Dhoni Vs Gilchrist in ODIs.

[ankitj]

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.

So you agree with Warne's ranking of top 50 players.

 

[Top_Cat]

haha, so not biting.

 

[vcs]

Top_Cat's point makes a lot of sense, especially in the never-ending Sobers vs. Imran debates where Sobers tends to get portrayed as a hack with the ball.

 

[bagapath]

gilly is the better wicket keeper. they are equal as batsmen. on that basis, for the next three years at least, it will have to be gilly.

 

[hang on]

the personal observations of pros is need to be considered unless of course they have a brainfade and come up with something along the lines of tendulkar is better than bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

the personal observations of pros is need to be considered unless of course they have a brainfade and come up with something along the lines of tendulkar is better than bradman.

It is generally a brainfade when pros are comparing ones they have seen play with ones they have never seen play...

 

[Uppercut]

Top_Cat's point makes a lot of sense, especially in the never-ending Sobers vs. Imran debates where Sobers tends to get portrayed as a hack with the ball.

The consensus on Sobers definitely needed a re-evaluation though, the myth surrounding him was so prevalent that it couldn't be challenged at all.

It definitely went too far at times, of course. It always does. That's when you find yourself revisiting old arguments and taking the side you'd previously opposed.

 

[Salamuddin]

Dhoni pretty comfortably in ODIs.

Dhoni is arguably the best finisher I have seen in ODI cricket - Bevan is the only other contender.
Finishing is a pretty difficult skill - other than Dhoni and Bevan, you'd hard pressd to find anyone thatb good at it.

Gilchrist isn't even close to being one of the best ODI openers of all time.

 

[Shri]

Klusener was a pretty decent finisher in ODIs.

 

[ProteasFan]

I would take Gilly every day of the week. that's personal preference though. haven't looked at the stats but Gilly was pure awesomeness imo.

 

[Red]

Dhoni pretty comfortably in ODIs.

Dhoni is arguably the best finisher I have seen in ODI cricket - Bevan is the only other contender.
Finishing is a pretty difficult skill - other than Dhoni and Bevan, you'd hard pressd to find anyone thatb good at it.

Gilchrist isn't even close to being one of the best ODI openers of all time.

Bevan is overrated imo. The amount of not outs (67) he had in his career inflated his batting average significantly. Of course being not out is a good thing, but, when your team is batting first, it can also indicate a bit of selfishness from the top order.

If you remove not outs from Bevan's ODI stats, his stats are no where near as impressive. Removing "not outs" from Bevan, Gilchrist and Dhoni reveals something interesting...

Batting averages without not outs (career runs divided by innings)

Bevan - 35.3
Dhoni - 36.7 (Dhoni has 53no from 188 innings)
Gilchrist- 34.4

Gilchrist only had 11 not outs in his ODI career (from 279 innings). Dhoni and Bevan have the luxury of being not out in roughly a quarter of their innings, largely because they bat/ted from 5-7 in the order.

tldnr- Gilchrist opened, so didn't get to be 'not out' that much. Dhoni and Bevan have higher averages because they have been not out much more than Gilly, because they bat lower in the order.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bevan is overrated imo. The amount of not outs (67) he had in his career massively inflated his batting average significantly. Of course being not out is a good thing, but, when your team is batting first, it can also indicate a bit of selfishness from the top order.

If you remove not outs from Bevan's ODI stats, his stats are no where near as impressive. Removing "not outs" from Bevan, Gilchrist and Dhoni reveals something interesting...

Batting averages without not outs (career runs divided by innings)

Bevan - 35.3
Dhoni - 36.7 (Dhoni has 53no from 188 innings)
Gilchrist- 34.4

Gilchrist only had 11 not outs in his ODI career (from 279 innings). Dhoni and Bevan have the luxury of being not out in roughly a quarter of their innings, largely because they bat/ted from 5-7 in the order.

tldnr- Gilchrist opened, so didn't get to be 'not out' that much. Dhoni and Bevan have higher averages because they have been not out much more than Gilly, because they bat lower in the order.

That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that, if you do finish not out, you almost certainly would've added to your tally if your innings kept going.

While it does seem silly to treat Bevan getting 30* and 20 as the same as Gilchrist getting 50, it seems even sillier to treat Bevan getting 5* as the same as Gilchrist getting 5.

 

[Red]

That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that, if you do finish not out, you almost certainly would've added to your tally if your innings kept going.

While it does seem silly to treat Bevan getting 30* and 20 as the same as Gilchrist getting 50, it seems even sillier to treat Bevan getting 5* as the same as Gilchrist getting 5.

I get your point, and it's valid.

However, there is an injustice to openers in ODIs here.

If Gilchrist has scored 50, and the score is 0/90 after 15 overs, the responsibility is on Gilchrist to begin to take more risks and force the scoring rate, making it more likely he'll get out.

Someone like Bevan (perhaps Dhoni), batting around 6/7 in the order, receives praise if he bats through til the end with the tail, and remains not out on 50, possibly taking very few risks other than rotating the strike and letting other guys like Symonds, Harvey, Lee take the risks.

Not saying Bevan isn't good, just think he's overhyped as an ODI batsman, largely because of that one game against the WIs (?) when he hit a last ball four to win. Became known as "the finisher" etc etc.

 

[ankitj]

If they take more risk, they also score fast while they get out sooner. Net effect is nothing. The expected average is same irrespective of how much risk one takes in general, the standard deviation around the expected average is going to be higher for the one who takes more risk probably.

Is Dhoni as far ahead of Gilchrist as his average suggests? Absolutely, if all else equal (batting position has nothing to do with it ). Is Dhoni better than Tendulkar ? If he keeps going for sane length of time as Tendulkar has, why not?

 

[Red]

If they take more risk, they also score fast while they get out sooner. Net effect is nothing. The expected average is same irrespective of how much risk one takes in general, the standard deviation around the expected average is going to be higher for the one who takes more risk probably.

I don't think that's true at all, and I'm not sure how you could substantiate that.

Is Dhoni as far ahead of Gilchrist as his average suggests? Absolutely, if all else equal (batting position has nothing to do with it ). Is Dhoni better than Tendulkar ? If he keeps going for sane length of time as Tendulkar has, why not?

Of course batting position is relevant. You'd rarely expect openers to remain not out in OD cricket, especially in first innings. Dhoni's (and Bevan's) averages are inflated by their not outs and the fact that he is expected to be not out, and to bat through with the tail. It's a massive difference. Comparison of SR between Gilchrist and Dhoni is relevant as well, if we need to consider risk/impact.

Opening in ODIs is very different to batting at 5/6. Batting at 5/6 is far easier.

 

[Prince EWS]

If they take more risk, they also score fast while they get out sooner. Net effect is nothing. The expected average is same irrespective of how much risk one takes in general, the standard deviation around the expected average is going to be higher for the one who takes more risk probably.

You can't surely be suggesting what I think you are? Players would just attempt to score at a strike rate of around 150 in Tests if so, taking risks of every ball. T20 batting averages would be similar to Test batting averages.

 

[Jarquis]

The amount of not outs (67) he had in his career massively inflated his batting average significantly.

averages are inflated by their not outs

Opening in ODIs is very different to batting at 5/6. Batting at 5/6 is far easier.

Oh sweet jesus, stop talking. Please.

 

[benchmark00]

Oh sweet jesus, stop talking. Please.

This is a **** post, but I'll respond to it anyway.

What Monk is saying is all true, except all he's proving once again is that comparing players based on their respective averages alone is lazy, misleading and very problematic.

 

[Jarquis]

This is a **** post, but I'll respond to it anyway.

What Monk is saying is all true, except all he's proving once again is that comparing players based on their respective averages alone is lazy, misleading and very problematic.

I've not even bothered looking at the arguments he's making wrt to Dhoni vs Gilly themselves.

Just the idea that not outs do anything to your average is one that makes me want to strangle a kitten.

Very much agree with the point about comparing averages. It's ill advised at the best of times, in limited overs cricket it's just pointless.

Disagree about it being 'easier' in the middle order fwiw.

 

[Red]

Oh sweet jesus, stop talking. Please.

People who make a passionate statement but offer no argument generally have nothing to offer.

Just the idea that not outs do anything to your average is one that makes me want to strangle a kitten.

Once again, offering nothing substantial other than saying you want to strangle a kitten. See a psychiatrist.

Very much agree with the point about comparing averages. It's ill advised at the best of times, in limited overs cricket it's just pointless.

Which is the reason I added some context to their averages (by way of not outs and batting order position). So you agree with me.

Disagree about it being 'easier' in the middle order fwiw.

Once again, you state a point but offer nothing. I'd say it's easier in the middle order because
- the ball is older
- you generally don't face the best (opening) bowlers (this is not always true)
- fields tend to become more conservative, meaning run scoring is easier.


Instead of telling me to stop talking, sweet Jesus, why don't you actually offer something, or not bother?