ODI GOAT at cricket.com.au

[watson]

You are overrating bowlers of the 70s and 80s because of their Test reputations and the fact that it was much easier to have a good bowling record then.

Great players are always compared to their peers. This anyone can easily do with some help from Statsguru.

Michael Holding
Average = 21.56
Economy Rate = 3.32
Average x ER = 71.58

Overall Peer Average = 29.48
Overall Peer Economy Rate = 3.99
Average x ER = 117.63

Peers (117.63) / Holding (71.58) = 1.64
Peers to Holding Ratio = 1.64


Brett Lee
Average = 22.89
Economy Rate = 4.70
Average x ER = 107.58

Overall Peer Average = 32.31
Overall Peer Economy Rate = 4.79
Average x ER = 154.76

Peers (154.76) / Lee (107.58) = 1.44
Peers to Lee Ratio = 1.44

Lee (1.44) / Holding (1.64) = 0.88

Therefore, Holding is better/more effective than Lee by a factor of 0.12.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/541322.html

 

[watson]

If you same sort of calculations are applied to Joel Garner then his ratio comes out at 2.03. So basically Garner was twice as good/effective as other ODI bowlers from his era.

The next closest to Garner are McGrath and Hadlee who both score 1.76.

 

[viriya]

Great players are always compared to their peers. This anyone can easily do with some help from Statsguru.

Michael Holding
Average = 21.56
Economy Rate = 3.32
Average x ER = 71.58

Overall Peer Average = 29.48
Overall Peer Economy Rate = 3.99
Average x ER = 117.63

Peers (117.63) / Holding (71.58) = 1.64
Peers to Holding Ratio = 1.64


Brett Lee
Average = 22.89
Economy Rate = 4.70
Average x ER = 107.58

Overall Peer Average = 32.31
Overall Peer Economy Rate = 4.79
Average x ER = 154.76

Peers (154.76) / Lee (107.58) = 1.44
Peers to Lee Ratio = 1.44

Lee (1.44) / Holding (1.64) = 0.88

Therefore, Holding is better/more effective than Lee by a factor of 0.12.

Stats from the Past: The best ODI bowlers from across eras | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

He also played almost twice the matches. I realize Holding played during a time when ODIs weren't as popular, but maintaining that over 100 matches is easier than 200 matches - especially for a fast bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

He also played almost twice the matches. I realize Holding played during a time when ODIs weren't as popular, but maintaining that over 100 matches is easier than 200 matches - especially for a fast bowler.

That makes no sense.. By your logic, the only greats will only be from that one era when ODIs exploded.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He also played almost twice the matches. I realize Holding played during a time when ODIs weren't as popular, but maintaining that over 100 matches is easier than 200 matches - especially for a fast bowler.

Obviously. I'm sure he's not saying that those statistics are definitive proof of anything. And even if they were, solely judging by comparison to peers isn't necessarily the definitive way to judge how good a player is. That would assume that all eras and all times had exactly equal average skill levels of players.

However, comparison to peers is still relevant as it helps to take into account changes in the way the game was played in different eras.

Regardless, I don't think anyone is saying that any of these stats are definitive proof of anything. So I wouldn't get worked up either way.

That makes no sense.. By your logic, the only greats will only be from that one era when ODIs exploded.

nothing he said shows logic to suggest that, or even implies this at all.

All he did was make an observation, and state an obvious fact. He didn't say Holding wasn't great. He didn't even say Holding wasn't as good as Lee. No idea where you got the idea that anyone is suggesting a player can't be great whether they played 400 ODIs or 40.

Weird post man

 

[NZTailender]

19 pretty good ODI fast bowlers:
[/B]In something vaguely resembling order:
1. Joel Garner
2. Wasim Akram
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Shane Bond
5. Shaun Pollock
6. Waqar Younis
7. Allan Donald
8. Curtly Ambrose
9. Michael Holding
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Richard Hadlee
12. Andy Roberts
13. Dennis Lillee
14. Chaminda Vaas
15. Nathan Bracken
16. Mitchell Johnson
17. Andrew Flintoff
18. Malcolm Marshall
19. Kapil Dev

What do the highlighted have in common with Brett Lee that the others don't?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was going to say a single syllable last name but then I saw Vaas & Dev

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Watson said he was top 20 material, but not definitive top 5. Never gave a 'quicks only' condition, but let's assume that was there.

19 pretty good ODI fast bowlers:
In something vaguely resembling order:
1. Joel Garner
2. Wasim Akram
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Shane Bond
5. Shaun Pollock
6. Waqar Younis
7. Allan Donald
8. Curtly Ambrose
9. Michael Holding
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Richard Hadlee
12. Andy Roberts
13. Dennis Lillee
14. Chaminda Vaas
15. Nathan Bracken
16. Mitchell Johnson
17. Andrew Flintoff
18. Malcolm Marshall
19. Kapil Dev

Where does Lee slot into that? I reckon he slots somewhere between ~5 and ~13, personally. Not definitively better than any in that range (i.e. you could make arguments either way), but definitely a class above Vaas onwards in ODIs (that being said, I have no real idea how to rate DK in ODIs). Also worthwhile noting that Vaas onwards would be the guys to drop out of the list entirely if we included spinners (Warne, Murali, Vettori, Saqlain + 2 of Hogg/Swann/Ajmal probably cracking in there)

So I reckon watson's claim that he's Top 20 is pretty fair; he's definitely in that group, but somewhat fits into the ATG-but-not-GOAT-contender range. I don't think he's a clear-cut Top 5 though.

No idea how could you leave the original GOAT Agarkar

 

[honestbharani]

nothing he said shows logic to suggest that, or even implies this at all.

All he did was make an observation, and state an obvious fact. He didn't say Holding wasn't great. He didn't even say Holding wasn't as good as Lee. No idea where you got the idea that anyone is suggesting a player can't be great whether they played 400 ODIs or 40.

Weird post man

He also played almost twice the matches. I realize Holding played during a time when ODIs weren't as popular, but maintaining that over 100 matches is easier than 200 matches - especially for a fast bowler.

I understand you are the king of weird posts here but it is pretty obvious viriya seems to think the number of games determine how great a performer is and it is pretty unfair given it is a function of how many games were actually the norm at that time period.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I understand you are the king of weird posts here but it is pretty obvious viriya seems to think the number of games determine how great a performer is and it is pretty unfair given it is a function of how many games were actually the norm at that time period.

Uh, no it's not, at all. Here:

nothing he said shows logic to suggest that, or even implies this at all.

All he did was make an observation, and state an obvious fact. He didn't say Holding wasn't great. He didn't even say Holding wasn't as good as Lee. No idea where you got the idea that anyone is suggesting a player can't be great whether they played 400 ODIs or 40.

Weird post man

You're inferring something that was never even implied. It's a simple fact that it's harder to maintain an outstanding record over a longer period of time.

That's all that viriya said.

You shouldn't put words in people's mouths just so you can disagree with them. It's really weird and you do it all the time.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The mods need to get cracking and slap a forum atmosphere here.

 

[Dan]

I think there's some truth to this and sometimes it's easy to also underestimate great (GOAT) ODI players who were perhaps not as successful in tests. Brett Lee and Shane Watson come to mind for Australia in particular. Very top echelon ODI players in their respective roles but not near GOAT in tests.



I don't think Brett Lee is the GOAT, and I don't have him in my ATG ODI team, but I struggle to see why he isn't top 5.

FWIW I agree absolutely with your top 3, (Garner, McGrath and Wasim). Garner for his ridiculous un-hittablilty, McGrath for just consistent brilliance. How many times did I miss the first 20 overs of an ODI and come in and see McGrath with ridic figures like 8-4-2-14? Wasim for his old ball skills and economy. After that I think you could mount a case that Lee was as good as, or better than most of the other bowlers you've listed (Bond is an interesting one, such a shame…)

Yeah, I agree with the bolded. All I'm saying is that it isn't clear cut. I think there's about 5 bowlers (Lee inclusive) who are genuine contenders for the #4 and #5 rankings; Lee isn't definitively Top 5.

I have Garner, McGrath, Wasim and Bond as locks for my top four, ftr.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, I agree with the bolded. All I'm saying is that it isn't clear cut. I think there's about 5 bowlers (Lee inclusive) who are genuine contenders for the #4 and #5 rankings; Lee isn't definitively Top 5.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that

 

[honestbharani]

Uh, no it's not, at all. Here:



You're inferring something that was never even implied. It's a simple fact that it's harder to maintain an outstanding record over a longer period of time.

That's all that viriya said.

You shouldn't put words in people's mouths just so you can disagree with them. It's really weird and you do it all the time.

Does not mean more matches esp. when comparing different eras. And that is where viriya's point is wrong, which I pointed out before you butted in with no idea of anything, per usual.


And you should not post biased crap all the time either and yet you do. So stop putting words into my mouth first and mind your own business.

 

[Red]

Yeah, I agree with the bolded. All I'm saying is that it isn't clear cut. I think there's about 5 bowlers (Lee inclusive) who are genuine contenders for the #4 and #5 rankings; Lee isn't definitively Top 5.

I have Garner, McGrath, Wasim and Bond as locks for my top four, ftr.

TBH we probably agree. I'd have trouble splitting Bond and Lee though, so for me Lee could well be #4. The other player I'd mention is Allan Donald, so my top five would be Garner, Wasim, McGrath, plus two of Lee, Bond or Donald. Can't really split them for any particular reason.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Does not mean more matches esp. when comparing different eras. And that is where viriya's point is wrong, which I pointed out before you butted in with no idea of anything, per usual.


And you should not post biased crap all the time either and yet you do. So stop putting words into my mouth first and mind your own business.

The least you can do is be mature and sensible when I'm trying to help you here mate. All I was trying to do was assure you that there's no need to be getting upset because no one is disagreeing with you. There's no argument for you here, there's no need to invent one.

 

[Red]

Maybe you could stop bitching and actually discuss the thread topic.

 

[NZTailender]

TBH we probably agree. I'd have trouble splitting Bond and Lee though, so for me Lee could well be #4. The other player I'd mention is Allan Donald, so my top five would be Garner, Wasim, McGrath, plus two of Lee, Bond or Donald. Can't really split them for any particular reason.

Lee played what, nearly 3 times as many games as Bond though? As much as Bond is a potential GOAT the fact he only played 80 odd games counts against him a little - even though that's about as many as Garner played iirc.

And to answer my own question, Starc and Bond are the only ones on Dan's list to have a <30 SR, like Lee.

Akram and McGrath would be locks for the attack, as would Murali, with an A/R for the 5th (Watson, Hadlee, Khan, whomever). Lee and Bond are apples and oranges for mine...would come down to pitch conditions or whim.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lee played what, nearly 3 times as many games as Bond though? As much as Bond is a potential GOAT the fact he only played 80 odd games counts against him a little - even though that's about as many as Garner played iirc.

And to answer my own question, Starc and Bond are the only ones on Dan's list to have a <30 SR, like Lee.

Akram and McGrath would be locks for the attack, as would Murali, with an A/R for the 5th (Watson, Hadlee, Khan, whomever). Lee and Bond are apples and oranges for mine...would come down to pitch conditions or whim.

Absolutely, and it's impossible to know how he would have gone over a longer career. Perhaps his all-out style of bowling, physically speaking, was not only what made him as effective as he was but also what limited his career. Maybe he could have paced himself a bit more and avoided injury, but been a lot less effective. It wouldn't surprise me.

How to factor this in to "how good" a bowler he was is, obviously, entirely subjective. Personally I think Bond is is overrated a bit by Australian's especially because he bowled so many ridiculously good spells against us, and it really does stick in the memory. The only other bowlers I can think of as having bowled such unplayable spells, with prodigious swing, pace & accuracy are Lee and James Anderson with the new ball at times.

 

[viriya]

Yea I think Bond was great but Lee clearly has the better record.

If you took Lee's best ~80 inning period so it would be a fairer comparison:
cricrate | cricinsight

He averages +0.5 with a strike rate -1.5 compared to Bond's career. Hard to split but Lee was arguably a better strike bowler even ignoring his longevity.