Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread

[viriya]

Sanath had a strike rate of 91.20 when scoring rates were much lower in contrast to Shakib's 80.31 in an era when scoring rates are higher. Sanath was a world-class batsman and a very good bowler, whereas Shakib is a good bowler and a good batsman.

btw pretty sure Shakib has played a much higher percentage of his games against "minnows", which is not his fault, Bangladesh play who they can, but no doubt pads his stats a bit

How does Sanath being a "very good bowler" and Shakib just being a "good bowler" make sense? If anything it should be reversed.

The part where Shakib has played vs minnows more is countered by the fact that he never gets to play vs his own team who is a minnow as well.

 

[smash84]

Shakib is nowhere near the quality of Jayasuriya in batting and his bowling doesn't compensate enough to make him better. Also Sanath was the superior fielder and he wins this comfortably

 

[YorksLanka]

This makes no sense because it implies that Sanath would've taken the wickets that Murali took if not for him. Since Sanath was nowhere near in quality this is a bad assumption. Also, Murali's impact in ODIs is limited just because of the 10 over rule.

No mate it doesn't..it points out that that your comment that Sanath took less wickets wasn't fair because those wickets weren't available to be taken because murali /vaas took them already..

Tbh, I honestly don't think it is possible to compare players of different eras as the conditions/ circumstances are completely chalk and cheese..I know that the only way to compare them is via stats but you just can't judge players via stats imo

 

[viriya]

Shakib is nowhere near the quality of Jayasuriya in batting and his bowling doesn't compensate enough to make him better. Also Sanath was the superior fielder and he wins this comfortably

imo it's the other way around. Sanath is the better batsman but not by as much Shakib is the better bowler.

Sanath was probably the better fielder but there are no numbers to back that and fielding impact on the average match is minimal imo based on my win share work.

 

[smash84]

imo it's the other way around. Sanath is the better batsman but not by as much Shakib is the better bowler.

Sanath was probably the better fielder but there are no numbers to back that and fielding impact on the average match is minimal imo based on my win share work.

Well, I am quite sure that most observers would agree with me. However if you feel Shakib is better then Sanath, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous that might sound to other followers of the game

 

[viriya]

I'm not saying Shakib is better than Sanath, just that he is the better all-rounder. Who is better is a question that relates to how much value you put to batting and bowling. The ODI format favors being a better batsman since a bowler is limited to 10 overs, so Sanath probably brings more value to a team just because of that.

 

[smash84]

We'll be going round in circles but refer to red hills earlier post on it

 

[viriya]

All I'm saying is when you are rating all-rounders you should give batting and bowling equal value. I don't think that's controversial.

 

[smash84]

All I'm saying is when you are rating all-rounders you should give batting and bowling equal value. I don't think that's controversial.

but that's your criteria. I can choose to give (70 percent to the stronger suit and 30 to the weaker).

 

[Red]

imo it's the other way around. Sanath is the better batsman but not by as much Shakib is the better bowler.

Sanath was probably the better fielder but there are no numbers to back that and fielding impact on the average match is minimal imo based on my win share work.

**** this shits me

 

[viriya]

**** this shits me

There are a lot of cases of fielders being worse/better than people expect when drop rates etc are available. In most cases it confirms conventional wisdom though.

 

[Red]

There are a lot of cases of fielders being worse/better than people expect when drop rates etc are available. In most cases it confirms conventional wisdom though.

I watched Jayasuriya field so I know he was good.

 

[watson]

I watched Jayasuriya field so I know he was good.

.

 

[viriya]

I watched Jayasuriya field so I know he was good.

I probably watched every (almost) single SL game from 1996- so I am aware of his fielding ability. The thing is there is selection bias when you anecdotally rate players - you tend to ignore mistakes as aberrations.

 

[Red]

fielding impact on the average match is minimal imo based on my win share work.

What's this about as well?

 

[viriya]

What's this about as well?

Will derail thread if I talk about it here, lemme link 2 threads if you want to discuss that further:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach.html
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65815-win-shares-finding-clutch-performers.html

 

[Red]

Will derail thread if I talk about it here, lemme link 2 threads if you want to discuss that further:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach.html
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65815-win-shares-finding-clutch-performers.html

I'll look later but all I'll say now is that when Australia had Symonds, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Hogg roaming in the inner circle, it was bloody formidable.

 

[weldone]

I'll look later but all I'll say now is that when Australia had Symonds, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Hogg roaming in the inner circle, it was bloody formidable.

True. It was absolutely irritating as an Indian fan when McGrath would bowl six consecutive short-of-good-length deliveries just outside the off-stump and Tendulkar would play six glorious shots but end up giving McGrath a maiden over due to that ring.

 

[marc71178]

Shakib is better than Sanath afaic. During this career Sanath would've never made an odi world xi (behind the likes of Tendulkar, M Waugh,Ganguly, Gilchrist, Smith, Hayden as an opener and Harris, Cairns, Klusener, Pollock, Kallis, Symonds, Flintoff as an allrounder). Shakib is best allrounder of the post-Kallis period. To take a NZ example (as I know the NZ players best) Shakib is Vettori's bowling with Elliot's batting which equates to a world-class allrounder. Nonetheless, Santner might eclipse him.

LOL at the Kiwi-tinted bias there.

As for not making an ODI team of his generation, for me he's a lock in the all time team opening with SRT.

 

[marc71178]

imo it's the other way around. Sanath is the better batsman but not by as much Shakib is the better bowler.

Sanath was probably the better fielder but there are no numbers to back that and fielding impact on the average match is minimal imo based on my win share work.

Who gives a **** about numbers. Use your eyes for ****s sake.