Best ever ODI batsman

[Furball]

If we're looking at Dhoni's first innings stats, and talking about him as a finisher, then remove the times when Dhoni promotes himself up the order to fill his boots.

 

[honestbharani]

If we're looking at Dhoni's first innings stats, and talking about him as a finisher, then remove the times when Dhoni promotes himself up the order to fill his boots.

like when Bevan filled his batting at 4?

 

[Ikki]

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.

For me, and I am sure many others; there are minnows mate. Minnows have proven upsets at WCs because the format is built in a way that a small window of form can get you far; but it doesn't mean they're not minnows. Even aside from that; one having the opportunity to play them more than another batsman causes trouble in comparison. Let's move on.

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.

You are the one insinuating the reason I rate WCs is because of Australia's success. By the same token it would appear logical to assume that you're downrating them because India hasn't won one in Tendulkar's career.

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

These discussions have been had before and the points have been brought up numerous times; you should actually read around. Little is new here or made up after the fact.

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

It is; batsman batting in the top order a finisher? Come on.

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

Nah; the posts are there right after you made the claim that Dhoni was as good a finisher as Bevan.

That is immaterial.

For someone that could include Tendulkar as a finisher, it mightn't be. For others, it will.

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

Nope, I don't really have an issue with Dhoni being compared to Bevan as a ODI batsman (although I still think Bevan is better). I take great issue with your throwaway remark that Dhoni was just as good as Bevan as a finisher. No he wasn't.

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.

I am sure they played less; but 60 ODI innings? I'd have to see a proper comparison. And again; Zaheer Abbas is a #3, not a finisher. It'd be more relevant to compare him with Ponting or Viv.

That aside; his figures do look awesome; I didn't know he was that good.

like when Bevan filled his batting at 4?

But It was shown; when batting 6 or below Bevan was far better. So that excludes the upper order innings where they "filled their boots".

 

[Migara]

It is; batsman batting in the top order a finisher? Come on.

Depending on the situation of the match, still an opener can be a finisher

Nah; the posts are there right after you made the claim that Dhoni was as good a finisher as Bevan.

Still you are shifting goal posts. This was my opening post on the subject.

Hussey is as good as him, as well as Dhoni. The latter could be even better.

It's you who gone in to WC stats, which was retaliated by showing that despite with same career figures Klusener and Abbas has better WC stats than Bevan. Then your "target setting" argument came to degrade Klusener, which back fired because you just forgotten Dhoni has better stats than Bevan when setting targets. In other words an epic fail.

Here was what i said on finishing.

Disagree. Dhoni is as good as finisher as Bevan and unlike Bevan real power hitter too. Has won many matches playing different roles unlike Bevan who was only a finisher most of the time. Dhoni sets up targets, sets up chases, finishes or makes other guys to finish it easy by some brutal innings here and there. Bevan was never capable of that brutal innings that Dhoni could play. Because Bvan has played more ATM, I'd rate them similar. If Dhoni can play 240 ODI and keep that avg 50+ and SR 85+, I have no problem in Dhoni > Bevan.

No where I claimed Dhoni > Bevan as a finisher. No where did I claim Dhoni > Bevan as ODI batsmen. I said they are equal.

It was you who said Dhoni and Bevan are even not close. Hussey and Dhoni close but nope. Hussey I rate as a more complete batsman but last time we won the WC he was pretty much a non-factor. With Bevan that was pretty much the opposite.

But it's you who said I'd rate them Bevan >> Hussey > Dhoni.
with your flawed logic / sat picking / changing goal post / nationalistic bias saga.

Now don't show your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Ikki]

Depending on the situation of the match, still an opener can be a finisher

But not often; which is the point.

Still you are shifting goal posts. This was my opening post on the subject.

Read on; and I said I thought Bevan was still a bit better. Then you said what I quoted you saying and it began. I continued to specifically mention "finisher". It can't get any more clear than that.

It's you who gone in to WC stats, which was retaliated by showing that despite with same career figures Klusener and Abbas has better WC stats than Bevan. Then your "target setting" argument came to degrade Klusener, which back fired because you just forgotten Dhoni has better stats than Bevan when setting targets. In other words an epic fail.

Here was what i said on finishing.

No where I claimed Dhoni > Bevan as a finisher. No where did I claim Dhoni > Bevan as ODI batsmen. I said they are equal.

I know, even saying they're equal as finishers is bad enough. And no, Dhoni sets high scores when he bats higher up. Not low down where Bevan usually batted. There, Bevan is far superior.

It was you who said Dhoni and Bevan are even not close. Hussey and Dhoni close but nope. Hussey I rate as a more complete batsman but last time we won the WC he was pretty much a non-factor. With Bevan that was pretty much the opposite.

You just quoted me saying they're close (overall) and then say I didn't say it. Do you make sense to yourself?

But it's you who said I'd rate them Bevan >> Hussey > Dhoni.
with your flawed logic / sat picking / changing goal post / nationalistic bias saga.

Now don't show your intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, because I was referring to finishers. I had said already before that I considered them close as batsmen (overall) then it descended into an argument about them as finishers after you made that unfounded claim that Dhoni was as good as Bevan finishing. You're very confused.

 

[Migara]

But not often; which is the point.

But often Dhoni did, and that is the point.

Read on; and I said I thought Bevan was still a bit better. Then you said what I quoted you saying and it began. I continued to specifically mention "finisher". It can't get any more clear than that.

No you were not. There is no reason to drag the WC performance in to it if you were comparing finisher role. You chose what ever the beneficial parameter for Bevan and started arguing on that. You got in to finishing stats saying only 6/7 are finishers which I disagree with.

I know, even saying they're equal as finishers is bad enough. And no, Dhoni sets high scores when he bats higher up. Not low down where Bevan usually batted. There, Bevan is far superior.

Still better finishers are not more valued than better top order batsmen, if not equal. Don't try clutching straws. We are discussing about batsmen, and that's what I started discussing. If you discussed something out of context it is your problem not mine.

You just quoted me saying they're close (overall) and then say I didn't say it. Do you make sense to yourself?

Intellectual Dishonesty at maximum. Here, look, you said

1. Hussey and Dhoni close but nope. - What I understood was Hussey and DHoni close to each other but not to Bevan.

2. Bevan >> Hussey > Dhoni. What does that mean? And you didn't even breath the word "finisher" there. The comparison was overall. You implied even Hussey is better batsman than Dhoni.

Yes, because I was referring to finishers I had said already before that I considered them close as batsmen (overall) then it descended into an argument about them as finishers after you made that unfounded claim that Dhoni was as good as Bevan finishing. You're very confused.

Before that you went in to the claims of WC, which fell flat on the face when the cases of Abbas and Klusener occured. Then to wriggle out of the Klusener situation you brought the "target setter" stats pick, which backfired making you a laughing stock.

Your and my definition of finisher are different. There's no point in arguing about it because we are in different grounds regarding this.

 

[Ikki]

But often Dhoni did, and that is the point.

Prove it. Show that in a significant amount of innings Dhoni finished it. And don't post innings where Tendulkar, Sehwag and Dhoni have flayed the attack. Bevan is batting with the tail and pulling off victories.

No you were not. There is no reason to drag the WC performance in to it if you were comparing finisher role. You chose what ever the beneficial parameter for Bevan and started arguing on that. You got in to finishing stats saying only 6/7 are finishers which I disagree with.

You're either lying, or you have trouble reading. The point re the WC was to show that "even if they were equal" that one has significant innings in a significant tournament - the other flat out failed. I counted from 6-down but from even 5-down (actually, even 4-down) Bevan has the better stats.

I will re-post my posts which clearly, specifically, talk about finishing. Pardon to everyone else for making this a big post:

[Bevan is a much better B]finisher[/B] than Dhoni. From positions 6 and lower, Dhoni averages 36 @ 82 whereas Bevan averages 55 @ 78. Not even close.

Unless you're counting positions from 1-4 as finishers then...nope. Batting that high, he is no more a finisher as Tendulkar or Ponting is.

Well, I am not sure if the term 'finisher' is widely defined, but having to bat basically most of his innings with the tail and help win a match isn't something batsmen from positions 1-4 will have to do very often.

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.

Heck, Hussey has won a WC and I think little of it. So, it's not just about winning the WC. Otherwise Jayasuriya > Tendulkar. The point is, even for some who think they're still close...on that count Dhoni is a way behind.

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.

Examples of Bevan as a finisher at the WC

2nd SF: Australia v West Indies at Mohali, Mar 14, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Aus against Windies; Aus collapse to 4-15; Bevan comes in and helps add about another 160 and helps Aus win the match. Reminds me of his last ball 4 victory against WIndies in another match - that was incredible too.

16th Match: Australia v Pakistan at Leeds, May 23, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Aus against Pakistan; Aus fall to 4-101, chasing 276; Bevan helps Aus fightback to 214 without a loss; however not enough as Aus lost by 10 runs.

2nd SF: Australia v South Africa at Birmingham, Jun 17, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Aus against S.Africa; Aus fall to 4-68. Bevan and Waugh carry the fightback to 158, however Waugh goes. Bevan is left with the tail and takes Aus to a respectable 213. With some magic from Warne and a last ball blunder by Donald; Aus make the final in a thrilling match.

37th Match: Australia v England at Port Elizabeth, Mar 2, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Aus against England; Aus collapses to 4-48, chasing 204. Bevan comes in and steadies the ship to 111. The next 4 wickets go in a hurry for only 24 runs. Another crisis but Bevan with help from Bichel take 135 to 208, winning the match with 2 balls to spare. An unforgettable match (as all these matches are really).

5th Super: Australia v New Zealand at Port Elizabeth, Mar 11, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - Aus against England; Aus collapse to a pumped up NZ to an embarressing score of 7/84. Bevan and Bichel once again put on a big partnership taking the score to 208. The Aus bowlers make the NZ bowlers look human and bowl NZ out 112, giving Aus the win.

And just LOOK at those attacks: Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop; Wasim, Akhtar, Saqlain; Donald, Pollock, Kallis and Klusener...

This is why I may seem a bit aggressive but you're talking about a guy who did this kind of thing a lot. The above were examples from the WC. Do you think anyone cared that instead of slogging his way to those scores Bevan took his time and built innings to buy back the pride of his country?

When Dhoni has these kinds of innings in such a tournament; along with having the longevity and being able to compare statistically to Bevan...then that'll be a debate. And no, that has nothing to do nationalism.

You should perhaps try reading my posts. I didn't make it out as if Dhoni is an ordinary batsman or anything like that. In fact, I said he'll probably go down as an all-time great. What I objected to was him being called as good of a finisher as Bevan. I have a big disagreement with that.

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.

There should be no confusion now I hope.

Still better finishers are not more valued than better top order batsmen, if not equal. Don't try clutching straws. We are discussing about batsmen, and that's what I started discussing. If you discussed something out of context it is your problem not mine.

Whether they are or not is a different question. I said I thought they were close overall but that Bevan was better. As a finisher, Bevan was much better however.

Intellectual Dishonesty at maximum. Here, look, you said

1. Hussey and Dhoni close but nope. - What I understood was Hussey and DHoni close to each other but not to Bevan.

You understood it incorrectly. It means "Hussey and Dhoni are close to Bevan, but nope; he is still better than them".

2. Bevan >> Hussey > Dhoni. What does that mean? And you didn't even breath the word "finisher" there. The comparison was overall. You implied even Hussey is better batsman than Dhoni.

For the nth time, I was referring to them here as finishers. In just a couple posts prior to that I just said they were close overall; in this post I am obviously not referring to them that way but as finishers.

Before that you went in to the claims of WC, which fell flat on the face when the cases of Abbas and Klusener occured. Then to wriggle out of the Klusener situation you brought the "target setter" stats pick, which backfired making you a laughing stock.

Your and my definition of finisher are different. There's no point in arguing about it because we are in different grounds regarding this.

You're confused or wilfully ignoring the obvious.

 

[srkven]

Bevan helped Australia in not only runs which he had salvaged the game for Australia, but his bowling was vital in some situations.

Too bad he didn't do so well in tests. An average of about 26?

 

[Migara]

You're either lying, or you have trouble reading. The point re the WC was to show that "even if they were equal" that one has significant innings in a significant tournament - the other flat out failed. I counted from 6-down but from even 5-down (actually, even 4-down) Bevan has the better stats.

You are the one lying now. My argument was about whole basmenship, not finishing. You first took a shot at Dhoni's WC matches and realized that if you do that guys like Abbas and Klusener will look better than Bevan, and as usual changed your goal posts to setting targets that went in to an epic failure.

Bevan is a much better finisher than Dhoni. From positions 6 and lower, Dhoni averages 36 @ 82 whereas Bevan averages 55 @ 78. Not even close.

No one talked about finishing the game better makes you a better batsman. Once again you took that cheap shot assuming that everyone will fall for that trap. But it was you who started comparing them as finishers because you new otherwise Bevan didn't stand a chance when you standardise their Avg and SRs. You argued with arguments made by you not by me. The next set of comments you argue with me trying to show that Bevan as better stats as finishing (as defined by yourself to fit your argument) than Dhoni and so on, which was not the ACTUAL DISCUSSION on hand. FFS we are comparing them as ODI batsmen, not finshers or bowlers or captains.

First you omitted finisher clause from your posts purposefully and after your arguments have fallen flat on the face now asking for the to be taken in context to save your arse.
Sorry, you are nothing short of utter intellectually dishonest. Don't try twisting the facts or what you have posted. Other posters also will agree with me that you were implying about them as complete packages and only now that you are running back to concept of finishers.

Whether they are or not is a different question. I said I thought they were close overall but that Bevan was better. As a finisher, Bevan was much better however.

You said Bevan >> Hussey > Dhoni. Don't try to twist the facts. You never mentioned the word finisher there. Don't lie here, what you have posted are there to see.You have been caught red handed in this '"shifting goalpost" and "twisting the context" fallacies. Don't expect me to ignore your past.

 

[Fusion]

Ok, time for a cool down period on this thread. Hopefully when the thread is reopened, the childish behavior would've stopped. Well, a boy can dream anyway.

 

[kingpin]

Is this thread opened again?

 

[Prince EWS]

Is this thread opened again?

Obviously, since you're posting in it...

 

[kingpin]

i mean why?You know how this mess will turn into.....

 

[smash84]

Obviously, since you're posting in it...

 

[Fusion]

i mean why?You know how this mess will turn into.....

The people who created the "mess" have been banned for it. We prefer to keep threads open for constructive debate. Obviously if the thead descends into garbage again, it will be closed and further action will be taken against the guilty parties.

 

[Faisal1985]

The people who created the "mess" have been banned for it. We prefer to keep threads open for constructive debate. Obviously if the thead descends into garbage again, it will be closed and further action will be taken against the guilty parties.

tbh...i was reading the posts and didn't find anything that outlandish...it was just a debate and to me was ok....unless i am totally missing something...

 

[Burgey]

tbh...i was reading the posts and didn't find anything that outlandish...it was just a debate and to me was ok....unless i am totally missing something...

Might have been some deletion tbf.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Richards has an exceptional record for the era of ODIs he played in. However, his last 5 seasons or so were pretty average. He could not show the necessary adaptability and versatility to modify his game. On the other hand, there is Tendulkar in his 21st year of cricket scoring the first ever ODI double hundred and another score of 175.

Part of Richards' decline was of course natural because it happened in both formats of the game. But I believe that Richards also benefited from teams not having separate ODI strategies and units in the early part of his career. His natural approach to the game put him way ahead of the competition and challenges, but once teams started becoming more versed with the ODI game he could no longer carry on that dominance.

Tendulkar's ODI career in that respect is far more complete. His records and numbers are there for all to see, but it has been his remarkable versatility and adaptability which puts him at the top. The ODI game has evolved a lot over the last 21 years, and Tendulkar has been a top performer in the format for the vast majority of this span of time. He has been able to adapt his game through times when 230-250 were good scores, ODI pitches still had a bit in it, the boundaries were longer into an era where 280-300 are good scores, most ODI pitches are flat, and boundaries have been roped in. To maintain this sort of stranglehold on the game despite so many changes is nothing short of genius. He even took it one step further by becoming one of the best T20 players in the world as well, though not relevant for this discussion.

 

[smash84]

Tendulkar's ODI career in that respect is far more complete. His records and numbers are there for all to see, but it has been his remarkable versatility and adaptability which puts him at the top. The ODI game has evolved a lot over the last 21 years, and Tendulkar has been a top performer in the format for the vast majority of this span of time. He has been able to adapt his game through times when 230-250 were good scores, ODI pitches still had a bit in it, the boundaries were longer into an era where 280-300 are good scores, most ODI pitches are flat, and boundaries have been roped in. To maintain this sort of stranglehold on the game despite so many changes is nothing short of genius. He even took it one step further by becoming one of the best T20 players in the world as well, though not relevant for this discussion.

Very Good point.

That is one of the reasons I rate Wasim so highly in ODIs. He was able to adapt so well.

 

[Burgey]

Very Good point.

That is one of the reasons I rate Wasim so highly in ODIs. He was able to adapt so well.

Indeed. McGrath too, though he didn't quite play as long, but still - mid 90s to 2007 not a bad stretch, and the game did change a bit in that time.