View Poll Results: Who is the best ODI batsman of all time?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sachin Tendulkar

    29 43.94%
  • Sir Vivian Richards

    19 28.79%
  • Michael Bevan

    15 22.73%
  • Ashish Nehra

    3 4.55%
Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 391 to 400 of 400

Thread: Best ODI batsman?

  1. #391
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    Haha, okay then let's do the match:

    289-254 = 35 matches where he lasted long enough.

    His career 100/inning record: 9%. 9% of 35 = 3.15 centuries...wow, coincidence.
    The only coincidence I could see here is that he played for a better team.

  2. #392
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    And your complete turn around.
    Where was the turnaround? I am starting to believe that it's not a reading comprehension problem but an optical one. See an optometrist.


    No, it doesn't make Hayden better, it never will. Dont even know the significance of this, it smacks of your inability to make a case for Ponting as good as Tendulkar., Hence jumping from Imran, to Akram to Hadlee to Mcgrath and now to Sobers. No wonder you are not talking about Hadlee/Mcgrath example. You were simply owned ther.
    Haha, look at you squirm. I put the SAME criteria for your favourites and they fall flat on their face. But the same criteria SHOULD go for Ponting and Tendulkar because it happens to make Tendulkar's case stronger. What a biased git.

    You said Tendulkar makes more 100s per inning so he is better than Ponting.

    Hayden also makes more 100s per inning than Sachin so using your OWN criteria he is better. Thank you, when we discuss said players in somewhere else I'll be sure to note down that you consider both Wasim and Hayden superior to Imran and Tendulkar, respectively.

    Only person who has been guessing is You. You are the one who has been saying that the only reason SRT has more runs and 100s because he has played more. So why does he have better Strike Rare ? (See I can add smiles too)
    I am saying the only significance in the difference between Ponting's total runs and Tendulkar's is that Tendulkar has played more innings hence he will have more aggregate runs - even if he had a lower average.

    This is exactly like saying Tendulkar > Bradman because Tendulkar has 11782 runs and Bradman has 6996. Yes, I know you sound silly.

    Beside I have clearly demonstrated that equal no. of ODIs SRT had 7 more 100s than Ponting.
    You proved nothing. Hayden also has more centuries than Sobers having played the same amount of tests. Doesn't make Hayden better than Sobers. Nor does it mean Sobers would start to perform worse off had he played the same amount of Tests as Hayden - because that was a part of your disgraceful diatribe that if Ponting plays more he WILL lose his form. Guesswork, anyone?

    What a disgrace of the logic the above is, another one of your attempts to denigrate the great bowler. Kapil didn't have much competition either, why wasn't he as prolific. Hadlee took all those wickets because he was that good. He would have taken those wickets.
    Ahh yes. But Kapil is not in the same league as Hadlee. He concedes many many more runs than Hadlee and also takes many more balls to dismiss a victim. So their ratios do not match for the comparison for 5/fers 10/fers to take shape. Murali also takes more 5/fers and 10/fers than anyone else. But that doesn't make him better than Lillee or Hadlee or McGrath. It's a simple by-product of playing in a team with no wicket-taking competition.

    That's why you only judge him by his average/sr/er. Otherwise he is 4-5 times the bowler everybody else is. LOL

    Anyways, shattering another one your myths that Mcgrath didn't take those 5ers/10ers because he had competition from another prolific wicket taker i.e. Shane Warne. Pigeon's 26 5ers(out of 29) and 2 10ers (out of 3) have come when he played with Warne.
    You don't shatter anything except my windows with my laughter.

    McGrath DID take 5fers and 10fers but relatively less than a whole lot of other bowlers like Waqar or Botham because Warne was on the end taking more. It doesn't make Waqar or Botham better than McGrath - the kind of reasoning you are bringing.

    Please tell me how you got the SR of SRT in tests. No SRT has been over the hill in the longer format of the game for last 4 years. Ponting is at his peak. Once again you dont get the point. In any case you continue to prove my point about crapping all over when you dont have much to say. Tendulkar was a legend before he played a single test match, ponting was a drunkard until 2000. That's the difference between the two. One is genius and a gentleman, the other is a genius and a crackpot.
    This is why I love discussing things with you. You eventually argue MY point for ME. So you CAN'T simply judge by a few points on average or a few SR points alone. You said previously even a FRACTION ahead means one is a legend and the other is a silver-medalist.

    So yeah, I think when you stare in the mirror say hi to the crackpot.


    It does. Tendulkar will score more runs at a faster rate, hence better Statistically.
    LOL, and Waqar Younis is statistically better than Dennis Lillee. Your point?

    Imran Khan also takes wickets cheaper and faster than Wasim? Your point?


    He did not ? Are you blind or have you been away from the earth since 2004 ? Tendulkar Since 2004 has scored only 5 100s in 96 games and particularly struggled in 2004 and 2005. Yes Ponting's performance past his peak is not known yet, although I am sensing that it is closer now.
    Well, either you love to guess or you have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. Regardless, I couldn't care less how you think Ponting will do. I only care what Ponting has done.

    And Tendulkar, what a trough... average falling from 44 to 42. Shameless.


    The reason that Tendulkar has played more matches is because he has been able to contribute at a decent rate despite not being able to contribute those big 100s.
    Uh, that makes 0 sense and has nothing to do with what I am saying. My point was that you can't even make the argument that Ponting won't do as well as Tendulkar because of the amount of ODIs Tendulkar has played in the almost 20 decade career. Because Tendulkar averages about 22 ODIs a year: the same as Ponting.


    Once again, only guess work that is being done here is by you, claiming that Ponting will make as many runs and centuries as SRT if he played as many matches. It has been shown enough times that in 298 matches Ponting had less runs, less 100s, lesser SR.
    Nope, all the guessing is done with you. You are saying Ponting would do worse which is a guess. I am saying Ponting will do as he has been doing. Whether that means 1-2% less 100s per innings than Tendulkar and 1 run and 1 less ball difference to Tendulkar doesn't matter. It is too close to make a choice either way. I only care about ratios here. Tendulkar averages 44 and Ponting averages 43. No matter how many matches they play based on these averages, Tendulkar will always score more runs. The contention is that the difference is so small it doesn't make a difference and does not shift the argument either way. It doesn't make one a legend and the other a silver-medalist.


    Hayden as good as he is, isn't good enough to wipe Tendulkar's shoes. Even at his peak, he is averaging less than SRT. Case closed. Not even considering any other argument.
    Hahahaha, WHAT a cop out. Do I see someone putting their tail between their legs?

    YOU said that a player with a higher proportion of 100s is better than the one with a lower proportion of 100s. Hence Hayden > Tendulkar by that SHODDY logic. Thank you and come again.


    There you go again, putting words in my mouth. SRT has clearly been over the hill but has still been able to maintain the average in ODIs. That's the reason why he is so much better than the likes of Ponting, who are yet to see the fall of their caree.
    Average is all that matters. If he is able to keep the average then it doesn't make a difference whether he is scoring less 100s per inning. I'd rather a player who scores 40,40,40 than one that scores 0,0,120. Same average and one has a century. It's only you who insists on this silly detail.

    And ? Already explained how that argument works in favor of SRT.
    No, you've picked at your bum fluff but it's still nothing but bum fluff.

    This is Hillarious really, considering that of those 112, 41 innings have been 5 or lower down the order. You are really worse than

    @ no. 4 SRT has batte in 61 innings, has 4 100s. Compared to Ponting's 1 100 in 17 games, once again Tendulkar scores 1 every 15, Ponting 1 in 17.

    Between No.s 5-7 SRT has played 41 matches and scored 5 50s as opposed to Ponting who has none in 12 matches played. Clearly more prolific batting down the order as well.
    LOL! There you go again! You and your reading!

    EVEN if Tendulkar scores 1/15 it doesn't make a difference because the entire point was that 19% of Ponting's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century whereas a fat 0% of Tendulkar's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century (him not being an opener obviously, like Ponting). The fact that it's so hard to score 2 centuries within the same inning yet Ponting has managed to do it 5/26 times makes it a greater feat.

    Go read it again .


    Once again, you do not understand simple logic and hence another incorrect analogy. Bradman doesn't have a lower average than SRT in Tests.
    See, again, proving MY point FOR me. I love this.

    Yes, I know the average is important so aggregate runs don't mean squat. That's my point: Tendulkar 44, Ponting 43. And you said Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. If this is an April fool's joke you're 2 months late mate!

    Ponting who doesn't match Tendulkar at his peak isn't likely to match him at the end of his career in pretty much any category as an ODI batsman.
    Ponting averages 45 and strikes at 85 since 2004. He doesn't have to meet Tendulkar's peak. He just has to continue doing what he is doing.

    His speed and his wicket keeping ability makes him a good bargain, otherwise he is just another ODI batsman. Purely as an opener, he is not even comparable to the likes of Mark Waugh, who was much superior player.
    Yes, his run making ability is ordinary, his speed is absolutely awesome. No one can hold that run-making ability, speed and do it so often. His whole job as an opener was to do this. You can't compare him to someone like Mark Waugh who was not asked the same of Gilchrist. And even though he wasn't, he scored on average 2 runs more and took 20 balls more to do it. Gilchrist is on a different level.

    I dont care what you care. Gilchrist isn't better than SRT just because he scores his runs faster. Gilchrist is a good value as a batsman because of his wicket keeping skills. As a batsman alone he wouldn't have found a place in the Aussie XI.
    Er, Wrong. Gilchrist would walk into an Aussie XI simply because of his batting. He was voted best ever, not because he is simply a great wicketkeeper.

    And no one said Gilchrist is better - in fact, if you actually READ what I post I said I would take Tendulkar over Gilchrist. BUT I said because they play such different roles that you can't compare them on a run by run, ball by ball basis. Gilchrist is a great at what he does and Tendulkar is a great at what he does. Tendulkar and Gilchrist are as different to Bevan and Richards.

    Nonsense. There are only 10 wickets to lose, but there are 300 balls to score off. If you miss one ball no big deal, you have the chance to score at least 6 runs off the next ball.
    Wrong. 10 wickets don't need to be taken by the bowling side. But they HAVE to bowl 300 balls.

    Yeah, this is a direct referral to when he scores a century. Not just a 60 or an 80.


    No relevance to this discussion.
    Haha, what? Is that another cop-out? It is harder to score 47 runs on average striking at 80 in Tests than it is in ODIs.


    Ponting will never be able to overtake SRT in ODIs. Neither in runs, nor in 100s. You heard it here first.
    Neither will Richards. Doesn't make Viv worse. Your arguments are of such a poor standard I feel like I am talking to a different Sanz. Do you have a kid that sometimes pops on your username?

    And overall SRT comes out on TOP in every category.
    When the margin is 1 run more or 1 ball less or 1-2% difference in 100s/innings it doesn't matter. But where it does matter, is that one player 3/4 times led well in a WC final and Tendulkar is still unproven.

    That is the height of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to 'He gets less chances to score runs, 100s etc' logic ? Because If any batsman who can rightfully claim that he had to wait for his turn to bat, it would be him. SRT+ SG have 64 100s among them. Not to forget the fact that he was asked to keep wickets, asked to open, was treated like a bastard child of Indian cricket (in ODIs) and still scored 10500 runs and he is not fit enough to lave Ponting's boots and you claim that Gilchrist, Ponting etc are as good as SRT ?
    You seem to have no clue about proportions. Even I said:

    Tendulkar does not have this problem because he opens. Whether batsmen coming after him are capable too does not matter: he is going to be in there with them with enough time. Granted, there is not such a great difference because Ponting can still make the centuries (as he obviously has) but not to the same degree as Tendulkar which would go someway to explain their difference.

    What I am talking about 100s is a difference of 3 hundreds over almost 300 ODIs.

    Dravid is simply not in the same league. Not average wise and not SR wise. I don't care that he is inferior, but he is not even in the same league as ODI players.

    And the only way it would make sense is if BOTH Ganguly and Tendulkar made centuries. That's how far behind he is. He is not behind like Ponting's 3, Dravid needs 19 centuries to equal the same proportion. It's not even in the same realm. In fact, Ganguly himself only has a slightly better 100/inning record than Dravid and there are only 57 100s between Ganguly and Tendulkar as openers.


    You have no moral right to make that argument after the Garbage you posted about Dravid's ODI career.


    Once again, you have lost the moral right to make that argument.
    Sure, I don't. 3 centuries vs 19. You keep that tail down there.


    Ponting will never be able to catch up SRT in no. of ODI 100s or Total no. of runs scored. He will never be able to match his SR either.
    Ok Richard.


    I am standing tall. May be you should check where your head is.
    Sure you are. Remember, Innings only. Not matches .

    If I were biased I would have voted for SRT, you on the other voted for the Aussie and want other aussies to be considered as good as them when they simple aren't. SRT isn't even my favorite Indian player.
    Wrong. You are biased for saying that Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. Say he is better but the garbage that you've put forth should never be uttered by anyone who considers himself unbiased.

    You would really have to be pulling out all the stops to argue that Tendulkar is better than Richards. Thankfully, you're not that far gone.

    As for bringing Imran and Akram again in this discussion- You demonstrate that you have lost the argument.
    Yeh, I demonstrated your own logic goes against your own opinion.

    You think Wasim > Imran and Tendulkar > Ponting. The Tendulkar bit because he is 1 run more and 1 ball faster. Yet even though Wasim is inferior in both average and SR you still vote for him ahead of Imran.

    A round of applause for the consistency.


    I consider Wasim better than Imran and logically there can't be a fair statistical comparison, but if at all we are going to do that Imran will come out on top.

    That said, the only reason I am quoting Statistics is to put you in your place. You have been harping about statistics far too long and this time I just thought of shoving the stats up yours.
    Otherwise I am never one to look for stats when stating my opinion about players.
    Er, WRONG. I never said Ponting is better or even worse than Tendulkar. Check the thread. I said they are CLOSE. You said they aren't even CLOSE.

    I also said I can see someone picking another player for non-statistical reasons - like I did Lillee - and that is where the discussion began.

    You see, if you actually read and pay attention, you wouldn't have to put your tail between your legs.

    Yes, watching Tendulkar is much more pleasing than watching Gilchrist or Ponting.
    Tendulkar is especially pleasing to watch in a World Cup final.


    Once again you have got it wrong. I did not quote VB finals stats, I quoted GRAND FINALS stats which includes all the Grand Finals SRT and Ponting have plaeyed in. SRT clearly own Ponting in that category.
    LOL, once again YOU have it wrong. This is unbelievable, I think you are partially blind. I don't accept that someone can misread something so many times.

    When I quoted you regarding VB finals, I WAS referring to the grand final. Hence, my Carling Cup/Champions League finals example. They're grand finals.


    You are picking and choosing.

    A final is a final is a final. VB finals may not have as much appeal as the WC finals, yet it is a final and that is a fact.
    Picking and choosing would be me saying VB finals don't count but CB finals did. I say neither are in the same realm as a WC final. The argument isn't about "appeal" it is about pressure, it is about difficulty. No VB final has carrier pressure enough to compare it with a final of a tournament that comes every 4 years and is the pinnacle of ODIs.

    Give it a break, get some rest. You're making less and less sense as this goes on.
    Last edited by Ikki; 03-06-2008 at 10:36 AM.
    ★★★★★

  3. #393
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    This is the problem with your model. You are assuming everybody else will behave as their averages do despite the difference in input (opener).
    I'm not assuming the above at all. I'm saying - "Yes everybody else will have bat differently if the opener changes. The question is - Is the new requirement beyond their reach or is it less than their usual output?"

    You say - It's just 11 runs off 17 balls so it's easy based on the fact that 11/17 is ~65%. But this math is erroneous. For example let's say Ponting's share of this extra comes to 1 run off 1.5 deliveries. Ponting's usual inning is say, 44 off 55 deliveries. The type of analysis that you've done would say - "1 off 1.5 comes to just ~67%. Since Ponting's SR is 80, he should easily be capable of the above". The error here is that it's not 1/1.5 that's important. It's 1 extra run for 1.5 extra balls. So the question is whether Ponting can average 45 if he is allowed 56.5 deliveries i.e. a SR of 79.65. So the depreciation in SR allowed is just 0.35 for an average increase of 1. So the question is not as easy to answer as thought before.

    But that's the whole point: you are not finding an equivalent. It may be harder for a SINGLE Ponting to raise his average 11 points but that is given he faces 17 more balls. His own average is 43 so the likelihood of him doing it himself, is less. However, and fortunately, there are 9 other wickets to distribute the runs 11 runs and 17 balls. As I said before, by this measure you would rather a batsman that scores 5 more runs despite taking 30 more balls to do it because it seems Ponting is less likely to raise his career average by 5.

    You said: For example if a batsman averages 42 with a SR of 75, you could say that maybe if had batted at a SR of 70 he could have averaged 43

    That's pretty much the point. Every other batsmen could raise their average by 1 or 1.5 LOL points and will get the ability to reduce their SR. A batsman who is asked to score 1 or 2 runs more given 3-4 balls is a much likelier occurrence then all the difference being made up on 1 batsman.
    You are confusing my method with yours. I'm not talking about making up any diffrence. I'm just finding a line-up which has an equal in output to the following:

    A

    Tendulkar 48(54)
    Hayden ...(...)
    Ponting 44(55)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    I put forward that a line-up which is equivalent in output to the above is

    B

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    SomeGuy 55(71)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    Simple question: Is B an equivalent line-up in terms of total final output to A or not? If not, why?

    Of course, one can find other equivalent line-ups as well. But I'm just saying B is one such example of an equivalent line-up.
    Last edited by shankar; 03-06-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  4. #394
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    The only coincidence I could see here is that he played for a better team.
    Haha, what? Is that tail dropping down again? You were arguing that being in a strong side restricts run scoring. So, pick your argument and stick to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    And ?? Tendulkar has only 3 or 4 while opening with Ganguly and when Ganguly also scored a 100. 3/4 out of 25 Vs. 5 out of 26. So who has the advantage here ? Needless to mention that SRT used to be more prolific(when he opened with Sourav i.e. at his peak ) as well as faster and still hasn't had that advantage that seem to be claimed by you.
    LOL, sorry again that I have to point out the difference. Whilst Ganguly is out in the middle, Tendulkar is THERE too. And even IF you wanted to count it the same way it is 3/42 centuries compared to 5/26 for Ponting.

    And if you wanted to argue the above, you'd have to suspend the fact that Ponting had a much better team around him taking more 100 opportunities than Tendulkar's teammates would take off him. That's how...unintelligent that reply is.

    I am not attributing anything besides clearing the myth that 'Ponting has to wait when Gilly/Hayden' are around. If that is so then how come he has scored more centuries with them in the team. When Giilly and Hayden have not played, Ponting has 2 100s in 40 ODIs, when they have played Ponting has 15 in 110 innings. How can one be more clear to you ? You are in consistent denial here.
    LOL, because you are arguing that just because they are on the pitch they are helping him score 100s. This just goes against the logic in the above quote where you are trying to say that teammates stop you from taking 100s. De nile is a riva!

    And Yes, Ponting doesn't have to bat under that much pressure when Hayden and Gilchrist are there, one is scoring fast while the other is grafting.Obviously it helps him. Ponting without Hayden/Gilly Averages < 30 with SR <70. Whereas when he has Gilly and Hayden in the team His average goes up to 49 and SR close to 85.
    Considering one sample contains 249 innings and the other only 40 I can see why you're so deadly right.

    Are you going to argue that Gilly/Hayden Presence doesn't help Ponting's batting in ODIs ?
    When Ponting isn't with McGrath he also averages 46 and he averages 41 when McGrath is there. So by that we can deduce that Ponting only did well when McGrath wasn't there.
    Last edited by Ikki; 03-06-2008 at 10:18 AM.


  5. #395
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Not really on topic as such, but they've just showed this innings from Greg Chappell in the Test match break. A real stunner.
    They've just shown this innings of 127* from Border against Garner, Holding and Marshall. Incredible ODI knock against brilliant bowlers. Garner looked unplayable.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  6. #396
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by shankar View Post
    I'm not assuming the above at all. I'm saying - "Yes everybody else will have bat differently if the opener changes. The question is - Is the new requirement beyond their reach or is it less than their usual output?"

    You say - It's just 11 runs off 17 balls so it's easy based on the fact that 11/17 is ~65%. But this math is erroneous. For example let's say Ponting's share of this extra comes to 1 run off 1.5 deliveries. Ponting's usual inning is say, 44 off 55 deliveries. The type of analysis that you've done would say - "1 off 1.5 comes to just ~67%. Since Ponting's SR is 80, he should easily be capable of the above". The error here is that it's not 1/1.5 that's important. It's 1 extra run for 1.5 extra balls. So the question is whether Ponting can average 45 if he is allowed 56.5 deliveries i.e. a SR of 79.65. So the depreciation in SR allowed is just 0.35 for an average increase of 1. So the question is not as easy to answer as thought before.
    I understand what you are saying, but the answer is essentially the same.


    You are confusing my method with yours. I'm not talking about making up any diffrence. I'm just finding a line-up which has an equal in output to the following:

    A

    Tendulkar 48(54)
    Hayden ...(...)
    Ponting 44(55)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    I put forward that a line-up which is equivalent in output to the above is

    B

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    SomeGuy 55(71)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    Simple question: Is B an equivalent line-up in terms of total output to A or not? If not, why?

    Of course, one can find other equivalent line-ups as well. But I'm just saying B is one such example of an equivalent line-up.
    You seriously have to ask? If you are asking are they equivalent line-ups: then yes they are. Because the teams are still scoring the same amount of runs with the same amount of balls.

  7. #397
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    I understand what you are saying, but the answer is essentially the same.
    All you've done is reduced the question to 'it's easy to score 1 or 2 extra runs if extra balls are available' which doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. You haven't given any convincing reason as to why such a thing is possible in mathematical terms. But I'm tired of going over this repeatedly. So let's leave it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    You seriously have to ask? If you are asking are they equivalent line-ups: then yes they are. Because the teams are still scoring the same amount of runs with the same amount of balls.
    Thank you.

    So now what you've said so far is that this line-up B:

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    SomeGuy 55(71)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    is inferior to line-up C which is:

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    Ponting 44(55)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    Between B and C, the only difference is batsman no.3. That is if Ponting woke-up tomorrow and became a batsman averaging 55 at a SR of 77.5, it would be detrimental to Australia.

  8. #398
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by shankar View Post
    All you've done is reduced the question to 'it's easy to score 1 or 2 extra runs if extra balls are available' which doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. You haven't given any convincing reason as to why such a thing is possible in mathematical terms. But I'm tired of going over this repeatedly. So let's leave it here.
    How do I illustrate it more mathematically than: 11 runs are needed at a minimum of 65. 65 is a very low SR. The average SR of all batsmen, including even tailenders, is around 70. You can score those runs at even slower than the average of all batsman and if you do it slightly faster you will actually win. That's what it comes down to. Maybe I am not as mathematically accomplished as you but that's logically it.


    Thank you.

    So now what you've said so far is that this line-up B:

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    SomeGuy 55(71)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    is inferior to line-up C which is:

    Gilchrist 37(38)
    Hayden ...(...)
    Ponting 44(55)
    Clarke ...(...)
    etc...

    Between B and C, the only difference is batsman no.3. That is if Ponting woke-up tomorrow and became a batsman averaging 55 at a SR of 77.5, it would be detrimental to Australia.
    Wrong, it is not inferior. There is a matter of 17 balls left to play - that is the difference between the two sides. This is what the comparison hinges on: will/can the rest make up 11 runs in the 17 balls left to play. ODIs do not just end with wickets but with balls. They end more because balls finish than wickets do. Whether 11 runs will be made up is not even the concern here, but there ARE 17 balls left to face. So if they do make the 11 runs off 17 balls then they've essentially negated Tendulkar's runs and made it equal. If they score even more THEN they are superior. So if Ponting were to score those extra runs with those extra balls (him waking up) it would merely make his side equal to Tendulkar's.

    What has often happened is that not only do Australia make up those runs, that Gilchrist doesn't make because he scores less than Tendulkar, but they often score more because they are given more time. Sometimes the other batsmen will score more and at higher than the needed SR of 64. This turns the deficit into a positive.

    In the end, I am not sure what you're trying to prove? Is Tendulkar > Gilchrist, is Gilchrist > Tendulkar? Is it a large difference? What?
    Last edited by Ikki; 03-06-2008 at 11:25 AM.

  9. #399
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    You said Tendulkar makes more 100s per inning so he is better than Ponting.
    Tendulkar makes more 100s, faster, more runs, so statistically he is better in pretty much all categories. People generally consider a lot of things apart from Statistics when they evaluate players. You are the one who brought Stats ino this argument. So here you go, Stats getting shoved to you.

    Hayden also makes more 100s per inning than Sachin so using your OWN criteria he is better. Thank you, when we discuss said players in somewhere else I'll be sure to note down that you consider both Wasim and Hayden superior to Imran and Tendulkar, respectively.
    There you go again, Putting words in my mouth. You are best at it.

    For the Record :- IMO on batting performance grounds Hayden is denied the permission to wipe the Tendulkar's shoes. Wasim is indeed the better bowler IMO, Couldn't care less about what his stats are. IMO he is teh best bowler ever.


    pI am saying the only significance in the difference between Ponting's total runs and Tendulkar's is that Tendulkar has played more innings hence he will have more aggregate runs - even if he had a lower average.
    Asummptions at best. Tendulkar doesn't have a lower average, Ponting does. Pontng will have less runs, average, 100s, SR even if he continued at the same level for rest of his career.

    This is exactly like saying Tendulkar > Bradman because Tendulkar has 11782 runs and Bradman has 6996. Yes, I know you sound silly.
    My God you have some serious issue in reading stuff. Bradman Scores @ 99.94 which is obviously much than SRT's average. So If Bradman played as many Tests as SRT, he would score 20000+ runs, so easily he will score more.

    Same is not true for Ricky. He average less than SRT in ODIS, lower SR, even if he continues to score at the same rate, he will not pass SRT in total runs scored because of the simple fact is that his avg is < SRT avg. in ODIs.


    You proved nothing. Hayden also has more centuries than Sobers having played the same amount of tests. Doesn't make Hayden better than Sobers. Nor does it mean Sobers would start to perform worse off had he played the same amount of Tests as Hayden - because that was apart of your disgraceful diatribe that if Ponting plays more he WILL lose his form. Guesswork, anyone?
    What is Sobers Average ? Case Closed.

    Ahh yes. But Kapil is not in the same league as Hadlee. He concedes many many more runs than Hadlee and also takes many more balls to dismiss a victim. So their ratios do not match for the comparison for 5/fers 10/fers to take shape. Murali also takes more 5/fers and 10/fers than anyone else. But that doesn't make him better than Lillee or Hadlee or McGrath. It's a simple by-product of playing in a team with no wicket-taking competition.
    Jesus where have I claimed that Kapil is better than Hadlee/Mcgrath ? I couldn't care less about how many fifers Murali takes. It is just another of your crap theories in order to glorify your Aussie Gods.

    What is funny is that you yourself have argued elsewhere that Mcgrath has a weakness in taking the bigger hauls and here is you are just arguing the opposite. Tells so much about own inconsistency in the discussion.

    That's why you only judge him by his average/sr/er. Otherwise he is 4-5 times the bowler everybody else is.
    If I judged Mcgrath or for that matter other players on the basis of Average, I wouldn't have Wasim Akram as my best bowler ever. Mcgrath is a great bowler and I couldn't care less about what his 5er 10er tally show. I was merely quashing the myth that Mcgrath's wicket tally would have been more if not other wicket takers in his team.

    McGrath DID take a 5fers and 10fers but relatively less than a whole lot of other bowlers like Waqar or Botham because Warne was on the end taking more. It doesn't make Waqar or Botham better than McGrath - the kind of reasoning you are bringing.
    Nonsense. So why does he have only 3 fifers when he is playing without Warne ? Waqar also had another potent bowler sharing wickets with him. No Waqar/Bothan are not better than Mcgrath and I have never claimed as such. But that doesn't mean that Mcgrath's wicket taking ability (fifers and 10ers) take a hit because of Warne's presense.


    This is why I love discussing things with you. You eventually argue MY point for ME. So you CAN'T simply judge by a few points on average or a few SR points alone. You said previously even a FRACTION ahead means one is a legend and the other is a silver-medalist.
    I was not comparing Ponting and SRT on the basis of Stats alone. I didn't even know Pontings stats, TBH when this discussion started. You are the one brought the stats. So I have to show you the stats too. You get what you wished for.

    LOL, and Waqar Younis is statistically better than Dennis Lillee. Your point?
    I dont know, you are the Stats Freak on this forum. You tell us. Are you going to argue that Dennis Lillee is better or worse because of his stats or because of your own perception ? For me I would pick Lillee with my eyes closed over Waqar regardless of what their stats show.

    Imran Khan also takes wickets cheaper and faster than Wasim? Your point?
    Nothing except that Imran has better stats, doesn't necessarily make him better though unless you use Stats as the only criteria. I said in the past, I dont judge players on the basis of stats alone, but you jumped in and started showing your statsguru surfing skills in Ponting Vs. SRT, so I had to put you where you belong.


    Well, either you love to guess or you have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. Regardless, I couldn't care less how you think Ponting will do. I only care what Ponting has done.
    Okay and based od what he has done - He has lower average, lower SR.

    And Tendulkar, what a trough... average falling from 44 to 42. Shameless.



    Uh, that makes 0 sense and has nothing to do with what I am doing. My point was that you can't even make the argument that Ponting won't do as well as Tendulkar because of the amount of ODIs Tendulkar has played in the almost 20 decade career. Because Tendulkar averages about 22 ODIs a year: the same as Ponting.
    And ? Ponting still has a lower average, SR, The more he plays, the more the difference is going to widen even if we assume that Ponting maintains his current form for next 150 matches.


    Nope, all the guessing is done with you. You are saying Ponting would do worse which is a guess. I am saying Ponting will do as he has been doing. Whether that means 1-2% less 100s per innings than Tendulkar and 1 run and 1 less ball difference to Tendulkar doesn't matter.
    You need to learn your maths. 33 minus 26 is 7 - It isn't 1-2 %, It is 27 % more than Ponting's no. of 100s in 298 matches. When I say that you start making excuses.

    It is too close to make a choice either way. I only care about ratios here. Tendulkar averages 44 and Ponting averages 43. No matter how many matches they play based on these averages, Tendulkar will always score more runs. The contention is that the difference is so small it doesn't make a difference and does not shift the argument either way. It doesn't make one a legend and the other a silver-medalist.
    I dont care what you consider or do not consider. Statistically SRT is superior in almost every category. Obviously there is much more to batting than pure stats and hence SRT is clearly ahead of Ponting as an ODI batsman.

    Hahahaha, WHAT a cop out. Do I see someone putting their tail between their legs?
    Well If you have got one.


    YOU said that a player with a higher proportion of 100s is better than the one with a lower proportion of 100s. Hence Hayden > Tendulkar by that SHODDY logic. Thank you and come again.
    Once again - Higher 100s, higher average, Higher SR all together. Case Closed. Hayden Denied permission to wipe SRT's shoes again.


    Average is all that matters.
    Really, What happene to the SR theory ?


    If he is able to keep the average then it doesn't make a difference whether he is scoring less 100s per inning. I'd rather a player who scores 40,40,40 than one that scores 0,0,120. Same average and one has a century. It's only you who insists on this silly detail.
    Excuse me ? Are you arguing that Ponting gives more consistent scores than SRT ? If you are, than get ready to have your ass busted again.


    EVEN if Tendulkar scores 1/15 it doesn't make a difference because the entire point was that 19% of Ponting's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century whereas a fat 0% of Tendulkar's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century (regardless where he bats). The fact that it's so hard to score 2 centuries within the same inning yet Ponting has managed to do it 5/26 times makes it a greater feat.
    Check the stats again - And please tell me how many 100s Ponting has scored when there is another Centurian in the same inning. I can bet you even without going through all the 100s that Ponting has higher % than SRT. (i.e. %wise Ponting has more 100s in an inning where another one of his teammare scored one)


    Yes, I know the average is important so aggregate runs don't mean squat. That's my point: Tendulkar 44, Ponting 43. And you said Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. If this is an April fool's joke you're 2 months late mate!
    Dont worry it is not an April Fool Joke. It is a COLD HARD fact that SRT is a much better ODI batsman than Ponting. Statistically or otherwise.

    Ponting averages 45 and strikes at 85 since 2004. He doesn't have to meet Tendulkar's peak. He just has to continue doing what he is doing.
    What does he average in 2008 ? Is it in double digits ?

    Yes, his run making ability is ordinary, his speed is absolutely awesome. No one can hold that run-making ability, speed and do it so often. His whole job as an opener was to do this. You can't compare him to someone like Mark Waugh who was not asked the same of Gilchrist. And even though he wasn't, he scored on average 2 runs more and took 20 balls more to do it. Gilchrist is on a different level.
    So now Gilly is better than Mark Waugh as well ? What have been smoking really ?


    Er, Wrong. Gilchrist would walk into an Aussie XI simply because of his batting. He was voted best ever, not because he is simply a great wicketkeeper.
    So those who voted him the best ever believe that Gily is a better ODI batsman than Waugh, Ponting etc ?

    And no one said Gilchrist is better - in fact, if you actually READ what I post I said I would take Tendulkar over Gilchrist. BUT I said because they play such different roles that you can't compare them on a run by run, ball by ball basis. Gilchrist is a great at what he does and Tendulkar is a great at what he does. Tendulkar and Gilchrist are as different to Bevan and Richards.
    So you see the light for a moment once again.


    Wrong. 10 wickets don't need to be taken by the bowling side. But they HAVE to bowl 300 balls.
    Hillarious.

    No they dont have to If they too all the wickets in 10 balls. If every batsman got out on the first ball, only 10 balls are needed. Wickets >>>>>> Balls(In Cricket I meant).


    Neither will Richards. Doesn't make Viv worse. Your arguments are of such a poor standard I feel like I am talking to a different Sanz. Do you have a kid that sometimes pops on your username?
    There you go again.

    When the margin is 1 run more or 1 ball less or 1-2% difference in 100s/innings it doesn't matter. But where it does matter, is that one player 3/4 times led well in a WC final and Tendulkar is still unproven.
    Not again.


    Tendulkar does not have this problem because he opens. Whether batsmen coming after him are capable too does not matter: he is going to be in there with them with enough time. Granted, there is not such a great difference because Ponting can still make the centuries (as he obviously has) but not to the same degree as Tendulkar which would go someway to explain their difference.

    What I am talking about 100s is a difference of 3 hundreds over almost 300 ODIs.
    7 in equal no. of ODIs.

    Dravid is simply not in the same league. Not average wise and not SR wise. I don't care that he is inferior, but he is not even in the same league as ODI players.
    See, Didn't I say that all you use is Stats to make an opinion. That is the reason you being buste here.

    And the only way it would make sense is if BOTH Ganguly and Tendulkar made centuries. That's how far behind he is. He is not behind like Ponting's 3, Dravid needs 19 centuries to equal the same proportion. It's not even in the same realm. In fact, Ganguly himself only has a slightly better 100/inning record than Dravid.



    Sure you are. Remember, Innings only. Not matches .
    And you should know 7 in 298 matches not 3.


    Wrong. You are biased for saying that Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. Say he is better but the garbage that you've put forth should never be uttered by anyone who considers himself unbiased.
    Only Garbage spewed on this thread is by you. I am just throwing them back @ you.


    You would really have to be pulling out all the stops to argue that Tendulkar is better than Richards. Thankfully, you're not that far gone.

    I never have, never will. IVA is the better batsman than SRT very easily. I couldn't care less what his stats looks like.

    Otoh, You are on record picking Bevan and already accepted your Bias :-

    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    I'm biased. .




    You think Wasim > Imran and Tendulkar > Ponting. The Tendulkar bit because he is 1 run more and 1 ball faster. Yet even though Wasim is inferior in both average and SR you still vote for him ahead of Imran.
    No, Tendulkr bit because of the same reason it is for Wasim. The only reason Stats are being shown to you because that's all matters to you..

    A round of applause for the consistency.
    Charit begins at home. You get what you ask for.


    Er, WRONG. I never said Ponting is better or even worse than Tendulkar. Check the thread. I said they are CLOSE. You said they aren't even CLOSE.
    Yes, In my opinion they are not close. Then you started showing stats. So there you go. Take a look SRT is better in almost all categories.

    I also said I can see someone picking another player for non-statistical reasons - like I did Lillee - and that is where the discussion began.
    And then you starte showing your stupid Statsguru to the forum. So there you go, I show the same to you.

    You see, if you actually read and pay attention, you wouldn't have to put your tail between your legs.
    Wow, You must be having one in your behind to talk so much about it.

    Tendulkar is especially pleasing to watch in a World Cup final.
    Yes. He was until he got out.

    When I quoted you regarding VB finals, I WAS referring to the grand final. Hence, my Carling Cup/Champions League finals example. They're grand finals.
    I couldn't care less about what you consider a Grand Final or not. If Ponting isn't motivated enough to perform in a tournament final then It is a problem with him.

    Picking and choosing would be me saying VB finals don't count but CB finals did. I say neither are in the same realm as a WC final. The argument isn't about "appeal" it is about pressure, it is about difficulty. No VB final has carrier pressure enough to compare it with a final of a tournament that comes every 4 years and is the pinnacle of ODIs.
    That's what you are doing. Relace CB with the world cup.

    As for the Pressure - Tendulkar has more pressure in every match he plays than Ponting has in a tournament Final. It is so much well document the level of expectation from SRT. Ponting doesn't have an iota of that pressure in any kind of situation.

    Give it a break, get some rest. You're making less and less sense as this goes on.
    Yeah, only if you had the brains to understand and respect for others opinions.

  10. #400
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Seen enough.

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Best ODI batsman ATM
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 05:39 AM
  2. Who's The Best Batsman EVER?
    By kata505 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 13-08-2007, 05:46 PM
  3. Best Batsman
    By oz_fan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 30-04-2006, 02:41 AM
  4. Sloggin' Batsman = Good Batsman ?
    By masterblaster10 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 31-01-2005, 05:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •