It depends on the quality of bowlers plying their trade. During this period, I can hardly remember any great ODI bowler playing for any good stretch of time in India. In Australia there were plenty. All I remember in my childhood is plenty of mediocre bowlers (India and otherwise) getting thrashed here.
I think that's a bit sketchy reasoning. I can definitely see the logic behind it though. Seriously though why are we talking about this? Is it Sachin v Bevan?
I think more people should analyse country by country stats of Mcgrath, Warne in ODIs. Tendulkar tends to be singled out here.
It wasn't until Stephen brought it up
stephen has history doing thisIt wasn't until Stephen brought it up
I know. I believe a fair bit of effort is going into denigrating Sachin with right presentations of fact arguably but wrong inferences. Tendulkar vs Waugh was ridiculous somewhere along the lines of Mcgrath vs Srinath or Warne vs Kumble. We all know who is better even before the discussions start.
I never even compared Sachin and Waugh directly. All I did was say that Sachin was a moderate upgrade on Waugh as an opener. Less than a week later and cricketweb voted Waugh into the second XI of all time, implying he's a top 4 opener of all time. Yet somehow people completely misinterpret that to say I'm denigrating Sachin or over rating Waugh, when really neither is true.
You're probably right, you do have a point. But I think a bigger reason for the differing strike rates is the roles they played. Some of Bevan's best innings looked something like 65 (100) on difficult decks that won Australia games, whereas Sachin was usually going about a run a ball or just under regardless of the situation. I think they're both first picked for an ATG ODI XI though.
Sehwag's ODI peak came after Gilchrist's retirement when the high-scoring era was well underway (Dilshan, Watson, Amla etc. also had really good stats as openers in that period). They aren't rated differently because of where they played their home games. And also, Gilchrist had that extra string to his bow as a keeper.
This might have a lot to do with it. But doesn't that prove my point that there should rightly be some consideration for the quality of cricket that makes up a player's career? Doesn't what you're saying mean that Australian batsmen have faced higher quality bowling attacks on average?
Junior being the opener in the second all time XI was an argument winner if I ever saw one
Waugh brought a lot into the plate other than opening the batting. One of the best all round fielders ever. Also, at this moment I am not sure whether he would be an automatic choice for the 2nd ATG XI. With Rohit batting the way he does, and the likes of Warner and Dhawan strengthening their cases, he is no more a cut and dry choice.
He's got you there hurricane
On it now
I didn't vote but am interested in the result. ODI ranking are much less clear cut than test rankings since there are a lot more roles to fill in an ODI side. To me, balance is more important than anything else in an ODI side.
