Best ODI batsman?

[Days of Grace]

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.

Gilly scored 83 in that game.

http://content-eap.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/291370.html

 

[NZTailender]

Dire that this has descended into mathematical equations.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh, and Shoaib Akhtar as an S/R of 110 to go along with an average of 76 in World Cups.

What are Ashish Nehra's stats?







U know I put his name there for a reason.....

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Extremely interesting that you put Jayasuriya ahead of Bevan there, Burgey. Would love to hear your reasons for that... I am genuinely interested.. not some flame bait.




Plus, need to get back to talking about cricket here. That school on probability needs to be shut down..

 

[silentstriker]

Extremely interesting that you put Jayasuriya ahead of Bevan there, Burgey. Would love to hear your reasons for that... I am genuinely interested.. not some flame bait.




Plus, need to get back to talking about cricket here. That school on probability needs to be shut down..

But thinking a coin flip changes its probability based on past events is just wrong on so many levels. I can't help it.

 

[honestbharani]

But thinking a coin flip changes its probability based on past events is just wrong on so many levels. I can't help it.

hahaha... I know. But don't wanna get into anything with ret again.... Our boss will not like it.

 

[JBH001]

Dire that this has descended into mathematical equations.

Speaking of which there must be a mathematical equation that describes the probability of a CW thread on ODI batsmen descending yet again into another discussion of SRT's supposed failure in finals...

 

[Burgey]

Extremely interesting that you put Jayasuriya ahead of Bevan there, Burgey. Would love to hear your reasons for that... I am genuinely interested.. not some flame bait.




Plus, need to get back to talking about cricket here. That school on probability needs to be shut down..

HB, I didn't actually put them in any particular order for the eras, but now u mention it, despite Bevan's wonderful efforts as a finisher, it seems to me that so many ODIs are decided these days by the battles of the new ball in each innings that I'd say he's probably been of greater importance to SL than Bevan was to Australia. Not that I'm bagging Bevan in saying that.

 

[shankar]

I think Gilchrist should have been mentioned. I've gone back and forth with him and Sachin as openers. Essentially, Gilly gives you 36 runs from 37 balls and Sachin gives you 44 from 50. Sachin scores 8 runs more and Gilly saves you about 13 balls more. Very close. And Gilly was awesome when it mattered.

Sorry to respond late to this post. But this is a very simplistic comparison. Regarding the strike-rates, Tendulkar's strike-rate is affected by the fact that he bats more often in the 15+ over period where the field restrictions don't apply. Apart from this Tendulkar as an opener actually averages closer to 50. So he does what Gilchrist does in the first 15, but then goes on and constructs a big inning.

 

[honestbharani]

HB, I didn't actually put them in any particular order for the eras, but now u mention it, despite Bevan's wonderful efforts as a finisher, it seems to me that so many ODIs are decided these days by the battles of the new ball in each innings that I'd say he's probably been of greater importance to SL than Bevan was to Australia. Not that I'm bagging Bevan in saying that.

sorry.. I thought you had them in order. Anyways, it is interesting that you should think that way. For me, the role of the finisher is almost just as important as that of a top order player. Having said that, though, I still think Tendulkar comes quite ahead of Bevan. But I also think I won't think twice about putting Bevan higher than Jayasuriya as an ODI batter alone...

 

[bagapath]

top 5 ODI batsmen in won matches - only against 8 big teams.



SR Tendulkar (India) 1990-2008 156 156 21 7425 186* 55.00 8403 88.36 21 42 8
RT Ponting (Aus) 1995-2008 170 169 27 7179 141* 50.55 8674 82.76 18 45 9
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 1989-2008 160 157 9 6441 189 43.52 6706 96.04 17 35 9
DL Haynes (WI) 1978-1994 156 156 25 6359 152* 48.54 9601 66.23 16 38 9
AC Gilchrist (Aus) 1997-2008 163 159 7 6127 154 40.30 6244 98.12 14 34 7

 

[weldone]

if you understand probability like you claim then you would get a decent score if you were like the batsmen we are talking abt here .... if not then the probability of you not getting a zero at least would be high

the 'probability' here works in the same was as heads and tails in a coin .... the more heads you get, the chances of getting a tail increases

Well, to start with, Sachin is also my favourite batsman...And my post has got nothing to do with Sachin versus other players...But being a student and teacher of the subject called statistics, I know 'a bit' about probability...And I'm afraid you've got all wrong...If you knew something known as 'disjoint events', you would know that regardless of how many heads you get in the past, the probability of getting a tail still remains 0.5...not more, not less...Similarly, how you perform in finals has got nothing to do with how you perform in semis and quarters...Because they are different matches, and hence 'disjoint events'.

 

[weldone]

People are confusing "probability" with the "law of averages".

If you replace 'people' with 'ret' in this post, then yes, precisely you are correct...

 

[social]

Sorry to respond late to this post. But this is a very simplistic comparison. Regarding the strike-rates, Tendulkar's strike-rate is affected by the fact that he bats more often in the 15+ over period where the field restrictions don't apply. Apart from this Tendulkar as an opener actually averages closer to 50. So he does what Gilchrist does in the first 15, but then goes on and constructs a big inning.

Nope, Gilchrist scores far more quickly

BTW, that's the reason Viv was such a freak - strike rate over 90, averaged over 47, and had to combat field restrictions

His figures are even more startling when compared to his contemporarie - it's amazing how far ahead of the pack he was

 

[weldone]

BTW, that's the reason Viv was such a freak - strike rate over 90, averaged over 47, and had to combat field restrictions

His figures are even more startling when compared to his contemporarie - it's amazing how far ahead of the pack he was

Very very true...

 

[pasag]

Speaking of which there must be a mathematical equation that describes the probability of a CW thread on ODI batsmen descending yet again into another discussion of SRT's supposed failure in finals...

Yeah, would be a long the same lines as Godwin's Law, which I heard for the first time this week incidentally. Has many applications for CC.

 

[shankar]

Nope, Gilchrist scores far more quickly

Sachin's SR is just 10 behind Gilchrist despite playing far more innings of the type: Blast away in first 15 - Settle down and build a big inning after the 15 overs. This would suggest the difference in their strike rates within the first 15 overs is not much.

 

[social]

Sachin's SR is just 10 behind Gilchrist despite playing far more innings of the type: Blast away in first 15 - Settle down and build a big inning after the 15 overs. This would suggest the difference in their strike rates within the first 15 overs is not much.

Nope

Simple maths will tell you that, on average, if Tendy were to score at Gilly's rate for a similar size innings, the remainder of his knock would be at a s/r of around 50 to account for the difference in s/r's and averages - that simply doesnt happen very often

 

[shankar]

Nope

Simple maths will tell you that, on average, if Tendy were to score at Gilly's rate for a similar size innings, the remainder of his knock would be at a s/r of around 50 to account for the difference in s/r's and averages - that simply doesnt happen very often

Average Gilly innings is 36 off 37 balls. Taking Tendulkar's average and strike-rate as opener his average inning is 48 off 55 balls. So if he made his initial 36 runs at only a slightly slower rate taking say, 3 balls extra i.e 36 off 40 then he would make 12 extra runs off 15 balls at a SR of 80.

 

[Ikki]

That makes no sense. Why?

I explained it perfectly. I think someone who has shown his worth everywhere but maybe a few matches in once place reserves the benefit of the doubt. So I, at the least, see him as unproven - especially considering under similar circumstances (pitch, bowlers) he has done well in other places.

But if that same player has done well every single place but only has 3 matches against a certain country, I will not consider him unproven. The weight of his performances suggest that he was good enough to do so and it is not an anomaly or a questionable record.

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.

Wrong, look at the above reasoning.

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

I'm losing my patience with you. You're not usually the type to miss the point.

I am not counting Tendulkar's 1 test against him. I said I consider Tendulkar unproven - not enough chances. Whereas, Ponting is not unproven. He IS proven.

Considering their overall records and even their WC records, I can see why someone would want a version of Tendulkar that is slightly (very 1 run, 5 SR) inferior but IS proven in finals over someone who is still unproven.

Unless you think there is a further quality that Tendulkar possesses that Ponting doesn't, then it does not make sense to discount Ponting.

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.

Absolutely wrong. This is not probability or mere chance. A great player is a great player because he has the ability to perform everywhere given enough chances. It's not a matter of giving one credit where there is a small sample. Furthermore, the WC final should also be treated differently.

To get at 4 finals you have to play for at least 12 years and get to the final in each one. If Tendulkar were to go to another final and fail again, does that mean 2 finals were not enough?