Shane Watson---the greatest odi player ever?

[Ikki]

He's only taken 138 wickets. An average of 29 pushing 30 isn't particularly special either.

Sorry, but I value longevity. He hasn't contributed enough for long enough to be considered anything like the 'best' ODI player ever. You can't 'discount' injuries either, they come with the player. Being injury prone is a negative trait, and counts against you.

If we compare with Kallis, he has a marginally worse bowling average yet almost double the number of wickets and almost three times as many runs at a significantly better average. They aren't even close, and ODIs aren't even Kallis' strong suit.

He's only played 144 matches (bowled in 127 innings) and is an all-rounder. Kallis has a worse average (~2.5 runs) and SR (~3 balls) and when you consider eras his ER is inferior to Watson's also. Watson's probably also a more game-changing bowler. Watson's also the better bat for ODIs. Kallis is not better than Watson.

I understand the longevity argument, but I think we have enough of a sample to gauge how good Watson is - which I thought was your point. Kallis has aggregate runs and wickets on his side but that doesn't make him the better player, let alone even...and certainly doesn't put him as a distance ahead of Watson. I'm afraid you overrate Kallis as a ODI player. The irony is Watson bowls more per match than Kallis and also takes more wickets per match than Kallis. Yet you were criticising Watson for this earlier.

 

[benchmark00]

Crazy that people are actually entertaining this idea. No way is Watson the best ODI player ever. Crazy.

 

[CWB304]

Yeah, and Kohli's the best ODI batsman ever*.

Talk about hyperbole! If one is being honest, and prepared to set aside the manipulation of stats from different eras to prove precisely f**k all, one would have to admit that prime Klusener was a far more formidable and destructive proposition as an ODI all rounder than Watson has been at any stage of his ODI career so far.

I'm a big fan of the Aussie not just as a world class all rounder but as an all round good guy, one of the nicest and most genuine characters in the game today. I suspect he'd be ROFL if he were to read the OP and some subsequent posts in this thread.

*Based on his last innings

 

[NasserFan207]

He's only played 144 matches (bowled in 127 innings) and is an all-rounder. Kallis has a worse average (~2.5 runs) and SR (~3 balls) and when you consider eras his ER is inferior to Watson's also. Watson's probably also a more game-changing bowler. Watson's also the better bat for ODIs. Kallis is not better than Watson.

I understand the longevity argument, but I think we have enough of a sample to gauge how good Watson is - which I thought was your point. Kallis has aggregate runs and wickets on his side but that doesn't make him the better player, let alone even...and certainly doesn't put him as a distance ahead of Watson. I'm afraid you overrate Kallis as a ODI player. The irony is Watson bowls more per match than Kallis and also takes more wickets per match than Kallis. Yet you were criticising Watson for this earlier.

Sure, but the fact is that Kallis has taken twice as many wickets as Watson and nearly three times as many runs. If Watson can mantain his averages and play as long as someone like Kallis has, then maybe he has a chance. But you said it yourself, he's only played 144 matches.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting scored twice as many runs as Viv Richards, it doesn't mean he was the better batsmen. I can see what you're saying, but I think 144 matches is enough for a comparison. It is no flash in the pan career. Agree to disagree.

 

[NasserFan207]

Ponting scored twice as many runs as Viv Richards, it doesn't mean he was the better batsmen. I can see what you're saying, but I think 144 matches is enough for a comparison. It is no flash in the pan career. Agree to disagree.

Viv Richards and Ponting largely played in different eras, which is much more relevant to ODIs. Richards simply didn't have the opportunity to play anything like as many games as Ponting did, so I don't think thats a good comparison.

 

[Jono]

the greatest odi player ever is probably a good fielder tbh

The greatest ODI player should be able to play decent spin first up as well.

 

[Jono]

Crazy that people are actually entertaining this idea. No way is Watson the best ODI player ever. Crazy.

Yeah I am genuinely shocked to be honest.

Surely there is so ****ing long to go for this to legitimately be considered? Do people realise what "ever" means?

****ing good player though. Massive asset for the Australian ODI team.

 

[Ikki]

Viv Richards and Ponting largely played in different eras, which is much more relevant to ODIs. Richards simply didn't have the opportunity to play anything like as many games as Ponting did, so I don't think thats a good comparison.

Yeh, but there is only one point to be made with your argument: that the sample you critique as too small is unreliable to suggest the player is as good as his figures currently suggest. With that argument you are insinuating that the player may go worse with more games. That's not unreasonable, but how much? Watson has played a 10 year, 144 match, career. Just like Viv, but for different reasons, he's played less than the player compared to even though he has played enough matches to suggest we can gauge his ability fairly accurately. Earlier you suggested that had Watson bowled more, more would be discovered. The irony is he bowls more and is more successful than Kallis.

Kallis has merely been playing for longer. Not better for longer, just longer. Aggregates are useless unless they translate into notable ratios. Kallis has pretty much been the same kind of player all the way through his career. If Kallis had Watson-like figures and he fell as he played more, I could understand your argument. But that didn't happen.

I agree with you in the sense that because of longevity (and also notable WC performances IMO) that you can't consider him the greatest ever. I think 90% of posters will agree as that's more than reasonable. I don't see how that means he is inferior to Kallis, though, who I wouldn't put in that category long career or not. Watson just has to play long enough at his current level and then it's gonna be pretty hard to ignore him. Watson is a very special and, in some ways, incomparable player. A genuine top-order batsman with bowling that is very good.

 

[NasserFan207]

Yeh, but there is only one point to be made with your argument: that the sample you critique as too small is unreliable to suggest the player is as good as his figures currently suggest. With that argument you are insinuating that the player may go worse with more games. That's not unreasonable, but how much? Watson has played a 10 year, 144 match, career. Just like Viv, but for different reasons, he's played less than the player compared to even though he has played enough matches to suggest we can gauge his ability fairly accurately. Earlier you suggested that had Watson bowled more, more would be discovered. The irony is he bowls more and is more successful than Kallis.

Kallis has merely been playing for longer. Not better for longer, just longer. Aggregates are useless unless they translate into notable ratios. Kallis has pretty much been the same kind of player all the way through his career. If Kallis had Watson-like figures and he fell as he played more, I could understand your argument. But that didn't happen.

I agree with you in the sense that because of longevity (and also notable WC performances IMO) that you can't consider him the greatest ever. I think 90% of posters will agree as that's more than reasonable. I don't see how that means he is inferior to Kallis, though, who I wouldn't put in that category long career or not. Watson just has to play long enough at his current level and then it's gonna be pretty hard to ignore him.

I don't understand, I never mentioned 'samples'. I was talking about straight up accomplishments. Yes, Kallis has been playing for longer, but thats why he's better. I'm not sure why you are taking it as a given that Watson can mantain his current level for a long period? Personally I think he's at the peak of his powers right now, but will probably drop off considerably in a few years. Mostly due to injuries. The fact that Kallis has stayed so consistent is whats so special about him. Same with Tendulkar and others.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Lostman]

Ponting scored twice as many runs as Viv Richards, it doesn't mean he was the better batsmen. I can see what you're saying, but I think 144 matches is enough for a comparison. It is no flash in the pan career. Agree to disagree.

With the amount of cricket being played 144 ODI's is not enough, needs at least 100 more.
Same argument I have used for/against Steyn. Impressive as the performances are needs longevity.

 

[morgieb]

Gun? Yes.

GOAT? Surely not yet!

 

[Spark]

The greatest ODI player should be able to play decent spin first up as well.

indeed

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeh, but there is only one point to be made with your argument: that the sample you critique as too small is unreliable to suggest the player is as good as his figures currently suggest. With that argument you are insinuating that the player may go worse with more games. That's not unreasonable, but how much? Watson has played a 10 year, 144 match, career. Just like Viv, but for different reasons, he's played less than the player compared to even though he has played enough matches to suggest we can gauge his ability fairly accurately. Earlier you suggested that had Watson bowled more, more would be discovered. The irony is he bowls more and is more successful than Kallis.

Kallis has merely been playing for longer. Not better for longer, just longer. Aggregates are useless unless they translate into notable ratios. Kallis has pretty much been the same kind of player all the way through his career. If Kallis had Watson-like figures and he fell as he played more, I could understand your argument. But that didn't happen.

I agree with you in the sense that because of longevity (and also notable WC performances IMO) that you can't consider him the greatest ever. I think 90% of posters will agree as that's more than reasonable. I don't see how that means he is inferior to Kallis, though, who I wouldn't put in that category long career or not. Watson just has to play long enough at his current level and then it's gonna be pretty hard to ignore him. Watson is a very special and, in some ways, incomparable player. A genuine top-order batsman with bowling that is very good.

There's a big difference between a longevity argument and a sample size argument. No-one is saying that Watson hasn't played enough games to form a meaningful opinion of his skill, but that's not what those who value longevity are talking about. If you play for longer, you add more value to your career. To use an exaggerated theoretical example, I'd rather have someone who 40 every single match but played for 20 years than someone who scored 50 every match who played for 10. You may not value longevity like that, but that's the argument - not that he's going to get worse if he plays more, but that he's been less good because he's played less.

 

[DingDong]

ridiculous

 

[Migara]

Ponting scored twice as many runs as Viv Richards, it doesn't mean he was the better batsmen. I can see what you're saying, but I think 144 matches is enough for a comparison. It is no flash in the pan career. Agree to disagree.

Completely redundant argument. The number of matches playerd per season in Viv's era was much less than that of Ponting's. When it comes to Watson vs Kallis, it's much similar.

 

[NUFAN]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/49333-cws-50-best-odi-cricketers-all-time-countdown-12.html#post2460105

44th best ever just over a year ago.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't rate Pollock's ODI batting at all, while we're at it.

Sheesh, an ODI average of 26 & SR of 87 in an era when a SR > 80 was considered excellent, a tad tough?

 

[Ikki]

I don't understand, I never mentioned 'samples'. I was talking about straight up accomplishments. Yes, Kallis has been playing for longer, but thats why he's better. I'm not sure why you are taking it as a given that Watson can mantain his current level for a long period? Personally I think he's at the peak of his powers right now, but will probably drop off considerably in a few years. Mostly due to injuries. The fact that Kallis has stayed so consistent is whats so special about him. Same with Tendulkar and others.

Just my opinion though.

You said he doesn't bowl enough per match and overall hasn't played enough. That's why I assumed as such.

Kallis isn't better for me, sample or not. He's simply not as good so relying on his aggregates is besides the point. It is like saying Walsh is better than Steyn because he took more wickets and played more games when even at this stage I'd give the nod to Dale.

Watson IMO is like Gilchrist. Even half-way through his career he was lauded and was being included into ATG teams and the favourite for his position. He was simply too good, all things being considered, to those comparable with him. That's how I see Watson: his batting is on par with greats of the game not named Viv, Bevan and Tendulkar, and his bowling is a fantastic supplement whenever he doesn't score runs. Actually, it is fantastic anyway. To depict it somewhat; the guy strikes as fast as Wasim in ODIs, albeit he is more expensive. Such a player brings too much to the game to be ignored IMO. As I said, I agree with you re him being the greatest overall...that argument is pretty far away at the moment. But it is when you brought up Kallis I disagreed. I think even at this stage only Klusener is really his rival as the greatest ODI all-rounder.

 

[noriko2200]

Mark Boucher the best ODI cricketer.
He is going to retire this tear.

see this.
Cricket - Game Of Love And Unity: Mark Boucher to say goodbye