Tendulkar vs Jayasuriya (Who's the better ODI batsman)

[SciD]

I was talking when he was in his prime. He would have scored 200 in ODIs also.

 

[Chetan0304]

Sanath and Sachin both are diffrent and class player in their own way.


Love to see Sanath firing with his bat, whereas Sachin scoring a ton.


Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.:hpraise

 

[Cricketman]

Comparing anyone to Sachin in ODI cricket just isn't fair.

 

[Amiya]

Well since strike-rate is rather important in one day cricket I was a little surprised not to see it up their tbh. In some cases a strike-rate can almost or sometimes be more important then a batting average.

So you would consider a player better because he has higher run rate? If a player scores 50 off 40 balls, would you consider him better than the one who scores a century off 110 balls?

 

[piriyanth]

Tendulkar wins by miles.

The only cricketer that is better than Tendulkar in cricket is Don Bradman.

 

[Jakester1288]

So you would consider a player better because he has higher run rate? If a player scores 50 off 40 balls, would you consider him better than the one who scores a century off 110 balls?

Why so many spaces between words? 2 and 3 spaces every single time, with 3 more often!

Anyway, anyone who chooses the 50 off 40 is mad. Obviously, this isn't taking into account chasing a total or having a shortened innings, etc, but it's hard to find occasions when the hundred wouldn't be taken. Like you can base your innings around him, he's there for a collapse, not going slow either, whereas the 50 off 40 comes and goes, adds his runs and doesn't really support other batsman as much.

The only cricketer that is better than Tendulkar in cricket is Don Bradman.

Big statement.

 

[King Pietersen]

I'd agree that the only batsman better than Tendulkar is Bradman, but I'd take Sobers as a cricketer ahead of Tendulkar.

 

[Jakester1288]

I'd agree that the only batsman better than Tendulkar is Bradman, but I'd take Sobers as a cricketer ahead of Tendulkar.

Yeah, the cricketer and batsman are hugely different things.

 

[Howsie]

So you would consider a player better because he has higher run rate? If a player scores 50 off 40 balls, would you consider him better than the one who scores a century off 110 balls?

It depends on the situation.

 

[Hooper]

Tendulkar is a midget, so Ponting>Tendulkar.

 

[shravi]

Tendulkar is a midget, so Ponting>Tendulkar.

But Ponting is hairy, so Tendulkar > Ponting.

 

[Hooper]

Fair enough.

 

[D0N]

My choice both Players are LEGENDS :hpraise

 

[TheGreemSim]

Despite Jayasuria's great batting skill and high score of 189. Tendulkar has got more to show plus his form hasn't declined as he's gotten older.

 

[STLIndian]

it's obviously sachin, but your stats are a joke.

strike rates
sachin = 85.77
sanath = 91.26

and in fact I could do all the variations of strike rates you did of averages and sanath would come out top in every one (96.56 SR for jaya in matches won to sachins 90.08 etc etc)

sixes
sachin = 177
sanath = 270

of course one of the big ones would be

world cups won
sachin = 0
sanath = 1

as I said, still sachin but what a terrible way to present the case for each. Sanath's style changed the game, and that counts for a lot more than averages.

Even though he presented the stats that only supported Tendulkar, at least they made sense.

Your stats are just idiotic.

Strike rate? Sixes? World Cups? You've got to be kidding.

And your bolded part doesn't make sense either. Why would I care what style my player plays with? I want him to do one thing: SCORE RUNS. And average (even though it doesn't come close to telling the whole story) is one of the better ways to show who does that consistently.