AB de Villers vs Michael Bevan vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Pap Finn Keighl]

My ODI all time top six is:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Ponting
Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers

so my answer is Bevan would be first to go. I think Sachin is more replaceable than AB, so it’s AB.

At number 3
Ponting 330 inn 42 avg 81 SR
Lara 106 innings 46 avg 86 SR

Ponting played in easier era compared to Lara.

 

[Migara]

Not really. It should be adjusted upwards similarly though. But Tendulkar played a few years before Bevan and many years after him (with the bigger bats etc...).

Today's statistics in ODIs are absolutely ridiculous. The average strike rate (overall, not just top 6 batsmen) has risen from 76 in the 90s to 89 in the 2010s. The average runs per wicket has risen from 29.3 to 32.56. That's a 10% inflation in the *average* score. So batsmen in the 2010s scored 10% more runs 17% faster than before.

If you only look at top 6 batsmen the stats get really wild.

Top 6 batsmen in the 90s averaged 32 at a strike rate of 70. Top 6 batsmen in the 2010s averaged 37 at a strike rate of 85. That is, top 6 batsmen score 15% more runs 21% faster in the 2010s than they did in the 90s.

Making the proper adjustments, if Bevan batted in the 2010s instead of 1994-2003, he'd have averaged 61 at a strike rate of 87, which is damned close to Kohli's output in the same time period.

These queries compare the 90s and 10s statistically:

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Now just do the same for Tendulkar.

What would be more appropriate would be to compare Tendulkar's matches during Bevan's career. That would give a very good idea.

Bevan from 14.04.1994 to 29.02.2004: 53.6 @ 74.2 - Avg * SR -> 39.8
Tendulkar during same period: 48.1 @ 88.4 Avg * SR -> 42.5

Break down of the stats is very similar too. Tendulkar Averaged poor in NZ and Pakistan in this time (number of matches in Pakistan is only 3), and Bevan averaged poorly in SL.

 

[Nintendo]

Tendulkar. Along with Viv, ODI's greatest all-round batsman. Transcended eras.

AB Devilliers was devastating but I think his record flatters him a bit.

Bevan is actually underrated, but he was a specialist. His lack of heavy hitting power means he falls just under the top billing.

Bevan could powerhit, he just didn't most of the time in his international career. Not sure as to why.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bevan could powerhit, he just didn't most of the time in his international career. Not sure as to why.

I'm sure he could, but it wasn't his best value. He was the best at recovery/low scoring games and run chasing in general. He would never be the first choice for power hitting. I recall even Brett Lee being promoted ahead of him at the end of an innings

 

[Gob]

At number 3
Ponting 330 inn 42 avg 81 SR
Lara 106 innings 46 avg 86 SR

Ponting played in easier era compared to Lara.

Answered your own question there.

and lol at the easier era they are contemporaries

 

[Gob]

McGrath is a shoe in for anybody who has watched ODI cricket particularly WC.

Yeah he is the closest Aust player gets to being a shoe in but you could still run in with Garner and Pollock ahead of him and in Pollock's case he could bat too.

My point being an ATG team minus Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli, DeVilliers, Wasim and Murali instantly lose credibility and i cant say the same for any Aust player. You can easily have five of them but you can still run in not having any of them without losing team's credibility

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah he is the closest Aust player gets to being a shoe in but you could still run in with Garner and Pollock ahead of him and in Pollock's case he could bat too.

My point being an ATG team minus Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli, DeVilliers, Wasim and Murali instantly lose credibility and i cant say the same for any Aust player. You can easily have five of them but you can still run in not having any of them without losing team's credibility

I think the greatness of Australia in the ODI format has been that they keep churning out lot of high quality players without quite being the best at their skillsets. Others are individuals who transcended their teams basically.

Still think Warne and McGrath are the closest to GOATs Australia have got in ODIs.

 

[Nintendo]

I'm sure he could, but it wasn't his best value. He was the best at recovery/low scoring games and run chasing in general. He would never be the first choice for power hitting. I recall even Brett Lee being promoted ahead of him at the end of an innings

Yeah your 100% right The guy made A 140 Sr 185 against an attack with Murali, vaas and Wasim in it, so the power game was clearly there

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Answered your own question there.

and lol at the easier era they are contemporaries

Lara was better in Top Order.. No doubt at all.
Lara started and peaked in early 90s and retired in mid 00s.
Ponting started in mid 90s, peaked in 00s and retired in 2012.
Even worse than comparing Ganguly and Dravid ODI stats.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I think the greatness of Australia in the ODI format has been that they keep churning out lot of high quality players without quite being the best at their skillsets. Others are individuals who transcended their teams basically.

Still think Warne and McGrath are the closest to GOATs Australia have got in ODIs.

More than 10 names from last CW top 50 ODI cricketers, played for Australia in 00s.
India had only 4 names in the list altogether.. Sachin, Dhoni, Kohli and Kapil. But all of them were serious GOAT contenders.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah he is the closest Aust player gets to being a shoe in but you could still run in with Garner and Pollock ahead of him and in Pollock's case he could bat too.

My point being an ATG team minus Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli, DeVilliers, Wasim and Murali instantly lose credibility and i cant say the same for any Aust player. You can easily have five of them but you can still run in not having any of them without losing team's credibility

Why is Murali a shoe-in?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Why is Murali a shoe-in?

Yeah.. Saqlain is the GOAT.

 

[Pothas]

People seem to be adjusting for the different eras with the bat but not the ball.

 

[Gob]

Why is Murali a shoe-in?

Billion wickets

 

[Gob]

Lara was better in Top Order.. No doubt at all.
Lara started and peaked in early 90s and retired in mid 00s.
Ponting started in mid 90s, peaked in 00s and retired in 2012.
Even worse than comparing Ganguly and Dravid ODI stats.

Mate I don't care if Lara averages 4 runs more at number 3 the point being Ponting played, as you showed, thrice as much at number 3 and played many many clutch knocks certainly far more than Lara. Ponting was ahead of Lara in ODIs by the same amount Lara was ahead of Ponting in tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah.. Saqlain is the GOAT.

I think Warne, Murali and Saqlain all have good claims to the spinner spot.

 

[Himannv]

I think McGrath is good enough to get into an ODI ATG side. I can understand why he's not a shoe in but he makes it in my team I reckon.

 

[ankitj]

I think McGrath is good enough to get into an ODI ATG side. I can understand why he's not a shoe in but he makes it in my team I reckon.

Only if you want to bat down to #11 should McGrath miss out.

I have stubbornly had my bowling attacked fixed for many years: Garner, McGrath, Akram, Murali

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath actually has the best case to be no.1 ODI bowler of all time.

Akram, McGrath and Garner should all walk in.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

McGrath actually has the best case to be no.1 ODI bowler of all time.

Akram, McGrath and Garner should all walk in.

Just because he got 2003 player of the tournament out in the first over of the final.