Cold hard facts show Tendulkar is overrated

Truf Saya Roar Rookie

By Truf Saya, Truf Saya is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:
 , , , ,

447 Have your say

Popular article! 23,287 reads

    Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar nicks a delivery from Australian bowler Brett Lee - AAP Image/Julian Smith

    Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar nicks a delivery from Australian bowler Brett Lee - AAP Image/Julian Smith

    In modern society, the media are the new priests. They pronounce on all manner of things with the air of being the ultimate authority. To challenge these experts is heresy. Yet it can be done.

    These so-called experts are vulnerable in a variety of ways. For instance, you can dispute the credibility of their views by bringing forth facts. I believe Tendulkar is overrated and I believe I can show this with hard-core facts.

    The only measure by which Tendulkar outshines other batman is the sheer volume of his runs. There are reasons for this and we shall examine them later. But by every other measure he is outshone. Lets look at those metrics.

    1. AVERAGE: Sangakarra, Kallis and Ponting all have better averages. If we look at average by batting position Jayawardene also outranks Tendulkar. Note that Ponting and Sangakarra also play in the slightly less protected batting position of number 3. Tendulkar has never batted at this position.

    2. 1000 RUNS PER CALENDAR YEAR: while Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar all have 5 years. Both Lara and Ponting have achieved theirs in much less time. Kallis has also achieved his four 1000+ years at a faster rate than Tendulkar.

    3. MOST RUNS IN A TEN YEAR PERIOD: Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Hayden, Jayawardene and Sangakkara have all scored more runs in the last ten years. Ponting has scored more than 2500 runs than Tendulkar over the same period, this despite batting at number 3. Indeed over EVERY single comparable Ten Year period Ponting has scored more runs than Tendulkar.

    4. MAN OF THE MATCH: Kallis and Ponting both have more man of the match awards then Tendulkar. Kallis, Ponting, Lara, Hayden and Sangakarra all receive man of the match awards at a greater strike rate than Tendulkar.

    So why does Tendulkar have so many runs?

    Simply put, it comes down to two things: time and playing in India.

    His longevity is a massive credit to him. But another reason is that playing for India and in India is a massive boost for batsmen and there are metrics that can show this clearly.

    1. DRAWS: Tendulkar has played an incredible 66 draws! That is almost 41% of the matches he has played have ended in a draw. Remove those matches from his average calculations and his average drops a massive 5 runs to less than 50. That is around a 10% boost from those draws. His average in drawn matches is 65. Interestingly, an analysis of Dravid produces a similar conclusion.

    2. MATCHES WHERE TEAMS SCORE GREATER THAN 600 RUNS: over 50% of matches where a team scores over 600 runs in the last ten years have been played in India. Indian pitches produce big scores.

    3. GROUND AVERAGES: over the last 20 years, Indian grounds have averaged more than 70 runs per match than those outside of India (minimum 5 matches).

    Discussions like the above can generate a lot of heat but not much light.

    Amongst the palaver and the hyperbole, the figures reveal the truth about how good a player is. The truth is, Tendulkar is overrated.

    Or rather, some lesser rated batsmen should be given more credit.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (447)

    • November 25th 2009 @ 2:13am
      Wayne of Windale said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:13am | ! Report

      I like it. Reminds me of when Christopher Hitchens called Mother Teresa a fraud and a fanatic, he was probably right too.

      Everyone who reaches the top of their sport these days is referred to by the media as the “greatest ever”. Sampras had barely put down his racket when he found out he wasn’t the “greatest ever” anymore.

      But I would say Tendulkar is one of the best cricketers of our time and if that is the claim the “media” is making then the stats only seem to support this. So it depends on how you are rating him as to whether he is over-rated.

      But regardless, he is the batsman I have enjoyed watching most since I have been alive.

      • November 25th 2009 @ 2:52pm
        Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

        Why was Christopher Hitchens right to call Mother Teresa a fraud and a fanatic?

      • November 26th 2009 @ 4:59pm
        sunil kumar said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:59pm | ! Report

        well this is one of the worst article i have ever read to suit one’sopinion. you can use n number of figures to suppport your silly point but the fact is that tendulkar is the greatest among the modern generation.I can support my view with better statistics but this piece doesnt deserve it. you just come with 5 and 6 points and conclude on the grtness.
        some more points
        1.average doesnt determine greatness.
        2.when tendulkar completed a decade these batsman were not even in the reckoning.
        3.on the same indian pitches your pointing has batted like chris martin.

        cricket is a team game and man of the match is given generally to winning team.

        so Pls stop this silly blogging.since the name tendulkar attracts every one just to catch attention dont write anythin just for the heck of it.there is no denying the greatness of tendulkar,ponting,lara and dravid.so dont try to undermines one just beacuse you are the fan of other one.

      • February 24th 2010 @ 10:56pm
        RAhul said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:56pm | ! Report

        Wonder how overrated is double hundred against SA. I can only hope the editor is following Sachin over the last 20 years. Very easy to relate longevity to performance. Not as easy to carry the pressure of consistency over this extended period. Stats can be skewed every which way. Let’s consider ourselves lucky to have experienced these achievements from a class apart. Ponting and Kallis might have the same feelings. Comparison to Sachin should be honourable enough. Judging them to be better is what statisticians can at most conjure.

        • February 25th 2010 @ 1:55am
          marees said | February 25th 2010 @ 1:55am | ! Report

          problem with this blog-post has been that it considered only test match performances, which is out of sync with this age and times

          Sachin is tipped to cross 100 international(Test + ODI) hundreds by the end of this year. Only major hole in his ODI cv is a missing world-cup trophy.

          In ODIS, he now has FIVE 150+ scores
          150+,
          160+,
          170+,
          180+
          and now 200*

          • February 25th 2010 @ 2:18pm
            Dave1 said | February 25th 2010 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

            Test cricket has risen in importance in recent years especially since the decline in ODI importanc

            • February 6th 2012 @ 2:40am
              Mohit said | February 6th 2012 @ 2:40am | ! Report

              ..but the argument is that he chickens out whenever the situation demands..like he did today…

    • November 25th 2009 @ 2:21am
      ohtani's jacket said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:21am | ! Report

      Anything can be overrated if you put your mind to it. It all comes down to personal annoyance and to be honest I don’t think your arguments proved much, but I agree that Indian pitches are ridiculous. This current series being an example.

      • November 25th 2009 @ 2:58pm
        Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:58pm | ! Report

        According to Rob Steen

        http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/433868.html

        “….In the nineties, six teams drew at least 35% of their Tests; not one has done so this decade…”

      • December 5th 2009 @ 6:01am
        sahil said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:01am | ! Report

        If indian pitches are ridiculous and sachin has a higher average because he scores more in India then surely ricky ponting is a crap batsman because he cant bat for his life in India.

        • December 23rd 2009 @ 2:40pm
          kumar said | December 23rd 2009 @ 2:40pm | ! Report

          Yet, Tendulkar scores 1 run less away to his home average… And here is one more, Tendulkar has 24 centuries away, and just 19 at home…

          Ponting’s home average is 60, and away average is 51, difference of 9 points… 9 points to 1 for tendulkar…. Ain’t cricket great…?

    • November 25th 2009 @ 2:42am
      Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:42am | ! Report

      Hi there very good findings abt Sachin..i guess Don Bradman made a mistake wen he compared himself wid Tendulkar????
      Wat do you think abt that? Any statistical findings abt that matey?
      Punter never had to face the likes of a feiry Aussie like bowling, his records or runs are very commendable but..most centuries scored against Aussies after Sir. Jack Hobbs? Have a look in Google …to update urself with the statistics..
      Phil
      Newzealand

      • Roar Guru

        November 25th 2009 @ 5:05am
        Freud of Football said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:05am | ! Report

        i dnt knw wot u iz saying Phil from Newzealand.

        This isn’t a mobile phone and you aren’t writing a text message.

        • November 25th 2009 @ 7:02am
          Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:02am | ! Report

          Hey why u worry abt what i am writing mate? Thanks for finding out that this isnt a cell Phone ..

      • November 30th 2009 @ 5:56pm
        Severian said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:56pm | ! Report

        Don Bradman was the best batsman of all time, but that doesn’t make him infallible. He was still a human being who made mistakes, many of which happened when he was involved in cricket after he retired from playing. Watch the documentary “Cricket in the 70’s”, and you’ll see what the Aussie players of that time thought of him. Or read some of the things Tiger O’Reilly wrote about him.

        His opinion on Tendulkar is not particularly relevant, given that he died 8 years ago at the age of 92, and Tendulkar hasn’t even retired yet. Cable tv only came into Aussie homes in the mid to late 90s, and India only played 11 test matches against Australia in the 1990s, so how much cricket could he have really seen Tendulkar play?

        I think the tradgedy of Tendulkar is that he never got a chance to prove how great a player he really is, because India played so few test matches when he was in his prime, and so many of their wickets are too flat.

    • November 25th 2009 @ 2:54am
      Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:54am | ! Report

      Hi Just attaching a blog about tendulkar …dunno how you managed to find your data but…please read through…might help you….

      ODI batsmen ranking based on what they have achieved over their careers.

      The following 8 facors are considered.

      1. Total runs scored (TRS)
      2. Batting Average (AVGE)
      3. Runs per Innings (RPI)
      4. Strike Rate (STRT)
      5. Quality of bowlers faced (BOWQTY)
      6. % of Team runs (TRPER)
      7. Wins achieved
      – Absolute number of wins (WINS)
      – Win % of matches played (WINSPER)
      8. MOM awards received/frequency (MOM).

      A brief description of each factor and the weights given to each parameter is outlined below. The total points add up to a nice round sum of 100.
      1. Total runs scored (20 points)

      This is a recognition of the longevity of the player. There is no doubt that the runs scored has to be given decent weightage. At the same time care has been taken to see that the olden era players such as Richards, Greenidge et al do not suffer unduly. My belief is that it is very unlikely for any batsman, including Tendulkar, to exceed 20000 runs. Hence the limit seems correct. The formula used is

      TRS = Total runs scored / 1000.
      2. Batting Average (15 points)

      This is a straightforward calculation. We need not worry about not-outs since there is a separate factor for that. Since the batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 60.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

      AVGE = Batting average / 4.0.
      Note: David Barry is doing some simulation work with a view to establish a correlation between Average and Strike Rates. It is too early to incorporate these first level findings. Hence at this stage I have taken the simple, easily understandable method of separating the Average and Strike Rate measures with individual weightages. Similarly Jeff Grimshaw’s ideas about treating balls played as a resource and giving credit for the same is quite good. However I do not want too many overlapping parameters. Already I have Average and RPI.

      3. Runs per Innings (5 points)

      This is to mitigate the factor of a high number of not-outs, especially for middle-order batsmen. Again a straightforward calculation. Since the Batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 50.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

      RPI = Runs per innings / 10.0.
      Note: I briefly toyed with Abhihjeet Dongre’s excellent suggestion of excluding from the total number of innings the innings in which the batsman has finished not out at a score below his batting average. This redresses the balance towards middle order batsmen slightly. However I have finally rejected this tweak since I feel that they have already got the full benefit of not outs while calculating the Batting Average. The purpose of separation of these two factors will be lost if I do not use the full complement of innings played.

      4. Strike Rate (25 points)

      I consider this factor as the most important measure and that is reflected in the weightage. However much we talk about the importance of scoring runs, it is essential that these are scored at a reasonable pace. It does not mean that every century should be a run-a-ball one. However, it is true that many a match has been lost because the batsmen have not moved up the scoring rate at the right time.

      However a major tweak has been done. The actual strike rates have been adjusted up or down based on the decade scoring rates pro-rata. In other words, if Viv Richards played between 1975 and 1991, his actual scoring rate has been adjusted pro-rata for the three decades, viz., 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In general this will mean that the older players will get a slight benefit since the scoring rates were lower, as indicated in the table below.

      AllMats 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

      Matches played 2759 82 516 933 1228
      Batsmen innings 47947 1418 8838 16266 21425
      Runs scored 1142018 30292 202884 386508 522334
      Balls bowled 1473233 46208 277516 505727 643782
      Runs per ball 0.775 0.656 0.731 0.764 0.811
      % of all-matches avge 100.0% 84.6% 94.3% 98.6% 104.7%

      The actual and adjusted strike rates for a few top players is given below. All these adjustments seem very reasonable. The only clear cases are for batsmen such as Pietersen and Dhoni who have played all their matches in the current decade and hence have the same adjustment of -4.4%. The others are pro-rata. For instance, Tendulkar’s and Lara’s strike rates have been adjusted much less since they have played during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Zaheer Abbas gains the maximum since his career spanned 1975-1985, the low-scoring years.
      Batsman Prev SR Adj SR % chg

      Richards I.V.A 90.2 98.4 +9.1%
      Haynes D.L 63.1 66.9 +6.0%
      Jones D.M 72.6 75.4 +3.9%
      Greenidge C.G 64.9 70.8 +9.1%
      Zaheer Abbas 80.0 89.7 +12.1%

      Tendulkar S.R 85.5 84.6 -1.1%
      Jayasuriya S.T 91.0 90.1 -1.1%
      Gilchrist A.C 96.9 94.4 -2.7%
      Lara B.C 79.5 78.6 -1.3%
      Sehwag V 99.1 95.3 -3.8%
      Shahid Afridi 111.2 108.2 -2.7%
      Klusener L 89.9 88.2 -1.9%
      Dhoni M.S 91.3 87.2 -4.4%
      Pietersen K.P 87.5 83.6 -4.4%

      Since the only Strike Rate to exceed 1.00 is that of Shahid Afridi, I have accepted the fact that only he will exceed the maximum level. The formula used is

      STRT = (Adjusted) Strike Rate x 25.0.
      5. Quality of bowling faced (15 points)

      This is a double weighted adjustment. The objective is to make sure that the runs acored against stronger teams such as Australia are given much higher weighting than the runs scored against weaker countries such as Zimbabwe. Care also has to be taken that the weaker Australian teams such as those during the mid-1980s are treated accordingly. The complex process is explained below.

      First a bowling quality index is found for each innings. This is done by the following formula (somewhat similar to the one used by David Barry). I had thought of this earlier, but dismissed it as too complex. Now I think it is necessary.

      Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler x Bowler’s bowling avge)
      Innings BQI = —————————————————–
      Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler)

      In one of my earlier articles on Team Strength analysis I used a simple average of the top 5 Bowling averages. That was when I was trying to find the strength of team as it walked on to the field. However here I am trying to find how valuable the batsman’s innings was. Hence the actual deployment of the bowling resources is necessary. Wasim Akram will make the Pakistani team that much strong, on paper, however, if he did not bowl a single ball, to that extent the bowling lacks sting.
      Now comes the second weighting. For this the actual scores of batsman and the Innings BQI are used. The formula is explained below.

      Sum of (Batsman innings score x Innings BQI)
      Batsman career BQI = ——————————————–
      Sum of (Batsman innings score)

      There is some convergence of values as batsmen score many runs. Note the BOWQTY value for the top 5 batsmen. Hence special care has to be taken to assign points. Amongst batsmen who have scored greater than 2000 runs, Craig McMillan is the best with a BQI of 34.48 and Habibul Bashar the worst with a BQI of 43.47. If we lower the limit to 1000 runs, Nicky Boje is the best with a BQI of 31.3 and Glenn Turner the worst with a BQI of 47.63. No batsman has a career BQI below 30.00 and no batsman has a career BQI above 50.0. The Batsman career BQI is used to derive the index value based on the following formula.

      BOWQTY = 50.0 – Batsman career BQI.
      6. % of Team runs (5 points).

      The value of a batsman to the team is also determined by the share of the batting load he takes. In other words the % of team runs he scores. This is a secondary parameters and has a weighting only of 5 points. With a criteria of 2500 runs and above, the highest share of team runs scored is by Zaheer Abbas with 21.6%, followed by Greenidge with 19.2%, then by Richards with 19.2% and finally by Tendulkar with 18.1%. The formula used is

      TSPER = % of Team share * 20.0.
      Upto this point, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has scored above 2000 runs. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.

      7. Wins achieved (5 points)

      Winning is something special, if not everything (as the Americans profess). No one wants to lose. Hence we should give value to this important aspect of the game without going overboard. This is done in two parts. The first is to derive an index value solely based on the number of wins achieved. This will benefit players who have played more games and have been part of successful teams. The highest number of wins achieved is 220 by Jayasuriya, followed by Ponting with 216, Inzamam with 214, Gilchrist with 214 and Tendulkar with 206. The formula used is

      WINS = No of wins /50.0.
      8. Win % achieved (5 points)

      What about Richards who achieved 132 wins in 187 matches (a 70.6 win %), which is much higher than that of Tendulkar, 206 wins in 417 matches (49.4%) or Steve Waugh, 196 in 325 (60.3%). His win % suffers only in comparison to the current Australian team, some of whom having over 75%.

      This factor addresses this problem. Credit is given to the % of wins achieved, subject to minimum number of matches being reached. The formula used is

      WINSPER = % of wins x 5.0.
      9. MOM awards received (5 points).

      The last parameter is on the MOM awards achieved. This is the only subjective measure, as pointed to by Shankar Krishnan of Riyadh. However since this is the only individual evaluation measure available I have to consider it. Whatever be the idiosyncracies of the adjudicators there is no doubt that the MOM awards are a pointer to the contribution to the wins achieved by the team.

      I have tried to remove the subjective factor, to a certain extent, by considering the frequency of awards also in addition to the absolute number of awards. This is also fair to the older players. Consider this. Richards has got 31 awards in 187 matches. He lags far behind Jayasuriya who has got 45 awards in 415 matches. However when we consider the frequency, Richards has a frequency of one in 6 matches, while Jayasuriya, one in 9.2 matches. Incidentally Tendulkar leads the absolute number of awards with 55. The frequency ranges from 6.0 to 20.0 (limiting value). The formula used is

      MOM = (MOM Awards/30.0) + (3.0 * (20.0 – MOM Frequency)/15.0).
      For the last two points, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has played above 50 matches. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.

      Now the table of top 30 ODI batsmen of all time. The table is current upto match 2759, the facile English win over the hapless South Africans, giving them a 4-0 lead.

      The top ODI batsmen of all time – as on 28 August 2008.

      No.Cty Batsman Total Runs Avge R/I S/R BwQty Wins Win% % TS MOMs

      100.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 25.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

      1.Ind Tendulkar S.R 79.27 16.36 11.08 4.02 21.16 12.13 4.12 2.47 3.61 4.32
      2.Win Richards I.V.A 73.14 6.72 11.75 4.02 24.60 12.20 2.64 3.53 3.85 3.83
      3.Slk Jayasuriya S.T 72.24 12.80 8.18 3.13 22.52 12.01 4.44 2.64 2.89 3.63
      4.Aus Ponting R.T 71.87 11.11 10.81 3.81 19.63 12.63 4.32 3.59 3.19 2.78
      5.Aus Gilchrist A.C 71.12 9.62 8.97 3.45 23.59 12.12 4.04 3.52 2.93 2.88
      6.Win Lara B.C 67.70 10.40 10.12 3.60 19.64 12.38 2.78 2.33 3.43 3.01
      7.Saf Kallis J.H 67.70 9.61 11.17 3.64 17.33 12.98 3.50 3.15 3.26 3.05
      8.Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 66.72 11.74 9.88 3.35 18.31 11.81 4.28 2.83 3.04 1.48
      9.Aus Bevan M.G 66.00 6.91 13.40 3.53 18.31 13.88 3.10 3.34 3.00 0.53
      10.Ind Ganguly S.C 65.87 11.36 10.26 3.79 18.14 10.64 2.98 2.40 3.27 3.03
      11.Pak Saeed Anwar 65.55 8.82 9.80 3.62 20.20 10.95 2.82 2.85 3.42 3.07
      12.Aus Waugh M.E 65.50 8.50 9.84 3.60 19.39 12.29 3.04 3.11 3.22 2.52
      13.Aus Symonds A 65.43 5.01 10.09 3.19 22.41 12.58 2.98 3.86 2.58 2.74
      14.Slk de Silva P.A 65.02 9.28 8.73 3.14 20.61 12.52 2.56 2.08 3.06 3.05
      15.Win Haynes D.L 64.62 8.65 10.34 3.65 16.74 12.16 3.18 3.34 3.63 2.93
      16.Saf Gibbs H.H 63.66 7.59 9.12 3.39 20.24 11.95 2.88 3.12 3.03 2.36
      17.Ind Dravid R 63.47 10.59 9.87 3.44 17.36 13.25 3.14 2.36 3.00 0.47
      18.Pak Mohammad Yousuf 63.22 9.24 10.80 3.64 18.19 10.81 3.12 2.90 3.12 1.40
      19.Saf Kirsten G 63.06 6.80 10.24 3.67 17.88 13.45 2.40 3.24 3.35 2.03
      20.Saf Klusener L 62.90 3.58 10.28 2.61 22.05 13.92 2.18 3.19 2.27 2.83
      21.Aus Jones D.M 62.82 6.07 11.15 3.77 18.86 11.99 1.96 2.99 3.55 2.48
      22.Aus Hayden M.L 62.80 6.13 10.95 3.96 19.36 12.26 2.38 3.70 3.34 0.72
      23.Pak Javed Miandad 62.74 7.38 10.43 3.39 17.98 13.04 2.38 2.55 3.40 2.18
      24.Saf Rhodes J.N 62.73 5.93 8.78 2.70 20.11 15.00 3.10 3.16 2.46 1.47
      25.Eng Pietersen K.P 62.46 2.82 11.96 3.87 20.90 14.46 0.68 2.10 3.44 2.24
      26.Ind Sehwag V 62.31 5.81 8.11 3.12 23.82 12.41 1.90 2.49 2.70 1.95
      27.Ind Dhoni M.S 62.26 3.79 11.85 3.54 21.80 12.73 1.30 2.71 2.90 1.63
      28.Ind Azharuddin M 62.10 9.38 9.23 3.04 18.97 12.09 3.20 2.40 2.90 0.89
      29.Aus Waugh S.R 61.95 7.57 8.23 2.63 19.26 13.75 3.92 3.02 2.38 1.21
      30.Saf Cronje W.J 61.91 5.57 9.66 3.18 19.26 13.51 2.34 3.11 2.92 2.35

      Tendulkar is on top, and deservedly so. He has not only scored lots of runs but scored these at a good pace, scored these against good bowlers and contributed more than his share to the Indian cause.
      Richards is in second place, again deservedly so. He has scored only 6721 runs, but made up for the huge shortfall in index points with his outstanding average, strike rate, win % and MOM frequency. He may very well move a little bit down in the list in the years to come. But will not lose any of the aura.

      Jayasuriya is next, having made up for his low Average and RPI with a mountain of runs scored at a scorching pace. The Lankan readers will be happy that the contributions of the entertainer non-pareil have been recognized. He has managed to retain the third position depsite a poor run of ODI matches against India.

      Ponting and Gilchrist, two great Australian batsman, follow in the next two positions, through different combination of high points. Ponting with high average and good strike rate while Gilchrist with lower average and excellent strike rate. Both have great win related numbers.

      Lara, Kallis Inzamam, Bevan and Ganguly complete the top 10. This elite placing of these quality batsmen cannot be debated. In fact Lara and Kallis exchanged places after the last match.

      There is no doubt that players such as Pietersen (25th currently), Sehwag (26th), Dhoni (27th) and Hussey (39th) will move up the list as they score more runs. However this may be partly compensated by the possible decrease in their averages. Dhoni is surely on the way to becoming an excellent finisher in the Bevan/Hussey mode and as such is unlikely to drop his average. Pietersen’s average could drop a little bit. Hussey’s could drop significantly unless otherwise he does what Bevan did over a long career.

      It should be noted that if we change the weightings, the batsmen will move up or down the list. For instance, Strike Rate could be reduced to 20 points. In that case, Jayasuriya and Ponting will exchange places. But these are minor movements only. It is my firm belief that the top 2, Tendulkar and Richards will remain where they are, whatever be the weightings.

      Batsmen such as Kluesener, Dhoni and Pietersen, who have not even scored 4000 ODI runs have managed to reach the top 30 positions in the all-time best batsmen table. This indicates that the weightings for non-longevity measures have been given due importance.

      Finally, one important point to be noted. No analyst starts with an idea to prove that one batsman is superior to another or push their favourite batsmen on top. Such shallow analyses will be found out in no time at all. The idea is to come out with a vehicle for healthy discussion and exchange of views. Hence please avoid rude and vicious comments. They have no chance of being read by any one. Pl make your point in a courteous and acceptable manner. The readers have their right to be heard but also their responsibilities to be constructive and courteous.

      To view the complete list, click here

      This list consists of batsmen who have scored a minimum of 1000 ODI runs. Please remember that many of the calculated points are downsized for batsmen in the 1000-2000 range. They are included only to show where some of the batsmen from the lesser countries stand.

      Summary response to readers’ comments (Possible tweaks)

      1. Avoidance of double weighting for “Wins”.

      2. Possible cap on Runs scored weighting.

      3. Adjust for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.

      4. Giving weight to key tournament wins such as World Cup and Champion’s Trophy.

      5. The subjective nature of MOMs, already mentioned by me in the main post does not go well with readers.

      6. Quite a few readers have, while accepting Tendulkar’s position at no.1, have questioned the wide gap between Tendulkar and Richards. It worries some readers that this gap will keep on widening

      • November 25th 2009 @ 11:31am
        davido said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:31am | ! Report

        This is a great effort at getting an overall ranking system.

        I would suggest that the ICC rankings do a credible job of doing this now.

        Also, why not include Batting position? Surely Gilly gets some credit for coming out and slamming bowlers from the get go?

      • Roar Guru

        November 25th 2009 @ 11:40am
        Greg Russell said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:40am | ! Report

        The above is all interesting but irrelevant, because it is about ODI cricket, whereas the discussion is on test cricket.

        Further, because of the point about pitches in India, ODI statistics have to be regarded very carefully. For many Indians the point of an ODI is as much (or more) to see Tendulkar score a century as it is to win or even have a good match. A lot of pitches are prepared accordingly.

        The ICC Players Rankings system attempts to take into account docility of the pitch and quality of the opposition, with performances being scaled accordingly. It is not perfect but no system like this can be. Tendulkar does well with this system but in general he falls short of matching Ponting and even Hayden (e.g. remember the big fuss in India a few years ago about Hayden being 9th on the all-time list for tests whereas Tendulkar was only something like 26th).

        Of course people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to subjective issues like this. But I tend to think that the ICC’s ranking system is as close to objective as there is.

        • April 12th 2010 @ 9:10pm
          Curious said | April 12th 2010 @ 9:10pm | ! Report

          I am quite curious to know — how does one “prepare” a pitch where only *one* batsman, in this case, SRT, can score a century?

    • November 25th 2009 @ 2:57am
      ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:57am | ! Report

      Here’s some other cold hard facts for you:

      1)Till 01/01/2003: The big 3 :SRT 8811@ 57.6 31 hun, BCL 7572@49.5 18 hun; Pont 4246 @ 48.8 14 hun. After mid 2007 again Tendulkar trumps Ponting,Dravid etc.

      2) After the 2003 WC-2006, here’s a short bio of Tendulkar:
      April 2003: Hand surgery. Most of the next 2 seasons affected by Tennis elbow. At one point in 2004 could not pick up a bat for 6 months. Prematurely brought back after attempting conservative treatment for tennis elbow after India lost the first 2 home tests to Aus. With the inevitable result-more pain and a forced surgery . May 2005: elbow surgery. April 2006: shoulder surgery.
      Tendulkar has had some injuries before but they were not all compressed into a short period so recurring. (1998: back injury, 2001 broken toe). So, you have time to get back your rhythm after injury, provided you don’t again get another one.
      So, in the years 2003/05/06 , it is not ONLY the pontings,Laras,dravids who massively outscored Tendulkar , but just about every Tom,Dick and Hussey.
      This was probably the EASIEST time for batting in cricket HISTORY.
      Around mid 2007 Tendulkar got some respite from almost continous injuries and started to get back to something like normal again.

      3)Infact if you consider only the 90s Tendulkar avg. almost 60 with Ponting less than 50 and Lara just shading 50.

      4)Obviously at his best Tendulkar was the best. That too at a particularly difficult time for batting. Plus you need add ODIs to the workload. I’m afraid in modern day cricket you simply cannot segregate Tests and ODIs. They are joined at the hip. Not a single modern day great has given up ODIs for Tests in his prime.

      SO, other batsmen ONLY “outrunned”,”outaveraged”,”outhundreded” etc.Tendulkar for some 4 yrs during his injury ridden spell ( when it was rumoured that he may even retired)….the thing is that in those 4/5 years they put on such OBSCENE runs in such EASY conditions that it has VASTLY inflated their overall stats…completely distorting the true picture.
      Basically, out of a 20 yr career, ONLY during a 4 yr spell can any batsmen have said to continously outperformed Tendulkar.

      The stats merely affirm what we fans already know (with the possible exception of the author):i.e
      The other batsmen ONLY match up to Tendulkar when Tendulkar is injured.

      And as of course mentioned the unmatched ODI stats ..Plus intangibles like obscene pressure etc….Tendulkar is simply a Gulliver among Lilliputians. As Roebuck states in a recent article, even stats cannot quite capture the picture as you are attempting to do.

    • November 25th 2009 @ 3:05am
      saurabh said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:05am | ! Report

      Good one Philip…ur nt geting the point Truf , we in India r celebrating sachin fr nt only his cricket bt fr wat pleasure nd confidence he has given us…it rquires more then cricket for ppl around the world to love players like Sir Don and Sachin. They made diffrence to ppl (lot of ppl).

    Explore:
    , , , ,