Actually, he probably was. I just get annoyed at the overrating of former greats at the expense of modern players.
-
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.
Top Ten ODI cricketers of All Time
- Thread starter bagapath
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Well, safe to say I disagree
Tendulkar was barely part time for the majority of his career. I think he had the ability to be an excellent 6th bowling option, but he just wasn't used enough. Symonds was. I don't think it's particularly close.
But whenever he was used, and it was still a sizeable amount, he was better than Symonds, which was my point. Why should I choose someone who was not all that better as a 6th bowling option when I have one from within the other batsmen I have already selected?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
For starters, his numbers are nothing like Hoopers, especially regarding batting. There haven't been many more intimidating hitters than him.Dude, read the last few pages on the debate about him. He was only passable as a bowler and his batting is over rated coz there are better options than him as batsmen and as bowlers. Carl Hooper, had almost comparable stats in ODIs and he did that in the 90s, not the 00s like Symonds did. And his peak was about a 4-5 year window, which means you can find any number of players who had such wonderful peak periods at various points in ODI history. He is extremely over rated.
His bowling is comparable to Sachin and in an ATG side, he can only play either as the 7th batsman or the 6th bowler and given that there are MUCH better options for either he is not near the ATG XI either and he is surely not in the top 25 ODI cricketers of all time.
I'd have him in my ATG team every time for his hitting, bowling and especially his fielding. Fielding is so undervalued in ODIs.
I can understand people not wanting him in their first XI or top ten, but I think he's definitely in the top 25. Especially when people are including Kallis. But meh, if you dont rate him it dont matter much.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha. "Ghandi" is another annoying one.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Really? There is a link earlier in this very thread where you will see that Hooper maintained numbers significantly similar to Symonds, batting at 4-6, between 1994 and 2004 as Symonds did between 2000 and 2004. I understand fielding but again with Richards, Kohli and AB in there, this side wont exactly be slouches in the field and AFAIC, AB is a beter fielder than him anyways. And as I said, his bowling is really really over-rated. So as I said, I dont see any reason why he should be among the top 25 ODI cricketers of all time.
I do believe he is one of the greats of ODI games though. Certainlly in the top 50 but top 25, nah.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
It was Harper but Hooper was an awesome all-round fielder... Mark Waugh category and style AFAIC.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Really rate Starc as an ODI bowler but I do think the talk of him being in the top 25 or so all time players is very premature.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Its what I said, Burgey 
Its too early for Starc and so I will have Jayasuriya ahead of him and I think Aravinda is a contender for a slot in that group too.
Its too early for Starc and so I will have Jayasuriya ahead of him and I think Aravinda is a contender for a slot in that group too.
anil1405
International Captain
Players who could potentially make it to the top 25 in around 5-8 years time: Starc, de Kock
Players who could potentially make it to the top 25 in around 2-3 years time: Warner
Players who have just about done enough to be recognized as one of top 25 in recent past: Kohli
Players who have reserved their spot in top 25 over the last 3-4 years: MSD, AB
Players who could potentially make it to the top 25 in around 2-3 years time: Warner
Players who have just about done enough to be recognized as one of top 25 in recent past: Kohli
Players who have reserved their spot in top 25 over the last 3-4 years: MSD, AB
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Starc much closer than Warner imo
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
I was half expecting to see Alf Stewart, Harold Bishop and Skippy the bush Kangaroo in the list to be honest.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Some of you guys are dickheads in the way you look at stats. Look at the summary and delve a little deeper ffs. Jones really hurt himself in the last couple of years. I would never pick Jones after 91. He was a 6 year monster. Ponting hurts his career in the last few years. ABDV hurt his career in the first few.
Some of you guys are dickheads the way you can not see how some players have huge batting advantages - you know - the ones who play on very very small grounds with very very big bats in a huge proportion of games as opposed to others who have to play 50% on huge ovals where a tiny-ground-6 is only a 2 or 3. It's not rocket science - the entirety of rule changes to ODI have been in favour of batsmen.
Some of you guys are dickheads the way you can not see how some players have huge batting advantages - you know - the ones who play on very very small grounds with very very big bats in a huge proportion of games as opposed to others who have to play 50% on huge ovals where a tiny-ground-6 is only a 2 or 3. It's not rocket science - the entirety of rule changes to ODI have been in favour of batsmen.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
His odi record is pretty good tbh. Not saying he'd make it but he'd be in the discussion for an Australian side. I'd rather him than Lee. But I'd also rather have bowel surgery without anaesthetic than Lee.
smash84
The Tiger King
what do you mean hurt their careers? You mean they were not good enough in that time?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I agree, but that is obviously a very different conversation than what we are having here..
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'm no fan of Brett Lee, but he was a very very good LO bowler.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
For mine, a 5 year peak is more than enough to judge someone on. I respect guys whose careers extend over 20 years, but a 5 year peak is where you actually see how good someone was, especially in cricket. A lot can change once an eye players loses a bit of reflex speed or whatever, but if they can sustain brilliance over 5 or so years, that's enough.
Guys like Viv Richards and Ricky Ponting's test careers show that. Both had averages of above 60 after a good amount of tests, but loss of brilliance in they eyes and footwork bought their averages back to 50. They were still picked because they were still in the best batsmen in their countries, but they weren't at the peak of their powers any more. You probably see it more in guys who grew up on fast bouncy wickets rather than in the subcontinent tbh.