Great ODI batsmen

[marc71178]

47 against 53.58 - not that big a difference considering the number of runs scored in the 2 eras.

 

[tooextracool]

47 against 53.58 - not that big a difference considering the number of runs scored in the 2 eras.

its 6.5 runs difference, how is that not a big difference?

 

[biased indian]

then im afraid you know nothing about ODI cricket......

thank god their is some one who no every thing about ODI cricket

 

[biased indian]

its 6.5 runs difference, how is that not a big difference?

bevan had a lot of notouts

 

[tooextracool]

bevan had a lot of notouts

its been done to death,bevans average actually improves when he bats at 4.
personally if someone bats till the end, assuming that it isnt 10* or any other unbeaten small score, id say that he deserves to have that added to his average.

 

[biased indian]

tendulkar have a better SR then Bevan 86.18 - 74.16

 

[tooextracool]

tendulkar have a better SR then Bevan 86.18 - 74.16

point being?
afridi has a better SR than both of them.

 

[biased indian]

point being?
afridi has a better SR than both of them.

so now u have top 4 instead of top 3
Richards,sachin,bevan and afridi
and i think afridi will be the greatest of all time according to u

 

[tooextracool]

so now u have top 4 instead of top 3
Richards,sachin,bevan and afridi
and i think afridi will be the greatest of all time according to u

err what? what kind of a fool would include afridi as one of the top ODI players? you said that tendulkar was better because he had a better SR, and i said that using your argument afridi would be better than the both of them. so actually that would look more like what your list would be like......

 

[biased indian]

err what? what kind of a fool would include afridi as one of the top ODI players? you said that tendulkar was better because he had a better SR, and i said that using your argument afridi would be better than the both of them. so actually that would look more like what your list would be like......

so as far as u r considered u will only take into account a players bating avg
and not thier SR

and if u take the batsmen with better AVG only u r top 3 will change into like this
bevan,sarawan,z.abbas

and its not me its u who mentioned afridi

 

[tooextracool]

so as far as u r considered u will only take into account a players bating avg
and not thier SR

SR rate isnt exactly all that important in ODI cricket as long as it is not significantly low.
bevan as anyone whos watched him would know that he could score at more than a run a ball when required

and if u take the batsmen with better AVG only u r top 3 will change into like this
bevan,sarawan,z.abbas

difference of course being that both sarwan and abbas havent played anywhere near as much as bevan or tendulkar. interestingly enough abbas actually has a very similar SR tendulkar(84), and a better average than tendulkar, so if we looked at avg + SR we would see that abbas is just about as good as tendulkar.
and as ive said time and time again, i dont look at averages to decide who the better player is, which is precisely why ive never said that abbas or sarwan is better than tendulkar. ive rated bevan on what ive watched, and AFAIC bevan had been the best player under pressure in ODIs that ive ever seen.

and its not me its u who mentioned afridi

do you understand english?
i used afridi as an example to show you how foolish your argument was.

 

[biased indian]

and as ive said time and time again, i dont look at averages to decide who the better player is, which is precisely why ive never said that abbas or sarwan is better than tendulkar

in the same thread u have said that richards avg is less than bevans
if u dont look at avg y did u say that

 

[tooextracool]

in the same thread u have said that richards avg is less than bevans
if u dont look at avg y did u say that

because im trying to wonder what evidence there is to suggest that tendulkar and richards are better let alone better by daylight than richards. average certainly points in the opposite direction.

 

[biased indian]

Many other things do other than the obvious one
if we take into acount the SR

at bevan pace the scorein 50 overs will be 225
and that of tendulkar it will be 260 when u r team is batting first SR does play an important fact.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

its 6.5 runs difference, how is that not a big difference?

The game has swung considerable more toward batsmen since. There was a time when 250 was an excellent batting first score.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

because im trying to wonder what evidence there is to suggest that tendulkar and richards are better let alone better by daylight than richards. average certainly points in the opposite direction.

Nonsense! Not only is Richards as good as Richards, but he averages the same.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It may just be me, but people have a pretty loose consideration for 'great' given some of the names listed here.

 

[tooextracool]

Many other things do other than the obvious one

the insignificant ones do, such as SR and no of centuries.
bevan performed far more consistently under pressure and batted till the end far more often than the other 2.

 

[tooextracool]

The game has swung considerable more toward batsmen since. There was a time when 250 was an excellent batting first score.

understandable, but it doesnt make richards 'better'. no one can of course say for sure that richards had he played in this era would have averaged 7 runs more. for all we know he might only improved on it by 5. id be willing to see the light in someone saying that they were equal. but for someone to say that there is daylight between richards and bevan is plain rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

Nonsense! Not only is Richards as good as Richards, but he averages the same.

my mistake, as you guessed, i meant bevan.