Sachin Tendulkar vs AB de Villiers - The overall complete batsman?

[Chrish]

Several batsmen have bettered SRT's peak but none of them have come close to match his consistency. Out of his 24 years in international cricket, he maintained a top class performance in 20 of them. Till 2011 he was among the top batsmen going around.

Cook was talked about as the next Tendulkar in 2011 when he reached his peak but look at his state now. Only Kallis came close but only in tests, nowhere near Tendulkar in ODI's.

For a player to dominate both formats and be among top bats in both for 20+ years is no mean feat. AB is doing that now and I enjoy watching him more than Tendulkar tbh but unless he does it for at least 4-5 years more, he will have fallen short.

However one has to say in the current gen of bats, only AB has seemed like a batsman who can match SRT/Viv's calibre. Hopefully his peak doesn't end sharply like Pontings did, because at one time it seemed like he'd race past Tendulkar in a flash.

Root may be a future candidate. He is young and given the amount of tests England plays, he has a fair chance to catch up with SRT in test department..

 

[as-95]

That is reasonable enough.

i would say that if AB continues this phenomenal form for 5 more years, he is NO DOUBTS and WITHOUT ARGUMENT the best ODI player of all time. He has been playing in God-Mode(as a poster above said) and to continue this peak for 5 more years would put him FAR ahead of any other ODI player ever. Sure, Tendulkar was consistently very good for a number of years but he did not ever reach AB's peak levels. He could only dream of coming close to AB's strike rate without disturbing his beloved average.

This form for 5 more years along with the last 4-5 years of AB's superb form would put him far ahead of the pack as although some players had longetivity, they never hit the heights that AB is hitting right now. He has been playing so impressively for almost 5 years already and Alrhough he is already at the top regarding peak greatness, I would say that 1 or 2 more years along with the last 5 would put AB at the top of overall greatest too. 5 more would simply cement this greatness and put him further than the rest of the pack.

 

[Jo_Don]

Several butt hurt Sachinistas in this thread, who can't stomach the thought that there are people in this world who do not worship their god as they do.

 

[Chrish]

The title of best OdI bat goes to Bevan if we consider players from 90s or onward.. Why he wasn't given chance in test is beyond me especially given his FC record..

 

[Saqs]

The title of best OdI bat goes to Bevan if we consider players from 90s or onward.. Why he wasn't given chance in test is beyond me especially given his FC record..

He was given a chance in tests. Mainly as a bowler. But got found out very quickly against the short ball. And plus, that Aussie team didn't have many weak links for over a decade. So once you were in, it was hard to be dropped unless you got found out technically, which is what happened to Bevan. Once you're out of that team, it was near impossible to get back in because of the amazing bench strength Australia had.

That said, even in ODI's, Bevan is not the best since the 90s. After Sachin, that has to be either Dhoni or ABD.

 

[Saqs]

I only judge players based on overall career.. I don't care for terms like "peak" etc.. You can if it suites your adjective. As far as I am concerned, his career average is not really extraordinary given there are 5 other players who have played 50+ ODIs average 50+. He is behind Amla who is an opener while ABD gets many opportunities to remain not out batting down the order. Moreover, Beven averaged similar playing all of his career and Dhoni most of his career under old rules. I can't really neglect these factors. You certainty can though

So you're discounting ABD average because he bats at 4, but not Bevan or MSD who were at 5-6?

 

[Buffet]

That said, even in ODI's, Bevan is not the best since the 90s. After Sachin, that has to be either Dhoni or ABD.

He is right up there with the best though. SRT was an opener so I won't compare one to one with Dhoni, AB or Bevan. Dhoni and Bevan were gun finishers. AB is gun batsman but not really a great finisher. So different batsmen with different roles.

You can rate Dhoni slightly above Bevan but difference is not huge. I have watched the entire career of Dhoni and Bevan. In my all time world XI , I will try to have both of them.

 

[ChachaCricket]

So you're discounting ABD average because he bats at 4, but not Bevan or MSD who were at 5-6?

Lol he's a hypocrite who twists around stats to suit his favourites.

 

[Chrish]

So you're discounting ABD average because he bats at 4, but not Bevan or MSD who were at 5-6?

I am not discounting anything bud.. I was just responding to the poster who was saying "why no one comes close" statement. Abd bats down the order so he gets more opportunities to remain no out and still he is averaging less than Amla who is an opener so I found his claim senseless. And you can't pick certain time limit and claim since one player has done better than the others, he is the best. You always have to look at overall career because if we go by judging player based on peak only, ponting will be considered he greatest player in modern age. And nothing annoys me more than senseless claims like today's batsmen would have done equally well in 90s with old rules.. That's just not right and you know it. Sachinists are annoying but some of the anti sachin trolls are just as desperate to downgrade his achievements. I don't care if someone holds the option of player x > sachin. It's the resoning that I find quite illogical. Sachin way past his prime scored 200 not out with new rules. That should tell you something about what he could have achieved if he had played in his prime with powerplay and free hits.

 

[Chrish]

He was given a chance in tests. Mainly as a bowler. But got found out very quickly against the short ball. And plus, that Aussie team didn't have many weak links for over a decade. So once you were in, it was hard to be dropped unless you got found out technically, which is what happened to Bevan. Once you're out of that team, it was near impossible to get back in because of the amazing bench strength Australia had.

That said, even in ODI's, Bevan is not the best since the 90s. After Sachin, that has to be either Dhoni or ABD.

Bevan had the ability to win the matches on his own in under IMPOSSIBLE circumstances.. He has done it more than few times. Only dhoni has come close to him but due to recent decline, it's bit difficult to make case for him. And he was never given fair go in test otherwise I have little doubt he would have succesed. He might have struggled initially against short ball but you can't really average 57 in Australian FC without having no idea how to play short bowls..

 

[pacesensation]

Its a no brainer
Ab De Villers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sachin

 

[WrexEverything]

The title of best OdI bat goes to Bevan if we consider players from 90s or onward.. Why he wasn't given chance in test is beyond me especially given his FC record..

He was given a chance in tests. Mainly as a bowler. But got found out very quickly against the short ball. And plus, that Aussie team didn't have many weak links for over a decade. So once you were in, it was hard to be dropped unless you got found out technically, which is what happened to Bevan. Once you're out of that team, it was near impossible to get back in because of the amazing bench strength Australia had.

That said, even in ODI's, Bevan is not the best since the 90s. After Sachin, that has to be either Dhoni or ABD.

Many incredible Australian batsmen had very short careers or flat out didn't get a chance at all at the time due to the competition. Guys like Lehmann, Bevan, Stuart Law, Martin Love were all world class. Just required a few more chances to truly cement themselves in test cricket. (Although Lehmann did have a decent, if short career)

 

[Chrish]

Never gave a damn about Lehmann tbh.. May be because his stance was ungainly. Watching him, I always felt he was the weakest link in the team which probably was true. His FC record is phenomenal though which boggles my mind!

 

[Saqs]

He is right up there with the best though. SRT was an opener so I won't compare one to one with Dhoni, AB or Bevan. Dhoni and Bevan were gun finishers. AB is gun batsman but not really a great finisher. So different batsmen with different roles.

You can rate Dhoni slightly above Bevan but difference is not huge. I have watched the entire career of Dhoni and Bevan. In my all time world XI , I will try to have both of them.

I don't think I would have Bevan in my all time world XI in ODIs. Probably wouldn't find a spot in there to be honest. It may be my memory failing me, but for me Hussey was a better chaser/finisher than Bevan.

 

[samplepiece]

I don't think I would have Bevan in my all time world XI in ODIs. Probably wouldn't find a spot in there to be honest. It may be my memory failing me, but for me Hussey was a better chaser/finisher than Bevan.

My memory of Bevan is that he was very good at chasing low totals when the team's top order was decimated but I reckon he did not have the top gear and couldn't chase when required run rate got high. He was someone who ran really hard between the wickets.

That has been my impression though it is possible that stats may say something else.

 

[WrexEverything]

I don't think I would have Bevan in my all time world XI in ODIs. Probably wouldn't find a spot in there to be honest. It may be my memory failing me, but for me Hussey was a better chaser/finisher than Bevan.

Hussey was better at setting up big totals in the first innings but he wasn't close to Bevan in terms of chasing.

 

[Stallion__]

Bevan was as good a finisher as the world has seen.

Dhoni better than him overall as because he used to keep wickets as well, thus allowing his team to play extra batsman or a bowler.

Purely on batting terms, he edges out MS.

He used to do it in old fashioned way, by rotating strike. Still he could manage 100+ SR when required. His average is heavily helped by number of not outs by so is Dhoni's.

And Bevan used to do it in 90s when bowling attacks were stronger and 250 was a winning total. So SR in 70s was acceptable.

See how far Bevan was ahead from the rest in terms of averages.

He was the only man those days who averaged 50+. Now we have many.


Hussey was different. He don't have many contributions in chasing. Used to finish the innings in the first innings.

 

[Jo_Don]

My memory of Bevan is that he was very good at chasing low totals when the team's top order was decimated but I reckon he did not have the top gear and couldn't chase when required run rate got high. He was someone who ran really hard between the wickets.

That has been my impression though it is possible that stats may say something else.

That's pretty much what he was, as reflected by his Dravid/Kallis like strike rate..

 

[IndianWillow]

My memory of Bevan is that he was very good at chasing low totals when the team's top order was decimated but I reckon he did not have the top gear and couldn't chase when required run rate got high. He was someone who ran really hard between the wickets.

That has been my impression though it is possible that stats may say something else.

Bevan played for a strong team, and he surely didn't get enough opportunities to chase big totals. Given his test match stats, we have reasons to think that he may not have been a technically sound player - he averaged 29 after 18 tests. Though this is not a big sample, it is not a small sample either and his sub 30 average indicates that he was not technically better than Dhoni as a batsman.

Dhoni is a much superior ODI batsman. It is just not an issue of batting averages here. Bevan wasn't a big hitter of the ball, while Dhoni is a big hitter and can hits sixes and boundaries at will. Even accounting for the relatively easier batting conditions during Dhoni's time, Dhoni is still far more versatile compared to Bevan. There aren't many #5,6 even today with 50+ batting averages - infact Dhoni has the highest batting average at #5-#6 since 2000, and Dhoni has a much higher match sample compared to others who did well at these batting slots. The other batsmen who average 50 or thereabouts are top order bats. Dhoni is truly unique in the ODI world - he can average big, he can average big as a middle or lower-middle order bat, he can steer a tough chase, he can steer a tall chase, he can absorb pressure like nobody else can, he can hit 8-10 runs an over for a dozen overs if necessary.

 

[Sunzi]

Bevan played for a strong team, and he surely didn't get enough opportunities to chase big totals. Given his test match stats, we have reasons to think that he may not have been a technically sound player - he averaged 29 after 18 tests. Though this is not a big sample, it is not a small sample either and his sub 30 average indicates that he was not technically better than Dhoni as a batsman.

Dhoni is a much superior ODI batsman. It is just not an issue of batting averages here. Bevan wasn't a big hitter of the ball, while Dhoni is a big hitter and can hits sixes and boundaries at will. Even accounting for the relatively easier batting conditions during Dhoni's time, Dhoni is still far more versatile compared to Bevan. There aren't many #5,6 even today with 50+ batting averages - infact Dhoni has the highest batting average at #5-#6 since 2000, and Dhoni has a much higher match sample compared to others who did well at these batting slots. The other batsmen who average 50 or thereabouts are top order bats. Dhoni is truly unique in the ODI world - he can average big, he can average big as a middle or lower-middle order bat, he can steer a tough chase, he can steer a tall chase, he can absorb pressure like nobody else can, he can hit 8-10 runs an over for a dozen overs if necessary.

I agree.

Dhoni comfortably > Bevan IMO.

 

[Stallion__]

Bevan played for a strong team, and he surely didn't get enough opportunities to chase big totals. Given his test match stats, we have reasons to think that he may not have been a technically sound player - he averaged 29 after 18 tests. Though this is not a big sample, it is not a small sample either and his sub 30 average indicates that he was not technically better than Dhoni as a batsman.

His test record has nothing to do when we are talking about ODIs.

He surely has his weaknesses particularly against short balls, thats why he couldn't succeed in Tests.
But that didn't stopped him from being a gun ODI finisher.

Dhoni wasn't the best of test player himself.

Dhoni is a much superior ODI batsman. It is just not an issue of batting averages here. Bevan wasn't a big hitter of the ball, while Dhoni is a big hitter and can hits sixes and boundaries at will. Even accounting for the relatively easier batting conditions during Dhoni's time, Dhoni is still far more versatile compared to Bevan.

Yeah true. Bevan don't have range of shots like Dhoni.

But thats not all what matters. We have to see who achieved more as a batsman despite what they were capable of.

Bevan, again has his limitations, but he did found out ways to finish the games. Used to rely on strike rotation.

I watched his century against NewZealand, and he chased 7+ rpo in last 10 overs exclusively without any boundaries. Managed 100+ SR with for a century with only 28 runs coming off boundaries.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65624.html


And Australia's top order, no matter how much dynamic it was, was susceptible to collapse due to their aggressive style of play.
So many times he has bailed them out.

In above match, he chased down 250 when Australia were 82/6.

And he could hit boundaries as well when needed as he did against WI when a boundary was required of last ball.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65531.html

Even in above match, he chased 170+ when his team was 38/6.


And comebacks from such hopeless situations were unique in those days unlike today.

And as I said earlier, 230 used to be a par score those days, so SR in 70s is all that was needed to chase those totals, and thats what Bevan did.

There aren't many #5,6 even today with 50+ batting averages - infact Dhoni has the highest batting average at #5-#6 since 2000, and Dhoni has a much higher match sample compared to others who did well at these batting slots. The other batsmen who average 50 or thereabouts are top order bats. Dhoni is truly unique in the ODI world - he can average big, he can average big as a middle or lower-middle order bat, he can steer a tough chase, he can steer a tall chase, he can absorb pressure like nobody else can, he can hit 8-10 runs an over for a dozen overs if necessary.

The fact the atleast top oder batsman today can average in 50s while they couldn't do that in Bevan's time tell us something. Batting conditions have eased out a lot.

And btw AB averages in 80s at number 5 while Matthews averages 50+ at that position. Although in lesser matches but its not unique in this age.


And just like Dhoni, Bevan was successful at whatever number he played at.

As I said earlier, Dhoni the player is better than Bevan the player, but to say that for Dhoni the batsman, would be stretching too far.

 

[Mobashir]

Bevan played for a strong team, and he surely didn't get enough opportunities to chase big totals. Given his test match stats, we have reasons to think that he may not have been a technically sound player - he averaged 29 after 18 tests. Though this is not a big sample, it is not a small sample either and his sub 30 average indicates that he was not technically better than Dhoni as a batsman.

Dhoni is a much superior ODI batsman. It is just not an issue of batting averages here. Bevan wasn't a big hitter of the ball, while Dhoni is a big hitter and can hits sixes and boundaries at will. Even accounting for the relatively easier batting conditions during Dhoni's time, Dhoni is still far more versatile compared to Bevan. There aren't many #5,6 even today with 50+ batting averages - infact Dhoni has the highest batting average at #5-#6 since 2000, and Dhoni has a much higher match sample compared to others who did well at these batting slots. The other batsmen who average 50 or thereabouts are top order bats. Dhoni is truly unique in the ODI world - he can average big, he can average big as a middle or lower-middle order bat, he can steer a tough chase, he can steer a tall chase, he can absorb pressure like nobody else can, he can hit 8-10 runs an over for a dozen overs if necessary.

When did that happened?

 

[IndianWillow]

When did that happened?

It never happened? Then why exactly Dhoni is regarded as a great finisher? Here are some matches.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/236809.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/237571.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/223634.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64939.html

 

[Chrish]

Both Bevan and Dhoni's averages are highly misleading.. But my reason for rating them that high is not really that criteria. I could care less if they were averaging 40 odd as long as they could do what they did. Stallion makes a valid point that Dhoni would edge Bevan strictly based on his keeping ability but they are pretty close otherwise.

What Bevan did makes him rather unique. When chasing a total, he relied on less risky method of running quickly between the wickets and taking 2-3 runs per ball and try to reach the total in the end. Other batsmen would try to hit the boundaries to relieve scoreboard pressure which got them out more often then not. Now, this sounds very simple in theory but you have to really watch the game live in order to truly appreciate Bevan's effort. At a time, it felt impossible but he still somehow managed it in the end.

Since we are on this topic, I have to mention Lance Klusener as well. It's a pity his career was short, but boy that man would still try to win a game even if 40 were required in last 3 overs. Opposition could never lax themselves when he was on the crease.

 

[Buffet]

I don't think I would have Bevan in my all time world XI in ODIs. Probably wouldn't find a spot in there to be honest. It may be my memory failing me, but for me Hussey was a better chaser/finisher than Bevan.

Nah, I will take Bevan over Hussey any time as chaser/finisher. Bevan was better for sure in that role.

My memory of Bevan is that he was very good at chasing low totals when the team's top order was decimated but I reckon he did not have the top gear and couldn't chase when required run rate got high. He was someone who ran really hard between the wickets.

That has been my impression though it is possible that stats may say something else.

Your memory is not wrong but you have to judge players based on era and role they played for their team. Bevan got out Aus from tricky situations countless number of times. He was very good at his role. He didn't have range of shots and big shots but it was not needed most of the times for the team he played.

There aren't many #5,6 even today with 50+ batting averages - infact Dhoni has the highest batting average at #5-#6 since 2000, and Dhoni has a much higher match sample compared to others who did well at these batting slots. The other batsmen who average 50 or thereabouts are top order bats.

It doesn't have to be #5 or #6. If you look at all batsmen in 00s and 2010s, here is what you see.

Many batsmen played in 00s and 2010s but only DHoni appears in the top 3-4 in Average and SR both,

Batsmen in 00s:

.
.

Batsmen in 2010s:


Indians had their best time in ODI in this format in the last 10 years and Dhoni played a huge part here. Any rule change argument can't be used for Dhoni performance because he was doing the same in 00s as well. SR of 88-90 with 50+ average for that long a period on consistent basis was huge even if you ignore his finishing abilities, captaincy and spot as Wicket keeper. I am 100% sure that Indians will do a lot worse in the next 10 years in absence of Dhoni.

 

[Buffet]

Since we are on this topic, I have to mention Lance Klusener as well. It's a pity his career was short, but boy that man would still try to win a game even if 40 were required in last 3 overs. Opposition could never lax themselves when he was on the crease.

If only he had some support and less bottling from others, he wold have won few big cups. Yah, his career was short but he was more explosive than others in position he batted. Truly a fun to watch and he won so many games from positions where most teams simply used to give up chasing in real sense.

 

[Syed1]

If only he had some support and less bottling from others, he wold have won few big cups. Yah, his career was short but he was more explosive than others in position he batted. Truly a fun to watch and he won so many games from positions where most teams simply used to give up chasing in real sense.

He bottled it at the biggest stage of his career..

 

[Stallion__]

Klusener was more like used to play a cameo of 30, 40 or 60 at the end to win SA matches that too at an excellent SR. He was outstanding in that regard.

But I don't exactly remember him playing a real big innings while chasing under pressure as Dhoni or Bevan have done.

But he was an excellent bowler as well. So that enhances his utility as well. A real contender of all time ODI XI.

 

[Jo_Don]

He bottled it at the biggest stage of his career..

No, Donald did. Klusener almost single-handedly got the team to the semi final in the first place.

 

[Syed1]

No, Donald did. Klusener almost single-handedly got the team to the semi final in the first place.

Yes and almost won SA the semi as well, but when you need 1 run in 4 balls you do not run like crazy for a suicidal run specially when the guy at the other end is a number 11.

 

[Jo_Don]

Yes and almost won SA the semi as well, but when you need 1 run in 4 balls you do not run like crazy for a suicidal run specially when the guy at the other end is a number 11.

When you have every fielder around the bat and you get it through the infield, you expect a #11 to run 22 yards without dropping his bat.

 

[Chrish]

Yes and almost won SA the semi as well, but when you need 1 run in 4 balls you do not run like crazy for a suicidal run specially when the guy at the other end is a number 11.

Mate did you even see that match? It was an EASY run.. Only if Donald had moved his fat backside quickly, the SA would have easily won that game

 

[Chrish]

Yes and almost won SA the semi as well, but when you need 1 run in 4 balls you do not run like crazy for a suicidal run specially when the guy at the other end is a number 11.

Deleted

 

[WrexEverything]

No, Donald did. Klusener almost single-handedly got the team to the semi final in the first place.

When you have every fielder around the bat and you get it through the infield, you expect a #11 to run 22 yards without dropping his bat.

Mate did you even see that match? It was an EASY run.. Only if Donald had moved his fat backside quickly, the SA would have easily won that game

Complete myth that Donald was the guilty party. Watch that final ball again. It's definitely Klusener's fault.

Consider this:

The previous ball, Donald had been backing up quickly to sneak a single, and almost got runout. Luckily Lehmann missed the stump by a few inches. When this has happened one ball ago, you'd expect the non striker to be a little less inclined to go for a mad single. Especially when 4 balls are left. In this situation, a proper, calm batsman would have walked up to the non striker and told him exactly what his plan for the next ball is: "I'm going to hit a boundary, but if I don't hit it for four, we still run anyway". Some instructions, please? But no. Klusener was a bag of nerves and didn't want to calm things down.

Also, the ball did NOT pierce the infield. It was stopped at mid on/off (memory's slightly off here) and flicked to the bowler, who in turn flicked it to the keeper.

Most importantly, Donald had to stay in his crease till the ball passed the bowler because he was afraid the ball would hit the bowler's hand and go onto the stumps. This is clear from the footage. He had no choice. By the time he turned around, Klusener had already covered 3/4th of the pitch. Donald had no chance and was unfairly vilified.

 

[Chrish]

If only he had some support and less bottling from others, he wold have won few big cups. Yah, his career was short but he was more explosive than others in position he batted. Truly a fun to watch and he won so many games from positions where most teams simply used to give up chasing in real sense.

He was dropped from the team because he didn't get along with team mates and said to have cause issues in dressing room. In a sense he had a KP ending

 

[Chrish]

Complete myth that Donald was the guilty party. Watch that final ball again. It's definitely Klusener's fault.

Consider this:

The previous ball, Donald had been backing up quickly to sneak a single, and almost got runout. Luckily Lehmann missed the stump by a few inches. When this has happened one ball ago, you'd expect the non striker to be a little less inclined to go for a mad single. Especially when 4 balls are left. In this situation, a proper, calm batsman would have walked up to the non striker and told him exactly what his plan for the next ball is: "I'm going to hit a boundary, but if I don't hit it for four, we still run anyway". Some instructions, please? But no. Klusener was a bag of nerves and didn't want to calm things down.

Also, the ball did NOT pierce the infield. It was stopped at mid on/off (memory's slightly off here) and flicked to the bowler, who in turn flicked it to the keeper.

Most importantly, Donald had to stay in his crease till the ball passed the bowler because he was afraid the ball would hit the bowler's hand and go onto the stumps. This is clear from the footage. He had no choice. By the time he turned around, Klusener had already covered 3/4th of the pitch. Donald had no chance and was unfairly vilified.

You do have to understand that was a semifinal and after Klusener did all the hard work of hitting boundaries, he wanted to get that over as quickly as possible. So you can't blame him for not being able to remain calm because that was WC after all. All Donald had to do, was keep looking at Klusener and make his move when his partner did. But he did the exact opposite. In the previous ball you are mentioning, Klusener hadn't moved an inch while Donald tried to run like a mad chicken and got himself almost run out. After hitting the final ball, Klusener ran as fast as he could to take that single, but instead of following him, Donald pretty much doesn't move at all. Had he observed what his partner was doing and followed him, they could have taken that single. They certainly had enough time.

 

[CricFan007]

Thank you for this breakdown table..most of the people are discussing who were the top average holder in both decades..what everyone is missing is ABD is average difference..

in 00's he played 93 matches with less than 40 average, where Sachin played 200 odd games with above 46 average ( although age was not on his side plus injuries etc)

In 2010's ABD's average skyrocket with same number of matches...

This in itself proves that difference in bowling quality, rule changes, field restriction and two ball theory...how much difference these have made.

I guess everyone is free to believe in their belief of who is the best but end of the day, you should be bias free and look at all the factors before even comparing someone with proven great players.

Cheers

 

[soso_killer]

See its difficult to say which pitch is difficult,because while a slow spinning pitch will be easy for SC batsmen it will be difficult for non SC batsmen.So you cat say SA/AUS/NZ/ENG are difficult places to bat on.

I think defining easy/easier conditions is easy than you think. We can simply pull up the data and see how many players from outside Asia average at least 40 SR of 80 in Asian conditions after at least 20 ODI's (in fact make it AVG 50, SR 80). We can then compare Asian bats against those sides in their territory (avg 40, sr 80).
Average runs per wicket is another good indicator of how tough scoring is in certain grounds/conditions.

I will tell you something.I classify certain cricketers as beyond ATGs.I call them geniuses.Players who defy logic.In the players i have watched i classify Viv,Lara,Tendulkar,Warne and Wasim as geniuses.

What ABDV displays in ODI cricket is close to that genius.But the problem i have is to decide whether that display is more due to easier rules,lesser bowlers etc or due to the sheer ability of the man.The second thing is that all those players i mentioned,displayed their skills irrespective of the format,ABDV hasnt displayed that kind of skills in Tests regularly.

"Genius", "capturing imagination", "charisma", "excitement", alcohol and prostitutes before a big match etc. are not what I'm interested in. Substance and context is what I am after. So I won't be engaging on this sub-topic.

 

[soso_killer]

Thank you for this breakdown table..most of the people are discussing who were the top average holder in both decades..what everyone is missing is ABD is average difference..

in 00's he played 93 matches with less than 40 average, where Sachin played 200 odd games with above 46 average ( although age was not on his side plus injuries etc)

In 2010's ABD's average skyrocket with same number of matches...

This in itself proves that difference in bowling quality, rule changes, field restriction and two ball theory...how much difference these have made.

I guess everyone is free to believe in their belief of who is the best but end of the day, you should be bias free and look at all the factors before even comparing someone with proven great players.

Cheers

AB's numbers took a beating initially as he had nowhere to hide but play in tough conditions. He couldn't just balloon to Asia to boost his numbers, he had to face the music in the savanna. In his 1st 3 years of international cricket I think he averaged 33 in SA and Australia. Had to open against McGrath in tests at a tender age of 22 at times, many players would prefer to hide down the order.
There is a reason SA's prolific scorers (Kirsten, Smith, Amla and AB himself and maybe Gibbs) average more away than at home. Kallis was the exception averaging 50+ both home and away.

 

[CricFan007]

AB's numbers took a beating initially as he had nowhere to hide but play in tough conditions. He couldn't just balloon to Asia to boost his numbers, he had to face the music in the savanna. In his 1st 3 years of international cricket I think he averaged 33 in SA and Australia. Had to open against McGrath in tests at a tender age of 22 at times, many players would prefer to hide down the order.
There is a reason SA's prolific scorers (Kirsten, Smith, Amla and AB himself and maybe Gibbs) average more away than at home. Kallis was the exception averaging 50+ both home and away.

So what you basically saying ABD is minnow basher and FTB...he can't play on quality pitches and bowlers...he rely heavily and gain his average numbers by playing on flat pitches...hummm

 

[Buffet]

He bottled it at the biggest stage of his career..

Nah, it was only him who made it possible to get close and pretty much won the game. Donald bottled it. Donald had to simply follow him for running but he didn't do it.

Klusener was more like used to play a cameo of 30, 40 or 60 at the end to win SA matches that too at an excellent SR. He was outstanding in that regard.

But I don't exactly remember him playing a real big innings while chasing under pressure as Dhoni or Bevan have done.

But he was an excellent bowler as well. So that enhances his utility as well. A real contender of all time ODI XI.

Yah, he didn't play bigger knocks but he was really good in playing quick 30-40 runs in few overs. I do rate him below the likes of Bevan and Dhoni but he was a very good finisher.

 

[Buffet]

Thank you for this breakdown table..most of the people are discussing who were the top average holder in both decades..what everyone is missing is ABD is average difference..

AB had a poor start and his and numbers for 00s don't look that great due to first few years being bad. Don't forget he debuted when he was 20 year old. Anyway, averaging 39 with a SR of 86 is a very good performance. It's not average or just above average. It's very good because very few batsmen averaged 40 with 85+ SR in 00s.

Sure, 2010s numbers are inflated for every batsman due to new rules but he has been far ahead of his peers. You can't compare 2010s numbers with earlier period as one to one but you can clearly see that he is outperforming everyone by a big margin.

So what you basically saying ABD is minnow basher and FTB...he can't play on quality pitches and bowlers...he rely heavily and gain his average numbers by playing on flat pitches...hummm

How AB is a minnow basher when he has done so well against pretty much all oppositions in both formats. Soso was explaining you a different thing. AB has done very well in the last 6-7 years. He wasn't that mature in his first few years.

 

[CricFan007]

AB had a poor start and his and numbers for 00s don't look that great due to first few years being bad. Don't forget he debuted when he was 20 year old. Anyway, averaging 39 with a SR of 86 is a very good performance. It's not average or just above average. It's very good because very few batsmen averaged 40 with 85+ SR in 00s.

Sure, 2010s numbers are inflated for every batsman due to new rules but he has been far ahead of his peers. You can't compare 2010s numbers with earlier period as one to one but you can clearly see that he is outperforming everyone by a big margin.



How AB is a minnow basher when he has done so well against pretty much all oppositions in both formats. Soso was explaining you a different thing. AB has done very well in the last 6-7 years. He wasn't that mature in his first few years.

I agree what I was trying to say is why bring excuse of playing against such and such vice versa...why don't we look at black and white...in 00's when Tendulkar was playing, he was superior than ABD...head on head..what's the point of proving after he retired that ABD is better or greater than him...which doesn't reflect correctly when both were playing...also, don't forget Tendulkar average was not only substantially higher than him but he played double the game than ABD.

I have no problem with ADB making killing in today's game...but we have to be fair..we don't have period where both Viv and Tendukar playing same time but here we have that opportunity and we just can not ignore that...

I think people should remove bias and look at the reality...reality is when both were playing Tendulkar was head and shoulder above ABD..period..peace

 

[Chrish]

I agree what I was trying to say is why bring excuse of playing against such and such vice versa...why don't we look at black and white...in 00's when Tendulkar was playing, he was superior than ABD...head on head..what's the point of proving after he retired that ABD is better or greater than him...which doesn't reflect correctly when both were playing...also, don't forget Tendulkar average was not only substantially higher than him but he played double the game than ABD.

I have no problem with ADB making killing in today's game...but we have to be fair..we don't have period where both Viv and Tendukar playing same time but here we have that opportunity and we just can not ignore that...

I think people should remove bias and look at the reality...reality is when both were playing Tendulkar was head and shoulder above ABD..period..peace

It takes few years to get adjusted in international cricket. Steve smith averaged poorly when he started as well. You can't base your opinion of player based on failure in initial years the same way you can't just look at so called peak period. Overall career perfomence is the way to go. I don't hold his failure in initial years against him

 

[CricFan007]

It takes few years to get adjusted in international cricket. Steve smith averaged poorly when he started as well. You can't base your opinion of player based on failure in initial years the same way you can't just look at so called peak period. Overall career perfomence is the way to go. I don't hold his failure in initial years against him

Fair enough...so why bother comparing both? why don't wait for ABD to retire before comparing him with Tendulkar? Please let's not say that we are speculating that if he will play same for next 5 to 6 years...life is too unpredictable to make those assumption..

 

[CricFan007]

It takes few years to get adjusted in international cricket. Steve smith averaged poorly when he started as well. You can't base your opinion of player based on failure in initial years the same way you can't just look at so called peak period. Overall career perfomence is the way to go. I don't hold his failure in initial years against him

Are you trying to say that all the players struggle in their early career? I can list countless players who were brilliant from day one...anyways, to your point about considering full career.

Fair enough...so why bother comparing both? why don't wait for ABD to retire before comparing him with Tendulkar? Please let's not say that we are speculating that if he will play same for next 5 to 6 years...life is too unpredictable to make those assumption..

Everyone here makes their own assumption/presumption and try to justify their belief...but the reality is what you just said..have to look at the full picture before making any judgement...

I know, you know and so many here knows that many players have come and gone in tendulkar's era, some where brilliant in their early stage i.e. cook etc. and some where brilliant in their later stage..i.e. kalis, sagakarka etc. but no one compared kalis to tendulakr in his early career ( becoz no match) and no one dare to compare cook with tendulakr now...

bottom line for ADB is,...picture abhi baki hai mere bhai!

 

[Chrish]

Are you trying to say that all the players struggle in their early career? I can list countless players who were brilliant from day one...anyways, to your point about considering full career.

Fair enough...so why bother comparing both? why don't wait for ABD to retire before comparing him with Tendulkar? Please let's not say that we are speculating that if he will play same for next 5 to 6 years...life is too unpredictable to make those assumption..

Everyone here makes their own assumption/presumption and try to justify their belief...but the reality is what you just said..have to look at the full picture before making any judgement...

I know, you know and so many here knows that many players have come and gone in tendulkar's era, some where brilliant in their early stage i.e. cook etc. and some where brilliant in their later stage..i.e. kalis, sagakarka etc. but no one compared kalis to tendulakr in his early career ( becoz no match) and no one dare to compare cook with tendulakr now...

bottom line for ADB is,...picture abhi baki hai mere bhai!

I try not to predict future anyways, I am not bothered if any current or future player will suppress the former greats. It's bound to happen one day and it's only good for the game. May the best player win!

 

[Buffet]

I agree what I was trying to say is why bring excuse of playing against such and such vice versa...why don't we look at black and white...in 00's when Tendulkar was playing, he was superior than ABD...head on head..what's the point of proving after he retired that ABD is better or greater than him...which doesn't reflect correctly when both were playing...also, don't forget Tendulkar average was not only substantially higher than him but he played double the game than ABD.

I have no problem with ADB making killing in today's game...but we have to be fair..we don't have period where both Viv and Tendukar playing same time but here we have that opportunity and we just can not ignore that...

I think people should remove bias and look at the reality...reality is when both were playing Tendulkar was head and shoulder above ABD..period..peace

That logic works only if two batsmen debut around the same time and have long long parallel careers. Like - Sanga, Amla, Clarke, AB etc debuting in early 00s and having a 10-12 years of parallel careers.

AB wasn't among the top batsmen in mid 00s and that's simply due to him not being good when he was in his early 20s. If you take that period then not only SRT but many batsmen were better than AB but that you can't take that kind of comparison to decide who is better.

SRT was past his prime and even though he did better than AB in 00s, that's not the way to compare. If you really insist on comparing that way then why not take their over lapping career,

AB debuted in 02 Feb 2005 and SRT retired in 18 Mar 2012.

SRT - 121 ODIs - avg 44.8 & SR 86
AB - 127 ODIs - avg 49 & SR 93

So according to your own logic it proves that AB was superior performer because he happens to do better than SRT in these over lapping 120+ ODIs.

I don't compare players that way unless they debut in same period and have a parallel career. Some posters do this even for SRT and Sanga. That's weird to see. SRT already had 15 years of long career and established as legend before Sanga started making big runs. Same thing applies here as well. So you can't take their overlapping period for comparison to decide who was better.

AB is simply the best batsman to debut in 00s if you take both formats. I don't rate Ab above SRT but I am just pointing out flaw in thought process here.

 

[Buffet]

It takes few years to get adjusted in international cricket. Steve smith averaged poorly when he started as well. You can't base your opinion of player based on failure in initial years the same way you can't just look at so called peak period. Overall career perfomence is the way to go. I don't hold his failure in initial years against him

Precisely, players are judged based on their entire career. You can't simply take their worst or best years.

Fair enough...so why bother comparing both? why don't wait for ABD to retire before comparing him with Tendulkar? Please let's not say that we are speculating that if he will play same for next 5 to 6 years...life is too unpredictable to make those assumption..

Comparison is coming mainly due to AB giving many fans the same feeling when SRT used to bat in prime.

 

[Chrish]

That logic works only if two batsmen debut around the same time and have long long parallel careers. Like - Sanga, Amla, Clarke, AB etc debuting in early 00s and having a 10-12 years of parallel careers.

AB wasn't among the top batsmen in mid 00s and that's simply due to him not being good when he was in his early 20s. If you take that period then not only SRT but many batsmen were better than AB but that you can't take that kind of comparison to decide who is better.

SRT was past his prime and even though he did better than AB in 00s, that's not the way to compare. If you really insist on comparing that way then why not take their over lapping career,

AB debuted in 02 Feb 2005 and SRT retired in 18 Mar 2012.

SRT - 121 ODIs - avg 44.8 & SR 86
AB - 127 ODIs - avg 49 & SR 93

So according to your own logic it proves that AB was superior performer because he happens to do better than SRT in these over lapping 120+ ODIs.

I don't compare players that way unless they debut in same period and have a parallel career. Some posters do this even for SRT and Sanga. That's weird to see. SRT already had 15 years of long career and established as legend before Sanga started making big runs. Same thing applies here as well. So you can't take their overlapping period for comparison to decide who was better.

AB is simply the best batsman to debut in 00s if you take both formats. I don't rate Ab above SRT but I am just pointing out flaw in thought process here.

Stop bothering mate.. Also SRT didn't do well against pak in his first series either. Granted he debuted at ridiculously early age. But still it's pretty understandable if the player needs more time. Sobers also took years before he finally reached his potential.

 

[Buffet]

Stop bothering mate.. Also SRT didn't do well against pak in his first series either. Granted he debuted at ridiculously early age. But still it's pretty understandable if the player needs more time. Sobers also took years before he finally reached his potential.

I had posted decades break up and that data was used to make a point about SRT doing better than AB when both played together and deriving some conclusion based that. That's why I posted entire overlapping period.

 

[Chrish]

I had posted decades break up and that data was used to make a point about SRT doing better than AB when both played together and deriving some conclusion based that. That's why I posted entire overlapping period.

What I meant was the above poster has already made up his mind and you aren't gonna convince him.. So you can save your time and energy that's all

 

[soso_killer]

So what you basically saying ABD is minnow basher and FTB...he can't play on quality pitches and bowlers...he rely heavily and gain his average numbers by playing on flat pitches...hummm

nope what I am saying is AB had to adapt his game and master his craft.
By nature AB is an attacking batsman, and dashers rarely make it in this country. So for 3 years he had to work on his defense, once he mastered and found the right balance between defence and offense he became a very good bat. And no he is not a flat track bully, despite a modest start to his career he averages 47 in SA today without any cut off dates (I.e his initial failings included).
In fact I think I was wrong AB averaged in the 20's in SA & AUS today he averages 40+ in both countries.
Should he partake in the Bangladesh tour and score a big hundred, he will join SRT in what would be a very exclusive club of averaging 40+ in every test nation.

 

[CricFan007]

What I meant was the above poster has already made up his mind and you aren't gonna convince him.. So you can save your time and energy that's all

How about you making up your mind on opposite side? I am no tendulkar fan nor I am here to prove that he is the best.

I know very well that tendulkar was a minnow basher and flat track bully and most of his average hype due to playing against bangladesh, zim and on flat tracks on south asia, but who is going to remember how he made his runs and against whom? I have no problem if anyone taking plate from Tendulkar after finishing their career or at the last leg of their career but let's be realistic here..ABD has potentially 10 years left in him..which is long period..

 

[Abdullah719]

I am not discounting anything bud.. I was just responding to the poster who was saying "why no one comes close" statement. Abd bats down the order so he gets more opportunities to remain no out and still he is averaging less than Amla who is an opener so I found his claim senseless. And you can't pick certain time limit and claim since one player has done better than the others, he is the best. You always have to look at overall career because if we go by judging player based on peak only, ponting will be considered he greatest player in modern age. And nothing annoys me more than senseless claims like today's batsmen would have done equally well in 90s with old rules.. That's just not right and you know it. Sachinists are annoying but some of the anti sachin trolls are just as desperate to downgrade his achievements. I don't care if someone holds the option of player x > sachin. It's the resoning that I find quite illogical. Sachin way past his prime scored 200 not out with new rules. That should tell you something about what he could have achieved if he had played in his prime with powerplay and free hits.

Discounting 2 years of a player's career where he initially struggled is not a big deal IMO.

No one here is saying that AB would put up numbers of 70/112 in 90s. That is illogical. But since this is a game of 'what ifs', I'm afraid we don't know for sure that he would have completely struggled and failed to match the best of said era either.

Anyway FWIW, I agree that its best if we compare once he has retired.

 

[soso_killer]

Bevan is massively underrated here. In his day 220 was a competitive total, with 250 equivalent to 300 maybe?
I remember time and time again how the rate would creep up to 6-7 an over which was tough in those days only for him to keep knocking it about then up the antee with 3 or so overs remaining.
This method partially explains why he has a misleading strike rate. He was an out and out match winner along with Klusner who took yorkers out of ODI cricket. Two of the best finishers the game has ever seen.
LOL at Hussey being a better finisher than Bevan

 

[CricFan007]

What I meant was the above poster has already made up his mind and you aren't gonna convince him.. So you can save your time and energy that's all

stop being hypocrite here...if you or anyone thinking about time and energy, then you should not be on this forum in the first place...get a life..this board is to discuss, argue and put your opinion to others...by putting others opinion as a time and energy waste is just shows how hypocrite you are!

Peace...

 

[CricFan007]

Bevan is massively underrated here. In his day 220 was a competitive total, with 250 equivalent to 300 maybe?
I remember time and time again how the rate would creep up to 6-7 an over which was tough in those days only for him to keep knocking it about then up the antee with 3 or so overs remaining.
This method partially explains why he has a misleading strike rate. He was an out and out match winner along with Klusner who took yorkers out of ODI cricket. Two of the best finishers the game has ever seen.
LOL at Hussey being a better finisher than Bevan

I remember the days when people would put their life on Bevan for saving game and Klusner for those quick fire 30-40 runs...I agree they were both extra ordinary ODI players do not get enough credit of what they have done for their teams.

 

[Chrish]

stop being hypocrite here...if you or anyone thinking about time and energy, then you should not be on this forum in the first place...get a life..this board is to discuss, argue and put your opinion to others...by putting others opinion as a time and energy waste is just shows how hypocrite you are!

Peace...

when both parities have made their minds, the argument results in circular flame war.. Nothing personal here

 

[samplepiece]

Bevan is massively underrated here. In his day 220 was a competitive total, with 250 equivalent to 300 maybe?
I remember time and time again how the rate would creep up to 6-7 an over which was tough in those days only for him to keep knocking it about then up the antee with 3 or so overs remaining.
This method partially explains why he has a misleading strike rate. He was an out and out match winner along with Klusner who took yorkers out of ODI cricket. Two of the best finishers the game has ever seen.
LOL at Hussey being a better finisher than Bevan

Actually that was a competitive total because of Australian bowling However, 250 was definitely competitive during his playing days. I dont think he is underrated at all, in fact is highly rated and rightly so but that doesn't mean that you can't point out the lack of strokes in repertoire.

One Aussie lower-middle order batsman who I feel is underrated is Andrew Symonds.

 

[IndianWillow]

Bevan is massively underrated here. In his day 220 was a competitive total, with 250 equivalent to 300 maybe?
I remember time and time again how the rate would creep up to 6-7 an over which was tough in those days only for him to keep knocking it about then up the antee with 3 or so overs remaining.
This method partially explains why he has a misleading strike rate. He was an out and out match winner along with Klusner who took yorkers out of ODI cricket. Two of the best finishers the game has ever seen.
LOL at Hussey being a better finisher than Bevan

220 was competitive in the 80s, not during Bevan's time. It was more like 240 during Bevan's time. In matches won by chasing, Bevan had two hundreds and twelve fifties in all. Of these, only in three or four matches was Bevan required to score 6 or 7 runs per over to complete the chase. Bevan was more of a "reconstruction" specialist rather than an aggressive chaser - he rescued Australia quite a few times from loss of early wickets and took them to win - but many of those knocks were passive knocks made patiently at strikes rate of around 60. Even taking into account the difference in eras, Dhoni had many more gears to his batting. Bevan hit a total of 21 sixes in 232 games, while Dhoni hit 184 sixes in 265 games (even the number of boundaries are quite on the higher side for Dhoni) - Dhoni can alter the game's tempo in more ways than the less dimensioned Bevan.

 

[Stallion__]

Bevan had 3 centuries, not 2 while chasing and 12 50s while Dhoni has 2 centuries and 15 50s. ANd one of Dhoni's century is at #3.

Nothing much to chose from these numbers.

Its just natural, if someone require to score 4.5/5 and over and he is the only reliable batsman left, he will play with risk free approach, thats what Bevan used to do.

And Dhoni does the same, when he is in such position. Don't know whats the issue with Bevan's SR when he is winning matches.

In terms of SR or range of shots, not only Dhoni, many others are better than Bevan (Klusener, Razzaq, Symonds, Yuvraj and even Hussey and Inzi).

But as I said earlier, thats not only what matters. Bevan has more success than any of them as a finisher. And he used to do it so consistently and with much more accomplishment, at the time when no one else used to do that.

 

[Saqs]

Bevan had 3 centuries, not 2 while chasing and 12 50s while Dhoni has 2 centuries and 15 50s. ANd one of Dhoni's century is at #3.

Nothing much to chose from these numbers.

Its just natural, if someone require to score 4.5/5 and over and he is the only reliable batsman left, he will play with risk free approach, thats what Bevan used to do.

And Dhoni does the same, when he is in such position. Don't know whats the issue with Bevan's SR when he is winning matches.

In terms of SR or range of shots, not only Dhoni, many others are better than Bevan (Klusener, Razzaq, Symonds, Yuvraj and even Hussey and Inzi).

But as I said earlier, thats not only what matters. Bevan has more success than any of them as a finisher. And he used to do it so consistently and with much more accomplishment, at the time when no one else used to do that.

I'm not sure if this is a myth about Bevan. Yes he won some unwinnable games a couple of times, but to say he did it consistently? I don't recall he had such a sustained impact in chases, but rather some amazing hiests he pulled off.

 

[Saqs]

220 was competitive in the 80s, not during Bevan's time. It was more like 240 during Bevan's time. In matches won by chasing, Bevan had two hundreds and twelve fifties in all. Of these, only in three or four matches was Bevan required to score 6 or 7 runs per over to complete the chase. Bevan was more of a "reconstruction" specialist rather than an aggressive chaser - he rescued Australia quite a few times from loss of early wickets and took them to win - but many of those knocks were passive knocks made patiently at strikes rate of around 60. Even taking into account the difference in eras, Dhoni had many more gears to his batting. Bevan hit a total of 21 sixes in 232 games, while Dhoni hit 184 sixes in 265 games (even the number of boundaries are quite on the higher side for Dhoni) - Dhoni can alter the game's tempo in more ways than the less dimensioned Bevan.

Agreed with this. In terms of chasing I'd always have MS over Bevan.

 

[Stallion__]

I'm not sure if this is a myth about Bevan. Yes he won some unwinnable games a couple of times, but to say he did it consistently? I don't recall he had such a sustained impact in chases, but rather some amazing hiests he pulled off.

Its far from a myth.

As I mentioned earlier, both Dhoni and Bevan have similar number of centuries and 50s in successful chases.

He played lesser matches than Dhoni and Australia was a that time was better than India of today, thats why he got lesser opportunities than Dhoni.

But among the opportunities he got, he has done as good a job as Dhoni.

On batting second, Bevan has ended up on winning side 45 times and 34 times on losing side (ratio = 1.32)
On batting second, Dhoni has ended up on winning side 59 times and 51 times on losing side (ratio = 1.16)

In addition to this, Dhoni has been an effective finisher in IPL as well, thats why his impression as a finisher is more amplified as compared to Bevan.

 

[soso_killer]

Bevan had 3 centuries, not 2 while chasing and 12 50s while Dhoni has 2 centuries and 15 50s. ANd one of Dhoni's century is at #3.

Nothing much to chose from these numbers.

Its just natural, if someone require to score 4.5/5 and over and he is the only reliable batsman left, he will play with risk free approach, thats what Bevan used to do.

And Dhoni does the same, when he is in such position. Don't know whats the issue with Bevan's SR when he is winning matches.

In terms of SR or range of shots, not only Dhoni, many others are better than Bevan (Klusener, Razzaq, Symonds, Yuvraj and even Hussey and Inzi).

But as I said earlier, thats not only what matters. Bevan has more success than any of them as a finisher. And he used to do it so consistently and with much more accomplishment, at the time when no one else used to do that.

good post, and there's the issue of flat pitches and rules hampering bowlers these days as well. Bevan probably faced superior attacks to modern day cricketers as well. It's ridiculous to even try and undermine him. He was a goat of a player finish and klaar

 

[Indian_Supporter]

ABDV need two lives to become Tendulkar. For the sake of debate and nationality people can carry on.

 

[SL_Fan]

Dhoni is Bevan plus the power game. The best ODI finisher of all time imo.

 

[Anfield]

By the time AB is finished he would surpass ST in all formats. AB is at peak of his career and his best is yet to come.

 

[Buffet]

Dhoni is Bevan plus the power game. The best ODI finisher of all time imo.

Probably true but Bevan did what was needed for his team at that time very well. Most of the time he didn't need to bat fast.

By the time AB is finished he would surpass ST in all formats. AB is at peak of his career and his best is yet to come.

I seriously doubt that wee will see it happening in the Test format.

 

[Buffet]

I'm not sure if this is a myth about Bevan. Yes he won some unwinnable games a couple of times, but to say he did it consistently? I don't recall he had such a sustained impact in chases, but rather some amazing hiests he pulled off.

Consistently doesn't mean that he did every other game. It was not even needed due to great batting line up but he did it plenty of times. His sustained impact was not less than Dhoni even though he didn't have/didn't need power games.

 

[Anfield]

Probably true but Bevan did what was needed for his team at that time very well. Most of the time he didn't need to bat fast.



I seriously doubt that wee will see it happening in the Test format.

why not? He averages over 40 in every top 8 country (something only Tendulkar has achieved). He is peak of his career and from here on he could and probably would end up being as good as Tendulkar if not better.

 

[Buffet]

why not? He averages over 40 in every top 8 country (something only Tendulkar has achieved). He is peak of his career and from here on he could and probably would end up being as good as Tendulkar if not better.

I think in the test format, he has to do extremely well here on to catch up with SRT. In ODIs, it's a different scenario. He has done better in ODI than Test so far.

Also, extrapolating peaks for batsmen are fine in theory but not very easy to do in reality.

 

[IndianWillow]

why not? He averages over 40 in every top 8 country (something only Tendulkar has achieved). He is peak of his career and from here on he could and probably would end up being as good as Tendulkar if not better.

Tendulkar was voted among top cricketers of the 20th century when he was just 28 - hardly midway through his career then. He was expected to further solidify his legacy, but Sachin did not do much to improve his global standing since then. Because those peaks are incredibly hard to hold on to, over an entire career. We still don't know which way AB's career will go from here, particularly in tests.

 

[Anfield]

Tendulkar was voted among top cricketers of the 20th century when he was just 28 - hardly midway through his career then. He was expected to further solidify his legacy, but Sachin did not do much to improve his global standing since then. Because those peaks are incredibly hard to hold on to, over an entire career. We still don't know which way AB's career will go from here, particularly in tests.

That's because Sachin debuted when he was 16/17 yr old. Sachin peaked early. You can see by AB's batting that he is at his best right now.. of course I can't predict the future he might go down the hill from here, but my educated guess is he is going to rip apart every attack.

 

[Chrish]

Funny how people keep bringing the excuse of a player debuting early.. If anything, it's even more indicative of his ability as a player. He got selected because he was that good! I am sure no selector took him out of pity or doing him a favor. They obviously thought the player possessed an immense ability at the age of 16 that other players lacked in in their 20s.

 

[IndianWillow]

That's because Sachin debuted when he was 16/17 yr old. Sachin peaked early. You can see by AB's batting that he is at his best right now.. of course I can't predict the future he might go down the hill from here, but my educated guess is he is going to rip apart every attack.

He was that good, that is why. During the 1991/92 Australian tour it was clear that he was the best batsman in the side by a long shot. Sachin peaked around 1996 or so, and I think his peak lasted until 2000 - he was still damn good either side of that peak. We can say that AB's current peak is similar to Sachin's peak in the late 90s, and it may not last forever.

 

[Anfield]

He was that good, that is why. During the 1991/92 Australian tour it was clear that he was the best batsman in the side by a long shot. Sachin peaked around 1996 or so, and I think his peak lasted until 2000 - he was still damn good either side of that peak. We can say that AB's current peak is similar to Sachin's peak in the late 90s, and it may not last forever.

of course he was that good I never disputed that. I am saying he came early to international cricket so he peaked early.

 

[Buffet]

That's because Sachin debuted when he was 16/17 yr old. Sachin peaked early. You can see by AB's batting that he is at his best right now.. of course I can't predict the future he might go down the hill from here, but my educated guess is he is going to rip apart every attack.

Funny how people keep bringing the excuse of a player debuting early.. If anything, it's even more indicative of his ability as a player. He got selected because he was that good! I am sure no selector took him out of pity or doing him a favor. They obviously thought the player possessed an immense ability at the age of 16 that other players lacked in in their 20s.

I am pretty sure that Anfield was not using age for any excuse and simply explaining that debuting early means you have played too much cricket till you reach your 30s. 30 is kind of peak for most batsmen. Playing that volume of cricket can burn you and that may be a reason for SRT to not sustain his peak past 30.

This is based on some earlier conversation with him. [MENTION=51763]Anfield[/MENTION] can correct me if I am wrong here.

 

[TestMatch]

I agree with others above who stated that Bevan was better than Dhoni in ODIs. Dhoni's average drops from mid 50s to 43 vs non minnows outside subcontinent/UAE. Tendulkar's drops to the 30s.