Greatest ODI Batsmen

[OverratedSanity]

yes but sachin didnt just have lots of runs. he had lots of runs at an average of an ATG. quality and quantity.

Again, it was literally impossible to have that quantity in the 70s and 80s because the boards scheduled fewer odis back then.

Still waiting to hear how just overall runs is a valid way to separate the two.

 

[cnerd123]

To quantify this:

During Viv's playing career - ODI batting average was 28.46, SR was 72.7 [Source]
During Sachin's playing career - ODI batting average was 29.77, SR was 80 [Source]

Viv's average was 1.65x better than average, his SR was 1.24x better. Giving these equal weightage he was 1.45x better than the average batter during his era. The same working for Sachin shows him to be 1.29x better than the average batter. This means that, in terms of how much better they were than their peers, Viv was around 12% better than Sachin. Sachin has 3 times as many runs and 4 times as many 100s. I do not think that 12% superiority over peers outweigh literally three times the career accomplishments. I find it surprising so many do.

The whole "volume of runs" thing is a nonsense argument because it's not even a longevity thing here it's just primarily a difference in the board's priorities as the game got more lucrative.

Two problems with this.
1) I hope you're this consistent when it comes to great cricketers with small bodies of work due to factors out of their control, such as apartheid era South Africans or guys like George Headly.

2) There's no guarantee Viv would have maintained that average/SR over a larger volume of ODIs. He might have fatigued, some bowlers might have worked him out. These are people, they're not machines churning out numbers in a predictable manner. Yes Sachin had more opportunities to score runs, but he still had to score them. It's worth noting that Viv averages less in List A than he does in International cricket, which suggests that the JAMODI grind might not have inspired the best out of him.

Anyways, like I said, this is just peak CW over intellectualizing something bleedingly obvious to come up with a hipster take. Viv's obviously number 2, and I can see why people romanticize him as a better ODI bat than Sachin, but when it comes to greatest? Most ever ODI career runs, hundreds and fifties, most POTM and POTS awards, most runs in a calendar year, most runs in World Cups...these records mean something. Only on CW do people think they do not.

 

[Migara]

hey shut your face

Another non shocker.

 

[cnerd123]

Incidentally, Virat Kohli has been 1.47x better than his peers during his career, which is actually better than Viv! Shame for his terrible WC record. Average of 46.8 and SR 86.7 - decent numbers but well below his career record + hasn't done well in KO games.

 

[PaulLennon]

Again, it was literally impossible to have that quantity in the 70s and 80s because the boards scheduled fewer odis back then.

Still waiting to hear how just overall runs is a valid way to separate the two.

Absence of something cannot be used to extrapolate. What is, is.
You are assuming that if the same number of matches were played he'd average the same.

Viv played 187 matches with an average of 47.

Sachin had a 387 match stretch where he averaged 47.43.

What next to extrapolate - because India is poorer than first world countries which play cricket and a player has to go through a worse pathway to get to international cricket (ofc has become a lot better in recent years), we assume they would have been better in a better system so they should be rated more?

 

[Migara]

Sachin never believed in face saving knocks. Its do or die to him.

 

[PaulLennon]

Incidentally, Virat Kohli has been 1.47x better than his peers during his career, which is actually better than Viv! Shame for his terrible WC record. Average of 46.8 and SR 86.7 - decent numbers but well below his career record + hasn't done well in KO games.

from what i recall - in both 2015 and 19 he was quite decent with nice supporting knocks but ofc the semi failures. was good in the 2011 final though. was a tense moment post srt wicket. goes unnoticed. also had a good knock in the 13 ct final.

at the end of the day he does have the same number of icc trophies as viv and sachin (2).

 

[srbhkshk]

The greatest ODI batsman was some Chinese kid who had twice the talent of Sachin and Viv combined but found it literally impossible to score any runs due to not actually knowing what cricket is.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean I love this new argument. Any time a player has more runs/wickets we can just write it off because he got to play more games. Assume the other player would have scored just as much if he got the same number of games. Andy Ganteaume > Don Bradman, not his fault he never got selected again. Let's go.

 

[Migara]

Incidentally, Virat Kohli has been 1.47x better than his peers during his career, which is actually better than Viv! Shame for his terrible WC record. Average of 46.8 and SR 86.7 - decent numbers but well below his career record + hasn't done well in KO games.

Virat haven't experianced the terminal decline or - better termed terminal stagnation - yet. We can only comment afterwards.

 

[PaulLennon]

And it's not like there were not players during Vivs career with similar averages to Viv. Dean Jones had a higher one. Zaheer, Haynes, Miandad, Greenidge all had very healthy averages. Viv averaged 47 not 60.

 

[Migara]

And it's not like there were not players during Vivs career with similar averages to Viv. Dean Jones had a higher one. Zaheer, Haynes, Miandad, Greenidge all had very healthy averages. Viv averaged 47 not 60.

Excatly. And Bevan averaged 50+, Klusener averaged 45+ till his decline. Jones played till mid 90s too.

 

[ankitj]

Viv's average was 1.65x better than average, his SR was 1.24x better. Giving these equal weightage he was 1.45x better than the average batter during his era

Multiply the two IMO, not average it.

 

[Migara]

I mean I love this new argument. Any time a player has more runs/wickets we can just write it off because he got to play more games. Assume the other player would have scored just as much if he got the same number of games. Andy Ganteaume > Don Bradman, not his fault he never got selected again. Let's go.

 

[cnerd123]

Multiply the two IMO, not average it.

Go for it. You're still not going to get a gap between Sachin and Viv that will outweigh having 300% the runs and 400% the centuries.

 

[Migara]

Multiply the two IMO, not average it.

2.05

Viv has twice more impact on average.

 

[ankitj]

Incidentally, Virat Kohli has been 1.47x better than his peers during his career, which is actually better than Viv! Shame for his terrible WC record. Average of 46.8 and SR 86.7 - decent numbers but well below his career record + hasn't done well in KO games.

This won't happen if you multiplied as I said above. Wait, I already did that for hundreds of them.

ODI Batsmen Analysis

docs.google.com

Zaheer Abbas underrated.

 

[Migara]

Go for it. You're still not going to get a gap between Sachin and Viv that will outweigh having 300% the runs and 400% the centuries.

Then can we rest the argument that Murali is the best bowl;er to walk on the planet because he has twice more wickets, and pssibly more 5 and 10 wicket hauls than Marshall?

 

[ankitj]

Go for it. You're still not going to get a gap between Sachin and Viv that will outweigh having 300% the runs and 400% the centuries.

Exactly why you do it. It shows Richards is the boss by a long long way.

 

[cnerd123]

This won't happen if you multiplied as I said above. Wait, I already did that for hundreds of them.

ODI Batsmen Analysis

docs.google.com

Zaheer Abbas underrated.

Kohli and ABDV pretty high up there too!

It's good stats but I disagree with the longevity assessment there. Even the spinners thread shows this. Unlike most on CW, actually scoring runs/taking wickets matters to me. It's all hypothetical if someone could have accomplished as much as someone else had they gotten the same opportunities. CW doesn't give enough emphasis on actually scoring those runs and taking those wickets. Pure runs/wickets alone is never a good enough measure of quality, but when you've got guys who are this close to each other in quality then I think you have to give the nod to the guy who actually has done it more. It's straightforward, no need to overthink it.

Then can we rest the argument that Murali is the best bowl;er to walk on the planet because he has twice more wickets, and pssibly more 5 and 10 wicket hauls than Marshall?

Seamer vs Spinner but I'd give the nod to Murali, and have, over guys like Johnny Wardle or Ravi Jadeja. I've even rated guys like Gibbs/Kumble/Ashwin higher than the great 1930s spinners for the same reason. Said as much in that thread.

I think people confuse 'Best' with 'Greatest' as well. It's fine to consider Viv/ABDV/Bevan/etc as better ODI bats than Sachin, sure. It's fine to think O'Reilly was better than Murali. But you actually have to accomplish things to be considered great. When you get to the elite level, the guy who has done it more it's obviously greater.