Best ODI batsman?

[a massive zebra]

Surely not!

It's refreshing to see someone admit such a thing IMO.

People like TC express similar views and yet swear blind that there is not a hint of bias in their opinions - even getting offended when someone catches them out on their delusion.

 

[a massive zebra]

On this topic, Richards for me. A strike rate of 90 was phenomenal in his era, especially when combined with an average of 47. His 189* has to be one of the very greatest one day innings.

Tendulkar is a great player but his unrivalled number of centuries has more to do with number of matches played than any marked century making ability over Richards. Also he has often been found wanting on the big occasion and often fails to deliver when a good innings is most required.

Despite being the ultimate finisher and the owner of a 50+ average, Bevan is out of his depth in this company IMO.

 

[Swervy]

On this topic, Richards for me. A strike rate of 90 was phenomenal in his era, especially when combined with an average of 47. His 189* has to be one of the very greatest one day innings.

Tendulkar is a great player but his unrivalled number of centuries has more to do with number of matches played than any marked century making ability over Richards. Also he has often been found wanting on the big occasion and often fails to deliver when a good innings is most required.

Despite being the ultimate finisher and the owner of a 50+ average, Bevan is out of his depth in this company IMO.

sums it it very nicely for me that

 

[Jono]

Define big occasion.

 

[Jakester1288]

I voted Bevan, although Tendulkar is gun as well.

 

[Migara]

For me it's Tendulkar, because he wore the brunt of the pressure, but performed admirably.

Richards did exceptionally compared to his peers, but in his day people were just learning ODIs. Running between wickets were poor, 15 over fielding restrictions were not there (introduced in early 1980s IIRC). And there were no guys bowling reverse swinging yorkers at his toes at end of the innigs. Slower ball was not perfected at that time. Spinners were dire in quality, ni Warne, no Murali no Saqlain in ODIs (who are leaps and bounds ahead of spinners Richards played).

Bevan does not belong to that elite panel. He's lucky that bouncers were illegal during his time. Otherwise he would have averaged just 20-30. And even then on slow turning tracks, Bevan was magnficient on Aussie featherbeds, but found wanting on spinning tracks.

If some one wants to add few guys to that elite panel, Dean Jones, Martin Crowe, Inzama ul Haq and De Silva would be a good starting point. These are not as consistent as Richards or Tendulkar, but can match them stroke to stroke on their day. And These are reallly good players under the pressure, and possesed all shots in the book, and play any kind of bowling (which Bevan was unable to do)

 

[Ikki]

So you think four innings is a valid statistical sample?

For WC finals, certainly.

Completely agree. But then if he somehow sticks around and does well in the next two finals, he still wouldn't have proven anything. It's not a big enough sample sizes.

To you maybe, I however do not judge that way. If he were successful then he'd have a remarkably complete and consistent career.

If you are going to say 4 innings are enough of a statistical sample, then I hope you are consistent with it, failure or non-failure throughout everyone's career.

As long as we are talking about WC finals, then yes it certainly is.

Exactly. That's why you can't judge anything about a player based on such a rare occurrence, and especially as many players never even get that chance.

Yes, you can. If there is ever a match that player is more focused on and calls for their talent it is a WC final. I can see how one may be considered unlucky/lucky in a single innings but not 4.

Then count the World Cup. But when you start counting one game and ignoring the 30+ other games, then you have a problem. Even the entire world cup with 30+ games is barely a valid statistical sample, but at least it can mean something, unlike 1-3 game, which can never be proof of anything.

If it can't disprove anything, then it can't prove anything. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Again, that is your opinion and I simply do not subscribe to it for I have to leave my common sense floating to do it.

The second part of the above quote refers to my point successful v unsuccessful players and my judgment on whether I will give the successful one the benefit of the doubt. Certainly isn't a double-standard as you seem to be suggesting. The two players are not equal hence they do not reserve the same amount of leniency.

Anyway, we are going in circles here. You think three-four games is enough if they succeed (due to extrapolation), but not enough to judge if they don't. I think that makes no sense. I doubt you can convince me otherwise and I am clearly not convincing you otherwise either, so I'll just leave it at that.

As I explained before:

Great players are more likely to succeed so even if against one opponent there are 3 matches and he succeeds, it leaves little question because he has been successful everywhere else. Had it been just a regular player with a patchy record, then yes, 3 matches leaves more questions.

Great players, however, are more likely to fail one after another if the matches they play are few. So if they do fail 3-4 innings in a row should not damn them. Although for this kind of player it is less likely to happen, it is bound to happen once in their career. However, a great player would never be a great player if his career was based on 3-4 innings of luck because with enough innings his record would be patchy everywhere.

EDIT: As an example, I'm going to use Garner and Lillee. Lillee and Garner played the same number of tests in Pakistan - 3. According to you, Garner (bowling average of 19-odd) would be proven there and Lillee would not. I think they are both unproven as the sample size isn't big enough - the specific circumstances in the two cases could be widely different and there is too much varience. I would say after five or six tests (preferably over multiple tours) you'd get more reliability and start to come to a conclusion, and after 7-8 (over more than one, preferably more than two tours) you can start to be fairly confident. Now, I'm definitely done.

It's not a matter of being completely proven. But yes, one is moreso than the other, certainly.

 

[Ikki]

The amount of crap witten about Sachin by his fans is truly amazing

A year ago, he was gone.

Obviously, this was nonsense

Now that he is back in favour, people are trying to justify their position by going to such extremes as trying to disprove the laws of probability.

Again, this is nonsense

The bottom line is that he is a magnificent player with a magnificent record

However, we have been asked to decide the best ODI player ever and he has a big hole in his record - no WC wins (not his fault) and failures when it really mattered in the only ODI tournament that counts (I can say that because Oz has won 4)

Compounding this problem is the fact that guys like IVA have BETTER records and performed when it mattered

For me, it's a simple answer

Yes, that's simply true. Ponting himself is in striking distance of Tendulkar and does have a better record when it mattered.

Again, don't take this as Ponting > Tendulkar. But people are denigrating the simple mention of comparison and it's unreasonable IMO.

 

[Ikki]

The point there is that Tendulkar's average when opening is 48+ - 4 more than his career average.

Yes, that is a fact but it has nothing to do with the SR, which you were talking about.

It's simple: Tendulkar's contribution can be broken down into 37 off say 40 - slightly slower than Gilchrist + 11 off 14. Ponting's average inning is 44 off about 55. So the additional contribution of Sachin is the same rate as Ponting (SR: 80) and 1/4th of his runs. So he actually almost equals Gilchrist's contribution and then goes on to make an additional contribution of 1/4th of an average Ponting inning.

You just said it: he almost does it. But he doesn't and the more balls you consider faced the further it gets.

As I said, they are two completely different openers that had completely different roles. Although it is a different format, Gilchrist's Test record is an average of 47 with an SR of 81. It shows he could have stepped down a notch and got more runs and still would have been fast. The fact is he was given license to up the tempo because the rest of the team could facilitate it. Whenever he did get going, it was an almost guaranteed win. That's the difference, that is why he was voted our best ODI player ever.

I don't see how you call it 'not a terribly big feat'. The point your mopping over with this analysis is that a wicket is saved i.e. while Ponting + Gilchrist would make 48/1 off 55 balls, Tendulkar saves a wicket and does the same.

I expect a Tailender to contribute 10-11 runs, and Gilchrist gives such a tailender the ability to score those runs in the SR of 70s with the way he strikes. So it's not a terribly big feat. What it does do is give the rest of the team the opportunity to score even more runs off the balls he faced - something Australia did more often than not and the reasoning behind Gilchrist's approach.

Of course the benefit of an additional wicket is obvious. The other batsmen can play quicker in these additional 11 balls because of having an extra wicket in hand. This would also mean that you can afford to play a pinch hitter who averages just 30 in place of a slower batsman who averages 41. Or you could play an extra all-rounder instead of a proper batsman.

Sorry, that does not translate into the other batter getting to play quicker at all. It's too reliant on the circumstances of the game.

 

[biased indian]

Yes, that's simply true. Ponting himself is in striking distance of Tendulkar and does have a better record when it mattered.

Again, don't take this as Ponting > Tendulkar. But people are denigrating the simple mention of comparison and it's unreasonable IMO.

in what runs ?? Centuries ???

 

[Ikki]

in what runs ?? Centuries ???

In their overall career record.

 

[shankar]

You just said it: he almost does it. But he doesn't and the more balls you consider faced the further it gets.

Err... It's 2 balls extra for 11 extra runs!

As I said, they are two completely different openers that had completely different roles. Although it is a different format, Gilchrist's Test record is an average of 47 with an SR of 81. It shows he could have stepped down a notch and got more runs and still would have been fast. The fact is he was given license to up the tempo because the rest of the team could facilitate it. Whenever he did get going, it was an almost guaranteed win. That's the difference, that is why he was voted our best ODI player ever.

That's all fine. But we can only judge players on what they've actually done.

I expect a Tailender to contribute 10-11 runs, and Gilchrist gives such a tailender the ability to score those runs in the SR of 70s with the way he strikes. So it's not a terribly big feat. What it does do is give the rest of the team the opportunity to score even more runs off the balls he faced - something Australia did more often than not and the reasoning behind Gilchrist's approach.

I've shown that the advantage that Gilchrist gets is just 2 balls extra. Not enough for the tail-ender to score those 11 runs.

Sorry, that does not translate into the other batter getting to play quicker at all. It's too reliant on the circumstances of the game.

Haha are you joking? While it obviously changes from game to game On average more wickets in hand = More risks allowed = greater run-rate.

 

[Sanz]

In their overall career record.

Overall reacord and Ponting Close to Tendulkar ?

26 Centuries Vs. 42 Centuries, 63 50s Vs. 89 50s.

11000 Runs Vs. 16000 Runs.

That's right very close.

 

[Sanz]

It's not a matter of being completely proven. But yes, one is moreso than the other, certainly.

So Garner better bowler than Lillee then ?

 

[PhoenixFire]

In ODIs, yes.

 

[Sanz]

In ODIs, yes.

Clue :- Both Garner and Lillee played 3 tests in Pakistan.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Fair enough, I only read that post

I agree with Manan though.

 

[Ikki]

Overall reacord and Ponting Close to Tendulkar ?

26 Centuries Vs. 42 Centuries, 63 50s Vs. 89 50s.

11000 Runs Vs. 16000 Runs.

That's right very close.

The stats you provide have little to do with superiority but simply the weight of the number of matches Tendulkar has played Vs. Ponting. Almost like me saying: Ponting has won 3 WCs, Tendulkar has 0.

 

[Ikki]

So Garner better bowler than Lillee then ?

If someone considered them equal and that was the only thing separating them, sure. I personally see Lillee better for a whole host of reasons, and based on that record it would not change my mind. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Sanz]

The stats you provide have little to do with superiority but simply the weight of the number of matches Tendulkar has played Vs. Ponting.

As if playing those many matches and staying consistent is that easy. Ponting is at the peak of his career, Tendulkar is supposedly over that peak and despite that Ponting averages less, and has much worse strike rate compared to SRT.

Not to forget that fact that Tendulkar's ODI career is defined by his success as an opener where he averages a Whopping 48.16 with a strike rate of 87.38, 38 100s, 68 50s in 298 matches. (Ironically 298 is the no. of ODI matches Ponting has played in).

Even if you ignore the fact above(SRT's ODI performance as an opener) and the take the overall record, you will notice that he has a higher SR than Ponting and a higher average. SRT is the better batsman quite easily, if you consider the two together (which you have been ignoring in this debate, but bring up as soon as we mention Gilchrist)

SRT has more match winning 100s (30 in 208) compared to Ponting (22 in 213). He averages 57 compared to Ponting's 50.

Almost like me saying: Ponting has won 3 WCs, Tendulkar has 0.

Isn't what you have been saying in pretty much all your posts in this thread ?