ODI All Rounder Poll - Discussions

[Line and Length]

This is the thread to comment on voting and naming players you see as over/underrated. I will find your input useful when it comes to formulating my own rankings.

 

[Qlder]

Fun fact: only 4 players average > 30.00 with the bat and < 30.00 with the ball (min 1000 runs/50 wkts)

Shakib - 247m, 7570 @ 37.29, 317 @ 29.52
Imran - 175m, 3709 @ 33.41, 182 @ 26.61
Flintoff - 141m, 3394 @ 32.01, 169 @ 24.38
Klusener - 171m, 3576 @ 41.10, 192 @ 29.95

 

[honestbharani]

Klausener - 171m, 3576 @ 41.10, 192 @ 29.95

Klaus got close, but no cigar

 

[capt_Luffy]

What to do of Viv?? Bowled more regularly than say Yuvraj Singh, 118 wickets @35.8, eco 4.5. Not necessarily even good, but being the batting Goat makes it interesting.

 

[Line and Length]

What to do of Viv?? Bowled more regularly than say Yuvraj Singh, 118 wickets @35.8, eco 4.5. Not necessarily even good, but being the batting Goat makes it interesting.

I don't want to impose restrictions on any polls, but perhaps a wpm figure > 1 might be fitting.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't want to impose restrictions on any polls, but perhaps a wpm figure > 1 might be fitting.

I don't really think that works for ODIs. Even many frontline bowlers and pure all-rounders have WPM<1. For eg: Shahid Afridi, Sanath Jayasuriya, Andrew Symonds. Even for many ATGs it's less than 1.5. like: Bumrah, Pollock, Ambrose, etc.

 

[Qlder]

Poll is setting a really low bar for allrounder batting imo with Dev and Pollock in top 3 voting.

Dev only averages 23, while Pollock only averages 26 because of a whopping 72 not outs in 205 innings. As far as match impact he contributed only 11-12 runs per match

 

[Bolo.]

Poll is setting a really low bar for allrounder batting imo with Dev and Pollock in top 3 voting.

Dev only averages 23, while Pollock only averages 26 because of a whopping 72 not outs in 205 innings. As far as match impact he contributed only 11-12 runs per match

You need some lower order batting in ODIs, even if they dont bring you many runs. Low average high SR is the best you can hope for from the lower order.

Looking at Howstat's 30 innings minimum for position 7-11, other than Dhoni and Klusener, averages cap out at 35. Pollock has the 10th highest average at 7, and Dev is a better bat than him. Only 1 player besides Klusener who averages over 30 for position 8-11, and 7 who average over 25.

Lower order NOs in ODIs are going to happen a lot. Unless they are a result of a player not trying to score fast enough, they dont mean anything.

 

[ankitj]

Poll is setting a really low bar for allrounder batting imo with Dev and Pollock in top 3 voting.

Dev only averages 23, while Pollock only averages 26 because of a whopping 72 not outs in 205 innings. As far as match impact he contributed only 11-12 runs per match

Focusing on runs per match in ODIs is even worse than doing it in tests. Pollock has 14 fifties and 1 hundred. That's pretty good from a lower order batsman. Also I recall Pollock frequently batted above Klusener in 99 world cup. He was considered that good.

You are going to find it hard to get "balanced" all rounders. Klusener for example was about as good a bowler as Pollock was batter.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Focusing on runs per match in ODIs is even worse than doing it in tests. Pollock has 14 fifties and 1 hundred. That's pretty good from a lower order batsman. Also I recall Pollock frequently batted above Klusener in 99 world cup. He was considered that good.

You are going to find it hard to get "balanced" all rounders. Klusener for example was about as good a bowler as Pollock was batter.

Not just 99 WC, Klusener batted more at 8 than 7 or any other position. Kinda strange really.

 

[Qlder]

Focusing on runs per match in ODIs is even worse than doing it in tests. Pollock has 14 fifties and 1 hundred. That's pretty good from a lower order batsman. Also I recall Pollock frequently batted above Klusener in 99 world cup. He was considered that good.

Pollock has 1 hundred and 14 fifties in 303 matches. Klusener had 2 hundreds and 19 fifties in 171 matches. Easy to pick who was by far the better batter

 

[sayon basak]

Pollock has 1 hundred and 14 fifties in 303 matches. Klusener had 2 hundreds and 19 fifties in 171 matches. Easy to pick who was by far the better batter

It's also easy to pick who is the better bowler, much easier tbh.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Klusener is overrated. Dude had an 8 year long career, spent most of it batting at 8 behind Pollock and for all instances and purposes, was practically a bowling all-rounder in nature, but his bowling was completely mid.

 

[trundler]

Viv is as much of an all rounder as Pollock. To clarify, I'm not throwing shade at Pollock. I think people underestimate how much Viv bowled and their secondary disciplines are actually pretty comparable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What about Klusener who used to bat behind Pollock?

 

[trundler]

What about Klusener who used to bat behind Pollock?

He was still much more impactful with the bat. It's not like Klusener's average is padded by batting lower down. He was actually more likely to run out of partners and had to resort to YOLO batting so his average undersells him, if anything. If you actually take a look at his batting record and take batting position into account, the gulf between Pollock/Dev and Klusener widens.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He was still much more impactful with the bat. It's not like Klusener's average is padded by batting lower down. He was actually more likely to run out of partners and had to resort to YOLO batting so his average undersells him, if anything. If you actually take a look at his batting record and take batting position into account, the gulf between Pollock/Dev and Klusener widens.

He also had practically an 8 year career. And for someone whose bowling was nothing special, batting that frequently at 8 is kind of a let down honestly.

 

[trundler]

He also had practically an 8 year career. And for someone whose bowling was nothing special, batting that frequently at 8 is kind of a let down honestly.

If I wasn't giving him a longevity penalty I'd have voted for him in the first round.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If I wasn't giving him a longevity penalty I'd have voted for him in the first round.

Fair ig. FTR I rate him in the top 6 as well, just don't see much of a case ahead of someone like Pollock, who is atleast 3 tiers ahead as a bowler and batted ahead of him quite often.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I'm surprised with Flintoff's high ranking as he didn't score any runs in World Cups.