Best ODI batsman?

[Sanz]

If someone considered them equal and that was the only thing separating them, sure. I personally see Lillee better for a whole host of reasons, and based on that record it would not change my mind. .

 

[Ikki]

Err... It's 2 balls extra for 11 extra runs!

No, it isn't. It's 2 points SR faster for an extra 11 runs. If you are talking about SR it is only 2 runs more.

That's all fine. But we can only judge players on what they've actually done.

And so? Gilchrist played a role that Australia needed him to and did it better than anyone else ever has.

I've shown that the advantage that Gilchrist gets is just 2 balls extra. Not enough for the tail-ender to score those 11 runs.

You've got the meaning of SR wrong. SR is how many runs scored off each 100 balls faced.

I have mixed up this also a few times as I keep thinking SR in the bowling way.

Haha are you joking? While it obviously changes from game to game On average more wickets in hand = More risks allowed = greater run-rate.

That doesn't really matter as much. ODI is not about as many wickets as it is about balls and runs moreso. You don't even have to take a wicket to win a ODI. And if the difference is counting a tailender 11 more runs, then so be it. In fact, it doesn't have to be just one batsmen. One batsmen can score 2, the other 3 and another 5. The point was Gilchrist's innings gives the rest of the batsmen more time, not just one of them.

 

[Ikki]

As if playing those many matches and staying consistent is that easy. Ponting is at the peak of his career, Tendulkar is supposedly over that peak and despite that Ponting averages less, and has much worse strike rate compared to SRT.

That's true. However, since Ponting has played some 298 ODI matches it is enough to gauge how he'd do. So I am not concerned with aggregate figures.

Not to forget that fact that Tendulkar's ODI career is defined by his success as an opener where he averages a Whopping 48.16 with a strike rate of 87.38, 38 100s, 68 50s in 298 matches. (Ironically 298 is the no. of ODI matches Ponting has played in).

That's great, but Ponting also has an excellent average and SR as well as scoring 100s to a high proportion. Tendulkar opening means he has more of a chance to score 100s as well.

And to me, when I do compare him with Ponting, I am not just considering opener because Ponting himself is not an opener. So, it's relative to judge them by their whole career.

Significantly, Tendulkar's average & SR drops dearly when he is captain to 37 and strikes at 84 whereas Ponting's average rises to 45 and strikes at 85. I guess that furthers the conception that Tendulkar is not as good under pressure.

Even if you ignore the fact above(SRT's ODI performance as an opener) and the take the overall record, you will notice that he has a higher SR than Ponting and a higher average. SRT is the better batsman quite easily, if you consider the two together (which you have been ignoring in this debate, but bring up as soon as we mention Gilchrist)

Tendulkar scores 0.93 runs more and 5 SR points faster. Wow, great. How is that easily better at all? It puts them easily in the same league. Those matches against Kenya have tipped him over as better. Great.

SRT has more match winning 100s (30 in 208) compared to Ponting (22 in 213). He averages 57 compared to Ponting's 50.

The fact that Ponting plays in stronger team yet has 22 in 213 (however you calculated that) actually raises his importance in my eyes, not belittles it. It is much easier to be a big fish in a small pond.

Isn't what you have been saying in pretty much all your posts in this thread ?

I see you still haven't improved that reading comprehension of yours.

And what is that for?

 

[silentstriker]

Wait a minute - 5 higher S/R for Tendulkar vs. Ponting is nothing at all, but 10 higher S/R for Gilchrist from Tendulkar makes up for 10 points of average and 26 century difference? Look, I don't mind you picking players with whatever criteria you want, but at least be consistent.

 

[Sanz]

That's true. However, since Ponting has played some 298 ODI matches it is enough to gauge how he'd do. So I am not concerned with aggregate figures.

Nope, It's not enough. Playing 100+ matches after you have passed your peak can't be gauged with how one has played upto his peak. If that was the case people would never make statements like 'He played far too long' for the greats like IVA, ITB etc.

That's great, but Ponting also has an excellent average and SR as well as scoring 100s to a high proportion.

No one is saying that Pontig's SR/avg is poor, but it's much lower compared to Tendulkar's and has lower average as well. Its funny that you argue Gilly's higher SR in his favor but show complete inconsistency in your argument in this case.

Tendulkar opening means he has more of a chance to score 100s as well.

Ponting doesn't play much down either. That argument doesn't hold much water.

And to me, when I do compare him with Ponting, I am not just considering opener because Ponting himself is not an opener. So, it's relative to judge them by their whole career.

SRT still comes out on top, pretty easily, in pretty much every category of the stats. Despite the fact that he also played World's best team which Ponting didn't.

Significantly, Tendulkar's average & SR drops dearly when he is captain to 37 and strikes at 84 whereas Ponting's average rises to 45 and strikes at 85. I guess that furthers the conception that Tendulkar is not as good under pressure.

I can make arguments that Ponting doesn't do well in pressure situations either. His average drops to 41.6 and SR drops to 75 while chasing. OTOH Tendulkar's averages slightly dips but SR goes up, so overall there is a consistency in the batting. Tendulkar has 16 100s and 48 50s compared to Ricky's 6 100s and 24 50s.

Also about the Pressure :- Tendulkar has played in 38 Grant Finals - Scored @53/match with a SR of 86, Whereas Ponting has played in 40 Grand Finals Scored @39.52 with SR of 82.35. Tendulkar has 5 100s and 10 50s, Ponting has 2 100s and 7 50s. So much for doing well in the pressure.

If you take All Finals - Ponting's average further dips to 36.6 with even worse SR.

Now go ahead and argue that other finals are not important and what not.

Tendulkar scores 0.93 runs more and 5 SR points faster. Wow, great. How is that easily better at all? It puts them easily in the same league. Those matches against Kenya have tipped him over as better. Great.

I have already demonstrated how SRT is easily the better batsman in ODIs. If Ponting Can't perform against Kenya than it is a problem with his batting.

The fact that Ponting plays in stronger team yet has 22 in 213 (however you calculated that) actually raises his importance in my eyes, not belittles it. It is much easier to be a big fish in a small pond.

First of all it's not that difficult to get the batting performance in matches won. Secondly, I dont know how it works in his favor. Ponting got more opportunties to win yet scored less than Tendulkar. The fact that he had a better team to back him up, proves that he wasn't under as much pressure as Tendulkar to perform and still he was outscored by Tendulkar in pretty much every category. More 8 more 100s in 7 less games, with a much higher SR.

I see you still haven't improved that reading comprehension of yours.

Very typical of you, when you can not argue my point, start attacking me. I had hoped that the ban would have done you some good, but unfortunately some people never learn.

And what is that for?

Your Inconsistency

 

[Sanz]

Wait a minute - 5 higher S/R for Tendulkar vs. Ponting is nothing at all, but 10 higher S/R for Gilchrist from Tendulkar makes up for 10 points of average and 26 century difference? Look, I don't mind you picking players with whatever criteria you want, but at least be consistent.

Bingo.

 

[ret]

And so? Gilchrist played a role that Australia needed him to and did it better than anyone else ever has.

thats a myth .... what has he done in the semis? isn't that an imp game?

below is Gilly's record in important games

career avg 35

all finals 37 [thats close to his career average of 35]
all semis 19 [thats a dip of 16 over his career avg]
all quarters 29 [thats a dip of 6 over his career avg]
preliminaries 36 [thats abt his career average]

 

[shankar]

No, it isn't. It's 2 points SR faster for an extra 11 runs. If you are talking about SR it is only 2 runs more.

Nope. Look at the break-up of Sachin and Gilly's average innings.

Gilly - 37(38)
Sachin - (i) 37(40) + (ii) 11(14)
(i) is just 2 balls slower than Gilchrist. (ii) is the 1/4th the inning that Ponting typically plays i.e. 44 (56)

So it's 2 extra balls for 11 extra runs by the time Ponting comes to the crease.

And so? Gilchrist played a role that Australia needed him to and did it better than anyone else ever has.

So what? We're discussing elite players here. Obviously they'll be (close to) the best that their countries produced. That doesn't mean one can't compare them.

You've got the meaning of SR wrong. SR is how many runs scored off each 100 balls faced. I have mixed up this also a few times as I keep thinking SR in the bowling way.

See above.

That doesn't really matter as much. ODI is not about as many wickets as it is about balls and runs moreso. You don't even have to take a wicket to win a ODI. And if the difference is counting a tailender 11 more runs, then so be it. In fact, it doesn't have to be just one batsmen. One batsmen can score 2, the other 3 and another 5. The point was Gilchrist's innings gives the rest of the batsmen more time, not just one of them.

There's only 10 wickets per team not infinite. So when a batsman gets out most of the time, the other batsmen slow down for at least a short period.

The other point it's not easy as saying the tail-enders will hit 11 more runs. Since we're talking about averages, the tail-enders have to average 11 more to make up for Gilchrist. Whereas they just need to take 2 balls lesser to make up for Tendulkar.

 

[shankar]

Kazoholic, Look at it like this:

If Sachin plays instead of Gilchrist, he also scores 37 takes 2 balls extra. But in compensation, instead of Ponting coming in you have Super-Ponting who averages 55 (44+11) with a SR of 80 (i.e. no depreciation from Ponting's SR).

 

[Ikki]

Wait a minute - 5 higher S/R for Tendulkar vs. Ponting is nothing at all, but 10 higher S/R for Gilchrist from Tendulkar makes up for 10 points of average and 26 century difference? Look, I don't mind you picking players with whatever criteria you want, but at least be consistent.

36 from 37 balls vs. 44 from 50 - difference is 11 runs but 13 balls saved: even if McGrath were to bowl the extra overs he'd concede more than 11.

44 from 50 vs 43 from 51 balls. - difference is 1 run more for also 1 less ball. That's close no matter how you cut it.

Please, make sense first, then tell me to be consistent.

 

[Ikki]

Nope, It's not enough. Playing 100+ matches after you have passed your peak can't be gauged with how one has played upto his peak. If that was the case people would never make statements like 'He played far too long' for the greats like IVA, ITB etc.

That's irrelevant. Neither are passed their peaks and are of similar age. Tendulkar just played more ODIs, nothing more nothing less. Next.

No one is saying that Pontig's SR/avg is poor, but it's much lower compared to Tendulkar's and has lower average as well. Its funny that you argue Gilly's higher SR in his favor but show complete inconsistency in your argument in this case.

No it isn't. This may be why so many of you are frothing at the mouth considering you're forgetting to do the simple math. The difference between a Ponting inning and a Sachin inning is that Sachin will score 1 more run for 1 less ball. That is it.

Gilchrist on the other hand whilst scoring less runs saves more balls. So there is a balancing act between the two stats and what you would rather have.

Ponting doesn't play much down either. That argument doesn't hold much water.

Haha, it does for Richards but doesn't for Ponting?

And actually it does. The difference between Sachin's century scoring ratio and Ponting's is only 3 centuries. If Ponting had scored 3 more centuries they'd have the same proportion of centuries to innings. You're telling me batting all bar 1 ODI from 3rd-8th won't have reduced it?

So yes, I think had Ponting batted higher having more time he would have made up only 3 centuries. They have roughly the same proportion of 50s to an inning though.

SRT still comes out on top, pretty easily, in pretty much every category of the stats. Despite the fact that he also played World's best team which Ponting didn't.

Er. Wrong. Coming out on top by 1 run or 1 ball does not make the other inferior. Otherwise, Marshall > McGrath (this example is for SS) pretty easily. Not the case. Especially when you factor that the difference between their career records are Tendulkar's innings with Kenya, for example.

I can make arguments that Ponting doesn't do well in pressure situations either. His average drops to 41.6 and SR drops to 75 while chasing. OTOH Tendulkar's averages slightly dips but SR goes up, so overall there is a consistency in the batting. Tendulkar has 16 100s and 48 50s compared to Ricky's 6 100s and 24 50s.

And I can rebut saying Ponting's team effectively bowled out opposition regularly and hence batting 2nd was rarely a pressure position. Whereas Sachin's team had the opposite problem and required him to do more.

Also about the Pressure :- Tendulkar has played in 38 Grant Finals - Scored @53/match with a SR of 86, Whereas Ponting has played in 40 Grand Finals Scored @39.52 with SR of 82.35. Tendulkar has 5 100s and 10 50s, Ponting has 2 100s and 7 50s. So much for doing well in the pressure.

If you take All Finals - Ponting's average further dips to 36.6 with even worse SR.

Now go ahead and argue that other finals are not important and what not.

Yes, the final of the CB series is pressure. Bravo.

I have already demonstrated how SRT is easily the better batsman in ODIs. If Ponting Can't perform against Kenya than it is a problem with his batting.

Sure it is.

First of all it's not that difficult to get the batting performance in matches won. Secondly, I dont know how it works in his favor. Ponting got more opportunties to win yet scored less than Tendulkar. The fact that he had a better team to back him up, proves that he wasn't under as much pressure as Tendulkar to perform and still he was outscored by Tendulkar in pretty much every category. More 8 more 100s in 7 less games, with a much higher SR.

Ok, explain how you calculated matchwinning innings. This for me is puzzling.

And yes, it works opposite to Ponting's favour for being in Australia and producing matchwinning innings because the rest of his teammates are more likely to steal the accolades. Even by your own measure Ponting is not that far off despite having the better side.

Very typical of you, when you can not argue my point, start attacking me. I had hoped that the ban would have done you some good, but unfortunately some people never learn.

I didn't get a ban because I stopped being an ass . Here, I have done nothing of the sort. I've even entertained your argument hospitably. Never thrown down that you had a point and I can see why Tendulkar > Ponting. In fact, I haven't even said Ponting is better than Tendulkar. I am merely explaining why someone could see it as such and it is a very reasonable argument.

Your Inconsistency

Well, instead of rolling your eyes show me. If I can, I'll explain. If I can't, I'll apologise and amend my argument. Not a big deal to me mate. I'd rather help people be right than try to be right myself and mislead others.

 

[Jono]

Look guys, I don't want to be harsh, but what are you guys doing?

Generally discussions on CW because of a mix of:
a) one person reckons they can convince the other that they are right, and change their mind
b) the discussion is interesting

This is neither.

 

[Sanz]

36 from 37 balls vs. 44 from 50 - difference is 11 runs but 13 balls saved: even if McGrath were to bowl the extra overs he'd concede more than 11.

44 from 50 vs 43 from 51 balls. - difference is 1 run more for also 1 less run. That's close no matter how you cut it.

Please, make sense first, then tell me to be consistent.

Wow. So much for Questioning others' reading skills. Once again you prove that your writting skills are very poor, so is your mathematics.

Now I wait for a barrage of smilies.

 

[Ikki]

Nope. Look at the break-up of Sachin and Gilly's average innings.

Gilly - 37(38)
Sachin - (i) 37(40) + (ii) 11(14)
(i) is just 2 balls slower than Gilchrist. (ii) is the 1/4th the inning that Ponting typically plays i.e. 44 (56)

So it's 2 extra balls for 11 extra runs by the time Ponting comes to the crease.

Wrong. You have the equation above you and you still got it wrong?

By the time Ponting comes on Sachin has scored 37(40) which means he has taken 2 more balls to score the same amount of runs. You keep mentioning Ponting. It doesn't have to be Ponting, it can be Brett Lee. You can't put down the extra runs to any one person but you can put the balls saved to Gilchrist. Anyway you can't split the runs into the two groups as you have. You're assuming Tendulkar has scored his runs at SR of 92 which he really doesn't do just for the sake of comparing with Gilchrist.

It should be more like: Tendulkar: 37 (41) + 11 (13). It could be any ratio really. It could be 37 (50) + 11 (4). You can't predict it.

Also, Gilchrist's innings are about a-run-a-ball when opening.

So what? We're discussing elite players here. Obviously they'll be (close to) the best that their countries produced. That doesn't mean one can't compare them.

My friend, that has nothing to do with the point I made.

I meant to imply that Sachin's role and Gilchrist's role are very very different within their sides. They are statistically close when you consider runs scored and balls faced. As I said, for India, runs were more important and for Australia time (balls) were more important.

BUT, for example, when you have someone like Ponting, who is close to Tendulkar himself, come 2nd to Gilchrist who played that role it shows you how effective he was within that role.

There's only 10 wickets per team not infinite. So when a batsman gets out most of the time, the other batsmen slow down for at least a short period.

Not sure I really understand or agree with your point. Ponting/Tendulkar/Gilchrist bat far up enough for the loss of wicket not to slow down the others too much because the match is still well within the balance. I see no reason why'd they slow down as even from those positions, losing a wicket won't guarantee that everyone else will also lose their wicket for them to be concerned about it and bat slow.

The other point it's not easy as saying the tail-enders will hit 11 more runs. Since we're talking about averages, the tail-enders have to average 11 more to make up for Gilchrist. Whereas they just need to take 2 balls lesser to make up for Tendulkar.

Again, your point is wrong because you are calculating SR the incorrect way. Even if we take their opening stats only, it means the tailenders have to score 11 more runs or they have to save 17 more balls. What Gilchrist essentially does is give even tailenders the opportunity to score those 11 runs at an SR of 65 - or any other batsman/batsmen, mind you. But why that is extra valuable for Australia is that they are more likely to make up those runs with an even higher SR.

 

[Ikki]

Look guys, I don't want to be harsh, but what are you guys doing?

Generally discussions on CW because of a mix of:
a) one person reckons they can convince the other that they are right, and change their mind
b) the discussion is interesting

This is neither.

Apologies.

I am tired of the debate also. But if others are questioning my logic then that's worth the reply from me. In fact, I don't see this as much of a convincing thing at all. I think people can validly hold the opinion that Tendukar is > Ponting. I have just put an argument forth that Ponting can also be > Tendulkar and people seem to think that's a joke.

Well, I'm here explaining as well as I can.

 

[Ikki]

Wow. So much for Questioning others' reading skills. Once again you prove that your writting skills are very poor, so is your mathematics.

Now I wait for a barrage of smilies.

My writting skills? I apologise for the mistake of putting runs instead of balls. What a mistake?! I'll try to get past it. I'll go fix it right now.

I generally reedit a post I type so many times I forget fixing stuff like that. My bad.

 

[Sanz]

That's irrelevant. Neither are passed their peaks and are of similar age. Tendulkar just played more ODIs, nothing more nothing less. Next.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=37842&highlight=peak+tendulkar

No it isn't. This may be why so many of you are frothing at the mouth considering you're forgetting to do the simple math. The difference between a Ponting inning and a Sachin inning is that Sachin will score 1 more run for 1 less ball. That is it.

The difference between Tendulkar and Ponting is 1000s of runs, with a higher average, with a much higher SR.

Gilchrist on the other hand whilst scoring less runs saves more balls. So there is a balancing act between the two stats and what you would rather have.

So was Afridi. Afridi takes even less balls to score his runs, doesn't make him better. I know which one I would take. What some people forget is that the primary responsibility of the batsmen is to score runs, not save balls. Tendulkar does that more effectively than Gilchrist or for that matter every other batsman in the ODI History except IVA Richards.

Haha, it does for Richards but doesn't for Ponting?

Richards has a better Average and SR despite playing a completely different age of ODIs. Plus, I watched him play and and he was in a different league, regardless of all statistical measures.

And actually it does. The difference between Sachin's century scoring ratio and Ponting's is only 3 centuries. If Ponting had scored 3 more centuries they'd have the same proportion of centuries to innings. You're telling me batting all bar 1 ODI from 3rd-8th won't have reduced it?

But the fact is that Ponting has not scored those 3 100s. Only If Lillee had taken 1 fifer in Pakistan his status would be 'Proven' in some people's minds. And no I am not telling you anything, you are the one who has been harping about 1 ODI final where Ponting scored and hence claiming how he is almost as good (if not better)

So yes, I think had Ponting batted higher having more time he would have made up only 3 centuries. They have roughly the same proportion of 50s to an inning though.

No, it would not. Ponting will not catch up SRT in no. of ODI 100s ever.

Er. Wrong. Coming out on top by 1 run or 1 ball does not make the other inferior. Otherwise, Marshall > McGrath (this example is for SS) pretty easily. Not the case. Especially when you factor that the difference between their career records are Tendulkar's innings with Kenya, for example.

If Ponting can not play well against Kenya, it is a flaw in his batting. It is not just about 1 run or 1 ball, it is both and doing so consistently. If Ponting and SRT were both competing in 100 meter dash, and Tendulkar came out on top everytime (a la every category in ODIs), even if the difference in their timing were fractions of a sec, One would be a legend the other would be just another Silver medalist.

And I can rebut saying Ponting's team effectively bowled out opposition regularly and hence batting 2nd was rarely a pressure position. Whereas Sachin's team had the opposite problem and required him to do more.

Chasing is always a pressure situation for a Top order batsman, doesn't matter what score you are chasing.

Yes, the final of the CB series is pressure. Bravo.

Oh so now you are going to pick and chose Finals too.

Ok, explain how you calculated matchwinning innings. This for me is puzzling.

Not match winning inning but Century in matches won by their country. Go to advance filter, check the 'won' box and you should have the desired result.

And yes, it works opposite to Ponting's favour for being in Australia and producing matchwinning innings because the rest of his teammates are more likely to steal the accolades. Even by your own measure Ponting is not that far off despite having the better side.

No it doesn't, because as a batsman coming in @ 3 Ponting gets the chance to do that before most. If Ponting had done his job as well as you are trying to claim, Michael Bevan wouldn't be considered such a Great ODI batsman.

Thank You And That's all the time I had for you today.

 

[Ikki]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=37842&highlight=peak+tendulkar

And what does form in Tests have to do with form in ODIs?

The difference between Tendulkar and Ponting is 1000s of runs, with a higher average, with a much higher SR.

1000s of runs scored because of 110+ more innings. And as I proved to you before, the average and SR are hardly enough to make one player better than another. 1 run more for 1 less ball. That's it .

So was Afridi. Afridi takes even less balls to score his runs, doesn't make him better. I know which one I would take. What some people forget is that the primary responsibility of the batsmen is to score runs, not save balls. Tendulkar does that more effectively than Gilchrist or for that matter every other batsman in the ODI History except IVA Richards.

Yes, but Afridi has a poor average by ODI standard. I mentionde this before. A played can average 1 and score at a rate of 1 ball. It doesn't mean they are better than Gilchrist simply because of the balls saved and such.

And no, the primary responsibility of a batsman is to make runs as fast as they can - this is ODI. If a batsman averages 100 runs but takes 40 overs to do it then he is useless at the ODI level.

Richards has a better Average and SR despite playing a completely different age of ODIs. Plus, I watched him play and and he was in a different league, regardless of all statistical measures.

It doesn't matter. The point you made pertained to centuries scored. Somehow the lack of centuries explained Richards' failure but not Ponting's?

That Richards' example may work against Tendulkar but not Ponting. Ponting averages less (like Tendulkar) but scores proportionately many more 100s than Richards.

This actually serves to prove the point that Ponting even batting lower has been prolific - almost Sachin like, without batting higher.

But the fact is that Ponting has not scored those 3 100s. Only If Lillee had taken 1 fifer in Pakistan his status would be 'Proven' in some people's minds. And no I am not telling you anything, you are the one who has been harping about 1 ODI final where Ponting scored and hence claiming how he is almost as good (if not better)

Terribly wrong example.

I'll say it again: the difference between Ponting scoring as many 100s per inning as Tendulkar is time at the crease. Because the margin is only 3 centuries.

I am saying, had Ponting played most of his ODIs opening (200+ games worth) I could see him clearly making up that deficit if not more. It's not even remotely apt to the Lillee case.

No, it would not. Ponting will not catch up SRT in no. of ODIs ever.

You're obviously not getting the point. This is why I give you my comprehension jibes.

The point is not about Ponting playing as many no. ODI as Tendulkar. The point is to score on proportion the same amount.

Player X may have 10 centuries from 20 matches. Player Y may have 15 centuries from 30 matches. It is the same proportion of centuries to matches.

If Ponting can not play well against Kenya, it is a flaw in his batting. It is not just about 1 run or 1 ball, it is both and doing so consistently. If Ponting and SRT were both competing in 100 meter dash, and Tendulkar came out on top everytime (a la every category in ODIs), even if the difference in their timing were fractions of a sec, One would be a legend the other would be just another Silver medalist.

LOL, you usually have good arguments. This is just a very poor one. Cricket does not work like the 100m dash. There are times where a 50 is more valuable than someone else's 40. I'd rather Ponting do well in the harder more important games than against Kenya in 3 relatively unimportant matches.

If you take the point you made seriously, then Imran Khan is a legend and Wasim Akram is a silver medalist in Test bowling.

Chasing is always a pressure situation for a Top order batsman, doesn't matter what score you are chasing.

No it isn't. Not when the opposition team has posted a relatively low score that you'll have enough time to chase down (averaging 41; SR 75, as you said).

Oh so now you are going to pick and chose Finals too.

No, I didn't pick and choose finals. I said I only care about 1 final from the start. The rest are, relatively, unimportant to say the least.

Not match winning inning but Century in matches won by their country. Go to advance filter, check the 'won' box and you should have the desired result.

It doesn't work like that but Tendulkar has 30/407 innings and Ponting has 26/289 innings.

Tendulkar: 30/407=7.37%
Ponting: 22/289=7.61

Ponting has a higher percentage. In fact, more of Ponting's centuries led to wins than Tendulkar's.

Tendulkar: 30/42=71.43%
Ponting: 22/26=84.62%

No it doesn't, because as a batsman coming in @ 3 Ponting gets the chance to do that before most. If Ponting had done his job as well as you are trying to claim, Michael Bevan wouldn't be considered such a Great ODI batsman.

My claim to Bevan's superiority does not conflict with this. Bevan did not need to score centuries to compare. He only has 6 in 196 innings btw. Bevan also averages high because he batted towards the end and wasn't dismissed as much.

Tthis actually further proves the point that the lower you play the less likely you are to score a century. You are not likely to see 2 centuries in a ODI inning from the same side. If Gilchrist/Hayden/X scored a century it made it THAT much less likely Ponting would score a century. So him only needing 3 to have the same record as Tendulkar actually works in his favour as it is a massive feat given his circumstances.

Thank You And That's all the time I had for you today.

YW.

 

[shankar]

Wrong. You have the equation above you and you still got it wrong?

By the time Ponting comes on Sachin has scored 37(40) which means he has taken 2 more balls to score the same amount of runs.

You are getting confused and misunderstanding what I'm saying. You have been saying that Gilchrist performs a role for Australia. I'm trying to show you the difference between two scenarios where Tendulkar plays in the place of Gilchrist. We take what happens at the other batsman's end to be the same and neglect it. So in Gilchrist's case, Ponting would come in at 37 off 38 balls scored whereas in Tendulkar's case he would come in at 48 off 54 balls.

Now, to gauge the effect of replacing Gilchrist by Tendulkar I split an average Tendulkar inning into two parts - 37(40) + 11(14). This doesn't mean that he will score the runs in this order only. He could get 11(14) initially and 37(40) later. It's just a way of splitting into two parts his contribution.

To compare the two scenarios, we need to compare the net contribution of Gilchrist+Ponting vs Tendulkar+Ponting (Doesn't have to be Ponting could be anyone). The net Tendulkar+Ponting contribution is equivalent to a combo of an Almost-Gilchrist who averages 37 at a SR of 92.5 and Super-Ponting who averages 55 at a SR same as Ponting of 80.

So the net effect of replacing Gilchrist with Tendulkar is that Gilchrist's contribution gets slowed by a tiny amount whereas Ponting's contribution is boosted massively.

 

[shankar]

36 from 37 balls vs. 44 from 50 - difference is 11 runs but 13 balls saved: even if McGrath were to bowl the extra overs he'd concede more than 11.

44 from 50 vs 43 from 51 balls. - difference is 1 run more for also 1 less ball. That's close no matter how you cut it.

Please, make sense first, then tell me to be consistent.

The relevant statistics for Tendulkar are his innings opening the batting. He has played more innings at this position than Ponting has done overall, so there's no problem in comparing the two. So he averages 4 more than Ponting at a SR higher by 7.