What does AB De Villiers need achieve to surpass Viv Richards as the ODI's greatest

[Shri]

Bevan batted in another era. Will you say 84 for Bevan is same as 84 for Dhoni? Among modern players, David Miller has a strike rate of 100+ outside Asia while Dhoni has 84.

I am not giving zero weightage to Dhoni's performances in Asia. However when you compare to other greats who were great at both places, Dhoni misses out.

Lol.

 

[Pratters]

Lol.

Nice reasoning put forward.

PS - Location of yours shows CSK. You are a Dhoni fan I presume.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sanga is a good ODI player and obviously superior to Dhoni in batsmanship. If he had Dhoni's role to play down the order, he would do well. Not as well as Dhoni, but quite well, and perhaps better in swinging conditions.

Dhoni was great at what he did. In fact, the best. If he had Sanga's role to play, he would have done well too. Has played some legendary innings at number 3 from what I recall. But obviously has holes in his technique that Sanga doesn't.

If you had to pick one with no idea of the quality of bowler(s) and conditions and state of the game, Sanga might be the better pick. But Dhoni easily steals a spot in the all time XI vs Sanga because of his specialist powers.

 

[honestbharani]

harsh... as much as you can judge ATG ODI batsmen, it is on what they did, not on What they may or may not have done had things been different. Sachin would not have had the record if he was not opening. Bevan might have sucked if he had to play in an era where bouncers were allowed. Ponting would have zilch chance of doing well had he been made to play most of his ODI cricket at the slow turners at Sharjah (which was the case for many SC players). The point is to judge them based on what they DID do and MSD is an ATG ODI Batsman. So is Sanga but MSD ranks higher as his achievements have been greater at his specialist position than Sanga's at his.

 

[srbhkshk]

Sanga is a good ODI player and obviously superior to Dhoni in batsmanship. If he had Dhoni's role to play down the order, he would do well. Not as well as Dhoni, but quite well, and perhaps better in swinging conditions.

Dhoni was great at what he did. In fact, the best. If he had Sanga's role to play, he would have done well too. Has played some legendary innings at number 3 from what I recall. But obviously has holes in his technique that Sanga doesn't.

If you had to pick one with no idea of the quality of bowler(s) and conditions and state of the game, Sanga might be the better pick. But Dhoni easily steals a spot in the all time XI vs Sanga because of his specialist powers.

Holes in technique is overrated in ODIs, Dhoni can hit a six on a yorker length, Sanga can't, will you call this a hole in Sanga's technique? Eventually you measure by performance and Dhoni outdoes Sanga in performance terms massively.

 

[harsh.ag]

harsh... as much as you can judge ATG ODI batsmen, it is on what they did, not on What they may or may not have done had things been different. Sachin would not have had the record if he was not opening. Bevan might have sucked if he had to play in an era where bouncers were allowed. Ponting would have zilch chance of doing well had he been made to play most of his ODI cricket at the slow turners at Sharjah (which was the case for many SC players). The point is to judge them based on what they DID do and MSD is an ATG ODI Batsman. So is Sanga but MSD ranks higher as his achievements have been greater at his specialist position than Sanga's at his.

Holes in technique is overrated in ODIs, Dhoni can hit a six on a yorker length, Sanga can't, will you call this a hole in Sanga's technique? Eventually you measure by performance and Dhoni outdoes Sanga in performance terms massively.

These are fair points.

But there are some issues for me.

I would trust Sanga more in ODIs against bowlers like Wasim and McGrath in conditions conducive to swing. Esp if you need someone to make a century and provide a good base for the innings.

And centuries are a very important criterion to me. It's like when Hashira made a post earlier saying ABdV was equal/almost-equal to Kohli in chases by comparing their averages and SRs. But Kohli has 15 odd centuries in chases compared to ABdV's 5 odd. That's a huge difference. We have seen Kohli score huge runs while chasing that have allowed India to chase down multiple 300+ scores. ABdV hasn't done that.

 

[Shri]

Nice reasoning put forward.

PS - Location of yours shows CSK. You are a Dhoni fan I presume.

Fan of reasonable arguments I guess. Your location says Kolkata, you hate Jharkhand folk I presume.

 

[Pratters]

Why is Symonds not in this discussion if Dhoni is? Symonds was a great ODI batsman.

 

[Shri]

Because its not relevant to the thread you...

 

[HashiraMadara]

You do realize that if I included all your big names (According to that stat) in the same team they will no longer be the big names in that stat?
Also you do realize that Ponting played for what was by far among the best two ODI teams ever and had possibly the strongest batting line up ever?

OMG, you failed to pick this stat up. It doesn't matter how good or bad your batting line up is, your career runs/ the runs of every match you're in including opposition *100 is constant regardless of opposition or bowling situations. It means you score more than anyone in matches including oppositions!

The stat basically mentions you contribute more to total match runs than anyone in the match. If that's not dominance I don't know what it is.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Anyway,

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Good day.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

You are welcome

 

[Burner]

OMG, you failed to pick this stat up. It doesn't matter how good or bad your batting line up is, your career runs/ the runs of every match you're in including opposition *100 is constant regardless of opposition or bowling situations. It means you score more than anyone in matches including oppositions!

The stat basically mentions you contribute more to total match runs than anyone in the match. If that's not dominance I don't know what it is.

It does matter a **** load though how good your batting line up is. That's why partnerships are such a big deal in cricket.

 

[HashiraMadara]

It does matter a **** load though how good your batting line up is. That's why partnerships are such a big deal in cricket.

Good statement, on a wrong place. Yes obviously they do matter but this about player X's match contribution not about he wins or not.

 

[HashiraMadara]

These are fair points.

But there are some issues for me.

I would trust Sanga more in ODIs against bowlers like Wasim and McGrath in conditions conducive to swing. Esp if you need someone to make a century and provide a good base for the innings.

And centuries are a very important criterion to me. It's like when Hashira made a post earlier saying ABdV was equal/almost-equal to Kohli in chases by comparing their averages and SRs. But Kohli has 15 odd centuries in chases compared to ABdV's 5 odd. That's a huge difference. We have seen Kohli score huge runs while chasing that have allowed India to chase down multiple 300+ scores. ABdV hasn't done that.

Quite funny that you'd compare a number 5 to a number 3 about number of centuries. ABD gets the same and even higher average than kohli chasing since 2008 is because he remains not out on higher 50s instead of 100s because he comes in at 5 similar to what Dhoni does inside Asia. The only chances for such players to get centuries is when the whole team collapse making their chasing centuries quite memorable like Dhoni 185 etc

Since 2008 Kohli played 104 matches chasing and ABD played just 74. That tells you the team mentality as well, South Africa would rather defend than chase where as India would choose the opposite

 

[srbhkshk]

OMG, you failed to pick this stat up. It doesn't matter how good or bad your batting line up is, your career runs/ the runs of every match you're in including opposition *100 is constant regardless of opposition or bowling situations. It means you score more than anyone in matches including oppositions!

The stat basically mentions you contribute more to total match runs than anyone in the match. If that's not dominance I don't know what it is.

So basically, you have failed to pick up your own stat.

Let me rephrase it, If all batsman appearing in a match are good, then no single batsman would have a high percentage of runs in the match. If only 1 batsman was good and the other 21 were crap he would have a great percentage, Ponting played in the Australian team which was filled with some of the best ODI batsman assembled ever, even if he played good, so would the other batsman essentially denying him a high percentage of the match runs scored.

 

[Shri]

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

You are welcome

You know how to use filters on statsguru. Aww.

 

[HashiraMadara]

So basically, you have failed to pick up your own stat.

Let me rephrase it, If all batsman appearing in a match are good, then no single batsman would have a high percentage of runs in the match. If only 1 batsman was good and the other 21 were crap he would have a great percentage, Ponting played in the Australian team which was filled with some of the best ODI batsman assembled ever, even if he played good, so would the other batsman essentially denying him a high percentage of the match runs scored.

Self defeating argument, major point of the start is that it includes opposition batters. So in a SA vs Aus match, we won't count what ponting vs what Aus did but we will count what Ponting did compared to both Aus + SA. ABD plays along Amla the fasted to every thing batsman vice versa. Viv Richards played along Desmond Haynes, Clive Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, etc they managed to contribute more to matches than others including oppositions. What's this Godly line up that managed to cover a Australia's number 3's contribution unseen?
Seriously the only possible to this stat is having an outrageous bowling attack that kills opposition and increasing your chances of contributing more but that would need you to be the best in your team and Ponting still failed to manage such.

 

[srbhkshk]

Self defeating argument, major point of the start is that it includes opposition batters. So in a SA vs Aus match, we won't count what ponting vs what Aus did but we will count what Ponting did compared to both Aus + SA. ABD plays along Amla the fasted to every thing batsman vice versa. Viv Richards played along Desmond Haynes, Clive Lloyd, Gordon Greenidge, etc they managed to contribute more to matches than others including oppositions. What's this Godly line up that managed to cover a Australia's number 3's contribution unseen?
Seriously the only possible to this stat is having an outrageous bowling attack that kills opposition and increasing your chances of contributing more but that would need you to be the best in your team and Ponting still failed to manage such.

And what I'm saying is that SA + Aus includes Aus, 50% of the batsman compared to Ponting in this stat are guaranteed to be good, the other 50% may be good/average/bad. For players like Kohli/ABDV, 50% of the batsman are guaranteed to be average, the other 50% may be good/average/bad, So they have a huge headstart on Ponting already.

 

[srbhkshk]

As far as Viv is considered, he is by all means a superior batsman to Ponting.

 

[HashiraMadara]

You know how to use filters on statsguru. Aww.

Oh if you are complaining about not outs(even though that doesn't make any sense since ABD bats lower) here is a record without any.

Tendulkar made 2278 World Cup runs in 44 innings
That's = 51.77 runs per world cup games(removed not outs)

ABD made 1207 World Cups runs in 22 innings
That's = 54.86 runs per world cup games(removed not outs)



number of runs without any restrictions or filtering can be misleading like Ponting guy who claims 4000 more runs, 9 more centuries and 30 more half centuries make Ponting better when he played 148 more innings than ABD.