*Official* Australia in India ODIs 2019/20

[h_hurricane]

Bumrah has played 61 ODIs so far. Kohli has played 75 since Bumrah's debut. Ponting has played 280 ODIs during the period his career coincided with Mcgrath (who played 222 ODIs in this period).

So, Kohli has played 23% more than Bumrah in career overlapping period.

Ponting played 26% more than Mcgrath in career overlapping period.

Likewise, Lara has played 20% more than Ambrose in career overlapping period (167 vs 139)

 

[stephen]

Most frontline bowlers play less compared to the frontline batsmen (around 5-7 ODIs less per year). This was mostly the case 20 years back also. Ambrose vs Lara or Donald vs Kallis comes to mind. Another example is Inzy vs Waqar.

Starc has played a lot less ODIs since 2015 WC but there are the likes of Bumrah and Rabada who have played 15-17 ODIs per year since debut.

Ambrose played 135 matches in the 90s vs Lara's 162. Wasim (195), Waqar (163) vs Anwar (180). Donald (121) vs Cronje (172) was the exception. Not a huge difference.

Compare that to Boult (89) or Southee (116) vs Taylor (155) or Steyn (90) or Morkel (94) vs Amla (159). Whatever the reason, outside the Sri Lankan attack, the best bowlers of the decade have played substantially less than the best batsmen of the decade.

 

[vcs]

Lol

 

[h_hurricane]

Ambrose played 135 matches in the 90s vs Lara's 162. Wasim (195), Waqar (163) vs Anwar (180). Donald (121) vs Cronje (172) was the exception. Not a huge difference.

Compare that to Boult (89) or Southee (116) vs Taylor (155) or Steyn (90) or Morkel (94) vs Amla (159). Whatever the reason, outside the Sri Lankan attack, the best bowlers of the decade have played substantially less than the best batsmen of the decade.

Rabada has played 74 ODIs compared to 66 for Amla in the overlapping period. I guess it all depends on how we bend it If you take 10 bowlers and 10 batsmen as a sample size and compare between eras, I don't see any reason to believe modern batsmen have benefited a lot compared to earlier batsmen in this regard.

 

[h_hurricane]

Lol

Would have loved to see Dwayne Leverock instead of Yuzi there. But I guess one needs a fat variable pay and be CEO's favorite to get there.

 

[stephen]

Rabada has played 74 ODIs compared to 66 for Amla in the overlapping period. I guess it all depends on how we bend it If you take 10 bowlers and 10 batsmen as a sample size and compare between eras, I don't see any reason to believe modern batsmen have benefited a lot compared to earlier batsmen in this regard.

I just looked at bowlers who were at the top of the charts and compared them to their contemporary batsmen from the same side.

It really only seems like Sri Lanka has used their full strength attack regularly.

 

[Flem274*]

i don't feel short changed on odi bowling at all tbh, i think it's far better than it was in the 00s. that could be confirmation bias since the cricket i get to (legally) watch is mostly sourced from nz, aus, england and india (4 of the top 5 odi sides this decade) but yeah nah would much rather watch this lot bowl than tune in for some more 2006 liam plunkett or james franklin.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I dunno why you take it personally. For Ian Harvey, you can put Chris Harris, Robin Singh or any other no-rounder of that period and my point is the same. And as Daemon said, I am not disagreeing that bowlers are rested but I don't think it is as big a factor as what T20 has done to the game and batting at large. And again, maybe the best bowlers rest more in ODIs since 2015 (although I think it was happening from the beginning of that decade itself) but the quality of the bowlers overall in the bowling attack, I think, has gone up. While the average runs per match and therefore all similar run related metrics may have gone up, I am willing to bet it is more due to the rise of T20 cricket and how it has redefined LO batting than saying something like "the average batsman today's plays much easier conditions and bowlers". I just don't think it is such a big deal.

How was Chris Harris a no-rounder? During his era he would have walked into every ODI team in the world except South Africa.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How was Chris Harris a no-rounder?

Yeah that's harsh. Was one of NZ's best players.

During his era he would have walked into every ODI team in the world except South Africa.

Not sure about that though lol

 

[Daemon]

If you google Chris Harris you find nothing on him and suggestions for Jeremy Clarkson and Andrew Flintoff instead

On youtube I tried searching "Chris Harris bowling" and the top video was him taking 2-50 which is presumably one of his best ever spells (top comment is "A 7-min vid for a 2-wicket haul?"), a few videos of other people like Chris Cairns and then one where Jayasuriya hits him for 6,6,6,6,4,2

Another plucky kiwi who punched above his weight, but to say he'd make every side in the world is pushing it.

 

[vcs]

Fine batsman, ugly bowling action, gun fielder, bald but somehow still handsome.

 

[honestbharani]

How was Chris Harris a no-rounder? During his era he would have walked into every ODI team in the world except South Africa.

His bowling was not that good. He was worth as a batsman for many years though and a brilliant fielder. So I guess calling him a no-rounder was harsh but I meant his bowling wasn't much flash.

 

[DriveClub]

Fine batsman, ugly bowling action, gun fielder, bald but somehow still handsome.

I would say Zinade zidane top contender for bald but handsome category

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure anyone has accused Chris Harris of being handsome before

 

[Flem274*]

chris harris's bowling was pretty much perfect internet trolling. as far as careers go, a batsman who couldn't play the short ball transforming into bait for dumb 90s odi batsmen and biffing some runs down the order is respectable.

he was basically a god tier norounder in odis, the kind of player selectors pray for when they're trying to plug a hole they can't fill but never get. he scored cameos then spent 10 overs trolling the opposition and the other 40 being one of the best fielders in the world. far more fun than some hopeless specialist.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Harry owned, there was a period of like six months where he was a gun batsman. Also one ODI against England I remember he was getting insane inswing bowling at like 80k.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

His bowling was not that good. He was worth as a batsman for many years though and a brilliant fielder. So I guess calling him a no-rounder was harsh but I meant his bowling wasn't much flash.

The average and strike rate weren't flash but he had an economy rate of 4.28 and would often dry up runs in the middle overs. That's an excellent economy for a 5th bowler.

 

[vcs]

The dreaded Harris-Larsen combo used to be so hard to get away in the middle overs, especially with those gun NZ close in fielders.

 

[NUFAN]

My fav Harris game was definitely in the World Cup 96. Mark Waugh then played one of his best ever ODI innings to win Australia a spot in the semi. From memory Harris bowling was tough to face that day too. Basically one of the games where id have no issue with MoTM going to the losing team.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah his 130 in that game seemed like the craziest example of someone punching above their weight I can think of

His second best ODI score in over 200 innings was 77. He didn't pass 50 any other innings In 1996

But just comes out 3 for nothing in a WC QF against McGrath, Warne, Reiffel and Fleming and blasts 130

On paper that's basically our best ever ODI attack as far as I care

Needs to be talked about more than it is


Edit - for some reason Reiffel and Fleming bowled 9 overs between them that game while Bevan and Mark Waugh bowled 18?