Best ODI batsman?

[BhupinderSingh]

Viv Richards,was such a dominative player & has such a phenominal strike rate despite playing in an era when a strike rate of even 60/65 was considered a good one.

[Matt79]

Viv by an unbelievably narrow margin over Sachin. I'll just have both please - with Bevan, Ponting, Jones and Hussey coming in afterwards as well please.

[ret]

more on Tendulkar's match-winning ways

SRT in games won

in 206 games that Ind has won, he averages 57+ w/ 30 hundreds

batting first, averages 57+ w/ 16 hundreds in 92 games
batting 2nd, averages [you guessed it right] 57+ w/ 14 hundreds in 114 games

so another myth that he doesn't do well when batting 2nd gets busted too

[Jono]

Originally Posted by social

Look, I'm not saying that Sachin isnt a great player - he is probably the second best ever over the long haul and demands "consideration" as the best ever odi player BUT he averages 19 in games in which India were eliminated from the WC

Do these stats make Tendy a lesser player? No

However, such a massive hole in his record (and remember he has failed in 4/5 games where India has been eliminated) cannot automatically be overlooked just because he has scored 1000s of runs in far less important circumstances and particularly when others have achieved under precisely the same circumstances.

This doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Perhaps when Sachin fails, India lose (and hence eliminated?). At least for a lot of his career, definitely all the WCs before 2007.

What's Sachin's average like when India win must-win games? You know sometimes group games are must-win too right?

He didn't do too badly against Australia in two finals recently, if I recall correctly. He didn't pull a short ball off a guy who played less than 10 ODI matches on to his stumps, or straight to mid-on.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by social

Look, I'm not saying that Sachin isnt a great player - he is probably the second best ever over the long haul and demands "consideration" as the best ever odi player BUT he averages 19 in games in which India were eliminated from the WC

So basically, he's the biggest match winner ever because without him, India have no chance to advance...

[ret]

why someone like Gilly does well in the finals can be explained by probability too

in Quater-finals, he averages 29
in the semis, he averages 19
so now whats the probability of him doing well in the final? yes you got it
he averages 37

now let's take the World Cups for Gilly

in the preliminaries, he averages a poor 32
in the semis, a poorer 14!!!
so now whats the probability of him doing well in the final, [yes you again guessed it right], 86!!!


conversely, what are the chances of someone like Tendulkar, who is working like a work-horse and doing all the scoring doing well as the tourney progresses .... exactly, you guessed it right, the probability is going to go down .... But despite this he averages a phenomenal 53 in finals and in the games that India have won a mind blowing 100!! clearly, a true champ and the biggest match-winner ever to have walked on the planet

[Ikki]

You're leaving out a very important stat: SR.

Gilchrist has only played 2 quarter final matches (all tournaments) - he also strikes better than a run a ball. He's played 6 semi matches (all tournaments), but he has been poor there.

In finals he averages 37.5 and strikes at 102.6 from 33 matches.

It's really not about probability. If Tendulkar's probability of performing well drops because the pressure is on then that's a lousy argument to give, And half of Gilchrist's entire ODI career is playing prelims and he's pretty much as good as his overall record - so it's not like Gilchrist did nothing and then showed up on the final and started smashing everybody.

Essentially, Tendulkar has a very good finals record. When it comes to WCs, just less so than some others.

I'd pick Tendulkar for any other tourney but when it comes to WCs I'd pick Gilchrist. Overall, Tendulkar shades Gilchrist for me but it's not like Gilly is that far behind. Even though both were openers they were very different openers and I am sure their team strength had a lot to do with their way of batting.

[FRAZ]

Bevan won matches !

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

You're leaving out a very important stat: SR.

So what about Bevan with his Dravid-esque S/R?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

So what about Bevan with his Dravid-esque S/R?

I think I kinda answered this one:

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

For me Bevan and Viv are just above the others. Bevan is very hard to compare with. He batted much lower and his role was more of a saver than someone who would come in and start blasting away. He batted with the tail in numerous occasions and saw Australia over the line in so many matches. He was concerned with not getting out and just chipping away at the opposition at only the rate that was needed - sometimes he needed to play a few strokes and go for boundaries and he did but most often he just kept the runs ticking.

Viv needs little explanation. Everybody knows how good he was.

[Ikki]

An important stat behind that:

In games we batted first Bevan averages 52 and strikes at 80.

In games we batted second (chasing) Bevan averages 56-57 and strikes at 68.

Sounds about right to be honest.

[ret]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

You're leaving out a very important stat: SR.

Gilchrist has only played 2 quarter final matches (all tournaments) - he also strikes better than a run a ball. He's played 6 semi matches (all tournaments), but he has been poor there.

In finals he averages 37.5 and strikes at 102.6 from 33 matches.

It's really not about probability. If Tendulkar's probability of performing well drops because the pressure is on then that's a lousy argument to give, And half of Gilchrist's entire ODI career is playing prelims and he's pretty much as good as his overall record - so it's not like Gilchrist did nothing and then showed up on the final and started smashing everybody.

Essentially, Tendulkar has a very good finals record. When it comes to WCs, just less so than some others.

I'd pick Tendulkar for any other tourney but when it comes to WCs I'd pick Gilchrist. Overall, Tendulkar shades Gilchrist for me but it's not like Gilly is that far behind. Even though both were openers they were very different openers and I am sure their team strength had a lot to do with their way of batting.

dude, finals are high pressure games, so SR is not the most defining factor as 240 can be a good score .... chk out how Imran and Javed set it up in 92, how WI got bowled out chasing 180 odd and so on

in 99, Pak was bundled out for 130 odd so i don't know how much SR matters there .... in 03, the hyper-tensed Indian bowlers made it easy by feeding on batsmen's strengths

surely you can play Gilly in WCs but if a team like India swaps him for Tendulkar, it may not be in the final in the first place

again, you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Tendulkar has played in only one WC final and had to go for ball one chasing that mammoth 360

you seem to pick the points that suits you rather than looking at the overall pic, so it's difficult to take your points seriously

[ret]

Bevan wouldn't be that effective with teams with not that great bowling attack from what I have seen of him .... if you take some of his meaningless not outs away, he may avg around 35 .... the cool innings that i saw him play was one against RSA where he and Steve took the game away and one may be in the 03 WC .... can't recall more such innings

on the other hand, guys like Ten and Viv are god enough to win matches on their own

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by ret

dude, finals are high pressure games, so SR is not the most defining factor as 240 can be a good score .... chk out how Imran and Javed set it up in 92, how WI got bowled out chasing 180 odd and so on

in 99, Pak was bundled out for 130 odd so i don't know how much SR matters there .... in 03, the hyper-tensed Indian bowlers made it easy by feeding on batsmen's strengths

Whether there are times that a high SR may not be needed is not the point. You can win a ODI match without taking a wicket, doesn't make bowling SR irrelevant. The high SR means that it'll never (or less likely) to be an issue of not many balls. Where Gilly is concerned, he scores enough runs to a) put a dent into the opposition and b) save Australia a crapload of balls.

surely you can play Gilly in WCs but if a team like India swaps him for Tendulkar, it may not be in the final in the first place

I agree with you there mostly. That was kind of my point. Australia wanted Gilchrist to do that and he was deadly doing it. India on the other hand wouldn't have the luxury of making up for it if he failed like the Australian team would have due to the long list of quality batsmen.

again, you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Tendulkar has played in only one WC final and had to go for ball one chasing that mammoth 360

no wonder, it's difficult to take your points seriously

As I said before, I don't count his failure that much against him. But I do count, for example, Ponting's finals records as a plus and considering all else is pretty close I think a comparison is not unworthy.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

I'd pick Tendulkar for any other tourney but when it comes to WCs I'd pick Gilchrist. Overall, Tendulkar shades Gilchrist for me but it's not like Gilly is that far behind. Even though both were openers they were very different openers and I am sure their team strength had a lot to do with their way of batting.

I would certainly pick tendulkar first then start to even look at others. after all he has scored more runs (2804) in tournaments involving 5 or more teams, including world cup matches. he has an excellent strike rate (84) and a fantastic average (49) in multi team tournaments. i dont have remind people again that he was the leading run scorer in the 2003 WC and was the player of the tournament. chasing 350 + in a final was never going to be easy. he had to go for his shots from word go. just because he got out to 4 when ponting played out of skin in that one match doesnt mean all his world cup achievements are nullified. he was the reason india was in the finals that year. because the bowlers messed up sachin doesnt become ordinary overnight.