Dhoni v Gilchrist

[honestbharani]

I think its silly that some people think Gilchrist is near MSD level in ODIs. The difference between them as ODI players is the same as the difference between them as Test players. And the "keeping is more than stumping" brigade should also understand keeping is more than just standing back to seamers. And those stumpings changed many a game in LO cricket. Stumpings which were not even considered possible before MSD, btw. It is fine if you rate Tests higher than LO and say Gilly is better because of it. I don't. The OP asks us to treat 3 formats equally and I did and therefore I think, to build a team, MSD is clearly the better choice.

 

[GIMH]

As opposition team you knew you were ****ed when you saw him striding in at 280/5 or whatever twirling his bat.

Unless you had Flintoff bowling

 

[honestbharani]

Unless you had Flintoff bowling

or Harbhajan

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think its silly that some people think Gilchrist is near MSD level in ODIs.

It's not

The difference between them as ODI players is the same as the difference between them as Test players.

Ridiculous

The OP asks us to treat 3 formats equally and I did and therefore I think, to build a team, MSD is clearly the better choice.

not even close

 

[honestbharani]

It's not

Ridiculous

not even close

 

[TheJediBrah]

I just can't handle all the facts and reality

and my bias

 

[Nintendo]

Yeah no, gilly is way closer to dhoni in the ODI atg category then dhoni is to gilly in tests. Gilly is a one of a kind keeper bat, noene bar composite sangakarra, flower and MAYBE pant by his retierment compare, and even then there's very good arguments against all of them, while dhoni is just another fairly average test keeper/bat. He's nothing special compared to guys like mccullum, wattling, dekock, haddin, prior, and the bevy of other keeper bats who have popped up since gilly.

Dhoni has a similiar status in ODI to gilly in test, with his contempiaries maybe being slightly closer, but gilly is far closer to dhoni in ODI's relatively. He was extremely important up the top of the order for austalia, and played 3 important innings in WC finals, which can't be discredited.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I hate when Flower gets mentioned in this context. Irrationally so. Probably fair enough to credit him for what he did but he was not a good keeper by any stretch.

 

[honestbharani]

I just can't handle all the facts and reality

and my bias

NO one can.

 

[Jack1]

Yeah no, gilly is way closer to dhoni in the ODI atg category then dhoni is to gilly in tests. Gilly is a one of a kind keeper bat, noene bar composite sangakarra, flower and MAYBE pant by his retierment compare, and even then there's very good arguments against all of them, while dhoni is just another fairly average test keeper/bat. He's nothing special compared to guys like mccullum, wattling, dekock, haddin, prior, and the bevy of other keeper bats who have popped up since gilly.

Dhoni has a similiar status in ODI to gilly in test, with his contempiaries maybe being slightly closer, but gilly is far closer to dhoni in ODI's relatively. He was extremely important up the top of the order for austalia, and played 3 important innings in WC finals, which can't be discredited.

This isn't just about batting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gilchrist was a fantastic odi batsman. People have an average fetish which hurts him in comparison to Dhoni. His role was to get out there and smash from ball one and there were few better at it than him. He'd make every odi team in history as opener even if he didn't keep. Not sure how you compare the two of them as batsmen in odis honestly. Id still stay Dhoni was better but Gilchrist was great in his own right.

And Dhoni was a decent enough batsman in tests (probably a tad underappreciated since avg 38 as a keeper is nothing to sniff at) but nowhere near anything you'd describe as "great".

 

[honestbharani]

He'd make every odi team in history as opener even if he didn't keep.

Nope, not even close.

Also. not every team can afford that role, for starters, and it is honestly not a role you can build a side around. Which was what the OP posited.

 

[The Sean]

I hate when Flower gets mentioned in this context. Irrationally so. Probably fair enough to credit him for what he did but he was not a good keeper by any stretch.

I have the same reaction to Sangakkara being invoked - and I bloody love Sanga. But he was only the designated 'keeper for a third of his Tests, and when he kept he was neither as good a batsman nor as good a 'keeper as Gilly.

Now if you want to extol the virtues of Sangakkara the specialist batsman, go nuts - I'm right there with you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have the same reaction to Sangakkara being invoked - and I bloody love Sanga. But he was only the designated 'keeper for a third of his Tests, and when he kept he was neither as good a batsman nor as good a 'keeper as Gilly.

Now if you want to extol the virtues of Sangakkara the specialist batsman, go nuts - I'm right there with you.

Yeah people love numbers. They'll look at the career averages of Sanga and Flower, see that they were keepers, and the conclusion pretty much writes itself.

 

[Jack1]

Gilchrist was a fantastic odi batsman. People have an average fetish which hurts him in comparison to Dhoni. His role was to get out there and smash from ball one and there were few better at it than him. He'd make every odi team in history as opener even if he didn't keep. Not sure how you compare the two of them as batsmen in odis honestly. Id still stay Dhoni was better but Gilchrist was great in his own right.

And Dhoni was a decent enough batsman in tests (probably a tad underappreciated since avg 38 as a keeper is nothing to sniff at) but nowhere near anything you'd describe as "great".

k

 

[Daemon]

Not sure how you compare the two of them as batsmen in odis honestly. Id still stay Dhoni was better but Gilchrist was great in his own right.

It's not easy to compare roles, but there have been a lot more excellent openers in ODI cricket than finishers/lower-middle order batsmen.

Dhoni was at one point in the discussion for one of the top 3 ODI bats of all time before he slipped away and Kohli became truly dominant.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Gilchrist was a fantastic odi batsman. People have an average fetish which hurts him in comparison to Dhoni. His role was to get out there and smash from ball one and there were few better at it than him. He'd make every odi team in history as opener even if he didn't keep. Not sure how you compare the two of them as batsmen in odis honestly. Id still stay Dhoni was better but Gilchrist was great in his own right.

Rest of the post is correct but...no.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Are we giving them equal weightage? Even then Gilc


Rest of the post is correct but...no.

Name the teams. Most have had one great opener.

 

[stephen]

Are we giving them equal weightage? Even then Gilc


Rest of the post is correct but...no.

Which real, historical sides wouldn't Gilchrist have made as opener only?

 

[Spark]

The only two modern ODI teams that I can think of that had batting lineups as universally powerful as the peak 00s Aus one was 00s-10s India and current England. The latter can be dismissed out of hand as to whether you would avoid picking Gilchrist as a pure bat, but Sehwag is a more interesting conversation. I would guess that most people would still pick Gilchrist though. I think there isn't too much debate about whether he'd get into the mid-90s SL side, the early-90s Pakistan side, and it's almost impossible to properly compare any modern day player to 70s era ODIs. Even the great SA sides I think only had one great opener at any given point.