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

[Teja.]

Ponting definitely top 5 material too, even has a case over Tendulkar as far as being an overall cricketer goes. Slightly worse batsman but I always thought he was an awesome ODI captain even tactically and freakishly good fielder.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting here. Thought Garner would be higher tbh. Surprised Bevan > Ponting too tbh.

This is a great thread btw. Kudos Nufan.

 

[NUFAN]

None of these players would look out of place in the top 5 at all.

Teja, you would have had to have voted for Pollock in first and left out Murali for Polly to move up to 8th.

It's actually unbelievable that the majority of these players were not picked by 5 people..

 

[Ikki]

There are 5 players better than Bevan? I find that hard to believe.

 

[morgieb]

Interesting here. Thought Garner would be higher tbh. Surprised Bevan > Ponting too tbh.

This is a great thread btw. Kudos Nufan.

Garner was from an earlier time though, so his achievements are less likely to be remembered by most posters.

Bevan was definitely better than Punter, tbh, and played sooo many awesome innings to win impossible games. Still Ponting was very good however.

 

[NUFAN]

There are 5 players better than Bevan? I find that hard to believe.

5th place beat Bevan by just 5 points and 4 more points on was 4th, so it was very close.

I think some people look at his strike rate, so don't rate him as highly..

 

[Cevno]

Ponting definitely top 5 material too, even has a case over Tendulkar as far as being an overall cricketer goes. Slightly worse batsman but I always thought he was an awesome ODI captain even tactically and freakishly good fielder.

Tendulkar's bowling?

He was a pretty handy ODI bowler in the early half of his career and even won matches for India.

 

[Teja.]

393 wickets @ 24 at 3.6 ER

3519 runs @ 26 at 86 SR

Needs a temple.

Puts all those specialist ATG bowler hacks in shame tbh.

 

[Teja.]

Tendulkar's bowling?

He was a pretty handy ODI bowler in the early half of his career and even won matches for India.

Yes, I 'd probably take Tendulkar in the end. It's close though, for me.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting definitely top 5 material too, even has a case over Tendulkar as far as being an overall cricketer goes. Slightly worse batsman but I always thought he was an awesome ODI captain even tactically and freakishly good fielder.

All-time great captain...all-time great fielder and all-time great bat...3 consecutive world cups. Yes, should be top 5. I wonder who the rest are.

I'm guessing Wasim, Tendulkar, Viv and Gilchrist...the other one?

 

[andyc]

Warne won many, many, MOTM awards. And if you're someone who cares about stats (I'M NOT), there's nothing about Murali's stats in ODI's that show he had anything over Warne. Please don't tell me he Warne went for three more runs per game. Three runs is a fast outfield, three runs is a good batting pitch. Don't tell me his average shows he's better. There's two runs between their averages. And how many times have I seen sides just block Murali out of the game, knowing they had it won against Sri Lanka. And there's one ball between their strike rates, this not forgetting all the games Murali played against Bangladesh etc.

Well if you're going to ignore his average, ER and SR, then yeah, there's probably not going to be much difference between the two statistically.

 

[Ikki]

They have basically the same figures once you account for minnows.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Burgey]

Garner was from an earlier time though, so his achievements are less likely to be remembered by most posters.

Bevan was definitely better than Punter, tbh, and played sooo many awesome innings to win impossible games. Still Ponting was very good however.

Ponting has played just as many great knocks as Bevan, maybe more.

They have different roles of course, bit you tend to stand out a lot more if you're the bloke hitting he winning runs than the bloke who batted overs 5-35 (IMO anyways).

 

[NUFAN]

Ponting has played just as many great knocks as Bevan, maybe more.

They have different roles of course, bit you tend to stand out a lot more if you're the bloke hitting he winning runs than the bloke who batted overs 5-35 (IMO anyways).

Yes, I agree with this. Ponting has had some incredible performances, like his 140* in the World Cup Final.

World Cup Final runs are extremely important to me (if a player fails in a one off game I don't think they are rubbish at all) Ponting, Gilchrist, De Silva and even Lloyd down in 25th all made my list.

 

[Blaze 18]

A tad disappointed to see the best batsman not make the top ten even.

 

[Burgey]

All-time great captain...all-time great fielder and all-time great bat...3 consecutive world cups. Yes, should be top 5. I wonder who the rest are.

I'm guessing Wasim, Tendulkar, Viv and Gilchrist...the other one?

Ooh Ahhh....

 

[Ikki]

oh yeah.

 

[bagapath]

They have basically the same figures once you account for minnows.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

yeah. pretty similar stats. but warne was clobbered the hell out of the cricket field by the indians. each indian wicket for him cost 55 runs!!! and he managed only 15 scalps in 18 games against them. that is such a gaping hole in his resume. murali played 62 matches versus india and still averaged a decent 31. it is a tight race. but this factor and a better average and economy rate (more important in ODIs than test) tilt the argument in murali's favor.

 

[Francis]

Well if you're going to ignore his average, ER and SR, then yeah, there's probably not going to be much difference between the two statistically.

But I haven't ignored his average, economy rate and strike rate. My point was there's hardly a difference between the stats. And as Ikka said, take out the minnows and they're practically the same stats.

It reminds me a couple of years ago when somebody said Marshall's average meant that he was better than McGrath. At that point there was maybe one/two runs between the two.

I think Marshall was greater than McGrath, but not because he had an average better than two runs. That's stupid. And it's stupid to do the same with Warne and Murali.

If anything I'd put Murali ahead of Warne in ODI's because of his longevity, nothing else. Not much between the two.

 

[bagapath]

If anything I'd put Murali ahead of Warne in ODI's because of his longevity, nothing else. Not much between the two.

i would put murali ahead because he was good against everyone whereas it was better for the australian team to not field warne against india; he was such a flop show in ODIs versus the best players of legspin bowling. murali was never so embarrassingly bad against any team. in tests i would go for warne because they were similar and i prefer warne's style. in ODIs murali was simply better than him; better ER/ better average/ no gaping holes in resume.