Best ever ODI batsman

[ankitj]

Bevan averages 52 @ 80 when setting a target; Klusener averages 40 @ 87. Who are you trying to kid? They're as comparable as Gilchrist and Tendulkar.

When setting a target, Dhoni averages 48 @ 92.3. I know it doesn't matter because he averages 9.xx in WC.

 

[morgieb]

When setting a target, Dhoni averages 48 @ 92.3. I know it doesn't matter because he averages 9.xx in WC.

Where the **** did Ikki mention Dhoni?

 

[Ikki]

When setting a target, Dhoni averages 48 @ 92.3. I know it doesn't matter because he averages 9.xx in WC.

I didn't mention Dhoni, did I? FTR what does he average when batting 6 or down (we were talking about finishers remember?) I know but if you could post the link since I'm not on a computer it would help.

I checked the Indian bowling at home since start of 1990 and they average 34 whereas the likes of Eng/NZ/Windies/Pak average about 32-33. Of course; if you are contending the tracks are flat then the Indian bowlers' higher average can be explained by that. So; certainly not as good as their test bowling but still competitive.

 

[ankitj]

Where the **** did Ikki mention Dhoni?

In this thread.

 

[smash84]

Where the **** did Ikki mention Dhoni?

It is always a good idea to read the previous posts in a thread. Please find below.

No, that's hardly the point. It's the fact that Dhoni is being touted as good of a finisher as Bevan and against 3 sides (two of them poor) he had the perfect chance to set a substantial innings for his team and he faltered all 3 times. In contrast, Bevan saved matches against the best and at the direst times.

India did not even make it out of the group stages - that is why he played only 3 matches. It's not 3 random matches; it was 3 group matches where he failed in every innings and his side was humiliated, sent packing early.

That doesn't make Dhoni a poor player at all - he'll go down as one of the greats probably - but in comparison to Bevan he is yet to play even 1 decent inning in a WC; let alone help his side to 3 finals. I find it insulting that they're even mentioned as if they're neck and neck. When Dhoni plays those kinds of dramatic innings as Bevan did the comparison may have legs. Same goes for Hussey.



Where did you get the impression we're talking about finals only? Dhoni couldn't even get to one; so where is the comparison?

Why? Because winning matches/finishing matches when it counts shouldn't matter?

It's not as if Dhoni had a poor batting line-up alongside him and from positions 1-4 he regularly finished innings for India. So it shouldn't be portrayed as such. And I showed you that in the lower batting positions he didn't fare well so what's the real point? The reality is that Bevan's risk-averse nature is directly responsible for Australia winning WCs.


Dhoni has played 1 WC and averages a marvelous 9.66 - including heavyweights Bermuda and Bangladesh. But of course, let's not mention that...he's just as good of a finisher as Bevan I once heard. And some have the cheek to feel upset.

 

[Ikki]

It is always a good idea to read the previous posts in a thread. Please find below.

That's from a separate discussion. If ankit was paying attention he'd have known that when I compared Dhoni as a finisher it had little to do with their overall record - which he cites to say that they're comparable. Migara brought up Klusener later in a lame attempt to try to find an inconsistency in my point. It's not even a good example. Klusener has an impressive average but was a player who batted lower and was useful for quick 30-40 runs. He scores 26 runs an inning in reality - almost 10 runs an inning less

 

[Migara]

Where the **** did Ikki mention Dhoni?

1. The argument was about Dhoni vs Bevan.
2. Ikki took up Bevan's WC performances (1st and 2nd innings both).
3. I brought in Klusener and Abbas (1st and 2nd inngs both in this instance) and showed that they played better WC cricket than Bevan
4. Ikki stat fixes once more and starts to talk about setting targets and say Bevan averages blah, blah at blah blah better than Klusener
5. Now after going a 360 degree turn we come have come back to Dhoni vs Bevan, and this time about setting targets. Dhoni beats Bevan hands down.

6. And oddly, Ikki has gone quiet about Zaheer Abbas

 

[Migara]

Bevan averages 52 @ 80 when setting a target; Klusener averages 40 @ 87. Who are you trying to kid? They're as comparable as Gilchrist and Tendulkar.

Dhoni does miles better than Bevan when setting up scores. What are you trying to kid?

 

[Ikki]

1. The argument was about Dhoni vs Bevan.
2. Ikki took up Bevan's WC performances (1st and 2nd innings both).
3. I brought in Klusener and Abbas (1st and 2nd inngs both in this instance) and showed that they played better WC cricket than Bevan
4. Ikki stat fixes once more and starts to talk about setting targets and say Bevan averages blah, blah at blah blah better than Klusener
5. Now after going a 360 degree turn we come have come back to Dhoni vs Bevan, and this time about setting targets. Dhoni beats Bevan hands down.

6. And oddly, Ikki has gone quiet about Zaheer Abbas

Dhoni does miles better than Bevan when setting up scores. What are you trying to kid?

Not as a finisher he doesn't.

The argument was about Dhoni and Bevan as finishers. I showed how far apart they are when batting lower. The WC stats were to show that even if they were level that Dhoni has to do more than simply bat the way he has for a few years. Then you brought up Klusener; then ankit brought stats of Dhoni's overall record when the discussion was how he compares as a finisher (for the 10th time).

Now you bring up Abbas, who was mainly a #3 IIRC and played something like 60 matches. Give up already.

 

[ankitj]

Now you bring up Abbas, who was mainly a #3 IIRC and played something like 60 matches. Give up already.

60 matches is too few. But one WC final (for Tendulkar) and 3 WC matches (for Dhoni) are too many.

 

[Ikki]

60 matches is too few. But one WC final (for Tendulkar) and 3 WC matches (for Dhoni) are too many.

You're right; we can only judge when they've played 100 WC finals.

 

[weldone]

You're right; we can only judge when they've played 100 WC finals.

At last you know the reason why judging ODI batsmen by WC finals is not the most prudent of ideas

 

[ankitj]

You're right; we can only judge when they've played 100 WC finals.

Stop being facetious. You don't judge on WC finals because you play too few of them unless you are an Australian. A good performance in WC final is regarded as greater than a similar performance in normal match. But that doesn't elevate a cricketer's status by as much as you are suggesting.

 

[Ikki]

Stop being facetious. You don't judge on WC finals because you play too few of them unless you are an Australian. A good performance in WC final is regarded as greater than a similar performance in normal match. But that doesn't elevate a cricketer's status by as much as you are suggesting.

Nah; I judge them equally across the board regardless of nationality. You just devalue winning a WC because your countrymen have repeatedly failed to get the prize - getting crushed the one time you got there. (during Tendulkar's era of course).

And what is the elevation I am suggesting? I showed that against the Test-status ODI sides Ponting is only 1 run and 5 SR points behind Tendulkar. Yet he has won 3 WCs; been to 4 finals. He does better in all the tournies that both their teams play (ICC champs trophy; WC, Tri series); so how much do you think I am stretching it? To put your mind at ease, I think Tendulkar > Ponting in ODIs. I said I think the distance between them is much less than portrayed. Is there anything with the above that you disagree with?

 

[Shri]

Nah; I judge them equally across the board regardless of nationality. You just devalue winning a WC because your countrymen have repeatedly failed to get the prize - getting crushed the one time you got there.

And what is the elevation I am suggesting? I showed that against the Test-status ODI sides Ponting is only 1 run and 5 SR points behind Tendulkar. Yet he has won 3 WCs; been to 4 finals. He does better in all the tournies that both their teams play (ICC champs trophy; WC, Tri series); so how much do you think I am stretching it? To put your mind at ease, I think Tendulkar > Ponting in ODIs. I said I think the distance between them is much less than portrayed. Is there anything with the above that you disagree with?

Disagree with the test standard ODI teams crap personally.

 

[Ikki]

Disagree with the test standard ODI teams crap personally.

Really, why?

 

[ankitj]

Nah; I judge them equally across the board regardless of nationality. You just devalue winning a WC because your countrymen have repeatedly failed to get the prize - getting crushed the one time you got there. (during Tendulkar's era of course).

And what is the elevation I am suggesting? I showed that against the Test-status ODI sides Ponting is only 1 run and 5 SR points behind Tendulkar. Yet he has won 3 WCs; been to 4 finals. He does better in all the tournies that both their teams play (ICC champs trophy; WC, Tri series); so how much do you think I am stretching it? To put your mind at ease, I think Tendulkar > Ponting in ODIs. I said I think the distance between them is much less than portrayed. Is there anything with the above that you disagree with?

I disagree with the bolded part. Rest of the comparison is legitimate and will make for good discussion. And I can just turn around and say you are over-valuing WC because your countrymen have won 3 titles in last 12 years.

And please, let's not go the level of 'your countrymen' or mine. I don't care which country good cricketers come from. I don't know if you can even appreciate that sentiment of a sports lover.

 

[Shri]

Really, why?

Because there are no minnows in ODIs. You just need form or momentum to be a successful ODI side and class isn't that important. People who are considered ODI greats have not even played a lot of tests in some cases(Bracken for example) and it is the only format where it seems like any team has a chance to win if they do well for a day on match day unlike tests where you have to be good for 5 consecutive days. Its like writing off the non test sides' hard work when they have actually done well(Ireland, Bang, India '83, Lanka '96) and is disrespectful of said teams to erase their games out of the discussion.

 

[Migara]

Not as a finisher he doesn't.

Rubbish. Dhoni is a better finisher with regards to that stats. Finisher != #6/7 batsman.

The argument was about Dhoni and Bevan as finishers

No. That may be after you have changing the goal posts shamelessly. The argument was about Bevan vs Dhoni as ODI batsmen.

I showed how far apart they are when batting lower.

That is immaterial.

The WC stats were to show that even if they were level that Dhoni has to do more than simply bat the way he has for a few years. Then you brought up Klusener; then ankit brought stats of Dhoni's overall record when the discussion was how he compares as a finisher (for the 10th time).

Still you are changing goal posts. We are discussing "Greatest ODI batsmen". Not greatest ODI finishers.

Now you bring up Abbas, who was mainly a #3 IIRC and played something like 60 matches. Give up already.

That's because they played less. Abbas played ODI cricket for 12 seasons. Much more than Bevan. On the same note Grimmet's or O'Riliey's handful of matches cannot be compared with Anil Kumble or Sachin vs Bradman when it comes to batting. You utter what ever non-sense to make your case.

 

[ankitj]

All Ikki's criteria for judging cricketers are decided after the fact, after seeing what his favorite cricketers have done well. Results in using following fallacies repeatedly:

Moving the goalposts fallacy
Texas sharpshooter fallacy