Best ODI batsman?

[Jono]

"like IVA"

Please name some others. Bevan, yes. Who else?

 

[social]

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?

For a start, it's not as good as IVA in ODIs (which is the subject of this thread btw)

 

[ret]

so thankfully the Pontings, the Gillys and the Bevans are out of it and its rightfully b/w Richards and Tendulkar

 

[social]

"like IVA"

Please name some others. Bevan, yes. Who else?

So if there are 2 (i.e Viv and Bevan) that qualifies as plural

IMO, Viv is clearly the best, Sachin second (cant ignore his overall record) and who cares who is 3rd

If you want controversy from me, then IMO Symonds may well be the best of the lot - unbelievable WC record AND ODI record, best fieldsman, chips in with wickets

 

[Jono]

So if there are 2 (i.e Viv and Bevan) that qualifies as plural

IMO, Viv is clearly the best, Sachin second (cant ignore his overall record) and who cares who is 3rd

If you want controversy from me, then IMO Symonds may well be the best of the lot - unbelievable WC record AND ODI record, best fieldsman, chips in with wickets

Not that controversial if you mean 'player'

What I can't understand is why this bothers you so much? I voted Viv myself, but if someone thinks Sachin is better than Viv, its hardly something to get so fired up about. The difference between them isn't that much.

I think the reason some Sachin fans here feel the need to defend the great man (and have to do it on a yearly basis, if not a half-yearly basis) is when people try and claim that Gilchrist is the better ODI batsman because of his WC final record.

Simple answer is Gilly isn't better than Sachin. Call him a better WC final player, but that's why people are arguing.

I don't think any Sachin fan here would get pissy at someone if they said Viv (or Bevan for that matter) was better. Ponting is a little bit behind IMO but not by much.

All three are better ODI batsmen overall than Gilly though. All these four would make my world XI though so who cares?

 

[social]

Not that controversial if you mean 'player'

QUOTE]

Nope, guy averages 100 at s/r of 100

Another tournament like that, when combined with his career record, and he is the BEST EVER

 

[social]

Not that controversial if you mean 'player'

What I can't understand is why this bothers you so much? I voted Viv myself, but if someone thinks Sachin is better than Viv, its hardly something to get so fired up about. The difference between them isn't that much.

I think the reason some Sachin fans here feel the need to defend the great man (and have to do it on a yearly basis, if not a half-yearly basis) is when people try and claim that Gilchrist is the better ODI batsman because of his WC final record.

Simple answer is Gilly isn't better than Sachin. Call him a better WC final player, but that's why people are arguing.

I don't think any Sachin fan here would get pissy at someone if they said Viv (or Bevan for that matter) was better. Ponting is a little bit behind IMO but not by much.

All three are better ODI batsmen overall than Gilly though. All these four would make my world XI though so who cares?

Let's get it straight on Sachin

Many people defend him when things are going well but stick the boot into him on a regular basis when things arent going well

I've never attacked him and, in fact, have defended his position in the team more than once

Unfortunately, great player though he is, others have performed BETTER at crucial times of the most important ODI tournament - that's why I rate others more highly and why others hhave called for his head from time to time

 

[shankar]

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.

The point there is that Tendulkar's average when opening is 48+ - 4 more than his career average.

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's simple: Tendulkar's contribution can be broken down into 37 off say 40 - slightly slower than Gilchrist + 11 off 14. Ponting's average inning is 44 off about 55. So the additional contribution of Sachin is the same rate as Ponting (SR: 80) and 1/4th of his runs. So he actually almost equals Gilchrist's contribution and then goes on to make an additional contribution of 1/4th of an average Ponting inning.

I don't see how you call it 'not a terribly big feat'. The point your mopping over with this analysis is that a wicket is saved i.e. while Ponting + Gilchrist would make 48/1 off 55 balls, Tendulkar saves a wicket and does the same.

Of course the benefit of an additional wicket is obvious. The other batsmen can play quicker in these additional 11 balls because of having an extra wicket in hand. This would also mean that you can afford to play a pinch hitter who averages just 30 in place of a slower batsman who averages 41. Or you could play an extra all-rounder instead of a proper batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

For a start, it's not as good as IVA in ODIs (which is the subject of this thread btw)

No, you said something was weird about people calling for his axing in 2007. What does that have to do with anything? You said it was ironic and found it crazy that people could be calling an axing of someone who they thought was no longer good? Thinking Viv was better is fair enough and I don't have any problem with that.

 

[social]

No, you said something was weird about people calling for his axing in 2007. What does that have to do with anything? You said it was ironic and found it crazy that people could be calling an axing of someone who they thought was no longer good? Thinking Viv was better is fair enough and I don't have any problem with that.[/QUOT{

Point is that Sachin's fans ride an emotional roller-coaster

1 year they call for his omission, thereby dismissing his contribution to the game over more than a decade

Next they claim he is the greatest and attempt to justify their position by altering the laws of probability

Guy is a great player, just not the greatest

I cant imagine he loses too much sleep at night

 

[silentstriker]

Point is that Sachin's fans ride an emotional roller-coaster

1 year they call for his omission, thereby dismissing his contribution to the game over more than a decade

Why would calling for his omission be dismissing his contribution to the game? Richards wasn't very good the last two-three years, and he could rightly have been dropped at that time. McGrath, if he played longer, might have led me (through tears) to call for his omission at that time too - that doesn't mean he didn't contribute anything else. Everyone is eventually dropped if they don't retire, that doesn't invalidate their contribution.

 

[Sanz]

Guy is a great player, just not the greatest

That's your opinion (and mine too) but not a fact.

But rest of the stuff that you said just Bull****.

 

[social]

That's your opinion (and mine too) but not a fact.

But rest of the stuff that you said just Bull****.

So what's your logic?

 

[Sanz]

So what's your logic?

Nothing much Except that IVA is the better player IMO and the fact that he was 15 years ahead of his time, Batted in tougher ODI conditions.

 

[social]

Nothing much Except that IVA is the better player IMO and the fact that he was 15 years ahead of his time, Batted in tougher ODI conditions.

\\

Really

Ever see him bat?

What were the conditions like?

 

[ret]

Nothing much Except that IVA is the better player IMO and the fact that he was 15 years ahead of his time, Batted in tougher ODI conditions.

just curious, how do you measure someone to be ahead of time?

if it's SR then would someone like Dravid or probably Bevan be behind the time then?

 

[Sanz]

\\

Really

Ever see him bat?

What were the conditions like?

You never watched him or the Condition ? What were you doing then ?

Selling Cola in Stands ?

 

[Sanz]

just curious, how do you measure someone to be ahead of time?

A Strike rate of 90 in an era where someone made 36 runs in 60 overs can be called 'ahead of time'.

if it's SR then would someone like Dravid or probably Bevan be behind the time then?

What is the SR of Dravid ? I am pretty sure it is pretty respectable from today's standard. Early in his career, he was an Avg. player, came back strong in 1999-2000 and Since then I would assume that his strike rate is pretty good.

Bevan's case is different, Although I dont think his SR is not impressive, but in his defense it must be said that he often had to bat with tail in tough situation and had to conserve his wicket too and it is understandable why his SR might be slightly lower than his other equally accomplished contemporaries.

That's the reason I always say, Pure stats do not prove anything. The no. of matches Bevan won/saved Australia is just amazing and I couldn't care less if his SR was in 40s because his batting almost always won games for Australia.

 

[ret]

A Strike rate of 90 in an era where someone made 36 runs in 60 overs can be called 'ahead of time'.

What is the SR of Dravid ? I am pretty sure it is pretty respectable from today's standard. Early in his career, he was an Avg. player, came back strong in 1999-2000 and Since then I would assume that his strike rate is pretty good.

Bevan's case is different, Although I dont think his SR is not impressive, but in his defense it must be said that he often had to bat with tail in tough situation and had to conserve his wicket too and it is understandable why his SR might be slightly lower than his other equally accomplished contemporaries.

That's the reason I always say, Pure stats do not prove anything. The no. of matches Bevan won/saved Australia is just amazing and I couldn't care less if his SR was in 40s because his batting almost always won games for Australia.

Richards higher strike rate than the norm of his era is good for you to term hin ahead of his time then by that same logic anyone with a lower strike rate than the norm in the present era would be behind the time .... and thats what i m trying to point here

then you contradict yourself by saying that pure stats don't tell the full story

and you also point out the 36 of 60 overs which is an exception even for that time as an example of norm in that era and then give rare examples like a SR of 40 in Australia to support your other case

last but not the least i know all the pros and cons of most players, the SR, the whatever so don't dilute your post by stating what everyone knows, i know all that .... as i said, i m merely pointing towards the what i think could be a flaw in the logic that you using to make your point .... and also nothing against Richards being ahead of time

 

[Sanz]

Richards higher strike rate than the norm of his era is good for you to term hin ahead of his time then by that same logic anyone with a lower strike rate than the norm in the present era would be behind the time .... and thats what i m trying to point here

then you contradict yourself by saying that pure stats don't tell the full story

Yes pure stats never tell full story. Richards' high SR isn't the only reason why I consider him the best. I watched him bat a lot and I couldn't care less what his stats looked like at the end of his career. I consider him a better batsman than SRT any day.

and you also point out the 36 of 60 overs which is an exception even for that time as an example of norm in that era and then give rare examples like a SR of 40 in Australia to support your other case

Ever heard of 'Figure of Speech' ?

last but not the least i know all the pros and cons of most players, the SR, the whatever so don't dilute your post by stating what everyone knows, i know all that .... as i said, i m merely pointing towards the what i think could be a flaw in the logic that you using to make your point .... and also nothing against Richards being ahead of time

There is no flaw in my logic. I watched Richards play, I watched SRT play. I form the opinion, based on what I watched, that Richards is a better batsman than SRT.

This opinion isn't going to change, it isn't up for discussion in my mind. And I am not trying to teach you the pros and cons of any player, I am not that good. I am just stating my opinion about why Dravid/Bevan could not be considered behind their times based on SR.