Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[GIMH]

The real problem is not all biased is deliberate. Some people are biased based on the place or country they are from. It's subconscious bias. I'm surprised no one else picked Buttler considering he averages 40.88 with a 119.83 SR, those are ridiculously good stats in my book. The fact he performed so well in a WC final made him a shoe in for me. Then you have Bairstow and Roy with their averages and SR that are the best all time for an opener I believe for ODIs that performed in the WC 2019. So if anything there appears to be an anti English bias but I'm English so who knows!

Excuse me John but I picked him ten times

 

[GIMH]

It's so nice you've put forward a dissertation on how incredibly bad you are as a judge of cricketing skills.

May be a warning from Spark about not ****ting on players of poster's country coming up. May be.

Stephen talks drivel, we all know this and it's an established fact. Nonetheless calling for mod intervention on that post is horrendous. Even Spark, who is currently the David Warner of moderation, would not censor opinion to that degree. So can it.

 

[Malcolm]

Sachin Tendulkar
Virat Kohli
AB de Villiers
Ricky Ponting
Michael Bevan

MS Dhoni
Brian Lara
Mark Waugh
Aravinda de Silva
Saeed Anwar

 

[TheJediBrah]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb. Batsmen can't plan to get dismissed on last ball of the innings. Ability to stay not out and ability to score meaningfully for your team are causally related.

That one bit of stupidity is one of my biggest peeves. Every time I see someone imply that a batsman's average isn't as good as it seems because it is "boosted by not outs" my faith in the future of humanity dies a little bit more

edit: not that I'm saying anyone is doing that here, I haven't read the thread beyond the last few posts. If we're speaking purely mathematically when saying that "not outs boost average" for a given number of runs and innings, well obviously that's correct. It's when you start trying to claim that an average "boosted" by a lot of not outs is indicative of a player not being as good as the same average not boosted by not outs, that you're showing your limited critical thinking skills

 

[TheJediBrah]

and comparing Sachin and Bevan is futile. Completely different players and roles. You're a fool to definitively say one is better than the other








Sachin was better though

 

[stephen]

I just find it funny that people are calling me out for placing Lara and de Villiers in my top ten despite them not winning world cups when Kohli was basically a passenger for India's world cup win and hasn't been particularly good in world cups.

Anwar over de Silva is a call that can be made. He was a fine batsman. I was intent on only having three batsmen from each decade in the top ten since that seems more appropriate given the changing nature of ODI cricket.

The 90s is a tougher call than the other decades about which batsmen really were the second and third best for the decade since there were so many batsmen who could make a claim.

However, the difference between Bevan and the rest in 90s ODI cricket was the same as Smith and the rest today in tests.

 

[ImpatientLime]

this thead tells me that chris gayle is very underrated as an odi bat

 

[ImpatientLime]

I just find it funny that people are calling me out for placing Lara and de Villiers in my top ten despite them not winning world cups when Kohli was basically a passenger for India's world cup win and hasn't been particularly good in world cups.

i mean he's clearly better than both lara and de villiers so not really that funny.

 

[h_hurricane]

I just find it funny that people are calling me out for placing Lara and de Villiers in my top ten despite them not winning world cups when Kohli was basically a passenger for India's world cup win and hasn't been particularly good in world cups.

Anwar over de Silva is a call that can be made. He was a fine batsman. I was intent on only having three batsmen from each decade in the top ten since that seems more appropriate given the changing nature of ODI cricket.

The 90s is a tougher call than the other decades about which batsmen really were the second and third best for the decade since there were so many batsmen who could make a claim.

However, the difference between Bevan and the rest in 90s ODI cricket was the same as Smith and the rest today in tests.

This post started reasonably well, but the second half spoiled it.

 

[Spark]

this thead tells me that chris gayle is very underrated as an odi bat

Honestly Chris Gayle is probably underrated as a batsman in general.

I just find it funny that people are calling me out for placing Lara and de Villiers in my top ten despite them not winning world cups when Kohli was basically a passenger for India's world cup win and hasn't been particularly good in world cups.

Anwar over de Silva is a call that can be made. He was a fine batsman. I was intent on only having three batsmen from each decade in the top ten since that seems more appropriate given the changing nature of ODI cricket.

The 90s is a tougher call than the other decades about which batsmen really were the second and third best for the decade since there were so many batsmen who could make a claim.

However, the difference between Bevan and the rest in 90s ODI cricket was the same as Smith and the rest today in tests.

I didn't see much of Bevan and Sachin at their respective 90s ODI peaks. But I still find this amazingly difficult to believe.

 

[Teja.]

in no particular order:

Tendulkar, Bevan, Rohit, Kohli, ABDv, Dhoni, Maugh, Ponting, Hussey, Sanga (underrated WC star).

 

[Second Spitter]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb. Batsmen can't plan to get dismissed on last ball of the innings. Ability to stay not out and ability to score meaningfully for your team are causally related.

Adam Voges endorses this post.

However, the difference between Bevan and the rest in 90s ODI cricket was the same as Smith and the rest today in tests.

And there you have it, the 2019 Cricketweb Hyperbole of the Year.

I didn't see much of Bevan and Sachin at their respective 90s ODI peaks. But I still find this amazingly difficult to believe.

The Legend of Borevan was forged on the back of several innings, one which I place all the blame squarely on Roger Harper.

 

[ankitj]

Stephen talks drivel, we all know this and it's an established fact. Nonetheless calling for mod intervention on that post is horrendous. Even Spark, who is currently the David Warner of moderation, would not censor opinion to that degree. So can it.

I agree with you. In recent past posters have received rap on knuckles for similar (but less trashy) line of posting. So I am only asking if Stephen is subjected similar treatment. I'd rather that no one is for mere opinions or poor reasoning.

 

[Bolo]

I just find it funny that people are calling me out for placing Lara and de Villiers in my top ten despite them not winning world cups when Kohli was basically a passenger for India's world cup win and hasn't been particularly good in world cups.

The logic in your OP dictates lara and AB be downgraded for not having won a WC, while kohli needn't be because he has (the fact that he has won only one notwithstanding). The fact that India won despite kohlis efforts not because of them isn't relevant to the way you have presented the situation.

Why pick them if being part of a winning team is that critical to ranking individuals?

 

[Second Spitter]

The logic in your OP dictates lara and AB be downgraded for not having won a WC, while kohli needn't be because he has (the fact that he has won only one notwithstanding). The fact that India won despite kohlis efforts not because of them isn't relevant to the way you have presented the situation.

Why pick them if being part of a winning team is that critical to ranking individuals?

His logic is bupkis. He's just trying to justify his massive boner for Borevan, that's all.

 

[venkyrenga]

That one bit of stupidity is one of my biggest peeves. Every time I see someone imply that a batsman's average isn't as good as it seems because it is "boosted by not outs" my faith in the future of humanity dies a little bit more

edit: not that I'm saying anyone is doing that here, I haven't read the thread beyond the last few posts. If we're speaking purely mathematically when saying that "not outs boost average" for a given number of runs and innings, well obviously that's correct. It's when you start trying to claim that an average "boosted" by a lot of not outs is indicative of a player not being as good as the same average not boosted by not outs, that you're showing your limited critical thinking skills

An average boosted by a lot of not outs is indicative of a player not being as good as another player with the same average not boosted by not outs. This is simple reasoning.

Just going by the average would mean Bevan would have scored 55 more runs every time he ended up as not out had the match continued. How ridiculously illogical was that!

 

[venkyrenga]

and comparing Sachin and Bevan is futile. Completely different players and roles. You're a fool to definitively say one is better than the other








Sachin was better though

Are you calling yourself a fool?

 

[Jack1]

Not at all. I was actually being more statistical while coming up with the list in an attempt to be more objective. Otherwise I have no issues in having Bevan and De Silva in the top 10.

But I still think Sehwag is underrated. It's not like he flopped against the best of bowlers or in crunch matches. Guy was the lone warrior in the WC 2003 final against the mighty Australians. There was actually some hope until he was in the crease. It's a shame he got run out.

I picked them both in my 10. There isn't much in it. There aren't too easy to compare due to their roles. But Bevan was practically the finisher to end all finishers. He was a monster on slow scoring sticky type wickets , slow turners etc (when the ball used to get seriously discoloured and soft on certain grounds as the match wore on) a legendary chaser in ODIs that never seemed to panic. Sehwag is one of, if not the most, gifted batsman to ever play the game apart from Bradman. The bloke basically walked in and had a see ball hit ball policy. I can't really think of a more naturally gifted all round player after Bradman than Sehwag. Sehwag has those averages and didn't really ever seem to be taking it too seriously. Not even sure who to compare to. Suppose he's a bit like a right handed Gilchrist but he was definitely far less serious about it all than Gilchrist I believe. Someone might know a better comparison.


All I'll say is as an England fan I can probably appreciate Bevan a lot. I wanted Aus to lose most times they played when he was about. Some innings Bevan played I could only admire and as the game wore on I would go from wanting Australia to lose to wanting them to win - he seemed to have that effect. The best part about Bevan to me is he wasn't very powerful, relied more on shot selection and timing. In terms of being a cricket player rather than a natural gifted player Bevan must be one of the best "players" ever. He was great in my opinion, happy to hear a counter argument to it. But he was Australia's gun player if they got into trouble.

 

[venkyrenga]

Yes, I agree Gilchrist is the closest thing to Sehwag. But when people don't hesitate to give credit for Gilchrist why not for Sehwag.

 

[srbhkshk]

An average boosted by a lot of not outs is indicative of a player not being as good as another player with the same average not boosted by not outs. This is simple reasoning.

All other things being the same, I'd say it's the opposite of that.