Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[Migara]

Who are the top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s? We are talking the best from three decades - 90s, 00s and 10s.

My pick would be,

Sachin

De villiers
Kohli
Lara

Ponting
Anwar
Gilchrist
Sehwag
Jayasuriya
Dhoni

Honorable mentions: Bevan, De Silva, Azharuddin, Amla and R Sharma

Shocking to see no TM Dilshan. Averaed 46 @ 89 when he opened. Easily better than Shewag, Jayasuriya and Anwar.

 

[Migara]

Tendulkar was a better ODI batsman in 1990s than in 2000s. His average and strike rate didn't move much in the 2000s compared to 1990s when batting was tougher, though he played lesser in ODIs in the second half. Also played a lot in the middle order in the first half which didn't help his average.

He is a better ODI batsman in 1990s than De Silva. Not saying Aravinda wasn't great by the way. Best batsman of 1990s isn't a clear cut case. Bevan,Lara, Tendulkar and Anwar have a good case.

Aravinda's stats aren't anything special. Except that he racked it up in crunch games/

 

[venkyrenga]

All other things being the same, I'd say it's the opposite of that.

That makes no sense.

If we have batsman 'A' who scored 10,000 runs in 200 innings with 0 not outs and batsman 'B' who scored 8,000 runs in 200 innings with 40 not outs, they both have the same batting average but A is clearly better than B.

If you say that B is better because he was dismissed 40 times lesser than A that makes less sense. Because B has faced less number of balls and their balls per dismissal is the same. Even if you want to make a case that they both are equal it would mean that B would have scored 50 more runs before he was dismissed every time he remained not out had the match continued which is highly unlikely.

 

[shashy]

Tendulkar
Kohli
De Villiers
Ponting
Lara
Dhoni
Gilchrist
Jayasuriya
Anwar
Sharma

 

[venkyrenga]

Shocking to see no TM Dilshan. Averaed 46 @ 89 when he opened. Easily better than Shewag, Jayasuriya and Anwar.

Nah, Dilshan was a solid batsman. But there was no point in time where you could call him a top 5 in the world.

Sehwas was a top 5 in the 2000s, Anwar in the early to mid 90s and Jayasuriya in the mid 90s.

 

[srbhkshk]

That makes no sense.

If we have batsman 'A' who scored 10,000 runs in 200 innings with 0 not outs and batsman 'B' who scored 8,000 runs in 200 innings with 40 not outs, they both have the same batting average but A is clearly better than B.

If you say that B is better because he was dismissed 40 times lesser than A that makes less sense. Because B has faced less number of balls and their balls per dismissal is the same. Even if you want to make a case that they both are equal it would mean that B would have scored 50 more runs before he was dismissed every time he remained not out had the match continued which is highly unlikely.

Why is it highly unlikely?

 

[ankitj]

That makes no sense.

If we have batsman 'A' who scored 10,000 runs in 200 innings with 0 not outs and batsman 'B' who scored 8,000 runs in 200 innings with 40 not outs, they both have the same batting average but A is clearly better than B.

If you say that B is better because he was dismissed 40 times lesser than A that makes less sense. Because B has faced less number of balls and their balls per dismissal is the same. Even if you want to make a case that they both are equal it would mean that B would have scored 50 more runs before he was dismissed every time he remained not out had the match continued which is highly unlikely.

No, that's likely. That's exactly why B had that many not outs. If he was incapable of scoring 50 runs from any point onwards, he wouldn't have that many not outs and wouldn't average 50. Check out memoryless distributions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorylessness

Batting scores for a batsman follow a more or less geometric distribution. I did a basic test in fact to affirm this. Only large deviation from memorylessness occurs at close to start of the innings, possibly because the batsmen are more vulnerable when settling in. So if anything, I would put my money on B scoring more than 50 runs on average from the point where he ended not out if in most of those cases he would had crossed score of 20 or so.

Edit: Here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/JVNbZjAc83U6GArV2

 

[venkyrenga]

Why is it highly unlikely?

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have averaged 95+ in those matches. Which is highly unlikely or I would say practically impossible.

 

[ankitj]

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have averaged 95+ in those matches. Which is highly unlikely or I would say practically impossible.

That's precisely what will happen. Fact that Bevan averages higher in not out innings is completely in agreement with the predictions memorylessness property will make. I'm sure Bevan is not special case here. This will be true for almost all batsmen with reasonably large number of games.

 

[srbhkshk]

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have averaged 95+ in those matches. Which is highly unlikely or I would say practically impossible.

Bevan averaged 110 in the matches where he crossed 42.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Tendulkar was a better ODI batsman in 1990s than in 2000s. His average and strike rate didn't move much in the 2000s compared to 1990s when batting was tougher, though he played lesser in ODIs in the second half. Also played a lot in the middle order in the first half which didn't help his average.

Yea - prefacing this by saying this is very, very selective, but when opening but not facing (2nd) and after his monstrous New Zealand game where he finally moved to the top of the order, until the end of the decade he was going at 54.01 average, 21 centuries in 108 matches, striking at an incredible 94+.
Basically, he hit nearly half his centuries in those 100 or so matches in the mid- to late-90s.

Wonder what his block was with regards to positions - he averages just a shade over 50 from nearly 300 ODIs when batting in 2nd position, and any other positions he's played a sizable number of matches his average dips big time, to the point of being average/mediocre.

 

[venkyrenga]

Exactly. That's precisely what will happen. Fact that Bevan averages higher in not out innings is completely in agreement with the predictions memorylessness property will make. I'm sure Bevan is not special case here. This will be true for almost all batsmen with reasonably large number of games.

"Most phenomena are not memoryless" it says. I would rather keep this within the realm of cricket.

In most cases a lower order batsman remains not out either because he has faced far less balls than the top order batsmen or he is too good in those days to be dismissed early.

In the former case it is clear that the probability of Bevan scoring 55 more runs is very less. In the later case you would have to think that every time Bevan gets to 42 run mark he cannot be dismissed until he scores 95. But that is not the case in matches he crossed the 42 run mark and got out. Out of all the matches he scored 42 and got out, he averaged 62 which is far less than 95. Hence his average makes him look better than he actually is.

 

[_00_deathscar]

"Most phenomena are not memoryless" it says. I would rather keep this within the realm of cricket.

In most cases a lower order batsman remains not out either because he has faced far less balls than the top order batsmen or he is too good in those days to be dismissed early.

In the former case it is clear that the probability of Bevan scoring 55 more runs is very less. In the later case you would have to think that every time Bevan gets to 42 run mark he cannot be dismissed until he scores 95. But that is not the case in matches he crossed the 42 run mark and got out. Out of all the matches he scored 42 and got out, he averaged 62 which is far less than 95. Hence his average makes him look better than he actually is.

Any good player playing in the lower order will have a boosted average as a result of not outs (Dhoni etc). But even among those Bevan and Dhoni really stand out.

 

[venkyrenga]

Bevan averaged 110 in the matches where he crossed 42.

That logic is flawed. Because we are discussing what Bevan would have averaged if he continued till he got out in all the innings. That 110 is agian inflated by too many not outs.

In the matches he got out after reaching 42 he averaged 62. So it is 20 more runs and not 55 more. That makes a world of difference.

 

[Daemon]

Good stuff from ankit here. I’ve factored in memoryless distributions in my ratings and the results are hardly surprising. Dhoni pre-2015 was a giant of the game, head and shoulders above everyone else except Viv. Their weighted era adjusted average is 16-20% higher than numbers 3 and 4 (Tendulkar and Buttler).

Bevan’s strike rate hurts him but still a very respectable 16th.

 

[srbhkshk]

That logic is flawed. Because we are discussing what Bevan would have averaged if he continued till he got out in all the innings. That 110 is agian inflated by too many not outs.

In the matches he got out after reaching 42 he averaged 62. So it is 20 more runs and not 55 more. That makes a world of difference.

In all the matches he got out on zero, he averaged zero.

 

[venkyrenga]

Any good player playing in the lower order will have a boosted average as a result of not outs (Dhoni etc). But even among those Bevan and Dhoni really stand out.

They stand out but still their average is boosted making them look better than they actually are when you compare them with top order batsmen.

 

[venkyrenga]

In all the matches he got out on zero, he averaged zero.

And on what logic you are taking matches he got out on Zero? You are trying to deviate from a logical discussion by being sarcastic since your logic failed.

 

[_00_deathscar]

They stand out but still their average is boosted making them look better than they actually are when you compare them with top order batsmen.

Well, yes - but they inherently play a different role in the team so the average comparison (thus boosted by not outs) is a bit meaningless in that sense.

 

[srbhkshk]

And on what logic you are taking matches he got out on Zero? You are trying to deviate from a logical discussion by being sarcastic since your logic failed.

You want a logical discussion, fair enough -

One batsman is on zero not out. Another is on 20 not out. Other things being the same - who do you expect will add more runs to his score?