Best ODI batsman?

[ret]

Originally Posted by social

Good point

Is Gilchrist, who has arguably won Oz 3 WCs Finals (the only games that matter btw) on the trot, the best ever?

well, it's you who is arguing that it's playing in the final that counts as, i reckon, you assumed that SRT would not match Ponting but SRT owns him .... then you streamlined it to that WC final and now you are bringing in Gilly

the Q - is Gilly the best coz of the virtue of playing well in 3 WC finals? - is the one you should have asked yourself before making the point that Ponting > Sachin coz of the finals

if you say no to Gilly's Q then why bring the final in the first place, if yes then why bring Pointing in

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Helps having McGrath and Warne, when they don't give up 358 in the finals for you to chase. But nah, it was all Ponting.

Warne wasn't there.

And Sehwag got 84. I understand what you're saying and Sachin has been limited in final opportunities also .

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by social

Richard's or Ponting's efforts in finals

Oh OK, so finals aren't important, just the WC finals. So if your team doesn't have the bowling to win World Cup, you are just SOL as a batsman then, right?

Hey you know who else won more world cups than Sachin Tendulkar? PA de Silva. And he also scored a century in a world cup final.

Therefore, he is a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar.


And I love how you're using a sample size of one to make a judgment. I'm glad I have that on record for the future .

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by ret

well, it's you who is arguing that it's playing in the final that counts as, i reckon, you assumed that SRT would not match Ponting but SRT owns him .... then you streamlined it to that WC final and now you are bringing in Gilly

the Q - is Gilly the best coz of the virtue of playing well in 3 WC finals? - is the one you should have asked yourself before making the point that Ponting > Sachin coz of the finals

if you say no to Gilly's Q then why bring the final in the first place, if yes then why bring Pointing in

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.

[bagapath]

david boon scored more than sachin in the world cup final. may be he is a better batsman too !!!!

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

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.

They are both openers and Gilly gives you a century every seventeen innings, while Tendulkar gives you a century every 9.6 innings - huge difference. Gilly is also much more hit and miss.

[social]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Nor should he be. He isn't in the top five, and not close either.

And that's because everyone remembers SO VIVIDLY who won the last Tri-series played anywhere at any time

Tendy has not performed when its counted - Ponting, Gilchrist and Richards have

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Oh OK, so finals aren't important, just the WC finals. So if your team doesn't have the bowling to win World Cup, you are just SOL as a batsman then, right?

Hey you know who else won more world cups than Sachin Tendulkar? PA de Silva. And he also scored a century in a world cup final.

Therefore, he is a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar.

And I love how you're using a sample size of one to make a judgment. I'm glad I have that on record for the future .

Aravinda scores, on average, about 10 runs less than Tendulkar and Ponting and also slightly slower as well.

Both Ponting and Tendulkar have a great ODI record and Ponting has been very successful in WC. I echo the sentiments where he probably should have been mentioned at least. Whether one is better than the other is upto question.

For me there are 2 clear batsman different to everyone else and they are Richards and Bevan. Both very different. One the Master Blaster the other the Master Saver.

[social]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

They are both openers and Gilly gives you a century every seventeen innings, while Tendulkar gives you a century every 9.6 innings - huge difference. Gilly is also much more hit and miss.

I repeat

Care factor = 0

Test matches and Tendy is great

ODIs and he is nothing more than a statisticians dream

[bagapath]

in one dayers i would rank lara with ponting. very high, on par with gilly and jones, but below sachin, richards and bevan. lara's 153 in sharjah was one of the most thrilling knocks of the decade, much more enthralling than ponting's great world cup final ton. so what it was a WC final? whacking waqar is not the as easy as blasting srinath.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Been a while since I saw such blatant bias towards Ponting. Some shockingly selective statistical considerations here. Sachin Tendulkar has outperformed Ponting outside of World Cup finals, so why does Ponting's performance in said finals push him in front? Needless to say, the vast majority of one-day internationals are not World Cup finals. That does not make them worthless or without pressure.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by social

Tendy has not performed when its counted - Ponting, Gilchrist and Richards have

Oh right. You are right, Tendulkar is 0/1. In your mind, apparently, this is enough. You will be OK when I use 0/1 as proof of failure when discussing other players?

Oh, and Tendulkar averages 57 in world cups. So obviously no games in the world cup matters. Except the one final he was in. Of course, you don't need to do anything to get to the final...that's not important at all.


Oh, and who was the man of the tournament in World Cup 2003? I guess scoring 673 runs in the World Cup is not performing when it matters. Let's judge his 16 year career on one day.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by social

I repeat

Care factor = 0

Test matches and Tendy is great

ODIs and he is nothing more than a statisticians dream

The man scores a lot more runs than Gilchrist. Yes, he's a statistician's dream, because he gives the statisticians fantastic statistics to work with. It's patently obvious.

[ret]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

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.

now if someone brings in someone who gives you x runs of x or less balls, i.e. then does than make him better than Gilly?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

They are both openers and Gilly gives you a century every seventeen innings, while Tendulkar gives you a century every 9.6 innings - huge difference. Gilly is also much more hit and miss.

It is a huge difference, however their averages compared to their SRs show why that stat might be so wide. Gilly is not much hit and miss at all. He just scores less on average because he goes for so many more shots saving the team much more time - there is an argument in that, that had Tendulkar had the freedom maybe he could have done it, but let's not digress.

So it is essentially, 8 runs more or 13 balls less. Even if you have McGrath bowling with his ER it pretty much cancels each other out. But you have Gilly in the most pressure-cooker matches - the only ones that frankly matter in ODI - and he high scores twice and and gives 2nd high scores the other in all 3 finals.

So whether Tendulkar gives you that many centuries per innings counts for naught if it is not in the matches that actually matter. Unfortunately, he hasn't really had as many chances but on the same token you can't fault 3/3 from Gilchrist.