CW's 50 Best ODI Cricketers of all time - The Countdown

[Jarquis]

Yeah, personally, I don't buy the "allrounder > specialist if he's close to the top in his preferred discipline" ideology either. Neither in ODIs nor in Tests. I would have McGrath over Pollock as an ODI cricketer.

Why? The difference between them bowlers is negligible One averages 25 with the bat with multiple ODI half centuries to his name and the other can bat 11.
Please explain how the latter is of more value to a side than the former? How is he a better cricketer?.

 

[smash84]

I haven't read the discussion leading up to this post, but that strikes me as a weird thing to say. When two bowlers are equally good as bowlers (or with only a negligible amount between them), surely the enormous difference in their batting skills becomes an important factor in choosing between them?

good question

I think the problem lies in people using their romantic perceptions of who they think based on their exploits deserves to be in the team rather than using the simple criteria of who adds more value to it.

Pollock>McG as a cricketer by a fair margin, IMHO.

good point

 

[Blaze 18]

I haven't read the discussion leading up to this post, but that strikes me as a weird thing to say. When two bowlers are equally good as bowlers (or with only a negligible amount between them), surely the enormous difference in their batting skills becomes an important factor in choosing between them?

Not for me, no. If I had one spot remaining in my all-time side for a bowler, and I had to choose between McGrath and Pollock, I would choose the better bowler (which in this case is McGrath). Likewise if I had to choose between say, Tendulkar and Lara, I would pick the better batsman every time (which for me is Lara). I can see the logic in picking Pollock taking into account his batting skills, or picking Tendulkar as he gives an extra option with the ball, but it just isn't something I would do.

In any case, I don't think the difference between McGrath and Pollock is negligible. I feel statistics are given way too much importance around here. Not that I don't rate Pollock - he is an all-time great for mine - but I think McGrath was the better bowler by a difference that isn't quite negligible (in my opinion, of course).

 

[zaremba]

Not for me, no. If I had one spot remaining in my all-time side for a bowler, and I had to choose between McGrath and Pollock, I would choose the better bowler (which in this case is McGrath). Likewise if I had to choose between say, Tendulkar and Lara, I would pick the better batsman every time (which for me is Lara). I can see the logic in picking Pollock taking into account his batting skills, or picking Tendulkar as he gives an extra option with the ball, but it just isn't something I would do.

In any case, I don't think the difference between McGrath and Pollock is negligible. I feel statistics are given way too much importance around here. Not that I don't rate Pollock - he is an all-time great for mine - but I think McGrath was the better bowler by a difference that isn't quite negligible (in my opinion, of course).

Well that is certainly a reasonable point of view. However what I was responding to was your post in which you said this:

Nah, I would pick McGrath even if the difference between him and Pollock as bowlers was negligible.

 

[Blaze 18]

Well that is certainly a reasonable point of view. However what I was responding to was your post in which you said this:

Yes, I did try to answer that in the first part of my post. See, it is the primary skill that I basically consider when I am picking someone for my all-time side. If I need a bowler, I pick the best bowler available; if I need a batsman, I pick the best batsman available.

My initial post was perhaps a bit misleading. What I should have said is, the difference between two players is rarely negligible, even between all-time greats.

 

[Howe_zat]

Mohammad Sami also has an ER of 4.9. That is not very good.

Again, stupid arguments.

Waqar has ECO of 4.8, so he is like Sami? um no.

Just going by looking at stats

Shane Watson | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Mohammad Sami | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Sami and Watson are very similar bowlers.

I'm still completely perplexed as to how Mohammed Sami ends up in every debate here.

Truly, he is omnipresent.

 

[weeman27bob]

I'm still completely perplexed as to how Mohammed Sami ends up in every debate here.

Truly, he is omnipresent.

It must be Sami-thing in the water?

I'll get my coat...

 

[smash84]

My initial post was perhaps a bit misleading. What I should have said is, the difference between two players is rarely negligible, even between all-time greats.

this does make sense now.

It must be Sami-thing in the water?

I'll get my coat...

 

[vcs]

Why? The difference between them bowlers is negligible One averages 25 with the bat with multiple ODI half centuries to his name and the other can bat 11.
Please explain how the latter is of more value to a side than the former? How is he a better cricketer?.

I hate to bring it down to a count of who won what, but TBF, that's exactly what McGrath has over Pollock. Basically succeeded throughout his career (yeah, I know you'll tell me he played in a stronger team), invariably brought his game to the biggest stages. While Pollock was past his prime by that stage, can you recall McGrath ever getting taken apart the way Hayden did to Pollock in the '07 WC?

I just think if you are picking a team to face incredibly strong opponents (say a Mars XI), even the marginal improvement that a specialist offers in his best discipline could turn into a decisive advantage.

Basically, it comes down to gut feel. I think McGrath is better than Pollock by a sufficient margin to ignore Pollock's batting. I would not do the same while comparing McGrath and Hadlee in Tests, where it is very close.

 

[smash84]

I hate to bring it down to a count of who won what, but TBF, that's exactly what McGrath has over Pollock. Basically succeeded throughout his career (yeah, I know you'll tell me he played in a stronger team), invariably brought his game to the biggest stages. While Pollock was past his prime by that stage, can you recall McGrath ever getting taken apart the way Hayden did to Pollock in the '07 WC?

I just think if you are picking a team to face incredibly strong opponents (say a Mars XI), even the marginal improvement that a specialist offers in his best discipline could turn into a decisive advantage.

Basically, it comes down to gut feel. I think McGrath is better than Pollock by a sufficient margin to ignore Pollock's batting. I would not do the same while comparing McGrath and Hadlee in Tests, where it is very close.

Tbf almost all bowlers will get flogged at some points in their careers. McGrath did get creamed by the likes of Moin Khan in the group matches of the 99 wc.

But the question really does boil down to who would you choose between McGrath and Hadlee (since you seem to find a significant difference between McGrath and Pollock's bowling)????

 

[Ikki]

With all the talk of multiple facets, I'm wondering how many people will rate Warne above Murali along similar reasoning.

 

[bagapath]

With all the talk of multiple facets, I'm wondering how many people will rate Warne above Murali along similar reasoning.

perhaps the same no of people who would choose hadllee over mcgrath...

i would love to have all rounders at 7,8 and 9 in my ODI team and I want them to be hard hitting batsmen like klusener, kapil, flintoff or akram. at 10 and 11 I would like to have the best possible bowlers I can have. there is very little opportunity for the last pair to do in a limited overs game anyways. would rather have the best bowlers in business serving my team.

 

[smash84]

With all the talk of multiple facets, I'm wondering how many people will rate Warne above Murali along similar reasoning.

A few would. But I seriously think that Warne didn't do justice to his batting. He just didn't fight it out as often as he should have. And it wasn't as if he couldn't bat at all.

 

[Ikki]

Personally, I take Warne as a bowler anyway but his batting and slip fielding make more of a difference in this format than Tests. Having said that I am not one to always consider the all-rounder superior.

 

[smash84]

Personally, I take Warne as a bowler anyway but his batting and slip fielding make more of a difference in this format than Tests. Having said that I am not one to always consider the all-rounder superior.

I had forgot about Warne's slip fielding. A remarkable slip catcher. One of the best ever. Second only to Mark Waugh and Tubby Taylor I suppose

 

[weldone]

I put ODI all-rounders in the following brackets:

1. Kapil, Pollock, Klusener, Jayasuriya.
2. Symonds, Watson, Flintoff, Imran, Cairns, Kallis, Gayle.

Watson already stays in the 2nd bracket. It'll take some time for him to move to the 1st bracket, if he does.

 

[biased indian]

With all the talk of multiple facets, I'm wondering how many people will rate Warne above Murali along similar reasoning.

swann is already better than both

 

[smash84]

I put ODI all-rounders in the following brackets:

1. Kapil, Pollock, Klusener, Jayasuriya.
2. Symonds, Watson, Flintoff, Imran, Cairns, Kallis, Gayle.

Watson already stays in the 2nd bracket. It'll take some time for him to move to the 1st bracket, if he does.

Gayle as an allrounder??? You might as well put wasim akram there too,

 

[biased indian]

from my list, 8 players are part of the 25 listed so far,of the remaining 17 i think 15 should be there ....the 2 i have a doubt Vass & Saqlain Mushtaq..

but i will be really suprised if saqlain miss out on the top 50

 

[smash84]

from my list, 8 players are part of the 25 listed so far,of the remaining 17 i think 15 should be there ....the 2 i have a doubt Vass & Saqlain Mushtaq..

but i will be really suprised if saqlain and vass miss out on the top 50

true. Even I have saqlain on my list. He was the best ODI bowler in the world for a good 4-5 year period. The fastest to 100 wickets and 200 wickets. Still holds the record for these.