Best ODI batsman?

[Jamee999]

Speaking of which there must be a mathematical equation that describes the probability of a CW thread on ODI batsmen descending yet again into another discussion of SRT's supposed failure in finals...

x=1

 

[biased indian]

Ponting has 4 scores. 1 very great. 1 very good. 1 good and 1 not good enough.

There is a pattern there.

Ya very true..next in line could be

1 poor 1 very poor 1 very very poor like that

 

[weldone]

Ok Ok we are happy with Tendulkar in our team...Maybe if we reach the finals again in 2011, we may hire Ponting for 1 match...Till then we are happy with Sachin playing 100 more ODIs for us...You Happy?

 

[Ikki]

Sorry to respond late to this post. But this is a very simplistic comparison. Regarding the strike-rates, Tendulkar's strike-rate is affected by the fact that he bats more often in the 15+ over period where the field restrictions don't apply. Apart from this Tendulkar as an opener actually averages closer to 50. So he does what Gilchrist does in the first 15, but then goes on and constructs a big inning.

I think he averages 48? Gilchrist also raises his average by a point or two, but his SR becomes like a run a ball. Also, if a wicket is taken then not just opening slots should be taken into account. So, you can't say he does what Gilchrist does at all; he takes like 11 more runs but takes 17 balls more to do it - the former calculation giving 8 runs and 13 balls difference.

They don't bat similarly at all. Tendulkar bats more for runs but keeps a very good SR whilst Gilchrist bats to give his teammates time and scores a very good amount of runs in relation to the speed he does it in.

 

[Ikki]

Ya very true..next in line could be

1 poor 1 very poor 1 very very poor like that

You must have went to ret's school.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Furthermore, the WC final should also be treated differently.

In that case Gordon Greenidge is the worst ODI batsman in history.

 

[Ikki]

In that case Gordon Greenidge is the worst ODI batsman in history.

Greenidge played in 3 grand finals and did poorly in them. His overall finals record isn't that flash either. Doesn't make him near the worst - looking at his overall record he is one of the best - but certainly won't make him the best. His WC record isn't that flash as well.

 

[shankar]

I think he averages 48? Gilchrist also raises his average by a point or two, but his SR becomes like a run a ball. Also, if a wicket is taken then not just opening slots should be taken into account.So, you can't say he does what Gilchrist does at all; he takes like 11 more runs but takes 17 balls more to do it.

How does a wicket falling affect anything. Tendulkar is clearly at his best when opening and he's played close to 300 innings there - enough to make a judgement. Again you ignore the fact that Tendulkar has to play in the 15 over + period more often than Gilly and that this would affect his Strike-rate.

They don't bat similarly at all. Tendulkar bats more for runs but keeps a very good SR whilst Gilchrist bats to give his teammates time and scores a very good amount of runs in relation to the speed he does it in.

Even if one forgets the stuff about the first 15, Tendulkar's average contribution can be broken into an inning with a contribution close to Gilly's (36 off 40) and then an additional contribution of 12 runs at a rate comparable to Ponting (12 off 15).How can getting out after 36 off 37 be comparable to this?

The fact that a wicket falls would also mean that the other batsmen has to score slower. So the batsmen at the other end when Tendulkar bats those additional 15 balls would also score faster. This also is missed in this simplistic analysis of comparing average innings.

 

[Ikki]

How does a wicket falling affect anything. Tendulkar is clearly at his best when opening and he's played close to 300 innings there - enough to make a judgement. Again you ignore the fact that Tendulkar has to play in the 15 over + period more often than Gilly and that this would affect his Strike-rate.

I must have misread, I apologise.

However, it affects his SR as much as it affects Gilly's: 2 points. So, not much of an argument there.

Even if one forgets the stuff about the first 15, Tendulkar's average contribution can be broken into an inning with a contribution close to Gilly's (36 off 40) and then an additional contribution of 12 runs at a rate comparable to Ponting (12 off 15).How can getting out after 36 off 37 be comparable to this?

You're confusing yourself.

Just the opening slots: Tendulkar averages 48 and strikes at 87. Which means he scores 48 runs off 54 balls.

Gilchrist in the same comparison averages 37 and strikes at 98. Which means he scores 37 runs off 38.

The difference between them is that Tendulkar will score 11 runs faster but will take 14 balls longer to do it. In order to make up that difference one would just need to score the 11 extra runs with an SR of 78. Not a terribly big feat but it also gives the opportunity to score more. For example if Ponting were to bat with those extra balls he would score that and actually more.

It pits them close enough whereas someone looking at the stats at face value might not see this.

And as I said before, they're different openers with different roles. One is to save more balls for the rest of his capable teammates to make potentially more runs; the other takes more runs that his less capable teammates might not be able to make.

The fact that a wicket falls would also mean that the other batsmen has to score slower. So the batsmen at the other end when Tendulkar bats those additional 15 balls would also score faster. This also is missed in this simplistic analysis of comparing average innings.

The wicket falling mention of mine is a complete misread of what you said.

But I am not sure what you mean in this last paragraph, I'd appreciate a rephrase. Are you saying that when a wicket falls the next batsmen will score faster? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[aussie tragic]

I haven't read the the 20 pages so forgive me if I'm stating the obvious that has already been mentioned .

The World best ODI batsman title has passed from:

(1) Zareer Abbas....SR of 85 when his peers were lucky to be 60
(2) Viv Richards....his SR was 90 when his peers were 70 odd
(3) Dean Jones....briefly held it after Viv retired... should have retained his spot longer..
(4) Michael Bevin...the finisher and first 50+ batting average
(5) Sachin Tendulker...held it till 2005ish
(6) Hussey could claim it (Pietersen close 2nd)

Overall, I still rate Viv Richards as the most intimidating and therefore greatest ODI batsmen of all time.....

 

[silentstriker]

I explained it perfectly. I think someone who has shown his worth everywhere but maybe a few matches in once place reserves the benefit of the doubt. So I, at the least, see him as unproven - especially considering under similar circumstances (pitch, bowlers) he has done well in other places.

But if that same player has done well every single place but only has 3 matches against a certain country, I will not consider him unproven. The weight of his performances suggest that he was good enough to do so and it is not an anomaly or a questionable record.

That doesn't make sense though. You can get lucky just as much as you can get unlucky in a small sample of matches. If player X did great in three matches, he wouldn't be proven in Pakistan. It's not a big enough sample. You can't say if he did well, the sample is big enough, and if he didn't, the sample is not. I know what you are saying, that you can extrapolate based on past performances, but then what you're doing is ignoring the three matches anyway - and then you should do it either way.

You have to say someone is unproven if they've only played an x number of matches, and not pick and choose. Extrapolation works both ways. You can't choose to count one, two or three as proof that he would do well, and then not count it if he doesn't. There are way too many variables that account for how much someone scores in a small sample size for it to be representative of anything.

I am not counting Tendulkar's 1 test against him. I said I consider Tendulkar unproven - not enough chances. Whereas, Ponting is not unproven. He IS proven.

It can't work like that.

To get at 4 finals you have to play for at least 12 years and get to the final in each one. If Tendulkar were to go to another final and fail again, does that mean 2 finals were not enough?

Depends. If you want to use the criteria that two matches are enough to judge a player, then it is enough to say he was a failure and Ponting was a success. But if you say it's not enough to show whether he is proven or not, then they are both unproven.

There is a reason why people discount players with less than 20 or 30 innings when counting performances: it's not a representative sample to judge success or failure. But if you do say it is, then it must go both ways. Extrapolation doesn't work like you say it does. If the sample size is too small, then the content of that sample size is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[ret]

You're saying this:

I'll flip a coin and it'll be heads or tails. I predict tails. If it tails, then that means I have proof that I can control the coin flip at a better than random chance. If its heads, then it's just means its unproven whether I can predict the coin flip.

Either the sample size is big enough - or its not.

As someone said, it should be the law of averages and not probability that I m referring too

now i guess, i can explain my point in a better way with the law of averages

with 3 heads, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th occasion according to the Law of Averages [and not probability, I guess] would be more

so i will restate my point

why someone like Gilly does well in the finals can be explained by the law of averages too

in Quater-finals, he averages 29
in the semis, he averages 19
so now whats the chance of him doing well in the final? yes you got it
he averages 37

now let's take the World Cups for Gilly

in the preliminaries, he averages a poor 32
in the semis, a poorer 14!!!
so now whats the chance of him doing well in the final, [yes you again guessed it right], 86!!!


conversely, what are the chances of someone like Tendulkar, who is working like a work-horse and doing all the scoring doing well as the tourney progresses .... exactly, you guessed it right, the chances are going to go down .... But despite this he averages a phenomenal 53 in finals and in the games that India have won a mind blowing 100!! clearly, a true champ and the biggest match-winner ever to have walked on the planet

 

[ret]

No one has the number of match winning innings of a player in memory.

I said there are a lot. It's not like centuries where they are officially counted.

Tell me, how many match winning performances did Sachin have and how many did Viv have.

just from the memory, some of their knocks

Tendulkar
two 100s in the Natwest in 2002
90 odd against Pak in the WC 03
130 odd against Aus in Sharjah late 90s
117* in the CB series final
90 odd in the CB series final
100 against WI in Baroda
100 against NZ in Baroda
100 against NZ in B'lore iirc
100 against Pak in Sharjah, when Ind made 300 for the first time
100 against Zim in SA to take Ind into the final
50 odd against Pak in WC 92
50 odd against Eng in WC 03 in Durban
90/100 against WI in WC 96
186 at Hybad

i can go on

Viv Richards
130 in the WC final
189 against Eng
181 against SL
110 against India
100 against NZ

i can't recall Bevan doing anything like that except against SA in SA and then one inning of 90 in the WC 03 or was it Bichel who played that

PS and then you keep on talking about the world cups so where does Bevan stand in them or are you going to create a different criteria so that Bevan can fit into it .... Let's not forget that you differentiated Bevan by saying that he does well when the chips are down so shows us when he did that from memory, if you are pitching someone as one of the best ODI batsmen ever surely you would have the memory of his few such innings

 

[silentstriker]

As someone said, it should be the law of averages and not probability that I m referring too

now i guess, i can explain my point in a better way with the law of averages

with 3 heads, the chances of getting a tail on the 4th occasion according to the Law of Averages [and not probability, I guess] would be more

No, your chance of getting a 4th would still be 50%....law of averages only states that at the beginning, if you flipped the coin an infinite amount of times (or very large amount of times), the overall distribution would come out to 50% heads and 50% tails - it has nothing to do with one specific instance.

 

[Manee]

Ret, please stop trying to disprove maths.

 

[Ikki]

That doesn't make sense though. You can get lucky just as much as you can get unlucky in a small sample of matches. If player X did great in three matches, he wouldn't be proven in Pakistan. It's not a big enough sample. You can't say if he did well, the sample is big enough, and if he didn't, the sample is not. I know what you are saying, that you can extrapolate based on past performances, but then what you're doing is ignoring the three matches anyway - and then you should do it either way.

Sorry, you're taking a hard-line statistical route that has more to do with averages and probability than common sense.

If a player has been successful everywhere, the likelihood he will be successful in a certain place for me doesn't fall if in ONE country he only has 3 Tests. That's just non-sense. You are ignoring his career, his skill and his consistency all because in one country he has had 3 Tests where he should have a 4?

If a fast bowler has succeeded everywhere but only has 3 Tests on the WACA, I am not going to say he is unproven. For me, that's ********. However, his success is enough for me to not rashly judge him on a small failure. It doesn't have to be the same judgment for both because both instances are not equal.

You have to say someone is unproven if they've only played an x number of matches, and not pick and choose. Extrapolation works both ways. You can't choose to count one, two or three as proof that he would do well, and then not count it if he doesn't. There are way too many variables that account for how much someone scores in a small sample size for it to be representative of anything.

Wrong. That is Richard-like reasoning - first chance averages-like - which fails to take into account real aspects in the sport.

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.

This isn't a flip of the coin, this is based on their career.

It can't work like that.

It certainly can. Ponting has 4 finals innings: 140*, 45, 37, 29.

Only one of those scores can be considered poor. His average is 82 and SR is 94.

Tendulkar hasn't been successful in his 1 inning for 4 runs. But because he is a great player I say he is unproven because he has been successful everywhere and with enough chances should prove himself. If he doesn't, then he simply isn't a finals player and there is no question.

Depends. If you want to use the criteria that two matches are enough to judge a player, then it is enough to say he was a failure and Ponting was a success. But if you say it's not enough to show whether he is proven or not, then they are both unproven.

No, WC finals are a different ball of wax. That few innings is enough, though I would say one isn't.

There is a reason why people discount players with less than 20 or 30 innings when counting performances: it's not a representative sample to judge success or failure. But if you do say it is, then it must go both ways. Extrapolation doesn't work like you say it does. If the sample size is too small, then the content of that sample size is pretty much irrelevant.

That's very convenient considering you will never play more WC finals than you have fingers on your hands. That's half the importance of a final. You do NOT get more chances. You HAVE to stamp your name on the game when given a shot.

The problem you seem to have is you think I am extrapolating that Ponting will always succeed. No, I doubt it. However, there are less questions over his head than Tendulkar's. Considering they are neck and neck in most other facets, this is likely to be important to some people because...hey...it is the World Cup.

 

[ret]

No, your chance of getting a 4th would still be 50%....law of averages only states that at the beginning, if you flipped the coin an infinite amount of times (or very large amount of times), the overall distribution would come out to 50% heads and 50% tails - it has nothing to do with one specific instance.

but is it not according to the law of averages as Gilly who didn't do well early on is bound to pick up later on and get close to his average

in 99 too, Anwar hit two 100s against NZ to take Pak into the final when he was not that dominant early on and iirc, even Wasim had said that we had kept him as they expected him to pick up as the tournament goes

it's difficult to be at the top of your game for the whole tournament, esp a long one .... generally, you are bound to have a few bad games, even if you are in form of your life or a few good ones if you are playing reasonably well despite having a few bad games

so if someone is going 110, 67, 82, the chances of him getting a score less than 50 increases with every innings he plays hence forth .... let's say he gets a 102* in the 4th, now in the 5th it's very difficult to get to maintain that

similarly someone of decent quality getting 50, 20, 11 and hence forth, if he is playing reasonably well, the chances of him hitting a 50 plus score increases as the tournament progresses

Gilchrist

99 WC ----> 6, 14, 0, 63 .... 21, 31, 10, 5, 20, 54
03 WC ----> 48, 61 .... 13, 22, 99 .... 18, 67 .... 22, 57
07 WC ----> 46, 57,42 .... 7, 59* .... 27, 34, 30, 1, 1, 149

and you can see the build up to the final in all 3 cases

 

[silentstriker]

It certainly can. Ponting has 4 finals innings: 140*, 45, 37, 29.

So you think four innings is a valid statistical sample?

Tendulkar hasn't been successful in his 1 inning for 4 runs. But because he is a great player I say he is unproven because he has been successful everywhere and with enough chances should prove himself. If he doesn't, then he simply isn't a finals player and there is no question.

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.

No, WC finals are a different ball of wax. That few innings is enough, though I would say one isn't.

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.

That's very convenient considering you will never play more WC finals than you have fingers on your hands.

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.

The problem you seem to have is you think I am extrapolating that Ponting will always succeed. No, I doubt it. However, there are less questions over his head than Tendulkar's. Considering they are neck and neck in most other facets, this is likely to be important to some people because...hey...it is the World Cup.

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.


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.

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.

 

[social]

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

 

[silentstriker]

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

A year ago, he was gone.

Obviously, this was nonsense
.

Not going to respond to the rest of the post as I said I wouldn't, but I still don't understand what him being gone or not has to do with anything. If and when in the future he is no longer any good, that does not say anything about his past. Tomorrow I may want him dropped - what does that have to do with what he did in from 1989-2008 though?