Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[ankitj]

I wish Venky knew how wrong his logic is (one where he is splitting scores into 3 categories). Look up survivorship bias.

 

[aussie tragic]

Bevan was the best Australian batsman until Gilchrist and Ponting came along.

Lol that Bevan debuted in 1994, Ponting 1995 and Gilchrist in 1996, so tough call lol. I only remember Bevan being great after 1998ish

 

[srbhkshk]

I wish Venky knew how wrong his logic is (one where he is splitting scores into 3 categories). Look up survivorship bias.

I have tried multiple ways to explain it too, as have you. Frustrating.

 

[mr_mister]

Lol that Bevan debuted in 1994, Ponting 1995 and Gilchrist in 1996, so tough call lol. I only remember Bevan being great after 1998ish

Tbf Bevan had already achieved a helluva lot by the time Ponting and Gilly became really good in the format around 99 or so

 

[srbhkshk]

No, I am not going to take that innings into account. Because we are not discussing what Bevan might do after he gets to 42. We are discussing what Bevan might do after he gets to 42 and is given a chance to bat till he gets out. You are missing the second condition. That 105 not out is inclusive in the average of 42.

Let me break it down for you. Split all of Bevan's innings into three parts,

Part I - Average of 18 (All the innings he got out before 42)
Part II - Average of 42 (All the innings he was not out)
Part III - Average of 62 (All the innings he got out after 42)

Now, the logic is so simple. You either get Bevan's wicket at 18 or if you let him cross 42 he would score 62.

I have nothing against Bevan. Someone said I am downplaying Bevan so I can include Sehwag because I am an Indian fan. Not at all. I would say the same for Dhoni. He is not as good as his average makes him out to be. Let's do the same split for him,

Part I - Average of 20 (All the innings he got out before 50)
Part II - Average of 50 (All the innings he was not out)
Part III - Average of 70 (All the innings he got out after 50)

Again it's 20 more runs and not 50.

But upon reconsideration I think I was a bit overreacting to the fact that people overrate Bevan based on his average. So I am actually going to edit my OP and include Bevan in my top 10 instead of Jayasuriya. But if anybody tries to claim Bevan or Dhoni is better than the likes of Lara and Ponting based on their average I would strongly disagree.

This is my final attempt at this, if Bevan had been not out in 69 of the 70 innings where he crossed 42 and got out on 43 in the one innings where he got out, would you claim that on an average he scores a total of 1 run extra once he crosses 42? IDK if you get it or not, just be assured that you are wrong.

 

[venkyrenga]

No, my logic is not wrong at all. It is just not perfect.

You can either analyse all the 67 innings he was not out and project his scores or use my logic. Choose which is better.

 

[ankitj]

Stop it Venky. You are just plain wrong in inferring what would have happened in incomplete innings from what did happen in completed innings. It's wrong. Stop it.

 

[venkyrenga]

This is my final attempt at this, if Bevan had been not out in 69 of the 70 innings where he crossed 42 and got out on 43 in the one innings where he got out, would you claim that on an average he scores a total of 1 run extra once he crosses 42? IDK if you get it or not, just be assured that you are wrong.

No, I wouldn't make that claim. Because the sample size is too small, just one in this case, to make an analysis. In the actual case the sample size is 40.

Again you are trying to deviate from a logical discussion by playing "you just don' get it" since your logic failed. My logic is not wrong at all, it is just not perfect. But it is the best we can do.

 

[venkyrenga]

I choose to just ignore you from now on. Better for all of us

Dude, what is wrong with you? You either stay on topic or don't enter the thread at all. We are discussing a topic here and you constantly come in here to discuss about the people discussing a topic because you are salty. I don't give a s**t about what you think of my posts. I did not ask for your opinion. No one did.

 

[venkyrenga]

Stop it Venky. You are just plain wrong in inferring what would have happened in incomplete innings from what did happen in completed innings. It's wrong. Stop it.

Well, my logic is not perfect. But to me it almost proves my actual point that not outs inflate the average. Because there is a world of difference between 20 and 53.

I guess, we can just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Jack1]

 

[trundler]

Well, my logic is not perfect. But to me it almost proves my actual point that not outs inflate the average. Because there is a world of difference between 20 and 53.

I guess, we can just agree to disagree at this point.

If it's not perfect then it can't be not wrong at all.

 

[vcs]

If it's not perfect then it can't be not wrong at all.

Four negatives and then you throw the sarcasm into the mix. My brain hurts.

 

[trundler]

Four negatives and then you throw the sarcasm into the mix. My brain hurts.

'My results are not wrong at all' and 'my logic isn't perfect' are mutually contradictory. Your results have to be somewhat wrong if your logic is imperfect.

 

[h_hurricane]

Four negatives and then you throw the sarcasm into the mix. My brain hurts.

Trundler is full of youthful energy. It might be difficult for me or you to comprehend what he writes considering he is like half our age.

 

[shashy]

Jayasuriya is vastly underrated.

 

[venkyrenga]

OK, now you really want to argue over semantics lol. You know what I meant.

I will rephrase it if you insist "My logic isn't wrong, it just isn't perfect" .

 

[trundler]

That would imply that your results are imperfect as well

 

[Bijed]

'My results are not wrong at all' and 'my logic isn't perfect' are mutually contradictory. Your results have to be somewhat wrong if your logic is imperfect.

In any given context, you can apply imperfect/incorrect logic and coincentally achieve 100% correct results/arrive at a correct conclusion, can't you?

I appreciate that I am not helping bring the discussion back on track here

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In any given context, you can apply imperfect/incorrect logic and coincentally achieve 100% correct results/arrive at a correct conclusion, can't you?

I appreciate that I am not helping bring the discussion back on track here

This thread is already beyond help.