Are multi-format greats a thing of past?

[CricAddict]

If you take a batsmens tests and odi averages and put them together it seems the minimum standard for a 'great' player to be at is Just over 80. Mark Waugh for instance is considered a top tier player of his time and had a 41 and 39 average. Kevin Pietersen is then 47 and 40 which puts him at 87. Matthews sits comfortably inbetween the 2 on 85, with the added bonus of being a genuine 5 bowling option in tests and odis.

This is a good metric and I will have the total for an ATG multi format batsman at >90 with ODI strike rate >85. Anyone with good cricinfo statsguru skills be able to provide the list of batsmen with this criteria? Likewise, for a bowler, total average should be less than 60 with economy less than 5. Yes, and all this with a minimum criteria of >3000 runs or >100 wickets across formats.

 

[rparikh14]

If Rahul is actually played in ODIs, I'm pretty sure he could end up a multi-format great.

 

[Starfighter]

If you take a batsmens tests and odi averages and put them together it seems the minimum standard for a 'great' player to be at is Just over 80

Never heard that before. Sounds like bollocks.

Mark Waugh for instance is considered a top tier player of his time and had a 41 and 39 average.

No, he isn't close to a top tier test player and I've near heard anyone suggest otherwise. Bollocks.

Kevin Pietersen is then 47 and 40 which puts him at 87.

He's not a top tier player either, at least in tests, though he was close he couldn't quite make it.

Matthews sits comfortably inbetween the 2 on 85, with the added bonus of being a genuine 5 bowling option in tests and odis.

You can't add together averages like that. ODI and test cricket are two different things and being great at one doesn't mean being great at the other. And he's not a genuine fifth bowler in tests at least, he's been of parttime standard for a long time and regularly gets injured due to his bowling.

All in all, a lot of bollocks.

 

[stephen]

This is a good metric and I will have the total for an ATG multi format batsman at >90 with ODI strike rate >85. Anyone with good cricinfo statsguru skills be able to provide the list of batsmen with this criteria? Likewise, for a bowler, total average should be less than 60 with economy less than 5. Yes, and all this with a minimum criteria of >3000 runs or >100 wickets across formats.

People who are not greats according to this metric:

Sangakkara
Ponting
Lara
De Silva
Anwar
Haynes
M Waugh
Clarke
S Waugh
G Smith
Bevan
Hayden
Jones

...

Very few batsmen in ODI history have struck at >85. It's really only modern batsmen with the 2 new balls, fielding restrictions, ripped in boundaries and super bats that strike at greater than 85 consistently.

Greenidge struck at less than 65 and most people consider him a great ODI batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you take a batsmens tests and odi averages and put them together it seems the minimum standard for a 'great' player to be at is Just over 80. Mark Waugh for instance is considered a top tier player of his time and had a 41 and 39 average. Kevin Pietersen is then 47 and 40 which puts him at 87. Matthews sits comfortably inbetween the 2 on 85, with the added bonus of being a genuine 5 bowling option in tests and odis.

Sorry m8 but I don't think averaging 40 in Mark Waugh's time against his opposition is the same as in Mathew's time against his opposition. We need to put a disclaimer in Cricketweb about comparing between these eras it seems.

And neither is Mark Waugh top tier anyway

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's an indisputable ATG or definitely top 10, just disputing the claim that he's "nowhere near"

Lara vs Smith in Odis = Warne vs Kumble in tests

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lara vs Smith in Odis = Warne vs Kumble in tests

yeah sounds about right

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, the guy who, since moving from #7 to the top order, has scored 2964 runs at an average of 49 and SR of 86 is the Kumble of ODIs. Okay.

 

[stephen]

Yeah just because Smith in ODIs isn't Kohli doesn't mean he's not seriously good. He's actually probably about what Kohli is in tests, if that makes sense.

It still pisses me off that he's banned.

 

[Tom Flint]

I said top tier batsman of his time which he probably was considered in the top bracket of bats in the 90s. Or wasn't he?
And if you say mark Waugh had to face better bowling back then, then you can also say that he was only expected to score at 4.5 rpo for a par score in those days.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I said top tier batsman of his time which he probably was considered in the top bracket of bats in the 90s. Or wasn't he?

Not really

And if you say mark Waugh had to face better bowling back then, then you can also say that he was only expected to score at 4.5 rpo for a par score in those days.

well yes, but that does the opposite of support your point

Yeah, the guy who, since moving from #7 to the top order, has scored 2964 runs at an average of 49 and SR of 86 is the Kumble of ODIs. Okay.

what don't you agree with about that?

 

[ankitj]

How about peak ICC rating of 800 in tests and ODIs as necessary condition (but not sufficient) for rating players as multi format greats?

Test batting: ICC Player Rankings
Test bowling: ICC Player Rankings
ODI batting: ICC Player Rankings
ODI bowling: ICC Player Rankings

It disqualifies a lot of players btw. Perhaps for bowlers the cut off should be 750.

 

[Prince EWS]

Mathew' bowling has always been extremely overhyped.

There was definitely a period in which it was genuinely good in ODis. He had a very defined role and probably wouldn't have been getting selected on bowling alone in every game, but I don't think it was overhyped in that period.

He's never really done anything with the ball in Tests though, and people have assumed his bowling is a thing in ODIs for quite a bit longer than it actually was.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yeah, the guy who, since moving from #7 to the top order, has scored 2964 runs at an average of 49 and SR of 86 is the Kumble of ODIs. Okay.

You are right.
620 wickets from 130 tests. Not a big deal.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sachins ODI Stats, since Kohli's debut, actually better than Smith's top order stats iirc. 50avg at 90 plus strike rate. And it was Sachin's declining stage

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sachins ODI Stats, since Kohli's debut, actually better than Smith's top order stats iirc. 50avg at 90 plus strike rate. And it was Sachin's declining stage

ok?

 

[harsh.ag]

Sachins ODI Stats, since Kohli's debut, actually better than Smith's top order stats iirc. 50avg at 90 plus strike rate. And it was Sachin's declining stage

Yeah, the 2011 WC was notable for Sachin's decline.

 

[harsh.ag]

You are right.
620 wickets from 130 tests. Not a big deal.

Smith as a batsman is much more versatile in different conditions than Kumble was as a bowler. Not a good comparison.

 

[harsh.ag]

After the 2011 WC, Sachin played 10 ODIs, scoring 315 runs at an average of 31 and SR of 81. That's the declining stage.

 

[Burner]

Yeah just because Smith in ODIs isn't Kohli doesn't mean he's not seriously good. He's actually probably about what Kohli is in tests, if that makes sense.

It still pisses me off that he's banned.

He's not. Being Kohli in tests would be him averaging 50 at a SR of 90 with at least 20 tons to his name. He's quite far off from that.