imran was at 6/7 or at 5. For bowling I don’t know how you can split 149@23 and 186@24. There is a difference of only 1 in average, and then also Kapil took wickets at a similar average. So same tier as bowlers. Now for your point as to Imran batting inside top 5 and simultaneously being one of the best ODI bowlers in the world. His batting during his peak was 33@ SR of 74, and he took 139 wickets@23. Now look at Kapil: 189 wickets@24, and average of 27@ SR of 97. Who will you choose as a batsmen? A guy who can come at 4/5 or 7, and give you a 38(65) on average or a guy who can come at 6/7 and give you a 25(11) on average? It seems to more clearly the latter can be a much bigger matchwinner as a bat. Imran just has a six point lead in average, but Kapil’s SR is superlatively more. I’ve shown before that Kapil at 7 was better than Imran at 7. Now we can see that Kapil at 7 is better than Imran could be at 4/5 or 6/7, by evaluating them at their best. I can’t Imran as a better ODI simply because he was decent, where Kapil would be average, whereas Kapil is great where Imran was decent. Perhaps I don’t rate that kind of adaptability so high, especially when one considers that Imran didn’t transcend his role as a finisher to evolve as a better batsmen. I don’t think batting inside the top 5 means necessarily you become a better batsmen. Would you rate KL Rahul above Jos Buttler, just because Rahul bats inside the top 5, where Buttler mostly at 6 or 7. Kapil was always better than Imran as a finisher, so the fact that Imran became a better batsmen so he could bat inside top 5 strikes me as absurd. Imran batted inside the top 5 because he was reliable in tough situations and not that important a batsmen at 7 or 8 to remain there.

 

[Prince EWS]

lrn2 paragraph

 

[Godard]

Thank you. Buried in your analysis is the fact that Imran is a better bat, just not more 'revolutionary'.

Also at their respective bowling peaks Imran was at least a slightly better bowler, even by your figures. Though I would argue he was notably better.

And Imran was better at maintaining batting form while in his bowling peaks, which you didn't reference.

Based on the above, to me he is clearly better as an all-rounder than Kapil. To bat well in the top six while being a worldclass opening bowler in ODIs is a great achievement that you can acknowledge, just like how Kapil was unusually destructive, though not that productive, down the order for his time.

The only thing debatable is who was a better lower order bat, which you claim is Kapil based on his high SR, which is fine.

You are not expected to be productive in terms of average below 6. Imran just batted at 5 because he was more reliable not because he was a great no 5. And no, Kapil is a better ODI bat than Imran.

 

[Sunil1z]

You are not expected to be productive in terms of average below 6. Imran just batted at 5 because he was more reliable not because he was a great no 5. And no, Kapil is a better ODI bat than Imran.

Please give this topic a rest . If you want Kapil at 7, you can have him in your team , no one will object. Let him have Imran at 7.

 

[Godard]

You are not expected to be productive in terms of average below 6. Imran just batted at 5 because he was more reliable not because he was a great no 5. And no, Kapil is a better ODI bat than Imran.

Averaging 38@5 is not that greatest of deals, at an SR of 73 is not a big deal. It may have been for the team he was batting with. But Kapil’s explosive finishing skills at 7 would be a great deal for any team.

 

[Godard]

Please give this topic a rest . If you want Kapil at 7, you can have him in your team , no one will object. Let him have Imran at 7.

Ok

 

[Red]

Thanks for giving me new idea for a thread .

No point. I’ve demonstrated Symonds is the perfect 5th bowler who can bat anywhere from 5-7 and therefore perfectly balance any odi xi

 

[trundler]

Yeah I agree with this. Klusener was a real frontline bowler, he just wasn't that good. I think at this imaginary higher level we're creating he would effectively be a part-timer, but bowlers who were already part-timers in their eras would just be total non-bowlers.

This is exactly what I meant to say.

 

[trundler]

Imran who was never ranked in top 3 in ICC ODI ranking is now superior to Kapil who was ranked no.1 as a bowler in 80s . You learn new thing on CW everyday .

And Chanderpaul has a higher peak rating than Tendulkar. Ratings suck. Didn't even exist in their careers so a weird measure to hang on to.