Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[h_hurricane]

Can't believe Stephen's delusions about his own ability to judge cricketers. After extolling importance of world cups he picks Lara and De silva as top 3 ODI batsmen of 90s when they averaged 44 and 40 respectively in 90s world cups while few others who averaged 50+ are omitted. For De Silva I can understand for his 96 world cup exploits but Lara's inclusion makes no sense. You would have a better argument with Waugh twins for 90s if you want to use world cups. But Stephen doesn't believe in facts.

Additionally, it is the best all round team which wins the world cups, not just the best batting team. There might be top individual performers from other countries who are better than the top performers of a winning country. He seems to state that Aus being the best ODI team of the last 3 decades (which is undisputed by the way) means they always had the best batsmen and the best bowlers.

 

[h_hurricane]

This is what you get when looking at a spreadsheet rather than actually seeing him play in a totally different era than today lol

So gutted Bevan couldn't turn his ODI game into Tests.

Bevan was a bowling all rounder in tests who could bat a bit. So he did turn around his game in the longer format.

 

[h_hurricane]

A look at Aravinda's career reveals something interesting. He averaged 40+ in only 4 years out of 20. In one of those 4 years (2000), he played only 4 innings. Just makes one believe that it was all about the peak which lasted 2 years (1996 and 1997). Love to watch him bat though.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, for that brief period De Silva was as good as any. Pretty much Tendulkar's equal, which is saying something because Tendulkar was at his exquisite best in 96 to 98.

 

[harsh.ag]

There is scarcely any need to tear down other players so as to be able to place your favourites in the top 10. Just place your favourites in the top 10.

 

[Daemon]

Very new and refreshing idea for a thread. I see it has already attracted some cutting insight from some of our esteemed objective and totally unbiased posters.

 

[Bolo]

When it comes to rating ODI batsmen, as a sanity check ask yourself which side should have the most batsmen in your top ten. Should it be a) the side with 4 world cup wins out of the eight world cups; or b) the side that had to throw a tantrum to get a home World Cup so they had a chance of winning. Should it be a) the side that had never failed to make the knockout stage or b) the side that couldn't make it out of the first round ahead of Bangladesh who were a complete minnow at the time.

Now I know it's tempting to say b for both because obviously meaningless bilateral series where teams rest their best players are so much more meaningful than world cups, but the correct answer is a.

Top three batsmen of the 90s:

Bevan
Lara
De Silva

Top 3 of the 00s:

Ponting
Tendulkar
Hayden

Top 3 of the 10s:

De Villiers
Kohli
Dhoni

Top batsman not mentioned:
Gilchrist

Which makes the top 10:

Bevan
De Villiers
Ponting
Tendulkar
Kohli
Lara
Dhoni
Hayden
De Silva
Gilchrist

Why do AB and lara crack a nod here? Neither of them ever won a WC.

 

[marc71178]

Bevan was a bowling all rounder in tests who could bat a bit. So he did turn around his game in the longer format.

He really wasn’t.

 

[h_hurricane]

He really wasn’t.

Was just having a bit of a fun.

 

[Jack1]

Very new and refreshing idea for a thread. I see it has already attracted some cutting insight from some of our esteemed objective and totally unbiased posters.

The real problem is not all biased is deliberate. Some people are biased based on the place or country they are from. It's subconscious bias. I'm surprised no one else picked Buttler considering he averages 40.88 with a 119.83 SR, those are ridiculously good stats in my book. The fact he performed so well in a WC final made him a shoe in for me. Then you have Bairstow and Roy with their averages and SR that are the best all time for an opener I believe for ODIs that performed in the WC 2019. So if anything there appears to be an anti English bias but I'm English so who knows!

 

[srbhkshk]

The real problem is not all biased is deliberate. Some people are biased based on the place or country they are from. It's subconscious bias. I'm surprised no one else picked Buttler considering he averages 40.88 with a 119.83 SR, those are ridiculously good stats in my book. The fact he performed so well in a WC final made him a shoe in for me. Then you have Bairstow and Roy with their averages and SR that are the best all time for an opener I believe for ODIs that performed in the WC 2019. So if anything there appears to be an anti English bias but I'm English so who knows!

I think everyone agrees that they are great batsman - but I guess you have to wait for there career to be a bit lengthier before putting em up there.

 

[h_hurricane]

The real problem is not all biased is deliberate. Some people are biased based on the place or country they are from. It's subconscious bias. I'm surprised no one else picked Buttler considering he averages 40.88 with a 119.83 SR, those are ridiculously good stats in my book. The fact he performed so well in a WC final made him a shoe in for me. Then you have Bairstow and Roy with their averages and SR that are the best all time for an opener I believe for ODIs that performed in the WC 2019. So if anything there appears to be an anti English bias but I'm English so who knows!

Historically England haven't produced great ODI batsmen. Pietersen was very very good, so were Fairbrother, Hick, Lamb, Trescothick and one or two others. Butler is ATG potential though. I think 5 years down the line, 1-2 English players should be regularly picked in the top 10 ODI batsmen of all time. Not sure if there is any bias against Eng at this point of time.

 

[venkyrenga]

Well if you look at spreadsheets carefully it will emerge that Bevan's average was far ahead of his peers and he was only one among his contemporaries to average 50+. It's only when you start fudging with spreadsheet you come to those ridiculous conclusions.

Not at all. I was actually being more statistical while coming up with the list in an attempt to be more objective. Otherwise I have no issues in having Bevan and De Silva in the top 10.

But I still think Sehwag is underrated. It's not like he flopped against the best of bowlers or in crunch matches. Guy was the lone warrior in the WC 2003 final against the mighty Australians. There was actually some hope until he was in the crease. It's a shame he got run out.

 

[venkyrenga]

It's so nice you've put forward a dissertation on how incredibly bad you are as a judge of cricketing skills.

Well, after calling me out on my controversial opinion and saying I am incredibly bad at judging cricketing skills, you go on to prove how incredibly bad you are.

De Silva over Sachin in the 90s? I mean, how could you place anyone over Sachin in that period. If you are any good at judging you would know that Sachin proved to be the best by the end of 90s.

 

[ankitj]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb. Batsmen can't plan to get dismissed on last ball of the innings. Ability to stay not out and ability to score meaningfully for your team are causally related.

 

[stephen]

I had to put Sachin in either the 00s or the 90s since I was building a top ten. He could have made the 90s list over Lara and/ or de Silva but I felt like his ODI exploits were greater in the 00s than the 90s.

Considering I have watched cricket all three decades I have a fair opinion of most players during that time.

But for someone to rate Sehwag over Bevan in ODIs because Bevan had a low rpi is madness, given his rpi was virtually the same as Sehwag's average.

And I've covered a thousand times why Bevan's strike rate is misleading and how strike rates and averages in Australia are artificially deflated compared to other countries, particularly in the 90s (It turns out that larger boundaries and hosting stronger sides in competitive, hard fought tournaments between sides with strong bowling attacks tends to lower batting averages across the board). Most of the Australian batsmen had better overseas averages during Australia's peak period.

But yes, I'm going to call out someone stating that the only two Australian bats who belong in the top ten of the last 30 years are Ponting and Gilchrist when Gilchrist hasn't even been the best opener in the last 30 years, and could arguably be placed third or even fourth.

And I never said that world cups were the only important thing, only that they were ther most important thing.

 

[venkyrenga]

You can't talk about madness after placing Hayden over Anwar.

 

[venkyrenga]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb. Batsmen can't plan to get dismissed on last ball of the innings. Ability to stay not out and ability to score meaningfully for your team are causally related.

But it does boost the average. If you go by the average you will be led to conclude that Bevan is better than Sachin. Not saying that the ability to stay not out on numerous occasions isn't commendable.

 

[Spark]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb. Batsmen can't plan to get dismissed on last ball of the innings. Ability to stay not out and ability to score meaningfully for your team are causally related.

It's not dumb or what not. It's just plain incorrect. Not outs literally do not "boost" your average.

 

[h_hurricane]

I think what can't be argued is that Bevan had a cricket brain, Sehwag not so much. Bevan easily wins that comparison I believe. Sehwag and De Silva are 2 under-rated ODI cricketers, still not good enough to be in Top 10 batsmen since 1990s. A lack of consistency did not help the former's cause, while the latter took a decade to figure out his game at the international level apart from the odd glimpses of class.