• 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.

[Not so] Huge statistical analysis on greatest ODI batsman and bowlers ranked

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
When you have two contemporary batsmen who bat in the same team, I look where they batted. The team itself knows who are the best batsmen in the team and they will bat in the top order.
Klusenar was RSAs best ever bat by a huge margin until a number of years after he retired, and he batted mostly around 7. Mediocre top order bat, best ever lower order bat.

Conversely, Amla was a great opener, but would have been absolute garbage in the lower-middle.

Roles count in odis.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Dean Jones, Martin Crowe, and Aravinda de Silva were special players of the time. They were the first to sort out how to play reverse swing in their own ways. Played very similar horizontal bat game too.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I am inclined to say Abbas was proto-Kohli. Abbas's strike rate is mighty impressive no matter how you look at it. He retired in 1985 and has better strike rate than likes of Ponting, Hayden, Gibbs and even Ross Taylor. 5 out of 7 of his hundreds were scored at 100+ SR and another one at 98.xx.

I have lot of time for Abbas and Jones. They made my all time ODI XI before Kohli and de Villiers nudged them out.
Since we were talking about remarkable SR of Abbas, I quickly took ratio of batsmen SR and benchmark SR, and these are the top 20:

RankPlayerSRBenchmark SRSR Ratio
1GJ Maxwell123.3785.281.45
2JC Buttler119.5185.281.40
3IVA Richards90.2066.071.37
4V Sehwag103.5676.561.35
5Zaheer Abbas85.0464.991.31
6AC Gilchrist97.3474.491.31
7A Symonds92.8775.381.23
8AB de Villiers100.3981.571.23
9ST Jayasuriya90.7773.811.23
10L Klusener89.9173.121.23
11JJ Roy107.2887.411.23
12JM Bairstow102.9284.691.22
13DA Miller100.6084.291.19
14A Flintoff88.8875.371.18
15GS Chappell75.7064.221.18
16SR Tendulkar85.6574.001.16
17Ijaz Ahmed80.3469.581.15
18PA de Silva80.6170.241.15
19ME Trescothick85.1874.351.15
20SK Raina92.8781.571.14

So Abbas was as destructive as Gilchrist. And quite amazing to note that Chappell is slightly higher than Tendulkar.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
And for completeness sake, only ER comparison:

RankPlayerERBenchmark
ER
ER Ratio
1Rashid Khan4.115.380.76
2J Garner3.104.050.76
3SM Pollock3.724.710.79
4CEL Ambrose3.514.430.79
5SP Narine4.135.170.80
6Sir RJ Hadlee3.344.110.81
7PS de Villiers3.564.370.81
8MA Holding3.334.050.82
9Saeed Ajmal4.195.090.82
10Mohammad Nabi4.325.220.83
11Mohammad Hafeez4.215.060.83
12M Muralitharan3.964.710.84
13GD McGrath3.914.640.84
14JJ Bumrah4.565.380.85
15GR Larsen3.774.440.85
16MD Marshall3.544.160.85
17DL Vettori4.154.860.85
18EJ Chatfield3.584.120.87
19AME Roberts3.403.900.87
20CA Walsh3.844.400.87

Bit annoying how Rashid Khan won't move from near the top. Haha
 
Last edited:

Victor Ian

International Coach
Ive not a big fan of open ended longevity adjustments. I dont think it is a skill. It is muddied by things like the strength of your team when you begin or finish or your previous fame giving you long rope to hang yourself with. I think i have always been more in favour of something like, your best period.
Dhoni is a great example. People now think he deserves to be lower in lists now. No!
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Ive not a big fan of open ended longevity adjustments. I dont think it is a skill. It is muddied by things like the strength of your team when you begin or finish or your previous fame giving you long rope to hang yourself with. I think i have always been more in favour of something like, your best period.
Dhoni is a great example. People now think he deserves to be lower in lists now. No!
I think longevity adjustments correct for those factors. You stick around for longer for those factors you mention, your stats deteriorate and longevity adjustment corrects for that. If you stats don't deteriorate despite those factors, you deserve all the bump in rating. Ponting jumps from #29 to #12 with longevity adjustment which seems fair ranking to me.

Also, adjustment is non-linear, it is sub-linear so not exactly open ended.
 
Last edited:

Victor Ian

International Coach
I think longevity adjustments correct for those factors. You stick around for longer for those factors you mention, your stats deteriorate and longevity adjustment corrects for that. If you stats don't deteriorate despite those factors, you deserve all the bump in rating. Ponting jumps from #29 to #12 with longevity adjustment which seems fair ranking to me.

Also, adjustment is non-linear, it is sub-linear so not exactly open ended.
Just to clarify, I wasn't poo pooing on your list. I'm in the peak values tribe versus whole career tribe is my real point.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Interested in knowing which players got over or under adjusted. In current scheme if your career span is 9 years, you get a multiplier of 1.0 while if your career span is 24 years, you get 1.4
That is way too small. Players who could play for 9 years is way more numerous than 1.4 times than ones that can do for 24 years.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Ive not a big fan of open ended longevity adjustments. I dont think it is a skill. It is muddied by things like the strength of your team when you begin or finish or your previous fame giving you long rope to hang yourself with. I think i have always been more in favour of something like, your best period.
Dhoni is a great example. People now think he deserves to be lower in lists now. No!
I think it is a skill, because that shows the skill of keeping their fitness going and keeping their interest going, and not getting distracted by the fame. Definitely a skill.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah the 2000-2016 period saw more messing with the ODI game than ever before. And you do have to hold the 90s players to the no ball over shoulder height gift they had as batsmen. That + the 15 over rules (2 catchers and only 2 in the deep) meant the game was STACKED against the bowlers for openers.
 

Flem274*

123/5
i miss the circa 2015 era of odis. if you had good bowlers you were always in the game, if you had bad bowlers you conceded 350. it was extreme cricket. no surprises the wc semi finalists had most of the world class bowlers.

it's what probably makes mitchell starc the goat odi bowler, and many others in that era will also be looked upon favourably in 20 years.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah the 2000-2016 period saw more messing with the ODI game than ever before. And you do have to hold the 90s players to the no ball over shoulder height gift they had as batsmen. That + the 15 over rules (2 catchers and only 2 in the deep) meant the game was STACKED against the bowlers for openers.
But at the same time scoring was a lot harder in ODIs in the 90s. As the ball got older it got softer and particularly under lights it got very hard to see after about 35 overs. Chasing in some places was very difficult. Pitches also had more life in them in the 90s.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
yeah, hence I said openers right at the end there, not all batsmen. :) Agree MO batsmen had it harder than openers then for sure.
 

Top