• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Gilchrist v Dhoni

Whom would you pick in your team?

  • Total voters
    91
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ikki said:
Yes, but the likelihood of his achieving not-outs to increase his average is much lower than the finisher. See the part quoted above in this post.
Click to expand...
Not-outs don't increase his average though. Why would they? Average is a function of runs and dismissals (the only two things in the batsman's control). Not-outs play no part in determining someone's average.
 
Last edited:
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Ikki said:
It was an exaggeration, but it is still befitting the argument. Dhoni for example averages 50, yet he has only scored 50 or more in about 1/3rd of his innings - he doesn't have many 100s btw.

Would you care if I went back to the 1*x25+50 example? Because you don't need to be better than Bradman to achieve that. The point was clearly that it helps. I doubt there will ever be a case as clear as I put it; I was merely pointing out the principle.
Click to expand...
Both Mr 1no and Mr 155 are, IMHO, equally unhelpful illustrations because in neither case is the degree of absurdity and extremity of the statistical premise immediately apparent.

The example of 35no + 35 v 70 (or as you would have it 70 + 70) is much more useful I think. As to which, I prefer Mr 35 for the reasons already given, and at the very least refuse to accept that he's a less good player than Mr 70, and on that note I really must get some sleep
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Uppercut said:
Not-outs don't increase his average though. Why would they? Average is a function of runs and dismissals (the only two things in the batsman's control). Not-outs play no part in determining someone's average.
Click to expand...
They do. They add runs to a player's record without the marking of a dismissal.

And we're back to stage 1. The point is, how much would that dismissal have been worth otherwise? If say the finisher had more time to bat. Or, an opener not being dismissed on 70, for example, when his team wins with him on 50*.

I think this is a fruitless discussion, because you keep pointing to the average as an indicator that the player could have scored them; whereas I am pointing to the fact that the average is itself higher than it would otherwise be without not-outs. And that the scoring of the not-out is heavily influenced depending on where a batsman is positioned and not necessarily ability - which is something people interpret with averages.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ikki said:
They do. They add runs to a player's record without the marking of a dismissal.
Click to expand...
No they don't- each that a player scores counts as a run, and when they get out it counts as one dismissal. Bearing in mind that we're determining quality of player- not contribution- how is it fair to use anything other than these two measures, bearing in mind that everything else is out of the batsman's control?

And we're back to stage 1. The point is, how much would that dismissal have been worth otherwise? If say the finisher had more time to bat. Or, an opener not being dismissed on 70, for example, when his team wins with him on 50*.

I think this is a fruitless discussion, because you keep pointing to the average as an indicator that the player could have scored them; whereas I am pointing to the fact that the average is itself higher than it would otherwise be without not-outs. And that the scoring of the not-out is heavily influenced depending on where a batsman is positioned and not necessarily ability - which is something people interpret with averages.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't though- an average is how many runs a player typically scores before getting out (not how many runs he typically scores before the innings is completed through no fault of his own). Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that were every innings played until he got out, he would score that number of runs more.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Uppercut said:
No they don't- each that a player scores counts as a run, and when they get out it counts as one dismissal. Bearing in mind that we're determining quality of player- not contribution- how is it fair to use anything other than these two measures, bearing in mind that everything else is out of the batsman's control?
Click to expand...
And are quality and contribution mutually exclusive?


It wouldn't though- an average is how many runs a player typically scores before getting out (not how many runs he typically scores before the innings is completed through no fault of his own). Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that were every innings played until he got out, he would score that number of runs more.
Click to expand...
There's a slip here. When a player has an average that exceeds the score he would get/has gotten, it seems inane to argue that he would achieve his average score if he had more time / a completed innings. Because he has never averaged as much in a completed innings. So even if you wish to argue that he can achieve his average runs per dismissal, that amount of runs may not actually occur in that single innings. Which in a match situation means everything.

For me, that means much less than the player who may average less but is more likely to achieve that score in a single innings.

It should be noted that this discussion has nothing to do with Dhoni anymore because I already conceded my position against him a few posts back.

Migara said:
Ikki>> What is the single most useful value to judge the ability of an ODI batsman?
Click to expand...
Top_Cat said:
There isn't one.
Click to expand...
I think that answers it. Big part of this whole discussion is just how unreliable the average is with respect to batting positions in ODIs. You obviously have to take several indicators to even get close.
 
Last edited:
C

ColdSnow

School Boy/Girl Captain
Gilchrist always went bang whether chasing 150 or 300. He did not plan his innings or play according to the situation. He had one specific role to do and he knew how to bat only one way. Other openers (Sachin especially) can play according to the situation.

Anyway, as far as averages go, again I am not going to give much importance to numbers in my analysis. I think numbers and forecasts are given too much weight.

Gilchrist averaged 35. Dhoni seems to be able to score more than 35 everytime he bats, regardless of where he bats in the batting order. His average is not higher because of the not-outs but because he has the ability to score over 35 most times. Again merely going by what I have seen of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top