Virat Kohli, the greatest ODI bat ever?

[stephen]

Bevan offers nothing that Dhoni and Kohli don’t do better.. Dhoni can also keep.
Symonds shouldn’t be in an ATG team.

Bevan was a better batsman than Dhoni. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that. Dhoni was (is?) very good too but the only way he can push his way ahead of Bevan is by counting his keeping and/or captaincy.

Symonds was as good as anyone else in history as a big hitting finisher and offered a lot in the field and with the ball. He's well and truly in the argument but I can understand if people want to puck Klusener ahead of him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bevan was a better batsman than Dhoni. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that.

I think you'll find a not insignificant number of people do

 

[stephen]

I think you'll find a not insignificant number of people do

Well probably, but Indian cricket fans aren't exactly the finest judges of Indian cricketers.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Bevan was a better batsman than Dhoni. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that. Dhoni was (is?) very good too but the only way he can push his way ahead of Bevan is by counting his keeping and/or captaincy.

Symonds was as good as anyone else in history as a big hitting finisher and offered a lot in the field and with the ball. He's well and truly in the argument but I can understand if people want to puck Klusener ahead of him.

Dhoni = Bevan + attacking ability

+ He is the only batsman with great stats in every position played.

+ He can keep wickets if needed

+ He is probably most intelligent Cricketer in the history

For the AR spot , Kapil > Klusener

 

[Daemon]

Well probably, but Indian cricket fans aren't exactly the finest judges of Indian cricketers.

You do squeal an awful lot about Indian fans being biased despite being the most one eyed Australian on this website.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Well probably, but Indian cricket fans aren't exactly the finest judges of Indian cricketers.

In Dhoni's case, it's true.
Most people thinks he is below the likes of yuvi , ganguly , Dravid..etc

 

[ankitj]

Well probably, but Indian cricket fans aren't exactly the finest judges of Indian cricketers.

It's cute you still think you have any credibility on this forum.

 

[Daemon]

But in any case, I think Bevan ends up with the better record. Dhoni’s last few years have really hurt him. I recall at one point plenty of people here felt he was the GOAT, or at the very least top 3.

 

[vcs]

It's unfortunate that Dhoni's batting has declined to the extent that it has in the last few years, people seem to have forgotten how good he was in his prime. The Dhoni you see now can barely rotate the strike, struggles to get accurate spinners off the square, takes 20 balls to get his eye in (mind you, despite all that he's still useful if the team needs a rebuilding phase, he's just not an explosive batsman anymore) - prime Dhoni was a different beast.

Bevan's career lasted 10 years and Australia had Clarke, Hussey etc. coming off the conveyor belt to replace him. Pant and co. still haven't made a convincing enough case to replace Dhoni even though he's clearly been past his prime for two years now. So his stats and people's perceptions of him suffer.

 

[trundler]

Dhoni at his best could take it deep by simply rotating the strike and then hitting out of most situations successfully.

 

[ankitj]

But in any case, I think Bevan ends up with the better record. Dhoni’s last few years have really hurt him. I recall at one point plenty of people here felt he was the GOAT, or at the very least top 3.

It's unfortunate that Dhoni's batting has declined to the extent that it has in the last few years, people seem to have forgotten how good he was in his prime. The Dhoni you see now can barely rotate the strike, struggles to get accurate spinners off the square, takes 20 balls to get his eye in (mind you, despite all that he's still useful if the team needs a rebuilding phase, he's just not an explosive batsman anymore) - prime Dhoni was a different beast.

Bevan's career lasted 10 years and Australia had Clarke, Hussey etc. coming off the conveyor belt to replace him. Pant and co. still haven't made a convincing enough case to replace Dhoni even though he's clearly been past his prime for two years now. So his stats and people's perceptions of him suffer.

You know nothing, you Indian fans.

 

[stephen]

It's like people didn't watch cricket in the 90s. Dhoni basically was statically as good as Bevan in an era that was way more batsman friendly.

Dhoni had a number of contemporaries that were as good or better than him. Hell, he was only the best bat in his team for a short while. Yes he's an ATG, especially when you take his keeping into account and he was a great captain as well. But he's behind Bevan as a batsman.

Bevan's career also included a Dhoni- like decline in the last couple of years so arguing that Dhoni was much better than his stats for a long time is equally true for Bevan.

But there are more Indian fans so there's that.

 

[Malcolm]

Dhoni = Bevan + attacking ability

Dhoni = 80% Bevan + attacking ability

 

[marc71178]

Well probably, but Indian cricket fans aren't exactly the finest judges of Indian cricketers.

Whereas you have time after time showed yourself to be a fine unbiased judge of players...

 

[vcs]

It's like people didn't watch cricket in the 90s. Dhoni basically was statically as good as Bevan in an era that was way more batsman friendly.

Dhoni had a number of contemporaries that were as good or better than him. Hell, he was only the best bat in his team for a short while. Yes he's an ATG, especially when you take his keeping into account and he was a great captain as well. But he's behind Bevan as a batsman.

Bevan's career also included a Dhoni- like decline in the last couple of years so arguing that Dhoni was much better than his stats for a long time is equally true for Bevan.

But there are more Indian fans so there's that.

And Bevan was carrying that Australian lineup with the Waughs, Ponting, Gilchrist etc.?

Dhoni was statistically better than Bevan in his prime, averaged similar at a much better strike rate (which I don't think era difference completely accounts for).

 

[mr_mister]

And Bevan was carrying that Australian lineup with the Waughs, Ponting, Gilchrist etc.?

Dhoni was statistically better than Bevan in his prime, averaged similar at a much better strike rate (which I don't think era difference completely accounts for).

Bevan actually had to carry(or at least save) that star studded batting lineup quite a bit. It's pretty much how he got so widely regarded.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bevan saved that batting lineup a lot of times from collapses but the point is that stephen holding the fact that Dhoni had good teammates/contemporaries against him is a bit laughable when you consider how much it applies to Bevan as well. A bit of consistency would be ok.

 

[vcs]

Yes, Bevan's reputation was well deserved. But Dhoni was not bad at that himself.

Full Scorecard of India vs Pakistan 1st ODI 2012 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

Full Scorecard of India vs Australia 3rd ODI 2013 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

Full Scorecard of India vs Sri Lanka, West Indies Tri-Nation Series, Final - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[ankitj]

Bevan saved that batting lineup a lot of times from collapses but the point is that stephen holding the fact that Dhoni had good teammates/contemporaries against him is a bit laughable when you consider how much it applies to Bevan as well. A bit of consistency would be ok.

While also making the argument (in this thread or another one) that players who play in weaker teams get to score more hundreds to devalue Tendulkar's hundreds. For Kohli's hundreds he has the argument that hundreds are too easy in present times.

The amount of mental gymnastics this guy does to convince how his heroes are better than others is just painful to witness. Stop convincing everyone ffs. No one is going to protest if you rate Bevan higher than Dhoni. It's when you just go on and on trying to undermine achievements of others when you become a **** poster.

 

[stephen]

And Bevan was carrying that Australian lineup with the Waughs, Ponting, Gilchrist etc.?

Dhoni was statistically better than Bevan in his prime, averaged similar at a much better strike rate (which I don't think era difference completely accounts for).

Bevan was easily the best batsman in his team through the 90s. Despite Australia's success at test level, in ODIs Australia's batting was not that great. Mark and Steve Waugh and Bevan were the batting for much of the decade. And Steve Waugh averaged 30. Ponting wasn't that great through the 90s. Bevan was regarded as the best batsman and the cornerstone of Australia's batting through the era.

And Dhoni from 2004- 8 March 2014 (the 8th March purely was for ease of statsguru) has virtually identical stats to Bevan's career.