Greatest ODI Batsmen

[OverratedSanity]

so why doesn't any other Indian batsman have 18,000 ODI runs and 49 hundreds?

If you just take Indian batters during the duration of Sachin's ODI career his numbers still stick out - Ganguly has 7K less runs at 41, Dravid 8K less at 39, and no one else cross 8K.

Open it to all teams and only Kallis has a higher average of batters with 8K+ runs, and Sachin is still ahead of him by 7K runs and has 32 more 100s. You then have to go all the way down to Michael Clarke with with 7K runs to find someone with a higher average, and Tendulkar has literally scored 7 times as many 100s as he did.

The sheer volume of work is just mind boggling. Plus the only other batter of Sachin's era to have an ODI 200 was Sehwag, who did it after Sachin and against a significantly weaker attack. I suppose you could consider Rohit Sharma to be of Sachin's era, but that's only because Sachin's career spanned across 5 ****ing decades.

This really isn't a debate. Viv may be the better ODI batsman, but Sachin is obviously the greater one.

Viv played 18 years of ODI cricket. An enormously long career. The primary reason he has fewer runs is because ODIs were played less frequently than in the 90s when India realized how lucrative they were and scheduled 3 ODIs every week in Sharjah. Your "volume of work" argument thus makes no sense.

Do you think James Anderson is a greater bowler than Malcolm Marshall in tests? He has twice the wickets and the difference in avg is only slightly more than it is between Viv and Sachin in ODIs. No you dont think that because that'd be ****ing stupid and I'm confident even you aren't that stupid. Sachin has other arguments going for him, this aint it. Longevity should primarily be a measure of career span., just comparing number of games across eras is silly.

 

[anil1405]

Sachin, obviously. Viv is great but Sachin has 3 times as many runs, 4 times as many 100s, first ever ODI 200...

In same number of games right?

 

[cnerd123]

Viv Richard's entire ODI career was 6721 runs @ 47 and a SR of 90, which granted were remarkable for his era.

Sachin Tendulkar from 1st Jan 1993 till 31st Dec 2003 scored 6851 runs @ 52.70 and a SR of 90. Even if you nerf his stats for the era, he's still got just as many runs as Viv in 32 less innings, with 13 more centuries, and a HS during this time of 186* - comparable to Viv's 189*.

Sachin's numbers look impactful even in context of that time - during this time frame, and of batters with at least 4k runs, the only other 50+ average was Bevan and the only other 90+ average was Gilly, both of whom had significantly less runs than Sachin, and less centuries between them combined. No other player has a 50+ average and 90+ SR during this time frame, nobody.

And this is literally just 1/3rd of Sachin's entire career! FFS obviously he is greater, how is there a debate?

The Anderson/Marshall comparison makes no sense because A) Anderson has clear holes in his record and B) We're talking ODIs and not Tests. Fair enough, Viv didn't play enough ODIs during the 18 years to rack up numbers like these and that's not his fault, but the fact that ODIs weren't so prevalent is also why the standard of the games he played were much much lower. He stood head and shoulders above midgets, was a pioneer in a new sport. Sachin mastered the format when it was the biggest thing on the planet.

 

[Flem274*]

you're off your tree trying to use longevity against viv here cnerd. the guy played for almost two decades at a level his contemporaries couldn't hope to match.

he averaged 47 and struck at 90 during an era where at its most modern in his final odi, world class odi batsmen were only just averaging high 30s/low 40s and striking in the 70s. the average batsman could get away with low 30s and strike rates in the 60s.

that was his final odi.

also if you're better, you're greater. gotta be in the same talent bracket for longevity to even matter, but that's a discussion i'm sick of repeating and viv and tendulkar are anyway.

 

[Flem274*]

The Anderson/Marshall comparison makes no sense because A) Anderson has clear holes in his record and B) We're talking ODIs and not Tests. Fair enough, Viv didn't play enough ODIs during the 18 years to rack up numbers like these and that's not his fault, but the fact that ODIs weren't so prevalent is also why the standard of the games he played were much much lower. He stood head and shoulders above midgets, was a pioneer in a new sport. Sachin mastered the format when it was the biggest thing on the planet.

ah, the 'they all suck' argument to downgrade Viv. in the 1990s 220 was a competitive score and batsmen were running about averaging 30.

naturally, sachin bucking this trend doesn't count because they all sucked right?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Fair enough, Viv didn't play enough ODIs during the 18 years to rack up numbers like these and that's not his fault, but the fact that ODIs weren't so prevalent is also why the standard of the games he played were much much lower. He stood head and shoulders above midgets, was a pioneer in a new sport. Sachin mastered the format when it was the biggest thing on the planet.

Ok then say that muppet. That wasnt your original argument.

 

[harsh.ag]

The sheer volume of work is just mind boggling. Plus the only other batter of Sachin's era to have an ODI 200 was Sehwag, who did it after Sachin and against a significantly weaker attack. I suppose you could consider Rohit Sharma to be of Sachin's era, but that's only because Sachin's career spanned across 5 ****ing decades.

Yes and Rohit sux but what

 

[The Sean]

The sheer volume of work is just mind boggling. Plus the only other batter of Sachin's era to have an ODI 200 was Sehwag, who did it after Sachin and against a significantly weaker attack. I suppose you could consider Rohit Sharma to be of Sachin's era, but that's only because Sachin's career spanned across 5 ****ing decades.

I knew he debuted young, but wow.

 

[Gob]

How is Tendulkar better than Kohli?

Other than longevity obvs

 

[Flem274*]

also can we just really dig into Tendulkar 'mastering' a sport at the top of its game?

i watched those odis. games were full of absolute so-so cricketers with hundreds of games to their names who wouldn't get much of a look in today despite the rotation policies.

there's a reason Shady's guy thread is full of 90s and early 00s cricketers. It was only around 2007 min-max strategies for ODIs were worked out, and we saw the best side to ever take the field hit their peak.

fast foward to 2015 and mccullum + others made an entire class of odi cricketer irrelevant by refusing to use anyone who wasn't a real bowler.

 

[Gob]

Also Viv made what? 12 tons in 200 games?

Virat >>>ABDV>Sachin=Viv

 

[Gob]

This pole is a disgrace

 

[cnerd123]

Yes and Rohit sux but what

I knew he debuted young, but wow.

Whoops 4 decades. Even then I took some liberty with that. 1989 debut and 2012 retirement, so you have the 1980s, 90s, 00s and 10s.

Ok then say that muppet. That wasnt your original argument.

It cancels out, my argument is longevity and weight of numbers. If someone wants to say that Viv was further away from his peers than Sachin was, that's countered by the fact that Viv's peers were guys like Gavaskar who used WC matches as a centre wicket net sessions, while Sachin's peers were coming off the incredible success that was the 1992 WC and the booming popularity of ODIs making it the most popular and lucrative format.

It's pretty clear ODIs were a more advanced and popular (therefore taken more seriously) by Sachin's career than they were in Viv's. It doesn't make Viv's accomplishments less impressive - I have a lot of time for early pioneers, and Viv laid the template for modern ODI batting, but it's also why it's not really possible for anyone after Viv to ever be that far ahead of their peers. The game evolved and Sachin was the pinnacle of it for a ****ing long time.

How is Tendulkar better than Kohli?

Other than longevity obvs

Really just longevity tbh. Kohli's record is immense, he'll be remembered as an ODI great and should be in the same conversation as Sachin and Viv.

 

[anil1405]

Viv's peers were guys like Gavaskar who used WC matches as a centre wicket net sessions, while Sachin's peers were coming off the incredible success that was the 1992 WC and the booming popularity of ODIs making it the most popular and lucrative format.

That's randomly throwing in names for your convenience.

Dean Jones, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Haynes etc.

 

[Gob]

That's randomly throwing in names for your convenience.

Dean Jones, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Haynes etc.

Why do you mention some of them in their full name and some from their last name?

 

[trundler]

Why do you mention some of them in their full name and some from their last name?

How many Joneses and how many Hayneses have there been?

 

[anil1405]

Why do you mention some of them in their full name and some from their last name?

I dislike how people underrate Deano, the ODI batsman, so using full name for better conviction

 

[jayjay]

Viv was before my time but I have seen footage, read articles yet it pales in actually watching someone live and living through their career. Sachin was the best ODI bat when I was a kid, Ponting was certainly up there too, as were Anwar, Gilly and Hayden. Yet the game changed so thoroughly in terms of strike rate and shot selection when AB came along and one man combined the brilliance of AB with the longevity of Sachin...that is Virat Kohli. So he gets my vote.

 

[cnerd123]

That's randomly throwing in names for your convenience.

Dean Jones, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Haynes etc.

All great bats but essentially you're looking at an era that was learning a new format, where several players didn't actually take it any more seriously than a bit of fun or something to keep their skills sharp in between 'real' cricket. ODI cricket was a more evolved format after the 1992 WC.

Viv's dominance over his career was fantastic, but it's really not enough to outweigh the accomplishments of a man who also stood above his peers but has three times the body of work to show for it. This isn't comparing a Don Bradman 99 average vs a guy averaging 60. Almost no one during Sachin's career could score runs at his average with his SR either, it's just that the format was better understood and taken more seriously so you had a few guys emerge as ODI specialists who could rival him in one aspect or the other, or possibly even challenge him on both fronts during low points in his career. But when it's all said an done no one will touch Sachin's numbers. He's literally the greatest.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

All great bats but essentially you're looking at an era that was learning a new format, where several players didn't actually take it any more seriously than a bit of fun or something to keep their skills sharp in between 'real' cricket.

Ladies and gentlemen pray silence for the worst take in the history of Cricket Web.