BBC Greatest ODI XI

[Marut]

You are mistaken here. We are talking of the 80s era, not the modern era. Batting average of Indian batsmen during the 80s with strike rates Srikkanth 29 @ 72 Vengasarkar 36 @ 68 Kapil 27 @ 102 Gavaskar 35 @ 64 Shastri 29 @ 66 Azhar 31 @ 68 Amarnath 32 @ 58 Sidhu 41 @ 72 S.Patil 25 @ 82 Who do you think is the most impactful Indian batsman here? Kapil averages nearly the same as top order bats at a much higher strike rate. Only Sidhu is better as a batsman in the 80s, every other batsman (including specialist batsmen) is inferior to Kapil in overall value. It was not without good reason that Kapil topped the all rounder charts by a big margin for the entire decade. Batting average of 30 was a decent one even for an opener in the 80s. Kapil's game dropped dramatically in the 90s and affected his overall stats. He kept playing without retiring in the 90s. But his overall stats do not tell us how good he was in the 80s at his peak.

Comparing the averages and strike rates of all Indian batsmen of the 80s, it becomes evident that Kapil's role as a batsman in the Indian team was similar to Raina's role in the current team. Of course, Raina has superior averages but Kapil dev had much bigger strike rates for his era. And Kapil dev faced much better bowlers compared to Raina. If Kapil dev had batted more at #5 he would have been forced to become more serious about his batting and could have done so much more for the team. But he was wasted as a pinch hitter at #7 in a lot of matches by the Indian think-tank.

[HippoSucks]

You are mistaken here. We are talking of the 80s era, not the modern era. Batting average of Indian batsmen during the 80s with strike rates Srikkanth 29 @ 72 Vengasarkar 36 @ 68 Kapil 27 @ 102 Gavaskar 35 @ 64 Shastri 29 @ 66 Azhar 31 @ 68 Amarnath 32 @ 58 Sidhu 41 @ 72 S.Patil 25 @ 82 Who do you think is the most impactful Indian batsman here? Kapil averages nearly the same as top order bats at a much higher strike rate. Only Sidhu is better as a batsman in the 80s, every other batsman (including specialist batsmen) is inferior to Kapil in overall value. It was not without good reason that Kapil topped the all rounder charts by a big margin for the entire decade. Batting average of 30 was a decent one even for an opener in the 80s. Kapil's game dropped dramatically in the 90s and affected his overall stats. He kept playing without retiring in the 90s. But his overall stats do not tell us how good he was in the 80s at his peak.

His average at the end was low, but of course an average of 27 in the 1980s (with that amazing strike rate) is good enough. And even if it wasn't, his bowling sure made up for it.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

In general I agree but odi cricket deserves its own benchmark. Odi cricket is no place for an awesome test batsman like Alistair cook or Mark Taylor because they had what it takes to succeed in tests: wait for the bad ball and block everything else. But in odis where one has to be a stroke maker' date=' they fail. Same with Dale Steyn for the first 8 years of his career:out and out attack bowler who struggled with line and length.[/quote'] For the record, I don't rate batsmen who play at snails pace in Test cricket. A very important criteria of being a great Test batsman is the ability to dominate attacks (at least at one point of their career), not someone who'll take 2 days to score a 150. Guys like Sobers, Pollock, Viv, Sachin, Lara, Ponting .... I'd rate them as great Test batsmen. Not someone like Kallis who'd block and block and block, and then finally crawl to a century. Guys like Hayden, Gilchrist, G. Chappell .... it's guys like them I truly rate in Test cricket, guys who are aggressive stroke makers.

[Marut]

An all rounder is known by his exploits in Test cricket. Hadlee was the best bowler closely followed by Imran. Botham and Kapil were pretty much on the same level. I'd say there's a humongous gap between Hadlee/Imran and Botham/Kapil as bowlers. In batting, Botham and Kapil were impact players capable of dominating attacks and play impact innings. Imran was more of an innings builder who valued his wicket a lot, and improved his average by his tuk-tuk. Definitely not some one whom the opposition feared as a batsman. And Hadlee was outright below average as a batsman. That's about Test cricket. As for pyjama cricket, who cares!! When guys like Chris Gayle and Brett Lee can made this BBC list, it speaks more so about the format.

In tests, it was like this in terms of impact they created: Bowling: Hadlee > Imran > Kapil > Botham Batting: Botham > Kapil > Imran > Hadlee Straight one-one comparison is a bit tricky because Hadlee and Botham bowled more on pace friendly wickets compared to Kapil and Imran. Imran was surely a great bowler but there has been a lot of questions on Pakistani bowler's integrity throughout history - they have been accused of ball tampering on many occasions, so his stats are a bit deceptive. High quality reverse swing and ball tampering seem to go hand in hand. Like this - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/259676.html

[Bublu Bhuyan]

In tests, it was like this in terms of impact they created: Bowling: Hadlee > Imran > Kapil > Botham

Pretty much. Hadlee was simply fantastic, marvelous. The guy excelled in all conditions bar Pakistan, where he played merely 4 Tests. As much as I dislike Imran Khan, the human being, even I'd have to admit he was a legendary bowler who paved the way for future great fast bowlers from Pakistan. He is the GodFather of Pakistan cricket. Between Kapil and Botham, I'd pick Kapil because of the longevity factor and the fact that he was the spearhead of the attack almost all his career. Botham had Willis and Snow backing him up, both of whom were fantastic fast bowlers. Add to that, both Botham and Kapil have almost similar bowling averages.

Batting: Botham > Kapil > Imran > Hadlee

Again I'll agree. Botham and Kapil were far more talented with the bat than Imran and Hadlee. Botham's problem was that he was a failure against the West Indies. But he did play some extremely impactful innings, much like Kapil did. Imran was nothing more than an average booster with the bat, I don't rate him as a batsman at all.

Straight one-one comparison is a bit tricky because Hadlee and Botham bowled more on pace friendly wickets compared to Kapil and Imran. Imran was surely a great bowler but there has been a lot of questions on Pakistani bowler's integrity throughout history - they have been accused of ball tampering on many occasions, so his stats are a bit deceptive. High quality reverse swing and ball tampering seem to go hand in hand. Like this - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/259676.html

Almost anyone who followed cricket back then will take Pak's performance at home with a pinch of salt. From blatant ball tampering to shameful biased umpiring, they did it all.

[Marut]

Pretty much. Hadlee was simply fantastic, marvelous. The guy excelled in all conditions bar Pakistan, where he played merely 4 Tests. As much as I dislike Imran Khan, the human being, even I'd have to admit he was a legendary bowler who paved the way for future great fast bowlers from Pakistan. He is the GodFather of Pakistan cricket. Between Kapil and Botham, I'd pick Kapil because of the longevity factor and the fact that he was the spearhead of the attack almost all his career. Botham had Willis and Snow backing him up, both of whom were fantastic fast bowlers. Add to that, both Botham and Kapil have almost similar bowling averages. Again I'll agree. Botham and Kapil were far more talented with the bat than Imran and Hadlee. Botham's problem was that he was a failure against the West Indies. But he did play some extremely impactful innings, much like Kapil did. Imran was nothing more than an average booster with the bat, I don't rate him as a batsman at all. Almost anyone who followed cricket back then will take Pak's performance at home with a pinch of salt. From blatant ball tampering to shameful biased umpiring, they did it all.

Bad and biased umpiring was commonplace back then (India was no saint either), but it seems WI and Pakistan were the most biased ones. It was impossible to get an LBW in your favour against Miandad in Pakistan. Though Miandad was out to LBW 33 times in his career, during his first twelve years of home umpiring, he was given LBW just once! And Miandad averaged 81 at home during the era of home umpires (before 1987), while averaging 37 away from home during the same period.

[zen]

Talking about the four great all-rounders, there is no doubt that each one was supremely talented. The key was how motivated and focused one was, and the importance one gave to numbers On one extreme, there was Kapil. In terms of raw talent, he was probably the best. In some way, he was much like Brian Lara, Whether batting or bowling, when Kapil was on song, there was no one like him. He is someone who could get out on a flat pitch for a low score, but get a 100 in difficult conditions in SA. His bowling record in Aus is simply superb. I can't imagine what his bowling stats would have been if he had played most of his games in Aus. Led Ind to a WC win as well .... However, he could not be as consistent as some of the others. Could get out to rash strokes which impacted his batting avg. There was a test series vs. Aus in India where he probably went wicket less .... What probably hurt his legacy was that he continued to play just to get that highest wkt taker record - may be because Gavaskar had the most test runs record, and he thought that an Indian should have the most test wkts record as well. However, he should have retired after the 1992 WC Imran was probably at the other extreme. He made the most of his talent. Much Like Sachin Tendulkar, he truly knew what numbers meant. When he was past his prime as a bowler, he focused on his batting. His leadership qualities were unmatched. If I am not wrong, he came out of retirement and led Pak to WC victory When it comes to giving consistent performances with both the bat and the ball at the same time, Botham was arguably ahead. He hit 14 test 100 and picked up a lot of 5-ers. And many of them happened when he was at his peak. Lost his way later on, but at his peak, there was probably the most dangerous Many will rightly say that Hadlee was the best bowler of the lot. Much like Imran, he worked on his game to be the best almost through out his career. It is hard to remember a time where Hadlee was not doing something. If I am not wrong, even in his last test series, he was awesome. Among the 4 greats, he is probably the all-rounder who performed at his peak for the longest period All the 4 all-rounders have their pros and cons, but there is no doubt that anyone of them would do justice if picked in an ATG11. Discussing such talent is like trying to discuss which is better - Audi, BMW or MB

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Talking about the four great all-rounders, there is no doubt that each one was supremely talented. The key was how motivated and focused one was, and the importance one gave to numbers On one extreme, there was Kapil. In terms of raw talent, he was probably the best. In some way, he was much like Brian Lara, Whether batting or bowling, when Kapil was on song, there was no one like him. He is someone who could get out on a flat pitch for a low score, but get a 100 in difficult conditions in SA. His bowling record in Aus is simply superb. I can't imagine what his bowling stats would have been if he had played most of his games in Aus. Led Ind to a WC win as well .... However, he could not be as consistent as some of the others. Could get out to rash strokes which impacted his batting avg. There was a test series vs. Aus in India where he probably went wicket less .... What probably hurt his legacy was that he continued to play just to get that highest wkt taker record - may be because Gavaskar had the most test runs record, and he thought that an Indian should have the most test wkts record as well. However, he should have retired after the 1992 WC Imran was probably at the other extreme. He made the most of his talent. Much Like Sachin Tendulkar, he truly knew what numbers meant. When he was past his prime as a bowler, he focused on his batting. His leadership qualities were unmatched. If I am not wrong, he came out of retirement and led Pak to WC victory When it comes to giving consistent performances with both the bat and the ball at the same time, Botham was arguably ahead. He hit 14 test 100 and picked up a lot of 5-ers. And many of them happened when he was at his peak. Lost his way later on, but at his peak, there was probably the most dangerous Many will rightly say that Hadlee was the best bowler of the lot. Much like Imran, he worked on his game to be the best almost through out his career. It is hard to remember a time where Hadlee was not doing something. If I am not wrong, even in his last test series, he was awesome. Among the 4 greats, he is probably the all-rounder who performed at his peak for the longest period All the 4 all-rounders have their pros and cons, but there is no doubt that anyone of them would do justice if picked in an ATG11. Discussing such talent is like trying to discuss which is better - Audi, BMW or MB

Errrr .... wouldn't that suit Dravid better? A batting strike rate of 42? Making sure he got good scores even if that results in a dull draw? ..... I mean batting for 2 whole days to crawl to a century? Dravid specialized in that, din't he? Even that snail like Kaliis has a better SR.

[zen]

Errrr .... wouldn't that suit Dravid better? A batting strike rate of 42? Making sure he got good scores even if that results in a dull draw? ..... I mean batting for 2 whole days to crawl to a century? Dravid specialized in that' date=' din't he? Even that snail like Kaliis has a better SR.[/quote'] Lol now let's not turn the thread in to SRT vs Dravid - and that has the potential to add a few pages to this thread

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Lol now let's not turn the thread in to SRT vs Dravid - and that has the potential to add a few pages to this thread

It's you who made the first cheap shot. Don't blame us Sachin fans.

[CSK Fan]

Seeing this thread, the topics and posters, I think I have time traveled back to 2008. How do I go back?

[zen]

It's you who made the first cheap shot. Don't blame us Sachin fans.

i said that Imran made the most of his talent and like Ten, he knew what numbers meant. Now how is knowing what numbers mean a negative :cantstop:

[HippoSucks]

I don't think Sachin or Dravid cared about the numbers in the sense rett meant. Imran focused on what he was good at. When his bowling diminished, he focused more on his batting so he can make the most of his remaining career.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Lol now let's not turn the thread in to SRT vs Dravid - and that has the potential to add a few pages to this thread

After scoring nothing in India's win in that magnificent Test win right after the Mumbai attack (thankfully he was dismissed cheaply) , he came up with this in the next Test - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/361051.html A century at an SR of 41.46 :hysterical::hysterical: Link - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/361051.html

[Bublu Bhuyan]

i said that Imran made the most of his talent and like Ten' date=' he knew what numbers meant. Now how is knowing what numbers mean a negative :cantstop:[/quote'] SRT scored at an SR of 54, compared to Dravid's snail like and selfish SR of 42 (laughable even in his own era). Not to mention an SR of 86 compared to that snail's SR of 71 in ODI matches :hysterical::hysterical:

[Marut]

Errrr .... wouldn't that suit Dravid better? A batting strike rate of 42? Making sure he got good scores even if that results in a dull draw? ..... I mean batting for 2 whole days to crawl to a century? Dravid specialized in that' date=' din't he? Even that snail like Kaliis has a better SR.[/quote'] A test match is played over five days - four innings lasting 450 overs. Basically means 112 overs per team innings. 1125 match runs are there for the taking even at 2.5 rpo. A batsman scoring a regular hundred at a strike rate of 40 is a clear winner in a test match, especially when there is balance between bat and ball. How do you think Dravid played huge roles in wins at Kolkota, Adelaide, Kingston, Rawalpindi, Leeds and so on? But for Dravid's ability to eat ball after ball, India would have lost a lot more matches thanks to our super bowling unit. Until the English tour of 2011, India had lost a single match (at Harare) where Dravid managed a ton. Dravid centuries are insurance policies against Indian losses. Test cricket is not meant to test only your attacking skills but also your skills to grind the opposition to dust. Qualities like the ability to play outside home conditions are far more important compared to strike rates. Strike rates do not mean every thing here unless it is a certain Sehwag, Gilchrist or Kapil dev with superhuman strike rates. A great defensive shot or a great leave against a 150kph delivery are as interesting to watch as a beautiful cover drive in tests.

[zen]

After scoring nothing in India's win in that magnificent Test win right after the Mumbai attack (thankfully he was dismissed cheaply) ' date=' he came up with this in the next Test - [b']http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/361051.html A century at an SR of 41.46 :hysterical::hysterical: Link - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/361051.html

SRT scored at an SR of 54' date=' compared to Dravid's snail like and selfish SR of 42 (laughable even in his own era). Not to mention an SR of 86 compared to that snail's SR of 71 in ODI matches :hysterical::hysterical:[/quote'] :facepalm:

[rkt.india]

Errrr .... wouldn't that suit Dravid better? A batting strike rate of 42? Making sure he got good scores even if that results in a dull draw? ..... I mean batting for 2 whole days to crawl to a century? Dravid specialized in that' date=' din't he? Even that snail like Kaliis has a better SR.[/quote'] Its all about natural game. You think Dravid used to do it intentionally?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

:facepalm:

Hold on Sir Jee, you need to keep in mind your hero's magnificent SR of 42 in Tests before accusing others of being selfish. Not to mention a magnificent SR of 71 in an era where that wicket keeper Gilly had an SR of 96 :hysterical::hysterical:

[Marut]

SRT scored at an SR of 54' date=' compared to Dravid's snail like and selfish SR of 42 (laughable even in his own era). Not to mention an SR of 86 compared to that snail's SR of 71 in ODI matches :hysterical::hysterical:[/quote'] You are fit to watch only ODIs. Are you suggesting that batsmen like Gavaskar and Amarnath were not good test match players?