India Top Two ODI batsmen

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Now that's just completely incorrect.

Hot take: I'd take Dravid of the mid 2000s in a heartbeat instead of present day Dhoni for the role he currently attempts to perform.

Established specialist batsmen of Indian team in Dravid's time
- Azhar , Sachin , jadeja , ganguly , sehwag , yuvaraj , kohli

All were better than Dravid. Even Jadeja , better in both AVG and SR 1996-2000

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

DWTA.
If you look at their stats till '02,
Ganguly - 43 at 75
Dravid - 39 at 69

Unfortunately, Ganguly declined thenceforth when the ODI batting was getting easier, while Dravid improved his stats exploiting the condition.

IMHO, Ganguly is clearly a rung or two above Dravid.

This
Dravid is Ajay Jadeja category

 

[vcs]

Dravid never "played well" after 2002. His numbers improved slightly because of the easier batting conditions.
Yes, I do count that against Ganguly, and that is why I don't regard him as an ATG.



Ganguly was way better than Dravid during 96-02.
Dravid was better than Ganguly during 03-07 ( which was Ganguly's decline stage ).
I respect your opinion, but Ganguly >> Dravid any day for me.



I Agree with this. He indeed was poor at running between the wickets and a liability as a fielder. But, I'd assume his low SR is also because of his slow starts. He could accelerate once he was set. IMO, Dravid clearly lacked this quality too.

Not true, I even remember him playing some dashing innings in ODIs in England around 2007. Wasn't very good on flat Asian wickets where his SR of around 80 just wasn't enough as pitches starting flattening, and scoring at a run-a-ball became a necessity rather than a luxury. Ganguly had a renaissance around 2007 as well but overall Dravid was at least as good as him in ODIs after 2002 or so.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Dravid never "played well" after 2002. His numbers improved slightly because of the easier batting conditions.
Yes, I do count that against Ganguly, and that is why I don't regard him as an ATG.



Ganguly was way better than Dravid during 96-02.
Dravid was better than Ganguly during 03-07 ( which was Ganguly's decline stage ).
I respect your opinion, but Ganguly >> Dravid any day for me.



I Agree with this. He indeed was poor at running between the wickets and a liability as a fielder. But, I'd assume his low SR is also because of his slow starts. He could accelerate once he was set. IMO, Dravid clearly lacked this quality too.

Agreed.
100%

 

[OverratedSanity]

Established specialist batsmen of Indian team in Dravid's time
- Azhar , Sachin , jadeja , ganguly , sehwag , yuvaraj , kohli

All were better than Dravid. Even Jadeja , better in both AVG and SR 1996-2000

You said all were better than him throughout his career. That is an idiotic opinion. None of Yuvraj or Ganguly or sehwag were as good as him in the early to mid 2000s.
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

We also played guys like kaif and dinesh Mongia for ages and you actually argue they were better in any way. Just ridiculously dumb posting. Get in the bin.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not true, I even remember him playing some dashing innings in ODIs in England around 2007. Wasn't very good on flat Asian wickets where his SR of around 80 just wasn't enough as pitches starting flattening, and scoring at a run-a-ball became a necessity rather than a luxury. Ganguly had a renaissance around 2007 as well but overall Dravid was at least as good as him in ODIs after 2002 or so.

Ganguly was flat out bad in those years. It's not even close

 

[stephen]

Heh, it's baffling someone would argue Bevan was better than Tendulkar based on the stats you just posted. One has 5 centuries, the other 27 ffs.

Of course an opener is going to have more centuries than someone who batted mostly at 4 and 6. I mean Tamim Iqbal has more centuries than Jos Buttler but nobody would seriously claim that he was better than Buttler.

I mean the gap between Tendulkar's average and Bevan's average in the stats I gave (which were just for batsmen who batted between 1994 and 2000) was 11. And it wasn't like I cherry picked stats either. It was seven years and a combined 350 odd ODIs.

And Ganguly (Tendulkar's partner) had the same average as Tendulkar during those years.

And during those years Tendulkar played in India where conditions were far easier for batting (the batting average in India during that time was 32.5 and the batting average in Australia during that time was 26.8 - batting averages were a whopping 21% higher in India).

Honestly there is no way that someone could say that Tendulkar was the best batsman of the 90s unless they had their national blinders on. He was certainly up there. Top two perhaps. But Bevan was leagues ahead of everyone at the time.

 

[harsh.ag]

Tendulkar was a better ODI batsman than Bevan in the 90s. Don't care about national blinders.

 

[Burner]

Of course an opener is going to have more centuries than someone who batted mostly at 4 and 6. I mean Tamim Iqbal has more centuries than Jos Buttler but nobody would seriously claim that he was better than Buttler.

I mean the gap between Tendulkar's average and Bevan's average in the stats I gave (which were just for batsmen who batted between 1994 and 2000) was 11. And it wasn't like I cherry picked stats either. It was seven years and a combined 350 odd ODIs.

And Ganguly (Tendulkar's partner) had the same average as Tendulkar during those years.

And during those years Tendulkar played in India where conditions were far easier for batting (the batting average in India during that time was 32.5 and the batting average in Australia during that time was 26.8 - batting averages were a whopping 21% higher in India).

Honestly there is no way that someone could say that Tendulkar was the best batsman of the 90s unless they had their national blinders on. He was certainly up there. Top two perhaps. But Bevan was leagues ahead of everyone at the time.

Iqbal has 11 centuries. Buttler has 9. Totally the same thing like my post huh.

Iqbal strikes at 77, Buttler at 120, also.

I mean fmd do you really find it so bold that an OPENING batsman who averages a couple of runs less than a batsman who comes in at SIX is considered the best of a time period? An opening batsman who's a Buttler in opening when compared to the other in how much difference there is in their SR too.

 

[h_hurricane]

It is funny that Tendulkar averaging 11 runs less than Bevan is brought up but not him having strike rate of 14 more than Bevan.

An opener role is not to remain not out and boost his average. He is there to score runs for his team and take the attack to the opposition consistently.

Let me ask you Stephen, which player has contributed more to the team across 3 matches.

Player A : 72(81), 100(110) and 38(49)

Player B : 86*(115), 30(44) and 44(60)

Player A averages 70 and player B 80. Decide for yourself.

How many of us remember Bevan averaging more than Sachin in the Sharjah Cup 1998. That tournament is rightly known as Tendulkar's tournament with Bevan not even a footnote.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I would say with the talent he had that Tendulkar would have adapted his game comfortably and been one of the best in this era so would still be ranked ahead of Rohit. Would have no qualms if anyone said Kohli was better though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You said all were better than him throughout his career. That is an idiotic opinion. None of Yuvraj or Ganguly or sehwag were as good as him in the early to mid 2000s.
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

We also played guys like kaif and dinesh Mongia for ages and you actually argue they were better in any way. Just ridiculously dumb posting. Get in the bin.

Anyway we had 4 better batsman in 90s and 4 or more in 00s.

2000-2005
Did you check Strike rates for Sehwag and Yuvi ?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I would say with the talent he had that Tendulkar would have adapted his game comfortably and been one of the best in this era so would still be ranked ahead of Rohit. Would have no qualms if anyone said Kohli was better though.

From Kohli debut to Tendulkar retirement

Kohli 50 at 85 ish SR
scored 100 in every 7.5 matches

Sachin 49 at 95 ish SR
Scored 100 in every 6.5 matches

On paper, Sachin looked better even at that age.

 

[vcs]

Yeah right, comparing the stats of a bloke with 20 years experience to a newbie trying to break into the team and barely in his 20s.

 

[trundler]

> A 22 ton gap is down to a difference in batting positions.
> Average, however, has nothing to do with batting position at all.
> Strike rates are irrelevant.

 

[stephen]

It is funny that Tendulkar averaging 11 runs less than Bevan is brought up but not him having strike rate of 14 more than Bevan.

An opener role is not to remain not out and boost his average. He is there to score runs for his team and take the attack to the opposition consistently.

Let me ask you Stephen, which player has contributed more to the team across 3 matches.

Player A : 72(81), 100(110) and 38(49)

Player B : 86*(115), 30(44) and 44(60)

Player A averages 70 and player B 80. Decide for yourself.

How many of us remember Bevan averaging more than Sachin in the Sharjah Cup 1998. That tournament is rightly known as Tendulkar's tournament with Bevan not even a footnote.

That depends entirely on the circumstances of those runs.

I'm glad you brought up strike rates. Bevan had a strike rate of 80 in the first innings over the course of his career. It's only in the second innings that his strike rate drops significantly. And do you know why his strike rate drops? Because he's pacing his innings to win games. And 75 (his overall strike rate) was considered perfectly fine in the era.

And you know what, I went back and ran the query again, except to the end of 99 instead of 00 and Bevan's average was over 60. I wasn't cherry picking at all. So there was a six year period where his average was higher than Tendulkar's strike rate advantage.

Bevan played in more challenging conditions against generally more challenging attacks in the 90s than Tendulkar. He won games for a pretty ordinary batting side against top bowling attacks on many occasions. He invented a new role in the sport.

Tendulkar scored a little bit faster than his opening partner.

Overall Tendulkar had a better career, but Bevan was the best batsman of the 90s by a furlong.

 

[jimmy101]

The answer to the OP is quite clearly SS Das & Rohan Gavaskar.

 

[wrongun]

The answer to the OP is quite clearly SS Das & Rohan Gavaskar.

Rubbish. I would pick Sadagopan Ramesh over Rohan Gavaskar anyday

 

[Daemon]

Can Australians stop making every thread about Tendulkar? Very annoying.

 

[stephen]

The Dhoni/Bevan thing will never be resolved. Stephen's childlike reverence for his hero is unlikely to see otherwise. Nor is any Indian going to blaspheme against their WC winning captain.

Also, Sachin was indisputably and unarguably the best batsman of the 90s.

Can Australians stop making every thread about Tendulkar? Very annoying.

Trundler is an Aussie?