ODI All Rounder Poll - Discussions

[Bolo.]

Quality falls off pretty fast.

 

[CricAddict]

It looks as though longevity is a factor when voting. Both Jayasuriya (445 games) and Afridi (398) have flaws in their statistical resumes but, at their best, probably deserve inclusion.
At the other end of the scale we have players with fewer than 100 games (48 in the case of one player) gaining votes. Greg Chappell's performances couldn't be overlooked and was deservedly included. Others are up against 100 and 200 game players with equal and often better figures to their name.

It is not about longevity or average for Jayasuriya and Afridi. It is about the impact. Some of the things they did with the bat were unheard of in that era. Great hitters of the ball. And decent at bowling too.

 

[ankitj]

Stop the poll
Stop the count

 

[Qlder]

There are still players worthy of inclusion and the continued good number of voters indicate an interest in continuing our poll to 30 and possibly beyond.

When you consider the ODI batting and bowling polls only went to 40, getting to 30+ allrounders is a bit ambitious.

I've picked 3 allrounders for 19-21 but I'm struggling to expand my list to 25 without going to batsmen that bowl a bit or bowlers that bat a bit.

 

[Line and Length]

When you consider the ODI batting and bowling polls only went to 40, getting to 30+ allrounders is a bit ambitious.

I've picked 3 allrounders for 19-21 but I'm struggling to expand my list to 25 without going to batsmen that bowl a bit or bowlers that bat a bit.

We already have players that fit that description ranked in our 1-18 list.

 

[Qlder]

@Line and Length there's a typo in table. Afridi listed with 9064 runs whereas he has 8064

 

[Fuller Pilch]

When you consider the ODI batting and bowling polls only went to 40, getting to 30+ allrounders is a bit ambitious.

I've picked 3 allrounders for 19-21 but I'm struggling to expand my list to 25 without going to batsmen that bowl a bit or bowlers that bat a bit.

Still lots of proper allrounders. The likes of James Faulkner, Glenn Maxwell, Jacob Oram, Botham, Ryan Ten Doeschate, Justin Kemp, Sikander Raza, Mitchell Santner, Michael Bracewell, Dwayne Bravo, Jimmy Neesham, and Woakes still haven't even been nominated yet.

 

[Migara]

Is he that far off Jayasuriya (0.72wpm; ave 36.75) and Viv (0.63wpm; ave 35.79)? That pair made our Top 10 while Collingwood looks unlikely to figure in the Top 20 on current voting.

Jayasuriya bowled the death overs FFS. He is way more skilled with the ball than Collingwood or Viv

 

[Qlder]

Just to put Collingwood's 0.56 wpm bowling into perspective, Steve Waugh didn't bowl in 118 games when he decided not to bowl, but still averaged 0.60 wpm overall.

 

[Line and Length]

Just to put Collingwood's 0.56 wpm bowling into perspective, Steve Waugh didn't bowl in 118 games when he decided not to bowl, but still averaged 0.60 wpm overall.

"Taking a closer look Collingwood bowled in most games except for a weird 18 months between Jan 2003 and July 2004. He played 20 games and only bowled in 2 of those games (5 overs total). Wondering if he was injured?"

He was. He dislocated his right shoulder while fielding in a pre–season county friendly and was forced to miss most of the 2003 season

It seems Collingwood is targeted for having a low wpm, but others get through with wpm scores not much better.

 

[Qlder]

It seems Collingwood is targeted for having a low wpm, but others get through with wpm scores not much better.

You mean like Viv Richards with 0.63 wpm who just happened to be voted the greatest ODI batsman of all time to offset his bowling?

No-one voted in so far has a wpm as low as Collingwood's 0.56 and he's no Viv Richards

 

[Line and Length]

You mean like Viv Richards with 0.63 wpm who just happened to be voted the greatest ODI batsman of all time to offset his bowling?

No-one voted in so far has a wpm as low as Collingwood's 0.56 and he's no Viv Richards

I wasn't referring to Viv. I was looking at Cronje. Others with similar wpm figures also get votes ahead of him.

 

[Qlder]

I wasn't referring to Viv. I was looking at Cronje. Others with similar wpm figures also get votes ahead of him.

Not sure what you're looking at but of the 11 players voted on this round Collingwood has the lowest wpm

Streak - 1.26
Botham - 1.25
O'Donnell - 1.24
Jadeja - 1.13
Pandya - 0 97
Harris - 0.81
N.Johnson - 0.73
Stokes - 0.65
Hafeez - 0.64
S.Waugh - 0 60
Collingwood - 0.56

 

[Line and Length]

Not sure what you're looking at but of the 11 players voted on this round Collingwood has the lowest wpm

Streak - 1.26
Botham - 1.25
O'Donnell - 1.24
Jadeja - 1.13
Pandya - 0 97
Harris - 0.81
N.Johnson - 0.73
Stokes - 0.65
Hafeez - 0.64
S.Waugh - 0 60
Collingwood - 0.56

The previous round saw Gayle (0.55) and Tendulkar (0.33) getting votes as well as Cronje getting in with 0.60. That's what I was looking at.

 

[Qlder]

The previous round saw Gayle (0.55) and Tendulkar (0.33) getting votes as well as Cronje getting in with 0.60. That's what I was looking at.

Everyone has to draw a line somewhere for allrounders. For me it's 1.0 wpm but I have a sliding scale where I can drop it to 0.8 wpm if they have a batting average over 35. I'll even relax it to 0.60 wpm if they average over 45 with the bat like Viv (I didn't vote for him but would have eventually).

 

[capt_Luffy]

The previous round saw Gayle (0.55) and Tendulkar (0.33) getting votes as well as Cronje getting in with 0.60. That's what I was looking at.

So Gayle and Collingwood have practically the same WPM, while Gayle is a much superior batsman??

 

[Qlder]

Forget Collingwood, how is Neil Johnson currently 3rd in the votes, so 21st best ever all-time allrounder, when he has only 35 wkts and his ODI career was only 21 months long? I'd actually never heard of him until this poll.

Might as well vote for Gus Gilmour with same career length of 21 months. Gilmour has a batting average of 42.00 (SR 107.7) and a bowling average of 10.31 (econ 3.09, SR 20.0, 3.2 wpm). Pity he only played 5 games with his last ODI in 1975 before they became more common

 

[Line and Length]

Everyone has to draw a line somewhere for allrounders. For me it's 1.0 wpm but I have a sliding scale where I can drop it to 0.8 wpm if they have a batting average over 35. I'll even relax it to 0.60 wpm if they average over 45 with the bat like Viv (I didn't vote for him but would have eventually).

I guess we all have different criteria. I initially mentioned a wpm of 1.0 but this was discarded after some very logical arguments against.
I am drawn to players with a positive differential between batting and bowling averages and, when these names are exhausted, players whose averages are close.
Perhaps, above all, I'm influenced by batting averages >30 as I tend to overlook good bowlers who are handy with the bat. This isn't to say I totally overlook them. I voted for Heath Streak despite a sub 30 batting average and the fact that his average was enhanced by over a third of his innings being 'not out'.
Longevity is important for some, and I admire those whose career has extended over many games - even though, at times, they might be selected for just one skill. From that aspect, I look for players who have >100 games - though I made an exception for Greg Chappell whose credentials couldn't be ignored. I'm certainly surprised that a player with fewer than 50 games and just 35 wickets is selected ahead of players such as Waugh, Pandya and one whose name escapes me.

 

[Qlder]

12 voters, 11 nominations and 3 with double figure votes including a tie for the second spot behind Heath Streak.

H.Streak 20
N.Johnson 10
H.Pandya 10

I only count 8 points for Johnson?

 

[Line and Length]

Thanks for picking that up. I usually check the total votes (12 x 6 = 72) and when they tally I don't always double check. Somehow I missed Patel and gave Johnson 2 from the votes above. Where would I be without your vigilance?