Sir Viv voted the Greatest ODI Player

[Eclipse]

They do, but then I would make an argument for Aravinda in the top 5 then.. you can't just pick him for this list based on WC performances - it has to be overall.

No problems with that.. I too rate Aravinda much higher than stats alone would indicate.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I said India because they play more there than anywhere else.

Yes, teams generally tend to play more at home than in any other country. Thank you for the excellent insight.

 

[Eclipse]

Yes, teams generally tend to play more at home than in any other country. Thank you for the excellent insight.

Drop the patronising tone mate. I've not said anything negative towards you.

What I meant was there are more ODI's played in India than any other country - and yes India do play in most of them and they also play the most ODI's overall hence why they where the best example.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Drop the patronising tone mate. I've not said anything negative towards you.

What I meant was there are more ODI's played in India than any other country - and yes India do play in most of them and they also play the most ODI's overall hence why they where the best example.

India - 302 home ODIs out of a total of 879.

Australia - 412 home ODIs out of a total of 853.

You were saying?

 

[Eclipse]

India - 302 home ODIs out of a total of 879.

Australia - 412 home ODIs out of a total of 853.

You were saying?

I'm talking about total ODI matches between all teams. Please read more carefully

I might be mistaken but I think the total number of ODI matches staged in India would be more than in Australia or any other country at least in the last 10 years.

I didn't come here for an argument mate so if that's what you're trying to start I'll just let you have this one.

 

[viriya]

Strike rate is irrelevant where finishers are concerned.

Uh.. no.. only irrelevant if you're trying to get the team out of a crisis.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm talking about total ODI matches between all teams. Please read more carefully

I might be mistaken but I think the total number of ODI matches staged in India would be more than in Australia or any other country at least in the last 10 years.

I didn't come here for an argument mate so if that's what you're trying to start I'll just let you have this one.

Total number of home games in the last decade - Ind 114, Aus 110.

If you're talking about ODI matches between all teams, consider not singling out a specific country; you will get called out for that sort of bs. Do not go around making misinformed claims if you truly do not seek an argument.

 

[GotSpin]

What about the all important v Sri Lanka statistics

 

[Furball]

Uh.. no.. only irrelevant if you're trying to get the team out of a crisis.

No, if someone's playing the finisher role then the key stat is the number of not outs. How quickly the runs are scored do not matter as long as they're scored.

 

[Jarquis]

Well that's horse****. Context matters. I'd say the key stat is almost number of wins - nobody is going to laud your 52*(80) if you lost by 30 runs.

I mean - the very nature of a finisher is that they're meant to be the person to get you over the line.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No, if someone's playing the finisher role then the key stat is the number of not outs. How quickly the runs are scored do not matter as long as they're scored.

Well that's horse****. Context matters. I'd say the key stat is almost number of wins - nobody is going to laud your 52*(80) if you lost by 30 runs.

I mean - the very nature of a finisher is that they're meant to be the person to get you over the line.

Nah, you're talking about chasers here, not finishers in totality. SR in isolation tells us nothing about how good someone is at second innings chasing...however, high SR is undoubtedly a big factor in first innings finshing. The best ones at this role do have high SRs and typically aim to come in at over 35 and smash 60 (40).

 

[ankitj]

I value clutch a ridiculous amount in ODIs and variance or not, Gilchrist has absurd clutch performances.

54 (36), 57 (48) and 149 (104) is just out of the world. Imagine if Sachin/Dhawan did 149 (104) in 2011/now in the WC final, we'd win the match in the first 20 overs.

I might be alone here but I think the whole big match thing is way overrated. I get the whole pressure and big game kinda emotional arguments, but beyond the fact that you play strongest opposition in these big finals, I can't objectively and logically see why these performances should have a (significantly) higher weight. At the end of the day, in big games everyone can't suck. There is pressure on you and on opponents; it must cancel out. You can't put a premium on all performances in big games. Just because there is pressure, it is not possible for batsmen to score slow and bolwers to go for many runs simultaneously. That's just not mathematically possible.

Or we must agree exactly what is harder in big games. If batting performances get a premium than bowling performances must get a discount. If chasing gets premium, batting first must get a discount. But because there is no agreement on which aspects are harder in big games (and as corollary which ones easier), I tend to not get too swayed by this argument.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pressure doesn't necessarily cancel out. You might have the nerves and have to fight yourself and overcome it. It's like golf.

 

[Contra]

In a team sport like Cricket I can't bring myself up to rate someone that much higher just because the player happened to be in a team which gave the most opportunity for its players to play in big games. Had Gilchrist played for any other team he wouldn't have gotten the chance to play 3 finals, but as it stands he played for Aus and its not his fault he ended up playing 3 WC finals and performing in them.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think there's a case for rating performances in KO games lower the more you play them. In today's match the pressure experienced by India and Bangladesh would not have been the same simply because it was uncharted waters for the kittens and the Indians had experienced it before.

 

[ankitj]

In a team sport like Cricket I can't bring myself up to rate someone that much higher just because the player happened to be in a team which gave the most opportunity for its players to play in big games. Had Gilchrist played for any other team he wouldn't have gotten the chance to play 3 finals, but as it stands he played for Aus and its not his fault he ended up playing 3 WC finals and performing in them.

Yeah that too. And he opened each time. And never really put against a biggish total to chase.

 

[Contra]

Yeah that too. And he opened each time. And never really put against a biggish total to chase.

I wouldn't go that far, his 149 in 07 was absolute quality and he deserves every bit of credit for it. But the other two weren't out of the world performances, I'm not going to discredit Gilly for playing the innings he did but for me those two fifties are not what I would use to rate him higher than some other cricketers/batsmen if it came down to it.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

What would be the list today:
Viv(still head and shoulders the best ever)
Kohli(above Tendulkar because better in finals and I feel slightly more impressive cause of his ridiculous century conversion, although wouldn’t mind if anyone took SRT)
Tendulkar
Garner
Mcgrath

 

[capt_Luffy]

What would be the list today:
Viv(still head and shoulders the best ever)
Kohli(above Tendulkar because better in finals and I feel slightly more impressive cause of his ridiculous century conversion, although wouldn’t mind if anyone took SRT)
Tendulkar
Garner
Mcgrath

I would go:

1. Viv
2. Tendulkar
3. Akram
4. ABD
5. Virat
6. Pollock
7. Garner
8. McGrath
9. Dhoni
10. Murali
11. Dev
12. Bevan
13. Gilchrist
14. Klusner
15. Ponting
16. Starc
17. Saqlain
18. Abbas
19. Imran
20. Hadlee
21. Donald
22. Waqar
23. Jones
24. Flintoff
25. Lara
26. Jayasuriya
27. Warne
28. Watson
29. Rohit
30. Sangakkara
31. Symmonds
32. Ambrose
33. Hussey
34. Buttler
35. Ganguly
36. M Waugh
37. Anwar
38. Bumrah
39. Azam
40. Shakib
41. Warner
42. De Silva
43. Bond
44. Chappell
45. De Kock
46. Taylor
47. Amla
48. Greenidge
49. Malinga
50. Shami
51. Vettori
52. Hogg
53. Holding
54. Lillee
55. Miandad
56. Tahir
57. Yuvraj
58. Dilshan
59. F de Villiers
60. Boult
61. Crowe
62. Stokes
63. Lee
64. Roberts
65. Hayden
66. Vaas
67. Jayawardene
68. Cairns
69. Maxwell
70. Bairstow
71. Hope
72. Du Plessis
73. Akhtar
74. Kallis
75. Cronje

Sachin ahead of Virat as an ODI cricketer as: handy bowler + longevity + impact, solely as a batsman VK is around equal. And ABD ahead for keeping.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I would go:

1. Viv
2. Tendulkar
3. Akram
4. ABD
5. Virat
6. Pollock
7. Garner
8. Dhoni
9. McGrath
10. Murali
11. Dev
12. Bevan
13. Gilchrist
14. Klusner
15. Ponting
16. Saqlain
17. Abbas
18. Imran
19. Hadlee
20. Donald
21. Waqar
22. Jones
23. Flintoff
24. Lara
25. Jayasuriya
26. Warne
27. Watson
28. Rohit
29. Sangakkara
30. Symmonds

Sachin ahead of Virat as an ODI cricketer as: handy bowler + longevity + impact, solely as a batsman VK is around equal. And ABD ahead for keeping.

Agreed. Also same way feel id rate Wasim slightly ahead of Mcgarth as an overall cricketer.