Best ODI batsman?

[Ikki]

yep, as thats what one of things that i implied that its even difficult to recollect how many match winning innings that Bevan has played on his own which is not the case with Ten and Viv

No one has the number of match winning innings of a player in memory.

I said there are a lot. It's not like centuries where they are officially counted.

Tell me, how many match winning performances did Sachin have and how many did Viv have.

 

[ret]

even though the chance of getting a head or a tail are 50:50 for every filp, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th filp after getting 3 heads in a row would be more, in my book

in the same way, if a batsmen scores 100, 100, then the chances of him getting a score less than that are more in my book and vice versa, i.e. 30, 20, then probably a big score

 

[Anil]

Who is talking about 1 game? I am talking about the whole WC. Ponting does just as well as Tendulkar in the prelims and much better after that. Tendulkar's prelim record looks much better mainly because of two sides - Namibia and Kenya.

Sehwag had to chase 360 too, he didn't get out for 4. Let's not pretend that it was impossible for Tendulkar to rack up about 40 runs at least.

no batsman is perfect, which essentially means that they will fail at some point especially in a long tournament...after doing well in almost every game in the tournament and being the prime factor(along with a surprisingly penetrative pace attack) for india's entry into the final, he failed in one match and that happened to be the final chasing a mammoth 350+...sehwag on the other hand had a much poorer tournament and did well in the final game...it's called the law of averages going to work both ways...it doesn't mean anything in terms of either tendulkar's or sehwag's relative ability/inability to handle pressure....

and as for his prelim record, apart from good games against the minnows(was he supposed to fail against them?), he played excellent knocks against sri lanka, england and pakistan and had a 36 against the aussies in the group match as well...so it was not minnow-bashing that made him the man of the tournament...

 

[Neil Pickup]

even though the chance of getting a head or a tail are 50:50 for every filp, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th filp after getting 3 heads in a row would be more

Because you don't contradict yourself in that sentence.

 

[Jamee999]

even though the chance of getting a head or a tail are 50:50 for every filp, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th filp after getting 3 heads in a row would be more, in my book

in the same way, if a batsmen scores 100, 100, then the chances of him getting a score less than that are more in my book and vice versa, i.e. 30, 20, then probably a big score

Ever heard of being in form?

 

[Prince EWS]

even though the chance of getting a head or a tail are 50:50 for every filp, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th filp after getting 3 heads in a row would be more, in my book

Burn your book Ret. It's wrong. So very very wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

even though the chance of getting a head or a tail are 50:50 for every filp, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th filp after getting 3 heads in a row would be more, in my book

Your book is mathematically impossible.

in the same way, if a batsmen scores 100, 100, then the chances of him getting a score less than that are more in my book and vice versa, i.e. 30, 20, then probably a big score

A player's form does not follow a mathematically random distribution.

 

[Ikki]

no batsman is perfect, which essentially means that they will fail at some point especially in a long tournament...after doing well in almost every game in the tournament and being the prime factor(along with a surprisingly penetrative pace attack) for india's entry into the final, he failed in one match and that happened to be the final chasing a mammoth 350+...sehwag on the other hand had a much poorer tournament and did well in the final game...it's called the law of averages going to work both ways...it doesn't mean anything in terms of either tendulkar's or sehwag's relative ability/inability to handle pressure....

and as for his prelim record, apart from good games against the minnows(was he supposed to fail against them?), he played excellent knocks against sri lanka, england and pakistan and had a 36 against the aussies in the group match as well...so it was not minnow-bashing that made him the man of the tournament...

Again, people are missing the big point here. I didn't say Sachin is a minnow basher. Sachin is one of the all-time greats and so is Ponting. With such fine margins, the reason he is ahead in the prelims the way he is are because of said teams, which really doesn't prove anything extra about the man or disprove something about Ponting.

Again, in finals (not just the final) Tendulkar has a great record along with Ponting again. However, in the final, where you may say Tendulkar is unproven, Ponting does not have that question mark.

And considering they are so close in every other aspect, I can see the argument why some would say Ponting shades Tendulkar. For people to ignore that or call the discussion of it stupid is, frankly, stupid.

If someone like SS can come and concede that Dennis Lillee may be unproven in Pakistan but Hadlee IS proven hence he is better, then it's hypocritic to disagree here.

The fact is that they're close. I'd love to hear points about other things that are important as well to other people and why they'd still rate Tendulkar ahead anyway. Just as I still rate Lillee ahead of Hadlee even if Hadlee is 'proven' and Dennis isn't.

This isn't a science here. It's more of an art.

 

[silentstriker]

If someone like SS can come and concede that Dennis Lillee may be unproven in Pakistan but Hadlee IS proven hence he is better, then it's hypocritic to disagree here.

Ah, except the sample size has to be large...the whole reason Lillee is unproven is because the sample size is 3. Either three is big enough, or it isn't. If its big enough then you have to concede Lillee was a failure. If its not, then you can't draw judgments from it wether he took ten wickets or zero. You can't have it both ways.

You know what would be crazy? If I said my only criteria for fast bowling is three Tests in Pakistan. And I'll ignore all 100 other Tests played by them. Because this is what you're doing here.

And if Hadlee did the same as Lillee everywhere AND did better than Lillee in more places, then yes he is better. If we stack up Tendulkar's and Gilchrist's records, its patently clear this is not the case and they are not close as ODI batsmen. The only reason Gilly would make my ODI all time XI is that he is a keeper, if he did not keep, he wouldn't be in there.

I don't see how this is hypocritical at all.

 

[Ikki]

Ah, except the sample size has to be large...the whole reason Lillee is unproven is because the sample size is 3. Either three is big enough, or it isn't. If its big enough then you have to concede Lillee was a failure. If its not, then you can't draw judgments from it wither he took ten wickets or zero. You can't have it both ways.

And if Hadlee did the same as Lillee everywhere AND did better than Lillee in more places, then yes he is better. If we stack up Tendulkar's and Gilchrist's records, its patently clear this is not the case and they are not close as ODI batsmen.

I don't see how this is hypocritical at all.

The problem being that you simply don't live long enough for the sample size to be that big. That's half the reason why it's more important to take your chance. Unlike tests, where there will always be another one, ODI finals are rare.

Ponting has 4 scores. 1 very great. 1 very good. 1 good and 1 not good enough.

There is a pattern there. The same for Gilchrist - except he is even more successful.

And I don't subscribe to that few tests in success should be ignored like few tests in failure.

We are talking about great players in these contexts. If player X is successful in every country but one country he plays only 3 matches it doesn't mean he is unproven for me. However, if he was unsuccessful, I wouldn't consider it such a closed case because he has been successful in so many other places. That's why you shouldn't judge them both the same way. If the same player was more sporadic and his record was less certain I'd be more in tune with you. But as aforesaid, in these contexts we are talking about great players where such records do not exist but the ones in the former example do.

 

[Ikki]

You know what would be crazy? If I said my only criteria for fast bowling is three Tests in Pakistan. And I'll ignore all 100 other Tests played by them. Because this is what you're doing here.

How am I? You keep missing the point. The rest of Ponting's career and Sachin's career are just as close. A single run and few points on SR don't make one superior over the other. But one being a better performer in the hardest and only important competition in ODI IS such a criteria.

 

[silentstriker]

And I don't subscribe to that few tests in success should be ignored like few tests in failure.

That makes no sense. Why?

We are talking about great players in these contexts. If player X is successful in every country but one country he plays only 3 matches it doesn't mean he is unproven for me.

Then you absolutely cannot say he is unproven only if he fails. Either you're unproven or not, it doesn't depend on your results.

However, if he was unsuccessful, I wouldn't consider it such a closed case because he has been successful in so many other places. That's why you shouldn't judge them both the same way. If the same player was more sporadic and his record was less certain I'd be more in tune with you. But as aforesaid, in these contexts we are talking about great players where such records do not exist but the ones in the former example do.

So ignoring 3 out of 80 tests makes sense, but that 1 out of 410 should be counted? Huh?

 

[silentstriker]

You're saying this:

I'll flip a coin and it'll be heads or tails. I predict tails. If it tails, then that means I have proof that I can control the coin flip at a better than random chance. If its heads, then it's just means its unproven whether I can predict the coin flip.

Either the sample size is big enough - or its not.

 

[Burgey]

This is a diffuclut question, more so even that say "who is the second greatest test batsman", because imo the ODI game has changed so much in so short a time. 20 or so years ago, 200 was a decent, if not very good score, now it's say 260-280.
For that reason, I'll take a soft option and split it up:

1971-1990: Richards, Haynes, Javed, D Jones
1990-present: Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Bevan
For WC finals only - Gilly.

 

[Burgey]

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

It really doesn't surprise me though, that when such a great batsman fires, his team wins.

Gilly, for example. I don't think he ever scored a ton in a match Australia lost. For the time he played, the equation was simple - if he scored runs, Australia won. Same can be said for Tendulkar, which may also have a lot to do with the fact they've opened a lot, thus giving them the time to dominate a game.

The following are his (Gillys's) stats where he scored at least 50, in terms of win-loss:

won match 1997-2008 59 59 6 4902 172 92.49 4460 109.91 16 43 0 559 100
lost match 1997-2008 12 12 0 806 92 67.16 729 110.56 0 12 0 104 12

I'm not suggesting here he is/ was a better ODI player than Tendulkar, rather that his role was vital to Australia's success, much as Tendulkar's is/ was to India's.

 

[Days of Grace]

It's interesting that some people are questioning Tendulkar's batting record under pressure and in big matches.

How soon we forget his hundred and near-hundred and allround brilliant batting in the tri-series final in February of this year, in what was perhaps India's biggest ODI success since winning the world cup in 1983.

 

[irfan]

It really doesn't surprise me though, that when such a great batsman fires, his team wins.

Gilly, for example. I don't think he ever scored a ton in a match Australia lost. For the time he played, the equation was simple - if he scored runs, Australia won. Same can be said for Tendulkar, which may also have a lot to do with the fact they've opened a lot, thus giving them the time to dominate a game.

The following are his (Gillys's) stats where he scored at least 50, in terms of win-loss:

won match 1997-2008 59 59 6 4902 172 92.49 4460 109.91 16 43 0 559 100
lost match 1997-2008 12 12 0 806 92 67.16 729 110.56 0 12 0 104 12

I'm not suggesting here he is/ was a better ODI player than Tendulkar, rather that his role was vital to Australia's success, much as Tendulkar's is/ was to India's.

Didn't he score a ton against SL in the final CB series game in which Australia collapsed and lost ? You are right tho, when Gilly fires Australia generally win. The thing is in the mid-90's, the Indian ODI team was so heavily dependent on Sachin, that his success was the barometer for the team's performance moreso than Gilchrist, whose team have always had a plethora of matchwinners.

 

[Burgey]

Didn't he score a ton against SL in the final CB series game in which Australia collapsed and lost ? You are right tho, when Gilly fires Australia generally win. The thing is in the mid-90's, the Indian ODI team was so heavily dependent on Sachin, that his success was the barometer for the team's performance moreso than Gilchrist, whose team have always had a plethora of matchwinners.

Just checked his record on Statsguru - says 16 ODI tons for 16 wins, so not sure coz that game you speak of rings a bell to me too.
I agree with your comments on the reliance factor re. Tendulkar though.

 

[silentstriker]

And also, frequently there were quite a few batting collapses around Tendulkar...less likely with Australia. E.g, if Tendulkar had Australia's middle order to work with, it would have been much better for him because they likely would have carried on to victory where India didn't. The only way to check would be to see how many unbeaten wins he had, because unless it was unbeaten, there were others who finished the job, and those others are not created equal when comparing Australia and India.

 

[Burgey]

Your book is mathematically impossible.



A player's form does not follow a mathematically random distribution.

Tell me about it.