-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Dhoni greatest OdI cricketer off all-time
- Thread starter Xuhaib
- Start date
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
And the calm calculated decision to run to the wicket rather than throw the ball also showed a keen presence of mind.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I've never seen a coherent argument presented by you or anyone else on here regarding why batting average is a better metric than RPI in limited overs cricket.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
He was a clever keeper but I don't think he was particularly better than plenty of other keepers in this context.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In order for you to think that RPI is a better metric you must think that it's an advantage to get to start your innings from scratch rather than continue when you're played in and used to conditions. Personally I think you're better off being able to keep batting when you've played yourself in.
Average is a far better indicator of how good a batsman is. If you're not out then that means you haven't gotten out. Why would you still count that as the end of an innings the same as if you did get out? It's completely illogical.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
@Red Hill
here's the thread:
here's the thread:
Definitive proof that not outs don't inflate batting averages
Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have...
www.cricketweb.net
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I personally think a combination of average and strike rate (though in around a 2:5 ratio) is the most useful measure of an ODI cricketer because combining the two stats takes into account how many balls a batsman faces. The problem with rpi is that it really doesn't take into account the fact that lower order batsmen often miss out on facing a lot of balls in friendly batting conditions.
It does seem that batting at number 6 is the batting spot in the top 6 which results in the lowest batting averages but I'm not going to say it's a causative factor. Rather, my theory is that most sides bat their best batsmen higher than 6 normally.
I will also say that batting at number 6, Bevan, Dhoni and Hussey dominate the RPI stats for that position.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Every batsman in an ODI starts their innings from scratch. Some start when facing a brand new ball and opening bowlers, others start facing an older ball and the spinners or all-rounders.
Because it gives an exact representation of how many runs you contributed to your team on that day in the role you play. As in runs scored. Whether out or not. Which goes towards determining the outcome of the match. Unlike averages, which don't do that. A cricket match is an isolated event, averages are cumulative data over multiple games. I don't know why you struggle to grasp this in terms of the efficacy of a batsman within the context of actual individual cricket matches.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As I said earlier though, that's a very different measurement. "How many runs you contributed to the team" is not the same as "how good a batsman you are". The former depends a lot on batting position.
A guy that makes 50 every innings but is not out every second dig is clearly a better player than a guy who makes 50 every innings but gets out every time (In a hypothetical scenario where all else is equal). Yet they have contributed the same to the team.
A guy that makes 50 every innings but is not out every second dig is clearly a better player than a guy who makes 50 every innings but gets out every time (In a hypothetical scenario where all else is equal). Yet they have contributed the same to the team.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, no one thinks that anything any international cricketer does can be truly unique. It's just the number of times Dhoni did it. BTW, 1 out of 5 in that video is from Dhoni himself.
As an aside: I seem to recall there was an incident where the ball was thrown to the bowler, the batsman running towards bowler end was rushing, the other batsman turned to see if his partner is safe, wicketkeeper realized this and asked the bowler to throw the ball back to wikcetkeeper, the batsman running towards non danger end was dismissed. I think the wk was Dhoni. I can't seem to find the video.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Oh hey, you've caught up to the fact that that's what we're talking about here, Gilly's output opening vs Dhoni's in the lower middle order (with more opportunities to be not out). Welcome to the conversation.
This isn't correct, especially in limited overs. At all. It highlights the conversation though. Dhoni (batting at #5) is not "clearly a better player" than Gilchrist (opening) because he has more not outs. That makes no sense at all. You can see that, surely? Surely you aren't arguing that?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gilchrist's role was as an uber attacking opener who looked for quick runs from basically ball 1. It's a specific role within the scope of openers and there definitely aren't several better than him at that role.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Your comprehension is atrocious. As I said: **In a hypothetical scenario where all else is equal**
Nothing about Gilchrist v Dhoni is "all else being equal". You literally even brought up the different batting positions yourself.
fmd
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
No, you can't just roll in and say "/endthread" like it's a mike drop thing you said. lol
There aren't many better power openers than Gilchrist (if any), especially at the SR he went at. His SR was 98 as an opener. That's still higher than contemporary openers who are known power hitters, like Warner, de Kock, Sharma, Gayle and Finch. And it's not just a little higher, it's significantly higher. And he played an era and a half ago.
So no, not /thread.