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

[Howsie]

Strike-rates are not idiotic. After averages they're the second most important stat. And depending on the situation they can sometimes be more important.

 

[Raj_Aryan]

Sachin Tendulkar no doubt...Sanath is more affressive no doubt, but he is not consistent, while every time Sachin comes on to bat we expect 100,even if Sachin gets 50,we say not played that well...Thats Sachin's standard...

 

[Params7]

Both are awesome, but Sachin takes it with his performance in FINALS.

 

[SaiSrini]

Both are awesome, but Sachin takes it with his performance in FINALS.

I thought Sanath was better and was about to disagree with this, but seeing the stats, Sachin has performed better in the finals (including finals where India won). In the same amount of matches (39 games), Sachin has more runs and a better average. Sanath has the highest score, but runs and average counts.

 

[Bublu Bhuyan]

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

Sobers as a cricketer is in a league of his own. Almost every ex-player who has seen him consider him to be miles ahead as a cricketer ahead of anyone else. Richie Benaud, the most respected cricket analyst, the one who even saw Bradman play, has no hesitation in naming Sobers to be the greatest all round cricketer he ever saw. But as a batsman, he does rate Tendulkar to be the best since Bradman. Here's the link to the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthfSPF_LCw

On a personal note, he is my cricketing hero ahead of Bradman, Tendulkar, King Viv and everyone else.

 

[Bluebagger]

Michael Bevan.

 

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Michael Bevan.

He isn't even among the top 10 ODI batsman ever. Dean Jones is a far better ODI batsman than him. His average is largely inflated because of 65 'Not Out' innings. Nor is his strike rate exceptional, it's about 75. A combination of good average (with a limited number of 'Not Out' innings in accordance to the number of matches played) and a great strike rate is what makes a player truly great. Ponting in my opinion is the 4th best ODI batsman ever after Richards, Tendulkar and Abbas because of his wonderful average of above 42 and a strike rate of more than 80, add to that above 11,000 runs.

Michael Bevan was a great ODI player, but not among the top 10.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Tendulkar is the best.

 

[Bluebagger]

He isn't even among the top 10 ODI batsman ever. Dean Jones is a far better ODI batsman than him. His average is largely inflated because of 65 'Not Out' innings. Nor is his strike rate exceptional, it's about 75. A combination of good average (with a limited number of 'Not Out' innings in accordance to the number of matches played) and a great strike rate is what makes a player truly great. Ponting in my opinion is the 4th best ODI batsman ever after Richards, Tendulkar and Abbas because of his wonderful average of above 42 and a strike rate of more than 80, add to that above 11,000 runs.

Michael Bevan was a great ODI player, but not among the top 10.

Haha, you say "largely inflated because of not outs" asif not outs mean anything. Thank you for telling me how averages work as I am quite aware of the logisitics of cricket. Michael Bevan used to come in down the lower order and Dean Jones batted at the top of the innings usually get close to the maximum amount of overs, Bevan didn't. Tendulkar opened for the majority, Jayasuriya the same and Ponting was in the same boat as Jones. Bevan averaged OVER 50 batting primarily at 6 or 7. I lost count how many times Bevan came in with the team looking like being bowled out for 150 and steering us to 220+ making 50 something not out. None of those batsman had the responsibility on their shoulders of having to play smart cricket and not give their wicket away when the game was on the line or having to resurrect a poor start to give the team something to defend. Bevan's innings coming it at 4/60 then seeing the score at 6/80 to then score a century and chase down 248 was a better one day innings than any one of those players you mention and I don't care how 190's, 180's, 150's they scored batting at the top of the innings batting first.

And why you are you rubbishing Bevan's strike rate then naming Jones a better ODI batsman when Bevan's strike rate is superior?

 

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Haha, you say "largely inflated because of not outs" asif not outs mean anything. Thank you for telling me how averages work as I am quite aware of the logisitics of cricket. Michael Bevan used to come in down the lower order and Dean Jones batted at the top of the innings usually get close to the maximum amount of overs, Bevan didn't. Tendulkar opened for the majority, Jayasuriya the same and Ponting was in the same boat as Jones. Bevan averaged OVER 50 batting primarily at 6 or 7. I lost count how many times Bevan came in with the team looking like being bowled out for 150 and steering us to 220+ making 50 something not out. None of those batsman had the responsibility on their shoulders of having to play smart cricket and not give their wicket away when the game was on the line or having to resurrect a poor start to give the team something to defend. Bevan's innings coming it at 4/60 then seeing the score at 6/80 to then score a century and chase down 248 was a better one day innings than any one of those players you mention and I don't care how 190's, 180's, 150's they scored batting at the top of the innings batting first.

And why you are you rubbishing Bevan's strike rate then naming Jones a better ODI batsman when Bevan's strike rate is superior?

Because Dean Jones played with an SR of 71 at a time when an SR in the 60's used to be the norm. Gavaskar, Miandad, Greenidge, Haynes, etc all had SR in the 60's. In those days an SR in the 70's used to be explosive. Srikanth was another guy from India who played at an SR of 71, and he was considered an explosive batsman.

And frankly, Bevan used to repair damage in the batting department, and was a finisher. I still don't consider him better than Dean Jones, who in his days used to be a truly great ODI batsman. And Bevan's average in the 50's is just because of the number of 'Not Out's he has (almost 65), I still stick by my argument. A combination of a great average (not highly inflated by 'Not Out's) and a fantastic SR is what makes an ODI batsman truly great.

 

[Dare]

Michael Bevan.

Tendlukar, Viv>>>Bevan on his best day.

 

[shubhrayu]

Yeah not to forget the guys who were in his prime. Prasad, Mohanty, Harvinder Singh, Kuruvilla, Agarkar and Manoj Prabhakar.

LOL! :laugh

Venkatesh Prasad and Ajit Agarkar!

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Agarkar was pretty good, fastest to 50 ODI wickets.

 

[King Cricket]

^ Nope. Second fastest. Mendis broke the record some days ago.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Oh pfft. In his day, he was the fastest. That's enough