• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

2nd best ODI side?

Which is the 2nd best ODI side (behind Oz)?

  • NZ

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • India

    Votes: 11 28.9%
  • South Africa

    Votes: 11 28.9%
  • Bangladesh (have bullied the other sides at home)

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Other (please name)

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
You're either having a laugh or you're trolling if you're comparing my posting to WindieWeathers.
I'm not necessarily comparing you to WindieWeathers; I was just blown away by the statement you made because it read like you were outright suggesting that people posting like WindieWeathers was preferable. That's why I went on to say that I suspect I may have misinterpreted that, because it just seemed bat**** insane.

For me it's more like a courtroom, where posters play prosecutor or defendant depending on whether their team is doing good or bad.
For me, this reads like you think it's your job to defend New Zealand when they play poorly, and prosecute supporters of other teams when New Zealand beat them. That is straight out of the WW playbook, and while I have have noticed some patterns in your philosophical cricket theories, I certainly wouldn't have pegged you as someone who thought of the forum in that way. Can you elaborate on what you meant by that?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to compare Kv with WW. He's being silly, he isn't being a ****ing ****.
Yeah I think I should be clear as to suggest that I don't think he's actually posted like WW. He just said something that to me reads like a complete justification of WW-level posting.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
I'll give you a proper response because I generally enjoy your posts and think you deserve it.

Basically it's just banter. I know what you think I might have been meaning, and it's not that. The posting you don't like seems to be when a poster over-identifies with a team or player and is not willing or able to be fair about their true qualities. That's one thing. That's mindless fanboyism.

I'm just having a laugh, because I enjoy posting here. If I make a thread about KW being the best batsman in the world across all formats, what does it matter if I'm truly objective about KW or not? Consider the arguments I put forward on their merits, and if they're no good point out why. Don't say "you're only thinking this because you're a fanboi" as that is an example of the genetic fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy, which is a fallacy of irrelevance.

It's simply not relevant if I'm truly objective or not. I don't believe a single poster here can honestly say that they know whether or not they're really objective. If I say KW might be the best batsman in the world because he is the only one ranked in the top 10 in all formats, well that's a fair, reasonable and valid argument. Play the ball, not the man.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
For me, this reads like you think it's your job to defend New Zealand when they play poorly, and prosecute supporters of other teams when New Zealand beat them.
Not at all. If a NZ player plays poorly I definitely point out that is was poor. I think I make less excuses for losses than most other posters. I don't give injury as an excuse, for example, because I think that's weak. I didn't blame not having Taylor or Southee for the loss in the 2nd ODI just now, because that's against my ethos as a sports fan.

I don't prosecute supporters of other teams. But if they claim that a player from their team is better than a player from my team and I disagree, well then I'll argue with them about it. That's really part of what this forum is about to my mind and it seems natural to me.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
It absolutely matters to me whether you think Kane Williamson is the best batsman in the world because he is the only one ranked in the top 10 in all formats or whether you think being ranked in the top 10 in all formats is a good measure of the best batsman in the world because that's the one Kane Williamson fits. It's not particularly relevant to whether or not you're right, but to me it's relevant to the important question of whether you're worth engaging.

You come up with a lot of different theories that challenge the CW orthodoxy. I like that. It's more interesting to me to discuss the very criteria we use to rate players than it is to loosely agree on a criteria and then just spend our time arguing on the fringes of what we think once it's applied. However, I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of your theories aren't so much reflections of how you've thought about the game differently, but instead semi-calculated ways to justify a pre-determined agenda.

If looking at how highly each batsman is ranked in each format resulted in Smith being regarded the best batsman in the world, would you have still started that thread? Because if not, I regard it as intellectually dishonest and therefore cbf engaging with it. You're still free to post it, but why should I bother arguing with your methodology if you don't even really believe it yourself?

In terms of banter, I've obviously got no issue with that. The other day I pointed out to people when you were joking in the tour thread, for example. But banter is the sort of thing Corrin does when he posts in tour threads; banter isn't presenting pre-determined conclusions through a contrived criteria and encouraging people to engage you seriously. Banter needs to be presented as banter and not a serious argument; both these things have a place on CW but they're separate.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
It absolutely matters to me whether you think Kane Williamson is the best batsman in the world because he is the only one ranked in the top 10 in all formats or whether you think being ranked in the top 10 in all formats is a good measure of the best batsman in the world because that's the one Kane Williamson fits.
I don't even know the answer to this myself. But I'll repeat again that my methodology was far from a contrivance. Can you think of a better methodology to determine the best batsman across all formats, given that CW rates Tests heavier than ODIs and ODIs heavier than T20s?

I may not have started the thread if Smith had come out No. 1. But that isn't intellectually dishonest. It's simply more interesting to me, as a KW fan, that KW comes out on top. Had it been Smith I probably would have thought 'oh well' and thought nothing of it.

If an Aussie had started a thread that had Smith on top by whatever methodology I definitely wouldn't accuse them of intellectual dishonesty (unless their methods were unsound). That is the genetic fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I don't even know the answer to this myself. But I'll repeat again that my methodology was far from a contrivance. Can you think of a better methodology to determine the best batsman across all formats, given that CW rates Tests heavier than ODIs and ODIs heavier than T20s?
It's not that I think you're wrong necessarily. It's that I cbf having the debate either way if I don't even really know what you think about it. We've all got limited time available to us and I'd definitely rather spend mine discussing things with people who argue honestly than with people who reach the conclusion first and then make up the theory to justify it afterwards, even if the theory is interesting.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Not even I know what I really think about it. It was more of a discussion piece than anything, just a conversation starter.

It's hard for me to see why it's important to you, although I accept that it is. There's simply no way you can know, given the massive limitations of the Internet medium, whether I had a hunch that KW was the best batsman in the world and then found evidence to support it, or whether I looked at disparate pieces of evidence and concluded that KW was the best batsman in the world. Not even I know which process I used. It could even have been both. Also, I don't see why the former process would constitute intellectual dishonesty. I could have quite reasonably concluded from watching him on television that KW looked more in control of the bowling than any other batsman I've seen recently and then discovered that the rankings supported my intuition. If I had, that would be no less dishonest or interesting a discovery than if it was the other way around.

Frankly I was surprised that KW was in the top 10 for T20 batting, as I thought his strike rate would place him 20th or lower.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
KV, you're kind of missing the greater point here. It's not so much that all of your individual arguments are ridiculous and/or outrageous in isolation (although your views on Bevan as an ODI cricketer are pretty wack tbh), it's more that you seem to forever find a discussion point that conveniently talks up KW and New Zealand.

When you're seen continuously pushing one certain agenda even if you do make some reasonable arguments, your credibility tends to get lost in a swamp of fan-boyism.

Perhaps just look at being more balanced in your posts and particularly your threads. Amongst some of the over the top "Hey look how great little old NZ are', there's actually some quality posting.
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
KV, you're kind of missing the greater point here. It's not so much that all of your individual arguments are ridiculous and/or outrageous in isolation (although your views on Bevan as an ODI cricketer are pretty wack tbh), it's more that you seem to forever find a discussion point that conveniently talks up KW and New Zealand.

When you're seen continuously push one certain agenda even when you do make some reasonable arguments, it loses credibility and can been seen as nothing more than fan-boyism. Perhaps just look at being more balanced in your posts and particularly your threads. Amongst some of the over the top "Hey look how great little old NZ are', there's actually some quality posting.
404 page not found
 

Day Man

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Yes. I did this because the ranking system that puts Aussie at No. 1 includes a number of historical factors that I don't consider relevant, such as the impact of Clarke, Johnson, Watson and Haddin winning games for them. The player rankings tell you more about how good the players in the team right now are. And my verdict is that they are unproven.
New Zealand have lost McCullum - an integral part of their claim to #1. The moment they beat Australia in this series, they also lost McCullum - ergo the NZ side that is now being built up on the basis of a series win is not the same as the side that beat Australia. My verdict is that NZ are unproven.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Apologies for starting this thread - while I think NZ are probably 2nd best just, it is very close afaic. I was also very close to going back to the doom and gloom thread after NZ's innings on Monday, as I am permanently scarred by wounds from the past (including recent past - I'm still gutted about the tests at Lords and Adelaide.

If the bowlers maintain their crazy strike rates (4 of the top 11 of all time), NZ should stay up there in the top 4 odi sides for a while.

Records | One-Day Internationals | Bowling records | Best career strike rate | ESPN Cricinfo
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Apologies? This is a great thread. When you have such evenly balanced teams, that's when it's so much fun to discuss who is the best and who is the second best and so on.
Despite KV making some poor arguments, it was an overall quality discussion nonetheless
 

cnerd123

likes this
It's hard for me to see why it's important to you, although I accept that it is. There's simply no way you can know, given the massive limitations of the Internet medium, whether I had a hunch that KW was the best batsman in the world and then found evidence to support it, or whether I looked at disparate pieces of evidence and concluded that KW was the best batsman in the world. Not even I know which process I used. It could even have been both. Also, I don't see why the former process would constitute intellectual dishonesty.
The Bottom Line - Less Wrong

If you were intent on uncovering the 'truth' on an issue, you would look at all available evidence, analyse it using a consistent, understandable method, and then come to a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be one that you personally believed in before you began the exercise. It would just be the conclusion that logically follows from the thought process you initiated.

However, if you begin having decided on a conclusion, and then set about seeking evidence and devising a method to support it, you are no longer seeking the truth. You are just seeking to defend a stance. The truth at this point is irrelevant to you; what matters is being 'right'. This is the problem. Because once you already know what you want your conclusion to be, you end up ignoring, downplaying or working around evidence that goes against it, and end up devising methods that provide the end result that you are seeking for.This is intellectually dishonest, and is what pisses people off.

Not everyone here is like PEWS tho. They may not be able to eloquently put into words what it is that has gone wrong in your process, or may not have the time/energy/inclination to sit down and analyse the flaws in the process, but they will definitely be able to tell that there is something wrong. Much like PEWS, I'm pretty sure everyone suspects that your out-of-the-box thinking and thought processes are not genuine ideas in themselves, but are methods you have devised that deliver the end conclusion you seek. These aren't efforts at uncovering the truth, but efforts to push an agenda.
 

longranger

U19 Cricketer
With regards to KV, I'd like to repost something I wrote when he started that thread of overrating / underrating Test teams:

'And NZ isn't underrated. Everyone gives them their due. Also, there's a slight amount of national bias when you claim your home country is underrated.'

When all your posts end up with stating that New Zealand is beyond awesome and Kane Williamson is Bradman Mk II, don't be surprised when other posters don't rate your contributions as much as you expect they should.
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
KV isn't the only person on CW with a certain level of national bias though. In fact I quite enjoy reading what he has to say for most part, even if I rarely agree, because he has a certain perspective on the game. He also seeks to question the CW status quo and ruffle some feathers. That is great and needs to be done more on this forum. It's just that he picks the wrong fights.

The Australian test team is quite overrated on this forum by the status quo (this is a regular phenomena after Australia has a solid summer season smashing massive centuries on roads) and KV could easily have made arguments against that using their away record, and there would have been plenty of data to back him up.

The Australian ODI team is one of the rare occasions when the status quo is actually right, and you don't really have a lot of grounds to make an argument against that.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
The Bottom Line - Less Wrong

If you were intent on uncovering the 'truth' on an issue, you would look at all available evidence, analyse it using a consistent, understandable method, and then come to a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be one that you personally believed in before you began the exercise. It would just be the conclusion that logically follows from the thought process you initiated.

However, if you begin having decided on a conclusion, and then set about seeking evidence and devising a method to support it, you are no longer seeking the truth.
Okay, tell me what conclusion I have decided upon and how I decided upon it without evidence.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Okay, tell me what conclusion I have decided upon and how I decided upon it without evidence.
-> Believe KW is the best batsman in the world and that NZ are underrated
-> Feel the need to make people agree with you
-> Devise method and seek evidence to support your belief
-> Create threads and challenge existing perceptions using method you have devised and evidence you have found.

If you are following this flow of thought, you are being intellectually dishonest, regardless of how accurate or not your findings may be.
 

Top