I suppose you're right. I've definitely seen statistical analyses where an arbitrary measure has been used to rank players but the usual suspects have still come out on top. Pretty sure I've done something similar on a math exam. Remembered the answer and fudged up trying to work backwards to get it.
lol...it's been entertaining though
You can rationalise it any way you want. The truth is, that in ODIs, runs per innings is a MUCH better average to measure a batsman's worth than runs per dismissal.
Actually I'm pretty sure it's you who is rationalizing your dislike of Bevan over anything else.
not at all. It's too heavily dependant on a batsman's role and batting position. This logic would dictate that any batsman that bats in the top 3 is automatically worth more than one that bats lower in the order (and hence likely to have lower runs per innings and more not outs).
Finally
What if people started coming on here and rationalizing away Viv's record for arbitrary reasons? Wouldn't those people need correction.
Can't help them. Just laugh and mock imo.
There is nothing to agree to disagree here. It's not a matter of opinion. It is matter of math and logic where you can only be right or wrong. What you are missing here is that if Bevan was destined to score only 62 runs on average in innings that he stayed not out in, he wouldn't have been not out in many of them. Remaining not out in those innings is caused by the fact that he was destined to score on average much more than 62 in those innings (due to opposition attack, batting condition, form or luck). How much more? Look at his career batting average for a clue.
Shewag cannot even tie Dilshan's laces in ODIs, let it be batsman or the complete package.
I am right then. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
