Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: ODI GOAT at cricket.com.au

  1. #16
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    12,107
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Lee's almost a certainty for top 5. If you can name 20 better ODI bowlers then has off to you.
    You're right here. He's a very underrated ODI bowler. I'd choose McGrath, Garner, Wasim and Donald ahead of him but he's definitely top 5. Personal preference might see me include Ambrose ahead of him but it's a lot harder to argue he's not top five than to argue he is top five.
    Quote Originally Posted by Test_Fan_Only View Post
    Red Hill is a piece of ****

  2. #17
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,433
    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.
    Mind the Windows, Tino!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Honestly if Dan isn't the greatest living creature on Earth, he is only second behind Luggage.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I'm the worst poster on this forum, end of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Langer
    Compete with us | Smile with us | Fight on with us | Dream with us

  3. #18
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    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.
    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.
    cricrate - follow twitter and facebook for updates

  4. #19
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    12,107
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan
    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.
    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…)


  5. #20
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,908
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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.
    And you are solely looking at stats...
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  6. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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...ry/541322.html
    Last edited by watson; 24-04-2016 at 01:32 AM.

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 24-04-2016 at 01:33 AM.

  8. #23
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    24,003
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  10. #25
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    14,868
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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
    Last edited by TheJediBrah; 24-04-2016 at 02:19 AM.

  11. #26
    I can't believe I ate the whole thing NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    25,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan;3660246
    [B
    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?
    President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
    Go Tigers!
    R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

  12. #27
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    14,868
    I was going to say a single syllable last name but then I saw Vaas & Dev

  13. #28
    Cricketer Of The Year AndyZaltzHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dhaka
    Posts
    9,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    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
    Dan likes this.
    Originally Spoken by Brendon McCullum
    You have got to earn the right to be aggressive.
    Supporting XI
    Soumya Sarkar, Liton Das, Pinak Ghosh, Mominul Haque, Mosaddek Hossain, Nazmul Shanto, Shabbir, Nurul Hasan, Afif, Saifuddin, Mehedi Miraz, Abu Hider, Taskin Ahmed, Shoriful Islam, Mustafizur Rahman

  14. #29
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    24,003
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post


    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

    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    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.

  15. #30
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    14,868
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?
    By Jassy in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 19-02-2014, 10:32 PM
  2. Which CW chestnut gets your goat?
    By Matt79 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 03:41 PM
  3. Man Forced To Marry Goat
    By open365 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 04:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •