Your top ten ONE-DAY INTERNATIONAL batsmen of all-time

[silentstriker]

In pressure-cooker games with good opposition, no?

Yes, unfortunately, no one is in the league of Australia, so you can't make that comparison. They go into every game having the better team, and have been doing that for pretty much the entirety of Gilchrist's career.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, unfortunately, no one is in the league of Australia, so you can't make that comparison. They go into every game having the better team, and have been doing that for pretty much the entirety of Gilchrist's career.

Which is why those finals mean more. The teams they face may be worse, but they're not that inferior. You're not going to tell me in 2003 India had a poor line-up.

It's even in that, 8 runs less but striking faster that closes the gap that someone with Gilchrist's figures couldn't do AND showing up when it matters.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

5. Gilchrist (revolutionized the use of keepers in ODIs, and a phenomenal strike-rate).

Actually,its Romesh Kaluwitharana who revolutionized the use of keepers in ODIs.

 

[Sanz]

Well then, that makes Viv Richards superhuman. Not only did he outscore them he did it incredibly faster.

Which he is. The best batsman in ODIs by quite a distance, even more so considering the era he played in.

I disagree. The game has evolved to a much faster pace and I don't consider either Greenidge or Haynes good enough to bat much faster and keep that scoring. In my mind, they were slow scorers and the way I see the game, it puts too big of a question on them to assume they may have stepped up.

I just would like to ask one thing, Have you watched Greenidge play ? Regardless of what his stats are, he was a very attacking batsman with much better skills than gilchrist and highly capable of scoring at much faster rate.Haynes, I can say wasn't as attacking as Greenidge but he would have adjusted well. Not that it should matter.

All that being true, it doesn't change the fact that most of the sides are sub-par and the fact that more than 1 team goes up in each group isn't exactly a pressure cooker, nor does it compare with direct elimination against better sides, as occur in the finals.

Better Sides ? TBH Australia never faced a better side than they actually were in 2003 and 2007. And If SF/F are the only pressure cooker match situations then I must tell you Tendulkar scored more runs than Gilchrist in the SF/F in 2003. Anyways Talking PC matches, I guess this had enough pressure in it :-

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...DS/POOL-A/IND_PAK_WC2003_ODI36_01MAR2003.html

These are counting other cups, not just World Cups?

Of Course, Tendulkar played only one WC Final and if your going to beat around that then I guess as Jono said - Are we going to make the distinction on the basis of one inning ?

 

[Sanz]

Which is why those finals mean more. The teams they face may be worse, but they're not that inferior. You're not going to tell me in 2003 India had a poor line-up.

If you are talking about bowling attacks, which is what should matter anyway, then yes India had a poor line-up compared to Australia.

 

[Ikki]

Which he is. The best batsman in ODIs by quite a distance, even more so considering the era he played in.

I know, it was meant to be a bit of an over-exaggerated revelation meant to catch Richard's eye.

I just would like to ask one thing, Have you watched Greenidge play ? Regardless of what his stats are, he was a very attacking batsman with much better skills than gilchrist and highly capable of scoring at much faster rate.Haynes, I can say wasn't as attacking as Greenidge but he would have adjusted well. Not that it should matter.

Live no, tapes yes. Greenidge hit the ball firmly and was a positive batsman but wasn't a Bevan between wickets so it may have harmed his SR.

Better Sides ? TBH Australia never faced a better side than they actually were in 2003 and 2007. And If SF/F are the only pressure cooker match situations then I must tell you Tendulkar scored more runs than Gilchrist in the SF/F in 2003. Anyways Talking PC matches, I guess this had enough pressure in it :-

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...DS/POOL-A/IND_PAK_WC2003_ODI36_01MAR2003.html

2007 Australia won as comfortably as possible. But in 2003 and in 1999 Australia did not win either cup with any ease. Even if our squad was a bit better, we went through a lot of close shaves. It's not like we pummeled every team, far from that.

And I am not saying Tendulkar has never played a pressure innings or that he is a choker or anything like that. But a lot of Tendulkar's runs come in the Pot matches and against some weak. As he progresses and against harder sides and in harder times he is not as capable - well, comparatively to a Gilchrist.

He scores his runs in the group stages, Pakistan and Sri Lanka being the two good sides he does well against...and then when it hits semis and finals, apart from the Kenya game that holds his average up, it's pretty unimpressive. Every time they reach the knockout stage (happened in 3 world cups), he's not done well.

Of Course, Tendulkar played only one WC Final and if your going to beat around that then I guess as Jono said - Are we going to make the distinction on the basis of one inning ?

I'm not talking about just the WC final, but all WC finals

If you are talking about bowling attacks, which is what should matter anyway, then yes India had a poor line-up compared to Australia.

And no, I was talking about batting line-ups. I mean, it's not that India couldn't support a Sachin going for everything like Gilchrist has been.

They were good enough to beat every side but Australia. Let's give them that. They just got walloped thanks to Gilchrist and co.

 

[Sanz]

Live no, tapes yes. Greenidge hit the ball firmly and was a positive batsman but wasn't a Bevan between wickets so it may have harmed his SR.

I dont get your point here. If Greenidge was not a Bevan then neither is Gilchrist. If anything I would rate Greenidge as good as Gilly in this regard. He was a better stroke maker than Gilly and above all had a better technique, more powerful and physically gifted. I dont even understand how can one make such an assumption without seeing much.

 

[Ikki]

I dont get your point here. If Greenidge was not a Bevan then neither is Gilchrist. If anything I would rate Greenidge as good as Gilly in this regard. He was a better stroke maker than Gilly and above all had a better technique, more powerful and physically gifted. I dont even understand how can one make such an assumption without seeing much.

But I am not saying, nor ever have said, Gilchrist is a Bevan. I don't think anyone bar Richards has the capability of hitting so many balls for runs as Gilchrist did WITH that SR consistently. I was just posing a problem that may inhibit Greenidge from adjusting as well as the others (that being he wasn't much in running between wickets).

 

[ttm]

1. Richards
2. Jones
3. Abbas
4. Miandad
5. Tendulkar
6. Bevan
7. Chappell
8. Lara
9. Haynes
10. De Silva

 

[Sanz]

2007 Australia won as comfortably as possible. But in 2003 and in 1999 Australia did not win either cup with any ease. Even if our squad was a bit better, we went through a lot of close shaves. It's not like we pummeled every team, far from that.

You must be kidding, in 2003 apart from one match against England, Australia won all the matches comfortably and were the best team by quite a margin.

And I am not saying Tendulkar has never played a pressure innings or that he is a choker or anything like that. But a lot of Tendulkar's runs come in the Pot matches and against some weak. As he progresses and against harder sides and in harder times he is not as capable - well, comparatively to a Gilchrist.

That's simply not true esp in the pre-2004 Tendulkar and since then he has not played much in WC anyway. You should check his scores in 2003 WC

He scores his runs in the group stages, Pakistan and Sri Lanka being the two good sides he does well against...and then when it hits semis and finals, apart from the Kenya game that holds his average up, it's pretty unimpressive. Every time they reach the knockout stage (happened in 3 world cups), he's not done well.

Tendulkar has had only one really poor ODI finals out of the four.31, 65 and 83 were other scores, not to forget you are talking as if Pakistan and SriLanka were crap teams.

I'm not talking about just the WC final, but all WC finals

So in Grand Finals which he has played only one, averages Zero, if you include all finals increasethe match tally to 4 his average increased to 46. Kinda proves my point that had he played more, he would have succeeded more. Besides why limit it to WC finals alone ?

And no, I was talking about batting line-ups. I mean, it's not that India couldn't support a Sachin going for everything like Gilchrist has been.

If you look at 2003 WC, There was only one batsman that took India to WC finals slmost single handedly

They were good enough to beat every side but Australia. Let's give them that. They just got walloped thanks to Gilchrist and co.

I would rather say, Ponting and Co. India was in the match when Gilchrist left, they were not when Ponting was done.

 

[Sanz]

But I am not saying, nor ever have said, Gilchrist is a Bevan. I don't think anyone bar Richards has the capability of hitting so many balls for runs as Gilchrist did WITH that SR consistently. I was just posing a problem that may inhibit Greenidge from adjusting as well as the others (that being he wasn't much in running between wickets).

Neither did I say that, you are the one who brought Bevan into discussion to discredit Greenidge's batting saying he was not as good a runner as Bevan, hence his averaged would have suffered. Well it didn't affect Gilly's batting.

And you are highly exaggerating Gilchrist's ability to hit, IMO there are players in this generation that have the ability to hit the ball better than Gilly (e.g. Jaisuriya) with almost equal consistency.

Greenidge played in a different era, an era where ODI was evolving from tests and it used to 60 over game, no 15 over fielding restriction etc, hence his strike rate suffers, but to say that he was not capable 9or less capable than the likes of Gilchrist) is simply not true. He was just a much better batsman than Gilchrist in every sense.

Even players like Sunil Gavaskar who once score 36 in 60 overs had learnt to adjust to the ODIs, You will know that if you followed last phase of his career. And Greenidge was a much more attacking batsman than Gavaskar.

 

[Ikki]

Neither did I say that, you are the one who brought Bevan into discussion to discredit Greenidge's batting saying he was not as good a runner as Bevan, hence his averaged would have suffered. Well it didn't affect Gilly's batting.

I'm not saying it would affect Gilly's batting.

I am saying in order for Greenidge to improve his SR he'd have to take more risks and I don't think he is as good of hitter as the ball as Gilchrist. He also wouldn't run between wickets as well to raise his SR so I am not sure if he'd be as good as you'd suggest. And even if he would be, that is all up to conjecture.

And you are highly exaggerating Gilchrist's ability to hit, IMO there are players in this generation that have the ability to hit the ball better than Gilly (e.g. Jaisuriya) with almost equal consistency.

Not at all. In both forms of the game Gilchrist has put himself above the rest. Jayasuriya near him, but still not equal.

Greenidge played in a different era, an era where ODI was evolving from tests and it used to 60 over game, no 15 over fielding restriction etc, hence his strike rate suffers, but to say that he was not capable 9or less capable than the likes of Gilchrist) is simply not true. He was just a much better batsman than Gilchrist in every sense.

There are probably more than a few batsmen who're better in the sense of being more complete but I would not consider too many as good as striking the ball as cleanly as he.

Even players like Sunil Gavaskar who once score 36 in 60 overs had learnt to adjust to the ODIs, You will know that if you followed last phase of his career. And Greenidge was a much more attacking batsman than Gavaskar.

Maybe, but it's up to conjecture. The batsmen today that guys like Gavaskar would more likely resemble, if their era had the same batting culture, would be Hayden or Ponting. Gilchrist is a step above in terms of faster scoring.

Maybe it's a difference of opinion, but I know enough about these batsmen to know that, really, Gilchrist and Viv are much different to the rest.

 

[Dasa]

Hahaha man....Gilchrist isn't anywhere near SRT as an ODI batsman. I can't believe anyone would even try to suggest he's superior.

 

[Ikki]

Hahaha man....Gilchrist isn't anywhere near SRT as an ODI batsman. I can't believe anyone would even try to suggest he's superior.

But Bevan is... and Bevan and all his peers named Gilchrist the ODI player of all-time for Australia. I think you should email them right away and give them your two cents.

 

[Dasa]

Hmmm...Sobers is close to being, if not the, best batsman since Bradman. He called Subhash Gupte the best spinner he's seen, therefore, Gupte is the greatest spin-bowler of all time. See the problem in that logic?

 

[roseboy64]

Tendulkar
Ponting
Bevan
Richards
Ganguly
Hayden
Kallis
Sarwan
Lara
Gayle

 

[Sanz]

Hmmm...Sobers is close to being, if not the, best batsman since Bradman. He called Subhash Gupte the best spinner he's seen, therefore, Gupte is the greatest spin-bowler of all time. See the problem in that logic?

Besides..Tendulkar doesn't play for australia, so he cant possibly be elected the best aussie batsman of all time no matter how good he is.

 

[Athlai]

But Bevan is... and Bevan and all his peers named Gilchrist the ODI player of all-time for Australia. I think you should email them right away and give them your two cents.

Wasn't aware they named that solely on his batting TBH. Thought it was a mixture of his playing ethics, batting and keeping.

 

[Days of Grace]

Top Twenty List So Far:

1 Richards 184
2 Tendulkar 173
3 Ponting 117
4 Bevan 114
5 Gilchrist 83
6 Lara 67
7 Jayasuriya 60
8 Jones 58
9 M. Waugh 48
10 Inzamam 44
11 Zaheer Abbas 41
12 Ganguly 37
13 Saeed Anwar 24
14 Miandad 11
15 Hayden 9
16 Symonds 8
17 Klusener 8
18 Greenidge 8
19 C. Cairns 7
20 Crowe 7
= Haynes 7

Finally, someone voted for Kallis. Don't know why though, he's only got an average of 45 FFS

And I am surprised that no-one has voted for Hussey or Pietersen.

 

[Athlai]

Top Twenty List So Far:

1 Richards 184
2 Tendulkar 173
3 Ponting 117
4 Bevan 114
5 Gilchrist 83
6 Lara 67
7 Jayasuriya 60
8 Jones 58
9 M. Waugh 48
10 Inzamam 44
11 Zaheer Abbas 41
12 Ganguly 37
13 Saeed Anwar 24
14 Miandad 11
15 Hayden 9
16 Symonds 8
17 Klusener 8
18 Greenidge 8
19 C. Cairns 7
20 Crowe 7
= Haynes 7

Finally, someone voted for Kallis. Don't know why though, he's only got an average of 45 FFS

And I am surprised that no-one has voted for Hussey or Pietersen.

Originally had Hussey and Kallis in place of Crowe.

Came to my final decision though.