Players who are exceptional in one format and dire in another

[MrPrez]

Regarding Steyn, 112 ODIs, 175 wickets @ 26 isn't too shabby. Economy rate of 4.86 isn't the worst either.

Yeah, it's not as good as his Test record but it's still definitively good as an ODI record. Compare to Kyle Mills, who has often been lauded as a great ODI bowler. 27 @4.72 is pretty comparable.

As was stated previously in the thread, those stats include his early battles to adapt to ODI cricket. Since 2011 he has averaged 23.11 at 4.53 rpo. That accounts for 69 of his 112 ODI matches.

Before that, he averaged 31.21 at 5.48rpo in 43 ODI matches. 27 of those matches were in 2008 and 2009. It's worth noting that Shaun Pollock retired from ODI cricket in early 2008, at a point where Dale Steyn had only a few matches under his belt. I'd argue that life post-Pollock was a trying time on the South African bowling attack, and would have been particularly tough on an inexperienced Dale Steyn.

That's not an excuse for him. He was disappointing at first given his obvious ability, but he then came back and got it together. He's certainly not as dominant as he is in Tests, but he's still ranked 5th in the world in ODIs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I actually think Steyn is under-rated in ODIs on CW. He took longer to get good at them and he's probably already started his decline in that format too, but for a while I think it was fashionable to point out he wasn't any good at ODIs when he had quietly actually turned himself into a world class ODI bowler.

Definitely a better Test bowler but it'd massive mistake to say he was never very good in ODIs. He was proper gun for a while.

 

[vcs]

Steyn bowled very well in a few bilateral series against Pakistan around 2013, and also made Rohit Sharma look like a buffoon around then. Don't really remember him doing a whole lot else in ODIs TBH (and I'm a huge fan of his). Bowled quite well in the 2011 WC but was underwhelming in the last edition.

 

[Attitude]

Lara pwning SA in the 96 quarters was most definitely a great innings.

Would you really say a mere 111 was a great 100, that too batting first, not even in a tight chase, and that too without some extra pressure of a top order collapse or something like that?

I am not saying Lara didn't score 100s in ODIs he did, but he was Lara. Surely we should be here talking about more than just 111 batting first. Atleast if it had come in a chase, I could say okay, fine 111 in a chase is not bad, but batting first, no extra pressure of a top order collapse, on a good batting pitch 111 is not even mention worthy for a top level batsman.

If it was Ponting or Tendulkar, would you really be counting a 111, as one of the best knocks they played? Thats the difference, Lara as a Test batsman is a phenom, absolutely the best of the best, not even Tendulkar and Ponting have played anything like some of the great Lara knocks in tests. However when seen in that light and judged on those standards Lara has done almost nothing in limited overs cricket, that even comes close to it. Barring the 169 ofcourse.

Thats the difference. Lara almost defines Test batting, but comparatively has left almost no mark whatsoever in limited overs cricket. By his own standards, Lara could have done so so much better in ODIs. Thats all I am saying.

 

[honestbharani]

I think you are too blinded by how his ODI batting went post 2000. There was a time between 1991 and 1998 when he was genuinely the best ODI batsman going around, before Sachin desert storm'd past him.

 

[Compton]

I can't believe Brian Lara's ODI record is requiring defending

 

[TheJediBrah]

But for good in Tests and not ODIs - Lara, Langer and Warne definitely belong there. There is no point is saying Langer never played ODIs, as there is a reason why he never played ODIs and that was that no one thought he was upto pace with the format. Lara again falls in the category very easily, name on great Lara knock from ODIs you remember apart form his 169. Name one great World Cup Lara innings. There are none.

completely wrong. Langer didn't play ODIs because he couldn't get in what was by far the strongest team in history. Warne was exceptional in ODIs he just stopped playing them after 2003 because he cbf pretty much. And Lara shouldn't really need any explanation.

Warne again, comparing his test and ODI record his like comparing chalk and cheese. Even Sanath Jayasurya who has no great ability with the ball has more ODI wickets than Warne.

lol not sure if srs. He played more than twice as many games

Faulker again has played just 1 test, for a reason. Aus test side is not the greatest its ever been but it, and Faulker can still not get in.

If anything Faulkner is a better first-class player than one-day player. He's just been typecast by selectors and hence fans so it shouldn't be surprised that ignorant fans from other countries have this view I guess.

 

[91Jmay]

Buttler surely qualifies at the moment? Amazing ODI player, really poor Test player.

 

[TestMatch]

I can't believe Brian Lara's ODI record is requiring defending

I think younger cricket fans don't know how ODI cricket was in the 1990s and 80s. 250 was once considered a good team score. And averages of 45-50+ were considered impossible (Viv Richards excluded).

To the user called "Attitude", I think you have to brush up on your history. From about 1991 to 1998, Lara was the best ODI batsman in the world. And his ODI peak coincided with the peak of some of the greatest ODI bowlers in history. During this period he fought guys like Wasim,Waqar and Donald at their peak, and regularly treated them with disdain, despite not having much success against them in tests.

In ODI's, Lara's ICC rankings are revealing. It shows that he dominated the ODI scene in the 90s, but dropped off when he stopped batting in the top 3 slots.

Here are the rankings:

As of 31-Dec-1993:
1st rank - 863 ICC pts - B.C. Lara

As of 31-Dec-1994:
1st rank - 826 ICC pts - B.C. Lara

As of 31-Dec-1995:
1st rank - 880 ICC pts - B.C. Lara

As of 31-Dec-1996:
1st rank - 891 ICC pts - B.C. Lara

As of 31-Dec-1997:
1st rank - 883 ICC pts B.C. Lara

Then in 1998 Lara finally drops in rankings

As of 31-Dec-1998:

2nd rank - 886 ICC pts - B.C. Lara.

And surprise, 1998 is the same year when Lara started to bat at no. 4 or below.

But from 1990 to 1998, Lara had the highest ODI average in the world of anyone with over 4000 ODI runs. He averaged 47. Next best was 41.

From 1990 to 2001, Lara had the highest average in the world of anyone with over 4000 ODI runs batting outside the subcontinent vs non minnows. He averaged 42 with 11 centuries. Tendulkar, for comparison's sake, averaged 33 with 3 centuries using the same criteria.

From 1990 to 2001, vs the top four ODI teams on all grounds, Lara averaged 43. A master like Tendulkar averaged in the 30s during the same period and with the same criteria.

From 1990 to 2001, vs AUSTRALIA IN AUSTRALIA, Lara averages the highest of all international batsmen with over 500 runs, with an average of 42.8. Tendulkar averages 23.

Between 1990 and 2007 (Lara's entire career), vs the statistically best bowlers of the period (Ambrose, Steyn, Walsh, Murali, Warne, Pollock, Donald, McGrath, Lee, Younis, Akram, Bishop, Akhtar, Vaas etc), on all grounds, the following batsmen average:

Lara: 43
Tendulkar: 39
Ponting: 38

Versus these same bowlers outside the subcontinent, Lara averages 43, Tendulkar 34, Ponting 36.

Versus these same bowlers outside the subcontinent and outside the West Indies, Lara averages 40, Tendulkar 34, Ponting 38.

Lara's problem was a crappy team which was constantly being chopped up, which had absolutely no idea what it was doing or what anyone's role should be, and which ceased being intentionally competitive in 1992.

 

[SteveNZ]

I presume this was bumped for Gup...who we are judging on being a Test opener, which he isn't and I've said that for years. No one forced Nathan Astle to open the batting at Test level. He has 11 Test centuries, has 8 more than Gup (who has one v major opposition) and averages 7-8 runs more. Who's the better player? Some say Gup, some say Astle. There's not a lot in it. So I figure that's because one was allowed to bat in the position that most suited him and the other got 3 Tests at #5 and averaged 68 there (yes I acknowledge that is bumped up by the 189 v Bangladesh).

I dunno, we can go on for the next 3-4 years and pretend Gup is a Test opener even though we have a pretty good sample size that says he isn't. We have #5 becoming available, one of the opening spots locked down and a guy like Dean Brownlie who suggests he can do what Gup has done at least. So then the question is, is Gup the best #5 we have ahead of Nicholls.

 

[mr_mister]

lol @ saying Steve Waugh was dire at ODI cricket when you place such emphasis on World Cups

perfected the art of death bowling too

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I presume this was bumped for Gup...who we are judging on being a Test opener, which he isn't and I've said that for years. No one forced Nathan Astle to open the batting at Test level. He has 11 Test centuries, has 8 more than Gup (who has one v major opposition) and averages 7-8 runs more. Who's the better player? Some say Gup, some say Astle. There's not a lot in it. So I figure that's because one was allowed to bat in the position that most suited him and the other got 3 Tests at #5 and averaged 68 there (yes I acknowledge that is bumped up by the 189 v Bangladesh).

I dunno, we can go on for the next 3-4 years and pretend Gup is a Test opener even though we have a pretty good sample size that says he isn't. We have #5 becoming available, one of the opening spots locked down and a guy like Dean Brownlie who suggests he can do what Gup has done at least. So then the question is, is Gup the best #5 we have ahead of Nicholls.

The thing about Guptill is that he hasn't been given a full shot at the Test opener's role since he got good. He had one run as an opener which was when he was a good to very good ODI batsman. Now he's pushing ATG ODI batsman status and he's being given a second shot at opening based on that.

We have a sample size, yes, but it's from when Guptill was a significantly less classy batsman than he is today. I maintain that if we stick with him as a Test opener he will average 40.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can imagine Guptill being NZ's skinny redhead answer to Matthew Hayden

he sucked until his second chance at Test cricket

 

[kiwiviktor81]

he sucked until his second chance at Test cricket

And ended up averaging 50, no?

Opening the batting in Tests is probably the hardest thing there is in cricket. I'd be inclined to have more patience with a player in this position than another.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And ended up averaging 50, no?

Opening the batting in Tests is probably the hardest thing there is in cricket. I'd be inclined to have more patience with a player in this position than another.

depends on the player. Some are much more suited to opening and wouldn't be as good batting in other positions.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Lara's 100 in the 2003 WC against SA was even better in my opinion. For it was made against one of the best bowling attacks - comprising Pollock, Ntini, Donald and Kallis at the opposition's home ground. It was a bloody good innings and one that underlined that age is just a number and class is permanent.

 

[weldone]

George Bailey is a weird case. He's an automatic selection in ODIs but automatic omissions in test and T20. Is there any other player who plays all ODIs for his country but never gets selected for both T20 and test?

 

[SteveNZ]

The thing about Guptill is that he hasn't been given a full shot at the Test opener's role since he got good. He had one run as an opener which was when he was a good to very good ODI batsman. Now he's pushing ATG ODI batsman status and he's being given a second shot at opening based on that.

We have a sample size, yes, but it's from when Guptill was a significantly less classy batsman than he is today. I maintain that if we stick with him as a Test opener he will average 40.

I would be delighted if you were right re the 40 avg but I can't see it. At the peak of his game in 2015, he averaged 33 which you know, isn't bad especially for an NZ opener. I guess this year will be fairly revealing as we've got a lot of Test cricket in different conditions v a range of varying opponents.

My point wasn't whether he's our best option as opener, even if I think maybe he's not. It's that it's slightly unfair to call him dire in the Test format when he's probably not batting in his most suited position.

 

[Athlai]

I would be delighted if you were right re the 40 avg but I can't see it. At the peak of his game in 2015, he averaged 33 which you know, isn't bad especially for an NZ opener. I guess this year will be fairly revealing as we've got a lot of Test cricket in different conditions v a range of varying opponents.

My point wasn't whether he's our best option as opener, even if I think maybe he's not. It's that it's slightly unfair to call him dire in the Test format when he's probably not batting in his most suited position.

TBF to Guptill's 33, England in England and Australia in Australia are pretty challenging tours for an opener. Doesn't really get much more difficult. I suspect he'll load up at home.

That said I think at best we'll see him end his Test career averaging about 33-35.

 

[veganbob]

Would you really say a mere 111 was a great 100, that too batting first, not even in a tight chase, and that too without some extra pressure of a top order collapse or something like that?

I am not saying Lara didn't score 100s in ODIs he did, but he was Lara. Surely we should be here talking about more than just 111 batting first. Atleast if it had come in a chase, I could say okay, fine 111 in a chase is not bad, but batting first, no extra pressure of a top order collapse, on a good batting pitch 111 is not even mention worthy for a top level batsman.

If it was Ponting or Tendulkar, would you really be counting a 111, as one of the best knocks they played? Thats the difference, Lara as a Test batsman is a phenom, absolutely the best of the best, not even Tendulkar and Ponting have played anything like some of the great Lara knocks in tests. However when seen in that light and judged on those standards Lara has done almost nothing in limited overs cricket, that even comes close to it. Barring the 169 ofcourse.

Thats the difference. Lara almost defines Test batting, but comparatively has left almost no mark whatsoever in limited overs cricket. By his own standards, Lara could have done so so much better in ODIs. Thats all I am saying.

actually I consider lara a better odi batsman than a test batsman. Had nowhere the consistency of Tendulkar in tests. In tests I rate him below the best of the best ive seen. In odis he would be right up there for me.