Your top ten ONE-DAY INTERNATIONAL batsmen of all-time

[shortpitched713]

Same rules as before.

One list per person. Not just players you have seen (unless you generally believe they are the ten best of alltime, and since its ODIs it would be more feasible this time).

Happy listing.

1. Tendulkar (don't care what you say about Viv. Tendy has all the records now. Over 40 centuries FFS).

2. Richards (to have a s/r of over 90 in those days was amazing. And an average of 47 whilst striking above 90 even more amazing).

3. Bevan (the best finisher and pressure player the 50-over game will ever likely see).

4. Ponting (might break Tendulkar's records one day - runs scored, not neccessarily centuries scored)

5. Gilchrist (revolutionized the use of keepers in ODIs, and a phenomenal strike-rate).

6. Zaheer Abbas (see Richards).

7. Lara (averaged 40 and I think we didn't see his full potential in the ODI game. Could have been up there with Tendulkar but didn't have the support from teammates and thus nearly always came in in pressure situations. Couldn't understand him batting at 6 in the later part of his career but never mind)

8. Saeed Anwar

9. Jayasuriya

10. Ganguly (don't care what you say. Look at his record).

Are you going to do an allrounder one? Because they area lot more useful in ODIs then they are in Tests.

 

[Ikki]

Cant blame them for that. That's how ODI cricket was played those days. The point was that they were highly successful and their teams won a lot and their batting was one of the main reasons behind it.

I am not really blaming them for that. I just think if you can get a batsman now that is scoring as much but faster it is a better choice. They weren't particularly fast in tests either - also the fashion of the day.

Not talking about the group stages, these are finals, Quarter Finals and Semi Finals.

I know. Perhaps, I should have been clearer. You said a side has to do well in group stages to get to the finals, but what I was saying that most of the teams are really sub-par and beating their brains out isn't exactly the same test you get from better sides in the finals.

Only in the World Cup finals, that is probably because he has played more, Tendulkar has played only one, sure he cant be faulted for that. In Grand Finals :-

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

Alright, I was talking about World cup finals. And I am not so sure it is just playing more that helps an average, for Gilchrist has only played 2 more WC finals matches than Sachin.

 

[Jono]

Sachin has faced 5 balls in a WC Final. If you're honestly going to hold that against him to decide Gilly is better, than there is nothing I can really say to change your mind.

 

[Beleg]

1. Tendulkar
2. Ponting
3. Lara
4. Inzamam
5. Gilchrist
6. Ganguly
7. De Silva
8. Sarwan
9. Richie Richardson
10. Maindad

 

[Sanz]

I am not really blaming them for that. I just think if you can get a batsman now that is scoring as much but faster it is a better choice. They weren't particularly fast in tests either - also the fashion of the day.

I dont think it is as simple as that. It really depends on which era you have played, what conditions you have played etc. That is why I dont think the strike rate comparison has any validity or meaning when you compare batsmen from different era.

Also If I have someone as explosive as Viv Richards coming in the middle order, my priority would be to give him the best platform to score his runs even if it is at the expense of being slightly slower than normal.

IMO Greenidge/Haynes were infintely better ODI batsmen than Gilchrist, There simply is no comparison.

I know. Perhaps, I should have been clearer. You said a side has to do well in group stages to get to the finals, but what I was saying that most of the teams are really sub-par and beating their brains out isn't exactly the same test you get from better sides in the finals.

Not really, you still have to beat good teams to reach the finals. If you only beat sub-par teams in the WC tournament you wont reach the finals, as simple as that. People make a lot about Kenya reaching the world cup SF, dont forget they beat SL in the group stage and had India in a very tight situation in the Super Six Games. I would say they were a fairly competitive team in that tournament.

Alright, I was talking about World cup finals. And I am not so sure it is just playing more that helps an average, for Gilchrist has only played 2 more WC finals matches than Sachin.

Why would you say so ? Because all the stats point otherwise, Tendulkar has played more finals than Gilchrist and has an average of 48 compared to Gilchrist's 40.

 

[shankar]

And if it came down to 8 runs and 10 balls to score them (difference between Adam's and Sachin's avg. and SR) then I know who I'm going for.

P.S. it's more like 36 to 44 (8 less).

Actually as an opener alone, Tendulkar's average is close to 50. WRT strike-rates, Sachin would have played far more in the period after 15 overs than Gilchrist. If you take the strike-rate in the period when fielding restrictions applied alone, Sachin's strike-rate would obviously increase significantly. So there's a pretty significant difference between the two.

 

[silentstriker]

Alright, I was talking about World cup finals. And I am not so sure it is just playing more that helps an average, for Gilchrist has only played 2 more WC finals matches than Sachin.

Wait - three ODIS tell you something about Gilchrist? I wonder who else has a record that you discount because they played so few games. Hmmm.

And also, by your definition, Afridi is better than Gilchrist, right? He has a 15 more SR and averages 10 less.

 

[shortpitched713]

1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Viv Richards
3. Brian Lara
4. Adam Gilchrist
5. Ricky Ponting
6. Michael Bevan
7. Sourav Ganguly
8. Dean Jones
9. Saeed Anwar
10. Mark Waugh

I hate Australia cause they're too damn good.

 

[sunilreddy]

SR Tendulkar
S Ganguly
R Ponting
IVA Richards
A Gilchrist
Inzamam
M Bevan
BC Lara
GS Chappell
S Anwar

 

[Ikki]

Wait - three ODIS tell you something about Gilchrist? I wonder who else has a record that you discount because they played so few games. Hmmm.

And also, by your definition, Afridi is better than Gilchrist, right? He has a 15 more SR and averages 10 less.

No, because then he'd have to score like 20 runs with 35 balls. whilst possible and doesn't need a large SR, it's not the kind of distance you would want between two sides where the difference is to be made by said batsman. And Afridi's overall average is 23-24, so you are cutting it a bit close, as well as digressing from my point. Which I don't appreciate, it's like you putting words in my mouth knowing it's not what I wish to say.

 

[shortpitched713]

1. A. Gilchrist
2. M. Bevan
3. D. Jones
4. M. Hayden
5. R. Ponting
6. A. Symonds
7. M. Waugh
8. M. Clarke
9. C. Cairns
10. A. Border

I don't know why you keep on making these kinds of glaring mistakes in your lists, bond. Sort it son.

 

[silentstriker]

No, because then he'd have to score like 20 runs with 35 balls. whilst possible and doesn't need a large SR, it's not the kind of distance you would want between two sides where the difference is to be made by said batsman.

Wait, what? Averages and S/R don't work the way you think they do.

 

[shortpitched713]

ill revise my list.

1. A. Gilchrist
2. M. Bevan
3. D. Jones
4. M. Hayden
5. R. Ponting
6. A. Symonds
7. M. Waugh
8. M. Clarke
9. A. Border
10. B. Reid

Thats better.

 

[Ikki]

Sachin has faced 5 balls in a WC Final. If you're honestly going to hold that against him to decide Gilly is better, than there is nothing I can really say to change your mind.

I was not talking about simply the grand final, but all finals: quarters, semis and grand finals.

Gilchrist has 6 games to Tendulkar's 4.

Actually as an opener alone, Tendulkar's average is close to 50. WRT strike-rates, Sachin would have played far more in the period after 15 overs than Gilchrist. If you take the strike-rate in the period when fielding restrictions applied alone, Sachin's strike-rate would obviously increase significantly. So there's a pretty significant difference between the two.

I wasn't listing really the greatest ODI openers, but players. If I were to simply take that into account, I'd have to disregard 119 of 407 Tendulkar's ODI matches.

 

[silentstriker]

Wait, what? Averages and S/R don't work the way you think they do.

Opening the batting, Sachin Tendulkar scores a century every 7.88 matches. Opening the batting, Adam Gilchrist scores a century every 16.5 matches.

 

[Ikki]

Wait, what? Averages and S/R don't work the way you think they do.

Runs scored per 100 faced.
Runs scored per dismissal.

 

[Ikki]

I dont think it is as simple as that. It really depends on which era you have played, what conditions you have played etc. That is why I dont think the strike rate comparison has any validity or meaning when you compare batsmen from different era.

Also If I have someone as explosive as Viv Richards coming in the middle order, my priority would be to give him the best platform to score his runs even if it is at the expense of being slightly slower than normal.

Well then, that makes Viv Richards superhuman. Not only did he outscore them he did it incredibly faster.

IMO Greenidge/Haynes were infintely better ODI batsmen than Gilchrist, There simply is no comparison.

I disagree. The game has evolved to a much faster pace and I don't consider either Greenidge or Haynes good enough to bat much faster and keep that scoring. In my mind, they were slow scorers and the way I see the game, it puts too big of a question on them to assume they may have stepped up.

Not really, you still have to beat good teams to reach the finals. If you only beat sub-par teams in the WC tournament you wont reach the finals, as simple as that. People make a lot about Kenya reaching the world cup SF, dont forget they beat SL in the group stage and had India in a very tight situation in the Super Six Games. I would say they were a fairly competitive team in that tournament.

All that being true, it doesn't change the fact that most of the sides are sub-par and the fact that more than 1 team goes up in each group isn't exactly a pressure cooker, nor does it compare with direct elimination against better sides, as occur in the finals.

Why would you say so ? Because all the stats point otherwise, Tendulkar has played more finals than Gilchrist and has an average of 48 compared to Gilchrist's 40.

These are counting other cups, not just World Cups?

 

[Ikki]

Opening the batting, Sachin Tendulkar scores a century every 7.88 matches. Opening the batting, Adam Gilchrist scores a century every 16.5 matches.

Calculate Bevan's for me, thanks.

 

[silentstriker]

Calculate Bevan's for me, thanks.

Bevan only opened once in ODIs.

 

[Ikki]

Bevan only opened once in ODIs.

I am not talking about openers. I am talking about overall. Tendulkar does worse overall, but let's leave that for now.

The job that Gilchrist does for Australia and Tendulkar does for India are two completely separate things. I'd imagine if Australia needed an opener like Tendulkar Ponting would take up the job. The fact is that Gilchrist comes in and blasts his way settling the game on his own blade. Australia are strong enough to withstand the risk that if Gilchrist fails, others will pull their slack. Which is why I disregard this straight comparison as you seem to be doing and I mainly look at effect.

That's why I talk in bare minimums and differences between their figures. And when are those bare minimums likely to count or come up? In pressure-cooker games with good opposition, no?