Is Dhoni greatest OdI cricketer off all-time

[Manee]

this.

His lack of batting style I feel hurts his reputation.

Indeed. I believe that the importance of batting style is overrated by many an armchair cricket fan.

 

[Goughy]

He does have 183 off 145.

In a World Cup final?

 

[bagapath]

Indeed. I believe that the importance of batting style is overrated by many an armchair cricket fan.

armchair or couch, style is the deciding factor when you analyze players of equal substance. otherwise warne will not be universally more popular than murali (style = cricketing style; as individuals murali is a nice bloke, warne looks like an dickhead)

dhoni's lack of style will always work against him whenever you pitch him for the "greatest ever" title.

 

[bagapath]

Although, that being said, SR is inversely related to econ. rate. Where one falls, the other rises. As ODI bowlers, they're tough to separate. Against ODI-class teams (incl. Zimbabwe in Donald's case):

GD McGrath:1993-2007 221 219 1927.1 240 7670 337 5/14 22.75 3.97 34.3 9 6
AA Donald: 1991-2003 156 154 1358.5 96 5696 256 5/29 22.25 4.19 31.8 11 1

With records this close, I'd be inclined to pick the bowler with the better economy rate, since the goal of ODI's is to constrict runs. So, I'd have McGrath slightly ahead.

since donald takes more wickets per game (1.64) than mcgrath (1.52) i am willing to ignore the extra 0.22 runs per over, in effect 2 runs more per game, and go with him.

 

[Manee]

armchair or couch, style is the deciding factor when you analyze players of equal substance. otherwise warne will not be universally more popular than murali (style = cricketing style; as individuals murali is a nice bloke, warne looks like an dickhead)

dhoni's lack of style will always work against him whenever you pitch him for the "greatest ever" title.

Substance is all that matters! Just because this can go more complex than pure statistics, does not mean it decends into analysing styles. Moreover, I have little problem with analysing bowling styles, but not batting styles as it is a mere case of how many and how quickly.

 

[Migara]

Sanath Jayasuriya takes the title. Great batsman, good spinner, great fields man, very impressive captaincy record, exemplary on and off field behavior and a long long career. Only Viv Richards and Imran Khan can challenge him with all round abilities.

 

[Uppercut]

armchair or couch, style is the deciding factor when you analyze players of equal substance. otherwise warne will not be universally more popular than murali (style = cricketing style; as individuals murali is a nice bloke, warne looks like an dickhead)

dhoni's lack of style will always work against him whenever you pitch him for the "greatest ever" title.

What lack of style? Personally I think Dhoni's awesome to watch. Middle-last overs ODI batting at its best.

Anyway, Shaun Pollock has a pretty good case for being the best ODI bowler of all time. Who else bowled almost exclusively in powerplay overs and at the death and has such good economy? Ambrose is pretty much the only one of the modern era.

Then you consider Polly's batting, and it becomes a bit of a non-contest.

 

[bagapath]

Substance is all that matters! Just because this can go more complex than pure statistics, does not mean it decends into analysing styles. Moreover, I have little problem with analysing bowling styles, but not batting styles as it is a mere case of how many and how quickly.

when you look beyond stats, as you should, what else do you turn to other than style?

i completely disagree with the second part of your post. even in bowling you can look at how many, how fast and how cheap and ignore style altogether. once a min criteria is met, style is a vital ingredient in judging the greatness of a cricketer. you wont be able to separate the geniuses from the greats otherwise.

we are talking about "the greatest player of all time" here. he cant be a grafter or a butcher. besides scoring tons of runs at a fast clip or taking wickets in heaps at a tight ER and lead his team to victories against big opponents in big games, he will also have to represent his craft in its purest form.

his game, batting or bowling, should look scientifically correct so that it attains a timeless quality. he should look like he would have succeeded in any era against any opponent. he should also be able to break the structured form whenever he pleases so that his technical correctness is reasserted by these transgressions. his game should look aesthetically pleasing so that people flock to see him and he becomes an inspiration to his team. he should become the main target of his opponents the world over and they should admire his game grudgingly whenever he succeeds against them. you need style to win that kind of respect.

in test cricket, sobers, warne, sachin, compton, lillee, imran, lara - they all had it. even in efficient robotic perfection bradman, mcgrath, hobbs and hadlee achieved "the beauty of an aeroplane compared to the beauty of a bird in flight". that was neville cardus comparing bradman and trumper.

all the players i have listed in the earlier post have these qualities in varying degrees. dhoni has it too but he falls way behind in technical perfection and looks more like a butcher. I love his game and as an Indian very thankful to have him lower down the order to finish matches we would have lost otherwise. but if you ask me to choose between a dhoni century and mark waugh hundred i would go for the later.

 

[bagapath]

What lack of style? Personally I think Dhoni's awesome to watch. Middle-last overs ODI batting at its best.

fair enough. if you think he is stylish and attractive to watch apart from being efficient, then he could be in your shortlist; not in mine though.

 

[Uppercut]

when you look beyond stats, as you should, what else do you turn to other than style?

i completely disagree with the second part of your post. even in bowling you can look at how many, how fast and how cheap and ignore style altogether. once a min criteria is set, style is a vital ingredient in judging the greatness of a cricketer. you wont be able to separate the geniuses from the greats otherwise.

we are talking about "the greatest player of all time" here. he cant be a grafter or a butcher. besides scoring tons of runs at a fast clip or taking wickets in heaps at a tight ER, to lead his team to victories against big opponents in big games, he will also have to represent his craft in its purest form.

his game, batting or bowling, should look scientifically correct so that it attains a timeless quality. he should look like he would have succeeded in any era against any opponent. he should also be able to break the structured form whenever he pleases so that his technical correctness is reasserted by these transgressions. his game should look aesthetically pleasing so that people flock to see him and he becomes an inspiration to his team. he should become the main target of his opponents the world over and they should admire his game grudgingly whenever he succeeds against them. you need style to win that kind of respect.

in test cricket, sobers, warne, sachin, compton, lillee, imran, lara - they all had it. even in efficient robotic perfection bradman, mcgrath, hobbs and hadlee achieved "the beauty of an aeroplane compared to the beauty of a bird in flight". that was neville cardus comparing bradman and trumper.

all the players i have listed in the earlier post have these qualities in varying degrees. dhoni has it too but he falls way behind in technical perfection and looks more like a butcher. I love his game and as an Indian very thankful to have him lower down the order to finish matches we would have lost otherwise. but if you ask me to choose between a dhoni century and mark waugh hundred i would go for the later.

But you only have opinions on who's better to watch. "Style" is meaningless when actually ranking players because everyone enjoys seeing different things.

When i talk about the best players, i mean the best at winning cricket matches. Not the ones that are in my own humble opinion nice to watch, the ones that win the games for their side.

If you want to discuss the most stylish players ever, that's a completely different (but also quite interesting) analysis.

 

[Uppercut]

fair enough. if you think he is stylish and attractive to watch apart from being efficient, then he could be in your shortlist; not in mine though.

You're judging greatness on how someone looks while batting?



Does the quality of their hair enter the equation?

 

[honestbharani]

An average of 49 is certianly impressive

But he's been not out in 26% of the innings he's played.

I'm with sammy2 --> only 4 centuries?

Gilchrist had 16 centuries (that's 4 times as many in only twice as many games) and has twice as many fifties (which is on par since he's played twice as many games). Gilly just didn't get as many "not outs" as he was almost always opening. And yet his SR is still better than Dhoni.

One might say 'but Dhoni doesn't get the chance to get hundreds since he's down the order' - well, sure - but if you look at his FC or test record, then you'd note that he's not a century maker in the same vein as other 'proper batsmen' around the world.

I'm not arguing for Gilchrist as the best over ODI player - but he's close than Dhoni, who isn't anywhere near it I'm afraid....

AWTA... He is a gr8 finisher and perhaps if someone took Gilly out of my all time ODI side, I would get Dhoni in at 6 and get someone else at the top but to say he is the greatest is a HUGE stretch... He is not even the greatest ODI player from India yet...

 

[nightprowler10]

Anyway, Shaun Pollock has a pretty good case for being the best ODI bowler of all time. Who else bowled almost exclusively in powerplay overs and at the death and has such good economy? Ambrose is pretty much the only one of the modern era.

Saqlain easily better IMO. May not have Pollock's ER but was superior in every other way. Makes a good case for the best ODI bowler ever.

 

[bagapath]

But you only have opinions on who's better to watch. "Style" is meaningless when actually ranking players because everyone enjoys seeing different things.

When i talk about the best players, i mean the best at winning cricket matches. Not the ones that are in my own humble opinion nice to watch, the ones that win the games for their side.

If you want to discuss the most stylish players ever, that's a completely different (but also quite interesting) analysis.

of course. i didnt say anything contrary to it. "the greatest player of all time" would be someone universally regarded as the best in business. he will have to be successful in winning cricket matches. only when you start comparing two players of equal skills and and success, the one with the more pleasing game would be preferred by the most. i am not saying gower is a greater player than dravid. or qadir is a better bowler than kumble. but between gower and gooch, david has more easy access to the tag of greatness. between qadir and mcgill, abdul would be called great by more.

You're judging greatness on how someone looks while batting?

Does the quality of their hair enter the equation?

not really. in my list of greats there is one tall fast bowler with long hair and ugly bandana (lillee) and a short one with a crew cut (marshall).

 

[Uppercut]

Saqlain easily better IMO. May not have Pollock's ER but was superior in every other way. Makes a good case for the best ODI bowler ever.

Mmmm they had such different roles that they're not really comparable. Would also probably marginally prefer Murali over Saqlain in that particular role.

I don't really look give stats too much weighting in ODI cricket. They show you a lot less than they do for tests.

 

[nightprowler10]

I don't really look give stats too much weighting in ODI cricket. They show you a lot less than they do for tests.

Okay, so what would you look at? The guy was a wicket taking machine. Fastest to 100, 150, 200, 250 wickets; all in just a 169 matches at an incredible SR. Had more fivers than Pollock in almost half the matches.

Of course, I can see where you're coming from when you wanna pick Pollock or Murali due to reasons such as what role they play or how long they played, but Saqi is a shoe in for my ODI XI over both.

 

[G.I.Joe]

In a World Cup final?

Well, give him 3 shots to go for it.

 

[Migara]

Anyway, Shaun Pollock has a pretty good case for being the best ODI bowler of all time. Who else bowled almost exclusively in powerplay overs and at the death and has such good economy? Ambrose is pretty much the only one of the modern era..

He's the second in all time list for best economies (Adjusted according to the rest of the world ERs), First one is Garner (no surprises there). But I think McGrath, Wasim and Murali are well above Pollock as ODI bowlers.

 

[Migara]

Okay, so what would you look at? The guy was a wicket taking machine. Fastest to 100, 150, 200, 250 wickets; all in just a 169 matches at an incredible SR. Had more fivers than Pollock in almost half the matches.

Of course, I can see where you're coming from when you wanna pick Pollock or Murali due to reasons such as what role they play or how long they played, but Saqi is a shoe in for my ODI XI over both.

Saqlain was a mystery while players did not know how to pick his doosra. Kumar Dharmasena, spinner from SL, has first demonstrated (without TV evidence) how he did it. Few Indians also might have had an idea about that. With that knowledge, SL batsmen just went after him in his latter part of the career. If he played for long enough he would have been a mighty good bowler, but the way he was found out and the way his stats worsened, he would have been some way behind Murali if he played 300+ ODIs, because his stock ball was never threatening as Murali's or Warne's

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't think Dhoni is in contention for greatest ever right now, lets give him 100 more games to decide. Most of the other contenders have 200+ games under their belt.

I do think he's criminally underrated on this forum though. The man averages 49, 81, 88 and 45 batting at #2, 3, 4 and 5. That is insane.

Ironically he averages the least (39) at # 6 and 7 where he has 20 out of his 32 not outs. So the not outs boosting his average argument doesn't hold water considering he's actually bringing down his average by batting lower down the order instead of giving himself the license to go hammer and tongs at the top.