Best ODI batsman?

[Ikki]

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

So you're saying I am picking stats to suit my argument. I thought it was a widely accepted value that beating the best in the biggest matches is more important that beating the worst in the least value of matches.

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

People say Lillee is a failure based on a few tests in Pakistan. Not right to me. People say Tendulkar is failure in finals because of 1 inning. Also not right to me. Both are unproven in my eyes as their talents show that there is no reason that Lillee could not have taken more than 3 wickets or that Sachin could not have scored more than 4 runs.

I never make the argument that had Lillee played more he would have done as well as Marshall - because I don't know and it's a big claim. I know that he wouldn't have sucked as bad as his figures suggest. On the same token I know Tendulkar would have scored more if he had other chances, but would he have the same record as Gilchrist for example? Not sure, and I doubt it.

Same with Warne. I wouldn't say had Warne been fully fit and was 100% on all fronts would he have been successful. I contend he just wouldn't have sucked that bad.

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.

That's true but it doesn't make them more important. When judging the best you don't value minnows the same way as you judge beating the best. Yes, you may have to beat them to progress but it doesn't make it harder than beating a great side in a final. For me, you get no extra praise by doing the former, you're expected to. Whilst the latter gets you extra praise as it should.

And India have been a much weaker side than Australia.

So have Sri Lanka.

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.

No, because Tendulkar actually has a very good finals record (not counting his grand final record). Just not as good as Gilly's for example - which to be fair is super human.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

I'm sure that most of the players in the world game think a lot of non-WC matches, considering that those are the games that they play to get the opportunity to play WC matches. And most of the players will never play a World Cup final, in truth.

One of the reasons that more people remember who's won the World Cup than other ODI series is that the WC is so rare in the grand scheme of things. It's the media that glorifies it. Not necessarily the players. Sure, players relish the opportunity to perform in the World Cup, but that does not mean that they consider other ODI matches "filler". The qualification of a great ODI batsman is someone who has performed exceptionally in one-day international cricket. ODI cricket does not just pertain to World Cup matches. A player who only performs in the WC but not outside of it is not a great player, no matter how well he has done at the Cup. Less than a month of cricket every four years is the only important thing? You're 'avin a laff.

 

[ret]

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

I don't remember who won the 87, 99 and 07 WCs

 

[Ikki]

and Ponting didn't play against those teams

Ponting comes in later and by the time he comes in there is at least 100 posted on the scoreboard. Not sure the situations are the same, not sure Ponting was concerned with gorging himself with runs there. If he had failed in the latter parts against the better teams then this could be held against him.

 

[Ikki]

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.

I agree on the whole with you, but I'd add that India aren't a poor ODI side and have been blessed with ODI batsmen. They've been in the finals (not talking about grand final here) a few times and Tendulkar has done well.

 

[Ikki]

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

Or you don't see players (big ones, i.e. Hayden) killing themselves to get to one of those series but do so for the WC.

 

[silentstriker]

I agree on the whole with you, but I'd add that India aren't a poor ODI side and have been blessed with ODI batsmen. They've been in the finals (not talking about grand final here) a few times and Tendulkar has done well.

They've been in the finals once during Tendulkar's time.....

 

[ret]

Or you don't see players (big ones, i.e. Hayden) killing themselves to get to one of those series but do so for the WC.

too bad that they gave the MoT to Klusener, a player whose team didn't play in the final, in 99 WC

 

[Richard]

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

I did?

 

[Sanz]

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

Not really.

Not many remember any of the 1975,1979, 1992final s. I didn't watch them, do know who won it but dont remember anything else. The only reason I remember about the winners of the World Cups is because there have been so few. 20 years from now no one(except Pakistanis) will remember who won the 1992 world cup, no one will care who won the 1983 WC.

Take Soccer WC, how many fans really remember the WC winner of 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 etc ?

Also, I dont know about others, but I remember spectacular performances and the tournaments where my team did well, 1983 WC, 1985 BH series, 1986 Australasia cup, 1989 Nehru Cup, 1993 Hero Cup, 1996 Titan cup and WC, 1999 WC, 2000 CT, 2002 Natwest series, 2003 WC, Twenty20 WC in 2007.

 

[Ikki]

They've been in the finals once during Tendulkar's time.....

Twice, 96 and 2003. Remember, I didn't say just "grand final" but "finals" (quarters, semis and grand finals).

 

[ret]

let's do some funny analysis

lets assume that the last inning that a player plays [irrespective of the format] is the most important innings in his life and thus the one with lots of pressure for the player concerned .... anyone playing well has to be a gr8

Gavaskar 97, iirc
Chappell, 100 odd
Bradman 4

so we conclude that based on the one inning, their last

Chappell > Gavaskar > Bradman

and who remembers, who scored how much in the 32nd innings or 45th innings, it's the last inning that veryone remembers

 

[Sanz]

Twice, 96 and 2003. Remember, I didn't say just "grand final" but "finals" (quarters, semis and grand finals).

That's just nit picking. When you say finals, it is assumed as GRAND Final.

It is either a final of not a final. Semi/quarter Finals are not finals they are semi/quarter finals.

 

[Ikki]

too bad that they gave the MoT to Klusener, a player whose team didn't play in the final, in 99 WC

Might be because he averaged 140 with the bat and 20 with the ball? His team did also get to the semi-final at least?

Really, if it wasn't for Warne, S.Africa should have breezed through.

 

[Sanz]

Oh and forgot to mention that Adam Gilchrist has a World record average of 14.33 in Semis of World Cup and has the SR of 67.18.

But I guess Semi finals are not important, let's stick to the pick and choose scneraio that makes him the greates ODI batsman.

 

[Ikki]

That's just nit picking. When you say finals, it is assumed as GRAND Final.

It is either a final of not a final. Semi/quarter Finals are not finals they are semi/quarter finals.

How is it nit picking? When I've judged Sachin with the others I've judged them on this term. You can't really make a comparison on 1 inning. Not just 'the' final.

 

[ret]

Might be because he averaged 140 with the bat and 20 with the ball? His team did also get to the semi-final at least?

Really, if it wasn't for Warne, S.Africa should have breezed through.

so does that mean that playing in the final is not on only criteria?

 

[silentstriker]

Twice, 96 and 2003. Remember, I didn't say just "grand final" but "finals" (quarters, semis and grand finals).

Huh? So then why is the quarterfinal more important than the last of the preliminary matches?

 

[Ikki]

so does that mean that playing in the final is not on only criteria?

When averaging 140 with the bat and 20 with the ball and getting to the semis, I guess not. Why, did Tendulkar do that?

 

[silentstriker]

When averaging 140 with the bat and 20 with the ball and getting to the semis, I guess not. Why, did Tendulkar do that?

So its a criteria when a player you like does it? It seems to me that you decide what players you want to win and then go back and select the criteria that he does well in.