20 Greatest ODIs (by ESPNCricinfo)

[OverratedSanity]

Probably means no India games in the top 5. We should protest.

 

[ma1978]

Too many India matches

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I remember it happening at the time. All-time choke by my boys, but at least it was in the first round. You'd hate to lose a semi-final or final like that. It wasn't a bad Surrey side, but we were much better a few years later when Adam Hollioake was captaining and Saqlain and Salisbury were carrying out the spinners' duties. Without checking, I don't think we'd won anything for ages by 1993. Perhaps the main one-day cup in 1982, but nothing else since the early 1970s. Lancashire otoh won loads, and it showed in this match. It took Hollioake to bring about a winning mentality. Mind you, the quicks in the 1993 line-up were stronger, tbf.

It was like they had 8 Bruce Reids coming into bat in the last five overs.

 

[Sunil1z]

Probably means no India games in the top 5. We should protest.

Also means no Ireland vs England (2011 WC) which is a shame

 

[Sunil1z]

If Afghanistan go onto win 2023 WC , will it be considered equivalent to 1983 heist or better ?

 

[ataraxia]

If Afghanistan go onto win 2023 WC , will it be considered equivalent to 1983 heist or better ?

Way better

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Massive overkill having both the 175 game and the final from 83 WC.

 

[Nintendo]

If Afghanistan go onto win 2023 WC , will it be considered equivalent to 1983 heist or better ?

Doubt it. India weren't just minnow ish level at the time, they also had to defend a low target against the two time champs in the final. It would have been like bangladesh making the final's in 2007 and defending a low target against Australia.

 

[Burgey]

Massive overkill having both the 175 game and the final from 83 WC.

I don't get this reasoning tbh. If you don't think either or both games belong in the list then fair enough, but the fact they were in the same tourney is kind of irrelevant isn't it? If the 99 semi final had been followed up by a final the calibre of the 2019 game, one of them shouldn't be DQ'ed because they took place within a week of each other should they?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I don't get this reasoning tbh. If you don't think either or both games belong in the list then fair enough, but the fact they were in the same tourney is kind of irrelevant isn't it? If the 99 semi final had been followed up by a final the calibre of the 2019 game, one of them shouldn't be DQ'ed because they took place within a week of each other should they?

My problem is not that they were from the same WC. But the fact that they are from India’s first WC win must have been a contributing factor to why both are included. In my view the final should be there, but not the 175 match.

 

[Xix2565]

Both are great enough to make it on their own merits IMO.

 

[Burgey]

The final is imo, the 175 game isn't. But can see why others rate it highly enough.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think we can get the context of a WC run like 83 with just 1 match. That said, as individual games, I dont think both should make a Top 20 of all ODIs. I would have actually left out the final. We best Windies earlier in the same WC and also in the Windies which was a pretty big feat back then. The 175 game was definitely something we won after being dead and buried and it also contextualizes the entire 83 run. So I would have had only that and moved on to other games by now.

 

[GIMH]

The England v Australia semi from 2019 should be high in the list as one of the most wholesome games of cricket ever played

 

[subshakerz]

Too many India matches

Yes. This 83 final is justified tho.

The 83 Kapil game isn't nor is the Eng-Ind tie.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont think we can get the context of a WC run like 83 with just 1 match. That said, as individual games, I dont think both should make a Top 20 of all ODIs. I would have actually left out the final. We best Windies earlier in the same WC and also in the Windies which was a pretty big feat back then. The 175 game was definitely something we won after being dead and buried and it also contextualizes the entire 83 run. So I would have had only that and moved on to other games by now.

The 83 final as a game was a decent upset and as you pointed out, brought the 87 WC to the SC. It has more significant importance then.

My problem is not that they were from the same WC. But the fact that they are from India’s first WC win must have been a contributing factor to why both are included. In my view the final should be there, but not the 175 match.

Precisely. This reeks over over indulgence

 

[Nintendo]

Yes. This 83 final is justified tho.

The 83 Kapil game isn't nor is the Eng-Ind tie.

Why isn't it justified? Kapil walked in at **** all for 4/5 wickets, made the highest score in ODI history at the time and pretty much single-handedly won his team a game that was essentially a WC knock out game.

 

[subshakerz]

Why isn't it justified? Kapil walked in at **** all for 4/5 wickets, made the highest score in ODI history at the time and pretty much single-handedly won his team a game that was essentially a WC knock out game.

Great innings is not a great game and this was not as significant as the final itself which is a cricket milestone. Anyways, don't want to go don't there again.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Great innings is not a great game and this was not as significant as the final itself which is a cricket milestone. Anyways, don't want to go don't there again.

How are you not tired

 

[Molehill]

Why isn't it justified? Kapil walked in at **** all for 4/5 wickets, made the highest score in ODI history at the time and pretty much single-handedly won his team a game that was essentially a WC knock out game.

It kind of is justified - the problem is that there's quite a few innings of this calibre in the history of ODI's (Viv, Symonds, Robin Smith, Buttler (times at least 3) come instantly to mind). So why was the Kapil one chosen? I think we all know....