Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[Jack1]

Bairstow and Roy have scored all of their runs in the easiest batting conditions in history. Their opening average isn't worth much more than 45 in a different era. Statistically, batting since around 2014 in ODIs has been ridiculously easy. It's hard to use statistics to justify anything with comparison to other eras.

That's not to say Bairstow and Roy aren't good. They clearly are, and are up there with the best opening partnerships around today (and are probably at the top of that tree too). But to say they're better than the other great opening partnerships in ODI history is a stretch at best.

You can't prove that in the slightest. I think Bairstow would probably adapt better to opening in the 90s than Roy but can't prove that either. That's the problem with the entire thread, it's just all opinions anyway and we are all arguing with close to zero substance based on gut instinct alone. But it's fun.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bairstow and Roy have scored all of their runs in the easiest batting conditions in history. Their opening average isn't worth much more than 45 in a different era. Statistically, batting since around 2014 in ODIs has been ridiculously easy. It's hard to use statistics to justify anything with comparison to other eras.

That's not to say Bairstow and Roy aren't good. They clearly are, and are up there with the best opening partnerships around today (and are probably at the top of that tree too). But to say they're better than the other great opening partnerships in ODI history is a stretch at best.

45 in a different era is still pretty much better than anyone else lol

 

[Jack1]

45 in a different era is still pretty much better than anyone else lol

Think stephen dropped the ball with the comment in general. He's a funny poster.

 

[stephen]

45 in a different era is still pretty much better than anyone else lol

Tendulkar/ Ganguly, Hayden/ Gilchrist and Greenidge/ Haynes all were 48+ over a lot larger sample sizes.

Bairstow and Roy are good, but ATG? Highly unlikely and definitely not at this stage.

 

[stephen]

Here's a couple of key data points to look at for trying to compare eras.

From 1 Jan 2014 to now, 16 batsmen batting in positions 1-4 have averaged over 50 inn ODIs (min 20 innings).

10 years ago, from 1 Jan 2004 to 31 December 2009, 4 batsmen batting in positions 1-4 averaged over 50.

Going back 20 years, from 1 Jan 1994 to 31 December, 0 batsmen batting 1-4 averaged over 50.

In fact, 55 out of the 93 batsmen (59%) batting 1-4 have averaged over 35 in the time period from 2014. The median batsman in this era averages 37. By comparison, 32 out of the 70 batsmen (46%) in the corresponding time period 20 years ago averaged over 35. The median 1-4 batsman in that era averaged 34.7.

That's a huge growth in the averages of both the top batsmen and the average batsmen.

 

[Jack1]

Here's a couple of key data points to look at for trying to compare eras.

From 1 Jan 2014 to now, 16 batsmen batting in positions 1-4 have averaged over 50 inn ODIs (min 20 innings).

10 years ago, from 1 Jan 2004 to 31 December 2009, 4 batsmen batting in positions 1-4 averaged over 50.

Going back 20 years, from 1 Jan 1994 to 31 December, 0 batsmen batting 1-4 averaged over 50.

In fact, 55 out of the 93 batsmen (59%) batting 1-4 have averaged over 35 in the time period from 2014. The median batsman in this era averages 37. By comparison, 32 out of the 70 batsmen (46%) in the corresponding time period 20 years ago averaged over 35. The median 1-4 batsman in that era averaged 34.7.

That's a huge growth in the averages of both the top batsmen and the average batsmen.

You are talking to a cricket forum. We all know this without needing to research it. Some of the roads are so flat and true I would fancy cashing in against the weaker sides in the powerpllay namely the ones without an express pace bowler. The main issue you’ve got is the power of Bairstow and Roy is unmatched by the others apart from Sehwag who would have completely dominated on the roads of the past few years with how raw power.

 

[stephen]

You are talking to a cricket forum. We all know this without needing to research it. Some of the roads are so flat and true I would fancy cashing in against the weaker sides in the powerpllay namely the ones without an express pace bowler. The main issue you’ve got is the power of Bairstow and Roy is unmatched by the others apart from Sehwag who would have completely dominated on the roads of the past few years with how raw power.

Bairstow and Roy are no more powerful than players like Hayden and Gilchrist were.

Gilchrist in particular would have been even more monstrous in ODIs these days with the two new balls rule.

Bairstow and Roy are very good but to say they're the best openers in history, or even the last 30 years is a huge over exaggeration.

 

[venkyrenga]

More longevity uber alles from the usual suspects

I assume you guys rate Atherton over Bradman. More test runs or didnt you know

Longevity shlongevity

And I assume you rate KR Patterson over Bradman.

 

[Daemon]

45 in a different era is still pretty much better than anyone else lol

I think you guys are talking opening partnerships, but Roy isn't even averaging 45 in this era.

To put it in perspective, Chris Gayle, who can barely move these days and relies only on sixes, is averaging 42 at 106 since 2015, pretty much exactly the same as Roy. Even in his peak he wasn't hitting those numbers.

They're very good as a partnership though no doubt. What Roy does looks extra brilliant because of Bairstow, and vice versa. Remember how Bairstow looked when he had to partner Vince in the WC? But then again is 33 innings enough to be considered the best opening partnership ever? It's just too small a sample size. Who knows the trend of flat decks might reverse in the next decade and the second new ball will be scrapped. Maybe Roy's test woes will translate into ODI misery.

 

[Bolo]

Ya, if partnerhips are what matters for the openers, apply this logic the the whole team and pick Aus circa 200X. Defeats the whole point of an atg side.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ya, if partnerhips are what matters for the openers, apply this logic the the whole team and pick Aus circa 200X. Defeats the whole point of an atg side.

I don't see a problem with that

 

[Jack1]

Bairstow and Roy are no more powerful than players like Hayden and Gilchrist were.

Gilchrist in particular would have been even more monstrous in ODIs these days with the two new balls rule.

Bairstow and Roy are very good but to say they're the best openers in history, or even the last 30 years is a huge over exaggeration.

Exaggeration of what? Your wording is very strange. It's an opinion. You need to learn to accept the opinion of others better. It's not an argument. It's a cricket forum, you need to allow others to post without getting so offended stephen. I don't agree with the strength part either. Hayden is the weakest of those four.

 

[Jack1]

And I assume you rate KR Patterson over Bradman.

Ya apart from KR Patterson played 2 innings, Bradman played a ton of games (also averaged a ton, but that's another matter..lol). The sample size is more than enough for Roy and Bairstow. It's not like they've just played a handful, they've played a fair amount. As Daemon says Roy doesn't even average 45 now, stephen got caught out about his intentions with his comment. My team was more about the partnership up top knowing Ponting, ABV and Kohli to follow were going to bat practically til the end of the innings whether it was the first or second innings of the game. And if they didn't I still have Jayasuria and Buttler as a back stop plus the bowlers. Bairstow and Roy are agricultural of course. But I'd rather have openers with the right intentions knowing the quality of batting to come is incredible.

 

[stephen]

Lol. What intentions did I get "called out" on? You've got opinions not based on an understanding of the game and have had multiple people call you out on it.

You don't get away with expressing opinions and not have people test those against reality.

 

[ImpatientLime]

love the argument that roy and bairstow benefit from a batting friendly era. thats why all other opening partnerships average a shade under 70 in the last four years at a similarly bonkers s/r right?

only slightly more brilliant than the idea they aren't an atg opening partnership. they're a world cup winning opening partnership ffs. their legacy is set forever. but yeah you're right give me ganguly and tendulkar and their..... (checks record books) zero icc world event titles together as an opening partnership.

 

[Daemon]

love the argument that roy and bairstow benefit from a batting friendly era. thats why all other opening partnerships average a shade under 70 in the last four years at a similarly bonkers s/r right?

only slightly more brilliant than the idea they aren't an atg opening partnership. they're a world cup winning opening partnership ffs. their legacy is set forever. but yeah you're right give me ganguly and tendulkar and their..... (checks record books) zero icc world event titles together as an opening partnership.

Nobody said they haven't been great, they just haven't done it long enough.

Also from the bolded are you saying Roy and Bairstow don't benefit from a batting friendly era?

 

[Jack1]

love the argument that roy and bairstow benefit from a batting friendly era. thats why all other opening partnerships average a shade under 70 in the last four years at a similarly bonkers s/r right?

only slightly more brilliant than the idea they aren't an atg opening partnership. they're a world cup winning opening partnership ffs. their legacy is set forever. but yeah you're right give me ganguly and tendulkar and their..... (checks record books) zero icc world event titles together as an opening partnership.

Yeah some real biased bollocks written on here. I don't know why some people even bother posting if they care so much about the nationality of a player.

Nobody said they haven't been great, they just haven't done it long enough.

Also from the bolded are you saying Roy and Bairstow don't benefit from a batting friendly era?

Are you slow? It's a tongue and cheek comment by Lime. He knows it's batsman friendly but Roy and Bairstow are miles clear of everyone even in this era. Let's give it a rest now. It's a fair comment bout Ganguly and Tendulkar winning squat. I've seen lots of whining about certain players not performing well enough in world cups on here or not winning them. Yet a WC winning partnership with monster stats is getting disregarded. The double standards on here by certain posters is funny as hell.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Nobody said they haven't been great, they just haven't done it long enough.

Also from the bolded are you saying Roy and Bairstow don't benefit from a batting friendly era?

of course, but even in such conditions they are streets ahead of the competition.

do they need to do much more? opening bats of an england team that not only have taken batting in the 50 over game to a place no one has ever taken it before but world cup winners. that is atg credentials.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah some real biased bollocks written on here. I don't know why some people even bother posting if they care so much about the nationality of a player.



Are you slow? It's a tongue and cheek comment by Lime. He knows it's batsman friendly but Roy and Bairstow are miles clear of everyone even in this era. Let's give it a rest now. It's a fair comment bout Ganguly and Tendulkar winning squat. I've seen lots of whining about certain players not performing well enough in world cups on here or not winning them. Yet a WC winning partnership with monster stats is getting disregarded. The double standards on here by certain posters is funny as hell.

Jeez man why so aggressive and touchy? I was polite and made a simple argument.

 

[harsh.ag]

For me it's not just that they are champions of batting friendly conditions, it's that they seem to be more likely than other greats to fail when presented with difficult conditions.

Now, that could be a wrong perception to various degrees, and for some it may not be a relevant factor, and that's all well and good.