CW decides the greatest ODI batsman ever (submit your own top 20 list)

[h_hurricane]

I think stephen wins this tbh

Disagree It entirely depends on the point of view.

If India is an easier batting condition country, it has been because ATG quick bowlers have not played there.

While Bevan has played more ATG fast bowlers at home than Tendulkar in India, it only proves there is a case Tendulkar's home record could be inflated. But then again he strikes at basically the same in supposedly difficult conditions abroad, so we never know.

Tendulkar's record in Australia is definitely below par and there could be a variety of factors. But then again, he played an ATG Aussie team in 1999 and averaged 24 something, played a lesser attack in 2007-08 and averaged 44 in literally the same venues, which proves it was mostly down to the quality of attack.

 

[stephen]

How do you explain the overseas vs home record of the Australian batsmen then? Is not as though they even played in the same era. It's just a more difficult country to score ODI runs in.

 

[stephen]

8 Australian batsmen average >40 in Australia. 14 Australian batsmen average >40 overseas. (Min 1000 runs).

 

[h_hurricane]

One startling statistic is that Garner, easily the greatest early era ODI bowler played more than half of his ODIs (54 out of 98) in Australia. He didn't play a single ODI in India. Lillee(whom I consider vastly under-rated in ODIs) played 41 at home and none in India. In Holding's case it is 56 in Australia and 4 in India. Hadlee played 48 in Australia and none in India. Ambrose played 47 ODIs in Australia and 16 in India. And then these guys send Benjamins, Cuffies and Morrisons of the world to play in the subcontinent.

 

[stephen]

India by comparison (I'm picking on India here but if suggest that this is similar for most countries):

11 batsmen average >40 in India
7 batsmen average >40 outside India

RSA:

11 batsmen average >40 in South Africa
6 batsmen average >40 outside South Africa

SL:

5 batsmen average >40 in SL
2 batsmen average >40 outside SL

 

[h_hurricane]

How do you explain the overseas vs home record of the Australian batsmen then? Is not as though they even played in the same era. It's just a more difficult country to score ODI runs in.

This will need getting into the details. From what I saw so far, Clarke has scored 5 hundreds away and 2 at home. 2 of those away hundreds were against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe(and a few against India too).

 

[stephen]

One startling statistic is that Garner, easily the greatest early era ODI bowler played more than half of his ODIs (54 out of 98) in Australia. He didn't play a single ODI in India. Lillee(whom I consider vastly under-rated in ODIs) played 41 at home and none in India. In Holding's case it is 56 in Australia and 4 in India. Hadlee played 48 in Australia and none in India. Ambrose played 47 ODIs in Australia and 16 in India. And then these guys send Benjamins, Cuffies and Morrisons of the world to play in the subcontinent.

Taking the averages from 1995 instead of 1980 definitely helps your case - scoring rates in India are still on top but Australian scoring rates are a decent amount higher. Moving to 2000+, Australian scoring rates move to the middle of the pack, ahead of the minnows but also the West Indies, Sri Lanka and South Africa. But then take the results from 2008+ (after the dominant Australian side) and South Africa moves ahead again.

In fact, the Australian era of dominance (1998 - 2008) sees Australia move into third place behind India and Pakistan for scoring rates. The best side in history couldn't bring the rate of scoring in Australia up to the top.

 

[AndrewB]

One startling statistic is that Garner, easily the greatest early era ODI bowler played more than half of his ODIs (54 out of 98) in Australia. He didn't play a single ODI in India. Lillee(whom I consider vastly under-rated in ODIs) played 41 at home and none in India. In Holding's case it is 56 in Australia and 4 in India. Hadlee played 48 in Australia and none in India. Ambrose played 47 ODIs in Australia and 16 in India. And then these guys send Benjamins, Cuffies and Morrisons of the world to play in the subcontinent.

India didn't host any ODIs until late 1981, Garner was injured for the 1983-4 tour and had retired before the 1987 World Cup.
Meanwhile, the West Indies played in the B&H triangular series in Australia in 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1985.

 

[jimmy101]

Meanwhile, the West Indies played in the B&H triangular series in Australia in 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1985.

No wonder cricket fans from the 80's used to go on about getting thumped by the Windies every summer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

One startling statistic is that Garner, easily the greatest early era ODI bowler played more than half of his ODIs (54 out of 98) in Australia. He didn't play a single ODI in India. Lillee(whom I consider vastly under-rated in ODIs) played 41 at home and none in India. In Holding's case it is 56 in Australia and 4 in India. Hadlee played 48 in Australia and none in India. Ambrose played 47 ODIs in Australia and 16 in India. And then these guys send Benjamins, Cuffies and Morrisons of the world to play in the subcontinent.

That doesn't dispute Stephen's point at all though. It just helps give an explanation as to why ODI batting has been harder in Australia, it doesn't dispute it.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

In fact, the Australian era of dominance (1998 - 2008) sees Australia move into third place behind India and Pakistan for scoring rates. The best side in history couldn't bring the rate of scoring in Australia up to the top.

Probably due to the excellence of McGrath, Lee, Bracken, Warne etc. with the pressure exerted by the likes of Ponting, Symmonds and Clarke in the circle.

 

[h_hurricane]

That doesn't dispute Stephen's point at all though. It just helps give an explanation as to why ODI batting has been harder in Australia, it doesn't dispute it.

My point is also the same. If all these great bowlers played in India as much as they played in Australia, the average run rate would have gone down. Bevan's strike rate while playing the great bowlers in Australia is 67, Tendulkar's is 75 which is pretty much inline with the difference in their career strike rates. As I explained several posts back, I don't think Tendulkar's strike rate would have been 88 in India had he played more of Ambrose,Akram or Mcgrath here.

 

[h_hurricane]

India didn't host any ODIs until late 1981, Garner was injured for the 1983-4 tour and had retired before the 1987 World Cup.
Meanwhile, the West Indies played in the B&H triangular series in Australia in 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1985.

The highlighted part is one of the reasons why run rate in India is very high.Garner, Ambrose, Lillee, Holding, Mcgrath, Akram,Donald all played very little to no ODI cricket here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My point is also the same. If all these great bowlers played in India as much as they played in Australia, the average run rate would have gone down. Bevan's strike rate while playing the great bowlers in Australia is 67, Tendulkar's is 75 which is pretty much inline with the difference in their career strike rates. As I explained several posts back, I don't think Tendulkar's strike rate would have been 88 in India had he played more of Ambrose,Akram or Mcgrath here.

So you're not actually disputing that batting in Australia was harder during that period? Regardless of the reasons behind it?

 

[stephen]

I'm coming more around to hurricane's point of view post 2000. The romanticized view of the 90s ODIs in Australia doesn't seem to be overly romanticized. Great battles between bat and ball.

 

[h_hurricane]

So you're not actually disputing that batting in Australia was harder during that period? Regardless of the reasons behind it?

My point of dispute is the pitches in India and Australia. How do we establish pitches in India are easier to bat given all we discussed ? If batting is harder in Australia based on the quality of opposition attack, I completely agree with that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I didn't even realise it was the pitches that were under discussion, just scoring in general. Imo another big reason for lower scoring in Aus is the size of the boundaries

 

[h_hurricane]

I didn't even realise it was the pitches that were under discussion, just scoring in general. Imo another big reason for lower scoring in Aus is the size of the boundaries

Quite possibly. But then again, it is easier to run twos and threes in larger grounds.

One more reason could be (this is pure hypothesis, I have no data to establish it), part timers apparently bowl more in India than Australia.

 

[mr_mister]

Voting is closed


Will start the countdown threat at some point this week.

 

[stephen]

I don't think pitches have played a huge part in recent years - they're flat everywhere. It's the size of grounds and quality of opposition that matters more than anything else.

All of which should be factored in when rating players.