Best ODI batsman?

[social]

Except you claimed Ponting was that player and his record in WC finals isn't good either. So what's your reasoning?

Yep, that average of 82 is horrible

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I kinda answered this already. Aside from prelims, Tendulkar's finals record in WC is inferior to both. Gilchrist is godlike TBF.

Except that you have to win the prelims to get to the final. So they're more important than the final itself, because without winning them, a team would have no chance of winning the World Cup.

 

[social]

No-one ever wanted him dropped from India's ODI side. Especially after it became clear he was content to aim for the 2011 WC.

Ha ha. Coming from the man who didnt believe he'd see out '09

 

[silentstriker]

Yep, that average of 82 is horrible

I modified my post to be specific. He didn't succeed every time, as you mentioned. Because you are basing it on such a small sample size, if he had (for example) no bowling and hadn't reached the finals again after 1996, you would say he was a bad ODI player?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yep, that average of 82 is horrible

One big innings in four attempts. If Tendulkar had as many chances, history suggests that he would have at least one big innings too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ha ha. Coming from the man who didnt believe he'd see out '09

All Richard is stating that Sachin Tendulkar said that he wants to play to 2011. Richard is not Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[silentstriker]

All Richard is stating that Sachin Tendulkar said that he wants to play to 2011. Richard is not Sachin Tendulkar.

Lies!

 

[Ikki]

Except that you have to win the prelims to get to the final. So they're more important than the final itself, because without winning them, a team would have no chance of winning the World Cup.

Whilst that is a fact that you have to win the prelims to get to the final, it is not true that they are the most important.

When you are judging the best, you judge them in the harshest conditions, not the easiest. The prelims exist with a mixture of minnows and it's not like India has had a poor ODI side.

Getting past the prelims should be a cinch for every great ODI batsman. The finals are what sets apart the boys from the men.

Not saying Sachin's is poor, certainly great record. But just a bit inferior to the others who have an overall record to rival Sachin. His grand final record is poor, but it is only 1 inning. It would be harsh to say he is a choker but he is somewhat unproven.

I think that he's also been dogged by comments regarding this very thing. So people kinda pay attention to it more.

One big innings in four attempts. If Tendulkar had as many chances, history suggests that he would have at least one big innings too.

More like one mammoth inning and another good inning. Let's give it 2/4.

 

[ret]

No, I wouldn't say so. The lower you go the less importance it has. Someone could theoretically score at an average of 1 run at a rate of 1 ball. Wouldn't make them superior. A healthy average is key. An average of 36 is hardly poor whereas I'd consider 28 poor.

You're also pretending that I say that this makes Gilchrist better. I said it doesn't, but it puts him near Sachin whereas people often claim he isn't.

just as 28 and 36 are different numbers, so are 36 and 44

 

[ret]

Not saying Sachin's is poor, certainly great record. But just a bit inferior to the others who have an overall record to rival Sachin. His grand final record is poor, but it is only 1 inning. It would be harsh to say he is a choker but he is somewhat unproven.

and how wise is it to judge someone on 1 WC final while ignoring the 37 others that he has played at an awesome avg of 52+ .... while averaging 99.90 [thats almost 100!] in 15 of the games that Ind have won in 34 games that have produced results

that, probably, makes him the number one single handled match winner in the history

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Getting past the prelims should be a cinch for every great ODI batsman. The finals are what sets apart the boys from the men.

Except Ponting would not have gotten past the prelims if not for McGrath and Warne (and a couple others; team sport and all). So I guess McGrath and Warne have given Ponting a shot at being the best ODI batsman ever. Too few people realize that.

 

[Sanz]

Whilst that is a fact that you have to win the prelims to get to the final, it is not true that they are the most important.

Equally important. Those who pick and choose stats do it to suit their argument.

When you are judging the best, you judge them in the harshest conditions, not the easiest. The prelims exist with a mixture of minnows and it's not like India has had a poor ODI side.

Do you Judge Lillee based on his performance in Subcontinent ? Do you judge Warnie based on his performance against India, Not Really ?

Yes minnows are there and you need to win those games too. IMO those games are as (if not more) important than the other league games, because everyone else is going to win against them and if you lose against them, you are already at a disadvantage. Check out what happened to India, Pak in 2003 WC.

And India have been a much weaker side than Australia.

Getting past the prelims should be a cinch for every great ODI batsman. The finals are what sets apart the boys from the men.

That's just so ridiculous. How does one batsman/bowler ensure that your team gets to the Finals ? It is so derogatory to claim that Tendulkar still belongs to a lower category (i.e Boys) whereas Gilchrist etc belong to a superior category(men). Just so insulting to the man.

Not saying Sachin's is poor, certainly great record. But just a bit inferior to the others who have an overall record to rival Sachin. His grand final record is poor, but it is only 1 inning. It would be harsh to say he is a choker but he is somewhat unproven.

I think that he's also been dogged by comments regarding this very thing. So people kinda pay attention to it more.

 

[Ikki]

and how wise is it to judge someone on 1 WC final while ignoring the 37 others that he has played at an awesome avg of 52+ .... while averaging 99.90 [thats almost 100!] in 15 of the games that Ind have won in 34 games that have produced results

that, probably, makes him the number one single handled match winner in the history

Because besides the ODI World cup the rest are just fillers between Test series.

This is like someone saying: X player scored a goal a match in the F.A. Cup, the Carling Cup, the Charity Shield but completely failed in the Champions League final.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because besides the ODI World cup the rest are just fillers between Test series.

No. They're international competition, just the same. Sometimes they're more competitive than World Cup matches. I can think of a hundred ODI matches that were more competitive than most of the second round of the 2007 World Cup. No, World Cup matches are not everything.

 

[ret]

Because besides the ODI World cup the rest are just fillers between Test series.

so, i guess, you wouldn't be hurt with OZ losing the CB series and happy for OZ winning the Champions Trophy

and why would the world of cricket need gap fillers b/w tests

do you think that ppl have horns on their heads?

i won't reply to such dud comments in future

 

[Ikki]

Except Ponting would not have gotten past the prelims if not for McGrath and Warne (and a couple others; team sport and all). So I guess McGrath and Warne have given Ponting a shot at being the best ODI batsman ever. Too few people realize that.

Why? That's like saying x,y,z from India gave Tendulkar a shot because he wouldn't have made it to the finals.

Tendulkar's biggest contributions in the prelims come against Namibia and Kenya where he averages 152 (1 game), 272 (3 games) respectively which I am sure have something to do with his average being about 9 points higher than Ponting.

 

[ret]

Why? That's like saying x,y,z from India gave Tendulkar a shot because he wouldn't have made it to the finals.

Tendulkar's biggest contributions in the prelims come against Namibia and Kenya where he averages 152 (1 game), 272 (3 games) respectively which I am sure have something to do with his average being about 9 points higher than Ponting.

and Ponting didn't play against those teams

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why? That's like saying x,y,z from India gave Tendulkar a shot because he wouldn't have made it to the finals.

That is what I'm saying. I'm saying that great batsmen don't necessarily get to finals. Great teams tend to get to finals. Or at least very good teams. That doesn't qualify the batsman who scores in the final as great. Great teams aren't always full of great batsmen.

Don't get me wrong. Ponting is a great batsman, but shouldn't be ranked above Tendulkar because he's had more chances in World Cup finals.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

and Ponting didn't play against those teams

You're damned if you do...

 

[social]

No. They're international competition, just the same. Sometimes they're more competitive than World Cup matches. I can think of a hundred ODI matches that were more competitive than most of the second round of the 2007 World Cup. No, World Cup matches are not everything.

Tell that to the players and the supporters

Who won the CB Series (or whatever it was called) in '93?

Who won the NatWest Series (or whatever it was called) in '06?

Unless you're a die-hard supporter, no-one knows or cares who won what or when except the WC Final

That breeds pressure and the players who perform under that pressure are the best in that format