Richards still King!

[hang on]

Interesting stats article in cricinfo showing that Richards is the greatest odi batsman of them all.

Stats from the Past: The best ODI batsmen from across eras | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Thoughts?

 

[smash84]

Viv is the king

 

[Prince EWS]

Interesting stats article in cricinfo showing that Richards is the greatest odi batsman of them all.

Stats from the Past: The best ODI batsmen from across eras | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Thoughts?

Seems vaguely similar to this analysis I did a while ago.

 

[robelinda]

As if anyone needs to post stats to say Viv is the greatest ODI batsman. He just IS. And will ALWAYS be. Because he is VIV.

 

[smash84]

 

[Himannv]

In b4 Sachin.

 

[ganeshran]

His SR in a bowler friendly era pretty much settles it

 

[ganeshran]

From top 50 players by strike rates in ODI matches among the top 8 nations, if we sort by the last year, Sir Viv has the highest strike rate by far. The only one comparable in the same era is Kapil Dev who had a SR of 93 (95 overall), but with a much poorer average of 22.6.

 

[Jayzamann]

Seems vaguely similar to this analysis I did a while ago.

Is that a tip of the hat to yourself or Sir Viv?

It does show that such an assertion really does hold water. But it's a bit like when University studies show that people's motor driving skills are impeded through alcohol consumption. Everyone knows, but it's rock solid to have the stats to back it up.

 

[fredfertang]

**** anything the stattos might say, with that swagger Viv must be King

 

[Ikki]

Probably the best top-order batsman in ODIs, but will forever say Bevan was better. Bevan was unbelievable and, even though this analysis misses* exactly what made him great, he is still near the top.

*Actually, in some ways it penalises him for what made him great - reducing the run rate to reduce the risk, so that he could score at the minimum required speed in order to maximise the chance of victory.

 

[ankitj]

Impressive stuff. My top order for an all time world XI consists of: Tendulkar, Greenidge, Viv Richards, Dean Jones, Zaheer Abbas, Bevan, Dhoni. Pretty much vindicated by this article. I will really love to see how Zaheer Abbas would do; he was well ahead of his time too.

 

[ankitj]

*Actually, in some ways it penalises him for what made him great - reducing the run rate to reduce the risk, so that he could score at the minimum required speed in order to maximise the chance of victory.

If Bevan knows what's a winning score even in the first innings, he must be Oracle. If not, then your argument will be true only if Bevan's SR in first innings was comparable to say, for lack of a better alternative, Dhoni. If that is not the case, your argument will be like those of one of Tendulkar fanboys. I know you don't realize it, but that's how it appears to others.

 

[Furball]

Impressive stuff. My top order for an all time world XI consists of: Tendulkar, Greenidge, Viv Richards, Dean Jones, Zaheer Abbas, Bevan, Dhoni. Pretty much vindicated by this article. I will really love to see how Zaheer Abbas would do; he was well ahead of his time too.

Abbas suffers from a small sample size doesn't he?

 

[Ikki]

If Bevan knows what's a winning score even in the first innings, he must be Oracle. If not, then your argument will be true only if Bevan's SR in first innings was comparable to say, for lack of a better alternative, Dhoni. If that is not the case, your argument will be like those of one of Tendulkar fanboys. I know you don't realize it, but that's how it appears to others.

Er what?

You're not really knowledgable about "what made Bevan great" then. What made Bevan great was the ability to win chases minimising risk, slowing down play, in order to get to the target - 1 run at a time if need be. That often meant a second innings SR which was slow - his SR in 2nd innings is in the 60s. Bevan's first innings SR is 80 - which for his time is very very good.

However, such an analysis fails to consider the above facts/traits and hinders him a great deal. In essence, what makes him lose marks here is the reason he and Australia were so successful. In the end, you want to win matches and the analysis is at odds with this concept of minimising risk in chases to increase the chance to get to the target.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, Bevan's ability to minimize risk to put his team in strong situations was commendable. But that gets reflected in his average and he gets the benefit in the analysis. He wouldn't average that high if he took more risks in which event he will get penalised in this analysis, as he should because he would be winning fewer matches. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Besides, you still have to show his SR is significantly higher in first innings for your argument to hold. There is no other way to prove it. I would have checked it myself if was not browsing on my phone.

 

[hang on]

i would say that dhoni is up there with bevan, possibly even ahead of him.

dhoni seems to minimise risk as well as score at a phenomenal strike rate.

 

[ankitj]

My bad. I see ikki responded with Bevan's first inning average which is quite interesting. I need time to assimilate facts before I get back (can't do that now as I am browsing on phone)

 

[Ikki]

Yes, Bevan's ability to minimize risk to put his team in strong situations was commendable. But that gets reflected in his average and he gets the benefit in the analysis. He wouldn't average that high if he took more risks in which event he will get penalised in this analysis, as he should because he would be winning fewer matches. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

That's arguable. He only benefits from the analysis if he can make up the runs by staying on long enough to win his team the game. It is not a forgone conclusion as you've illustrated: as if you slow down, you'll automatically make runs. He achieved that - he won a lot of games - but clearly he has not benefitted enough because the guy was not-out for a third of his total innings. In effect, he could be scoring more runs if he was batting higher more often.

Point being, whilst runs are a definitive factor - i.e. the more you score the better - here in ODIs SRs are not exactly that straightforward. Whilst it is better, all things equal, to have a higher SR; Bevan is a case where a higher SR was useless to him and the team if it meant not winning the game. There are certain chases when batting second where a higher SR is unnecessary; therefore the avg*sr formula is too simplistic here.

Besides, you still have to show his SR is significantly higher in first innings for your argument to hold. There is no other way to prove it. I would have checked it myself if was not browsing on my phone.

Bevan:

Batting 1st: 52 @ 80
Batting 2nd: 57 @ 68

I'd consider that 'significantly higher' and the argument proven based on that.

 

[abmk]

My top 3 would be Sachin, Viv and Bevan ..... Some distance and then the rest of them follow ....