Your top ten ONE-DAY INTERNATIONAL batsmen of all-time

[Perm]

I already gave the reasons why I rate Gilchrist better. I find it hard to rate someone who has never won a WC or someone that when it got to the finals did worse and therefore it really isn't the fault of his teammates for not stepping up with him. Over someone who has won it thrice, was the best batter (once 2nd) every World cup final. Steps up when it matters, has a healthy average with a ridiculous SR...so I dunno.

Maybe I have too much emphasis on WCs, but in ODIs to me they're pretty much all that matter in this format. I've also said, I am probably biased as an Aussie for really appreciating his batting whenever we needed it, but I am not that biased where I will put his name blindly. You know, I don't have to think like everybody else nor do I make a habit of going against the grain.

I can understanding your reasoning, although I do disagree with it, and that's coming from somebody who counts Adam Gilchrist as his favourite player ever. I do think the issue here is how much importance you place on World Cups, as that is the only real advantage that Gilchrist has over Tendulkar. Over their entire careers I don't think there can be any question that Sachin Tendulkar is better, but you value the World Cup so highly that it appears you are placing more value upon three games than upon entire careers.

 

[Ikki]

I can understanding your reasoning, although I do disagree with it, and that's coming from somebody who counts Adam Gilchrist as his favourite player ever. I do think the issue here is how much importance you place on World Cups, as that is the only real advantage that Gilchrist has over Tendulkar. Over their entire careers I don't think there can be any question that Sachin Tendulkar is better, but you value the World Cup so highly that it appears you are placing more value upon three games than upon entire careers.

Actually, I am putting value on 10 games, 6 of Gilchrist's and 4 of Tendulkar's. In my mind the gap between them in average and SR is overshadowed by this aspect. And yeah, basically I give a lot of emphasis on it. But you're simplifying it by saying x many games. It's actually over years worth of WCs. If Headley's importance is realised over so few test matches because it is spanned across years, then I don't see how this is that much different.

In the end, it comes down to: if you think he is better, or the populous at large does, vote for Tendulkar above Gilchrist so that my vote doesn't change the majority opinion. But you're really not going to change my opinion by devaluing it.

 

[Dan]

Anyone want to comment on me including one A Flower?

 

[ttm]

I didn't put Geoff Marsh in my top ten but I agree he was a great one day batsman.

When 210 was a winning score he did what was necessary to get the Aussies there no matter who was bowling. Averaged 45 against the Windies and was the hero for Australia in 91 when we beat them 4-1, the 1st time they ever lost a home series.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, that was the particular series i was thinking about, it was before i was born, but i read Calypso Cricket by Roland Fishman which was a 400p book on the series

 

[shankar]

But why would I leave it out? And what does it matter if it's that many more than Gilchrist has played? It's all simplified in averages. Tendulkar is a run-scoring machine in ODI's, not disputing that, I don't see why his whole career should be ignored, it's still great.

Still avoiding the strike-rate argument I see...

The reason for leaving it out is that he played in the middle order very early in his career and in bits of his career later on as a temporary arrangement. It's plainly obvious that his performance in the middle order while pretty good is not as good as his performance as an opener which is unparalleled with an average close to 50 while maintaining a strike-rate greater than 85. If you're comparing him with someone who has similar numbers opening the innings and also does comparably well in the middle order then it's valid to take the games (that Sachin played in the middle order) into consideration.

 

[biased indian]

Actually, I am putting value on 10 games, 6 of Gilchrist's and 4 of Tendulkar's. In my mind the gap between them in average and SR is overshadowed by this aspect. And yeah, basically I give a lot of emphasis on it. But you're simplifying it by saying x many games. It's actually over years worth of WCs. If Headley's importance is realised over so few test matches because it is spanned across years, then I don't see how this is that much different.

In the end, it comes down to: if you think he is better, or the populous at large does, vote for Tendulkar above Gilchrist so that my vote doesn't change the majority opinion. But you're really not going to change my opinion by devaluing it.

why is clive lotd in your team ...he did play well in world cup finals ?? better than tendulkar i think any way

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyone want to comment on me including one A Flower?

Not really, I'm sure if anyone wanted to comment they would have by now.

 

[SJS]

Anyone want to comment on me including one A Flower?

Andy Flower was one of the finest left handed batsmen ever in test matches. One somehow doesn't think of him instinctively as a one day batsman. That might be a bit unfair though but it does make it a bit difficult to include him in an all time top ten list.

Unfair still? Maybe so, maybe not.

 

[Days of Grace]

Not really, I'm sure if anyone wanted to comment they would have by now.

Give yourself an uppercut. Dire post really.

 

[Ikki]

why is clive lotd in your team ...he did play well in world cup finals ?? better than tendulkar i think any way

Why stop there? Ponting also does better and also compares well overall. Obviously, I have taken into consideration other things. And for all that is said about bias, if I were really biased and wanted to disguise it I'd have had a better case at putting Ponting ahead of Tendulkar. Obviously, I find Gilchrist even better than Ponting, which should say something about why/how I rate Gilchrist. Not that I oblige you to agree, it's just my opinion.

Still avoiding the strike-rate argument I see...

The reason for leaving it out is that he played in the middle order very early in his career and in bits of his career later on as a temporary arrangement. It's plainly obvious that his performance in the middle order while pretty good is not as good as his performance as an opener which is unparalleled with an average close to 50 while maintaining a strike-rate greater than 85. If you're comparing him with someone who has similar numbers opening the innings and also does comparably well in the middle order then it's valid to take the games (that Sachin played in the middle order) into consideration.

That's assuming it was all due to positional changes. What about his captaincy? Could that not have affected his drop in batting? What about how Gilchrist does when he isn't wicket-keeper, should I take that into account? I just took it overall to avoid the shoulda/woulda/couldas.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Give yourself an uppercut. Dire post really.

Are we all going to start drawing attention to every post we make several hours later just because no one was sufficiently interested to comment on it?

 

[shankar]

That's assuming it was all due to positional changes. What about his captaincy? Could that not have affected his drop in batting? What about how Gilchrist does when he isn't wicket-keeper, should I take that into account? I just took it overall to avoid the shoulda/woulda/couldas.

Sure. If you have a significant period of time where Gilchrist has played purely as a batsman, and done better then that will obviously go into evaluating him as a batsman. (As long as the period is not small compared to the rest of his career)

The reason Tendulkar's record as an opener has to be looked at separately is because of the fact that he's been unique in combining a Gilchrist/Jayasurya/etc... role in the first 15 while still averaging close to 50.

 

[Beleg]

there is no way jayasuria is a better batsmen then the top fifteen/twnety on that list.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

there is no way jayasuria is a better batsmen then the top fifteen/twnety on that list.

Agreed.

 

[Days of Grace]

Final Top 20 List:

1 Richards 227
2 Tendulkar 215
3 Bevan 160
4 Ponting 129
5 Gilchrist 96
6 Jayasuriya 82
7 Jones 77
8 Lara 74
9 M. Waugh 68
10 Inzamam 53
11 Ganguly 44
12 Zaheer Abbas 41
13 Saeed Anwar 39
14 Miandad 13
= Greenidge 13
16 Hayden 12
= De Silva 12
18 Symonds 8
= Klusener 8
20 C. Cairns 7
= Crowe 7
= Haynes 7

Bevan has snuck passed Ponting for a top 3 placing.

If we do this again in a few years, I wonder if Tendulkar will sneak past Richards.

And I wonder if Hussey will be in the top 10?

 

[haroon510]

Viv Richards
Sachin
Gily
Bevan
Jaysuriya
inzi
Saeed
Lara
R. Pointing
Ganguly

Current top ten

Mathew Hayden
Sachin
Yuvraj singh
Keven Pieterson
Hussey
Gilly
Jayawardene
Chris gayle
M. Clark
Ganguly

 

[steve132]

I was astonished that no one mentioned Clive Lloyd. I know he retired 20 years ago, but he played some memorable one day innings, including one in the first World Cup final.

 

[Migara]

Totally disappointed to see Mark Wargh above Aravinda de Silva. de Silva was pure class and was a bigger match winner than Mark Waugh. And Mark Waugh was not his fluent best, but some other personality on spinning wickets.

 

[Migara]

My top 10 would be,

1. Vivian Richards
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Brian Lara
5. Michael Bevan
6. Sanath Jayasuriya
7. Dean Jones
8. Martin Crowe
9. Aravinda de Silva
10. Inzama ul Haq

I wanted to include Anwar, Gilchrist and Symonds but the performances of the above 10 made it very difficult.