Dhoni Vs Gilchrist in ODIs.

[GotSpin]

Yes, we can put that particular "point" aside. Sreesanth has won more World Cups than Malinga and Waqar Younis BTW. This is fun.

Don't be ridiculous now. They aren't Australian

 

[vcs]

Sreesanth won more World Cups than Lara and Ambrose and Walsh too. World Cup argument FAIL. Though Gilly actually played great in ALL THREE World Cup finals he's played in. Massive credit for doing it every time he got the opportunity.

Now that is something we can all agree with.

 

[vcs]

Don't be ridiculous now. They aren't Australian

You can substitute Lillee, no big deal.

 

[robelinda]

Both Gilly and Dhoni are special players, stats will never show their true worth, they have that magical X factor. JUST ENJOY. Comparisons are dumb. I'd much rather spend an hour watching them play than arguing their flaws and who scored 2 runs less in NZ in the 2nd innings between overs 30 and 35 in the evening session with a bit of dew against a crap team but chasing 270 in a the dea match of a 7 match series which doesnt count. Blah blah blah

 

[weldone]

Not when chasing and winning. Dhoni's 100 average there is very much due to his not outs, which comes from where he bats in comparison to Gilchrist - excluding them the average drops to 42.

ya remaining not out while chasing and taking your team to victory without getting out must be the easiest job on earth...you can obviously consider those not outs as outs and re-calculate the average...For example, the winning six in the WC final should be considered as an LBW for calculation purposes...

 

[Bun]

heh got spin.. like the subtle self criticism there. wag

 

[Jono]

We had a multi page thread a while back where Dhoni was considered as good if not better than Sir Viv in ODIs.

We've also got a thread where people think he's not even in the same ball-park as Gilchrist.

 

[TT Boy]

We've also got a thread where people think he's not even in the same ball-park as Gilchrist.

This thread? Its 50/50 on the poll and that's disproportional given the demographics here.

 

[Jono]

I don't include polls, or a bunch of new posters, when determining the overall "CW view"

Fact is after Dhoni became popular in 2006-07 there was quite a backlash on CW, and IMO it results in postewrs underrating how valuable a ODI cricketer he is.

 

[hang on]

I don't include polls, or a bunch of new posters, when determining the overall "CW view"

Fact is after Dhoni became popular in 2006-07 there was quite a backlash on CW, and IMO it results in players underrated how valuable a ODI cricketer he is.

Not quite sure what new posters have to do with this!

 

[Jono]

Because if new posters are rating Dhoni correctly (or even overrating him) it isn't that relevant because my comment (i.e. that Dhoni is underrated on this forum in ODI batting) is based on the last 2-3 years on CricketWeb, not the last few months.

It wasn't a criticism of new posters of course.

 

[Athlai]

Dhoni > Bevan.

You hurd me

 

[hang on]

Because if new posters are rating Dhoni correctly (or even overrating him) it isn't that relevant because my comment (i.e. that Dhoni is underrated on this forum in ODI batting) is based on the last 2-3 years on CricketWeb, not the last few months.

It wasn't a criticism of new posters of course.

i get it.

 

[angad]

Gilly Singh.

 

[robelinda]

MS Gilchrist

 

[salman85]

Sachin How

 

[GotSpin]

Ian Harvey. Case closed

 

[Uppercut]

Too many people in this thread using stats, to paraphrase Andrew Lang, as a drunk uses a lamp-post, for support rather than illumination.

Once again, they're are little more than a guide even in Tests so in ODI's they're even more prone to bias. Use accordingly or you're wasting your time.

EDIT: For those who poo-poo using individual judgement, you really couldn't be more wrong. Aside from the fact that personal judgement does count as 'data' (qualitative), in doing serious statistical analysis, there are personal judgements which abound before you even perform analyses anyway which will affect the results. Whether the data are normal, which test to use, whether the output passes the smell test, etc. There's an entire branch of statistics (Bayesian) in which, far from being discouraged, its part of the process before every test you run to exercise personal judgement about what the distribution will likely look like or how probabilities will change when extra information is added. The rationale goes that all supposedly objective statistical tests which have been used/are still being used will, by design, produce incorrect results because they don't use personal judgement and should be replaced by their Bayesian equivalents.

It's far from being universally accepted but that's inertia, really. Can tell you now, as someone who's in the job market, the ability to do Bayesian statistics is popping up in just about every job outside of Australia and more within Australia every year. It's the wave of the future, man.

Haha, the personal judgments involved in Bayesian statistics aren't quite the same as a random fan watching a bit of cricket and deciding who he thinks is better .

 

[Top_Cat]

Maybe so but people also rubbish the opinions of former players on the basis that it's just their personal opinion, as if the opinions/observations of J Random Cluelessfan = Shane Warne's. Doing that (which many on CW do) and hitching your cart to the stats instead is a bit silly too.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe so but people also rubbish the opinions of former players on the basis that it's just their personal opinion, as if the opinions/observations of J Random Cluelessfan = Shane Warne's. Doing that (which many on CW do) and hitching your cart to the stats instead is a bit silly too.

haha, well said.