• 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.

CW decides the greatest ODI batsman ever (submit your own top 20 list)

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
I hate agreeing with Burgey but Ponting was definitely the big ODI batting wicket to get from 2000-2005. He was also Shane Bond's ODI bunny (which was a big reason for my man crush on Bondy, but that's another story).
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
And how is Kapil Dev one of the top 20 ODI batsmen? Is it just because he had a high strike rate in the 1980s?

By that logic Lance Cairns and Ian Smith should be in the top 20.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I hate agreeing with Burgey but Ponting was definitely the big ODI batting wicket to get from 2000-2005. He was also Shane Bond's ODI bunny (which was a big reason for my man crush on Bondy, but that's another story).
Bond. Wafg
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
All benefitted from playing for a super dominant team. That's what I think.
In their defence , they played for normal teams . That makes a difference
This is overdone af. There's not really any evidence to suggest that it would make a difference to a player's stats, though I can see the logic behind it. Talking as though it makes a huge difference is getting tiresome.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is overdone af. There's not really any evidence to suggest that it would make a difference to a player's stats, though I can see the logic behind it. Talking as though it makes a huge difference is getting tiresome.
You see they are all overrated because the other guys they were playing with were amazing. And that applies to all of them.

Really it's just a way of arbitrarily discounting players you don't care for.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
This is overdone af. There's not really any evidence to suggest that it would make a difference to a player's stats, though I can see the logic behind it. Talking as though it makes a huge difference is getting tiresome.
You know what is overdone and getting tiresome? The contention that only WC semis and finals matter. Kohli is branded a failure in 2019 WC when he hit so many 50s and is in few overall WC teams. And that contention is directly linked to this contention. When your team has other strong players to make up for Kohli's one failure, then he would have been a success.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You know what is overdone and getting tiresome? The contention that only WC semis and finals matter. Kohli is branded a failure in 2019 WC when he hit so many 50s and is in few overall WC teams. And that contention is directly linked to this contention. When your team has other strong players to make up for Kohli's one failure, then he would have been a success.
What are Rohit Sharma and Bumrah? Chopped liver?

You know what else is getting tedious? The idea that any given player can perform in meaningless ODIs then gas up when it matters most yet still somehow be regarded as the GOAT. It's woeful not to take into account the actual status of matches and situations within games. FMD Kohli had the winning of the semi final vs NZ on his bat - got in early, moderate total and he basically reverted to type under the pump and POQ'ed like he always has under pressure in the WC. Yet we are meant to ignore that because he pumped a half strength SA/ Aus attack in some random ODI series at home in 2016 or whenever. Give me a ****ing break.
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seriously, if you ever get the chance to meet Kohli, ask him if he'd swap his X years of incredible "domination" and "all those 50s" in the WC for one big score in that semi final against NZ. What do you reckon he'd say? Would he choose to swap, because he knows that was the moment which mattered most and he blew it, or would he be happy with things as they are?
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As long as he's rolling in cash and Bollywood actresses he'd probably be pretty happy either way tbh
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Seriously, if you ever get the chance to meet Kohli, ask him if he'd swap his X years of incredible "domination" and "all those 50s" in the WC for one big score in that semi final against NZ. What do you reckon he'd say? Would he choose to swap, because he knows that was the moment which mattered most and he blew it, or would he be happy with things as they are?
Any team-man will trade it for the cup. But on the same count, if you ask a person if he will trade a double century for a losing team in the final for the cup, that person will choose the cup as well, which means the 200 in a final which you value a lot doesn't count too. Or do you value only a 200 for the winning team in the final?
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
As if what you will trade your cricketing achievements for somehow has any bearing on your cricketing skills in a variety of conditions against variety of oppositions. Such a lame argument. But full marks for regurgitating same thing without fear of embarrassing oneself.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Any team-man will trade it for the cup. But on the same count, if you ask a person if he will trade a double century for a losing team in the final for the cup, that person will choose the cup as well, which means the 200 in a final which you value a lot doesn't count too. Or do you value only a 200 for the winning team in the final?
I would love to see a WC final where a bloke blazes 200 but ends up on the losing side. Be a hell of a game. It isn't going to happen. But to answer your question, yes I would value it.

As for these spud posts from the likes of ankitj to the effect that I'm regurgitating this argument (ironic coming from a bloke who until recently I genuinely thought was a ****ing bot), I'll stop raising that argument when the same posters stop regurgitating their same ****ing arguments about the same ****ing players who they regard as ATGs, despite those players failing when it's mattered most. Then we can call a truce, I suppose.

"Stop posting the same thing over again!" whine the blokes who've just racked up their millionth Sachin/ Kohli uber alles in ODIs post. No mirrors where you live. Seriously.
 

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
Sometimes batsmen will fall victim to an absolute jaffa, or a brilliant piece of fielding. Doesnt matter if its a JAMODI or a CWC final. Bowlers have it tougher than batsmen in the modern game, but by the same token they have more chances to redeem themselves than batsmen.
 

Top