Clash of the titans, Dhoni vs Bevan

[Senile Sentry]

Have to disagree with the bolded part. That he stays not out is relevant because that allows him to play 44 balls in the first place. He can't possibly plan to get out on the last ball of the innings.

You miss the point. In ODIs resources are limited and staying not out at the cost of extra resources (read balls) might boost your average, but does not add much value to the team.

Dhoni = Bevan in terms of raw averages
Dhoni >>> Bevan in terms of runs/match
Dhoni >>>>>> Bevan in terms of SR
Dhoni >>> Bevan in terms of individual % of runs scored to that of the team's
Dhoni >>> Bevan in terms of SR as adjusted to their peers

There is really nothing Bevan is better than Dhoni in terms of batting first. As chasers, their records are comparable, but then again, Dhoni's is the superior one as I have demonstrated before

 

[Senile Sentry]

This is just so wrong it isn't funny.

Care to explain?

Batsman A goes in at the 36-37th over and scores a 44 ball 35 and stays not out.
Batsman B goes in at the same time, scores a 35 ball 35, gets out, and leaves another 9 balls for a fresh batsman to score another 9-10 runs.

As a captain which scenario would you prefer?

And how in the world can batsman A be called a better player than B because he ate up more resources and stayed not out?

 

[Spark]

Because generally speaking the things that kills you in chases is losing wickets, especially if you've already lost quite a few (which by definition you have if Bevan/Dhoni are in). The central imperative of a chasing top order batsman is to not get out, because that places far more pressure on the lower order than a high run rate.

This is fairly conventional stuff...

 

[Prince EWS]

Care to explain?

Batsman A goes in at the 36-37th over and scores a 44 ball 35 and stays not out.
Batsman B goes in at the same time, scores a 35 ball 35, gets out, and leaves another 9 balls for a fresh batsman to score another 9-10 runs.

As a captain which scenario would you prefer?

And how in the world can batsman A be called a better player than B because he ate up more resources and stayed not out?

Batsman A goes in with 1 ball remaining. He hits it for four and finishes on 4*.
Batsman B goes in with 20 overs remaining. He scratches around for a terrible innings of 5 before being cleaned bowled.

Your method would rate Batsman B's innings to be better/of more value. Which is absolute bull****, and far more ridiculous than counting, say, 30* and 20 the same as 50.

There's a reason we calculate averages like we do. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than runs/innings.

 

[ankitj]

more ridiculous than counting, say, 30* and 20 the same as 50.

Don't think that is ridiculous in a large sample and wider distribution, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Ikki]

His average was a product of staying not out at the end. He managed to stay not out because he did not go all out for runs. This reflected in a sub-par SR of 80 batting first, which was less than average of his peers. He "protected" his average at the cost of additional runs for his team.

Having more not-outs batting in the lower order is also hindered by having less chance to score more runs in an inning. Yet Bevan still contributed about as many runs as a Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist or Clarke did per innings. With the upside that he could stay rescue an innings if needed.

I am tired of saying this again and again, but have a look at the runs/innings for Bevan and Dhoni. For Dhoni it is 40, wheras for Bevan it is 35. In other words, in a typical ODI batting scenario, Bevan comes and scores 35 off 44 balls. Dhoni comes and blasts 40 off 43 balls. That Bevan managed to stay not out means nothing to the team.

It depends entirely on the situation.

And it is not as if Australia relied on Bevan for its runs either in the first dig. Bevan contributed about 13% of the total runs Australia scored batting first, whereas in Dhoni's case it is 15%.

I see, a gargantuan difference. Dhoni is, as you said, clearly better by miles.

Unsubstantiated argument still. It isn't as if Bevan played in the 70s or 80s. SRs haven't jumped leaps and bounds from the 90s to the 00s. Also a mere comparison with the SRs of their peers showed Bevan's SR was below average for even his "era'

The bolded is simply wrong.

Pretty sure you can check for yourself, but I am sure the team totals are much higher now and the SRs are dramatically better.

 

[Jager]

How do I change my vote? These arguments for Dhoni aren't too flashy

 

[Spark]

I don't have a problem with saying that Dhoni and Bevan are on a par at all, and as I said I'd have them both if at all possible, but I do have a problem with arguments either that completely misunderstand how chasing in ODIs work.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Because generally speaking the things that kills you in chases is losing wickets, especially if you've already lost quite a few (which by definition you have if Bevan/Dhoni are in). The central imperative of a chasing top order batsman is to not get out, because that places far more pressure on the lower order than a high run rate.

This is fairly conventional stuff...

We weren't talking chases here, but batting first.

 

[Spark]

My mistake. Nonetheless, much of the logic still applies.

 

[Senile Sentry]

The bolded is simply wrong.

Pretty sure you can check for yourself, but I am sure the team totals are much higher now and the SRs are dramatically better.

Average SR for 1-7 during Bevan - 73.33 - Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Average SR for 1-7 during Dhoni - 78.7 - Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

care to explain the gargauntan jump?

 

[Red]

Average SR for 1-7 during Bevan - 73.33 - Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Average SR for 1-7 during Dhoni - 78.7 - Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

care to explain the gargauntan jump?

Check average team score and run rate for their respective careers maybe...

 

[Senile Sentry]

Having more not-outs batting in the lower order is also hindered by having less chance to score more runs in an inning. Yet Bevan still contributed about as many runs as a Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist or Clarke did per innings. With the upside that he could stay rescue an innings if needed.

Not sure if Clarke ever played alongwith Bevan, but that's pedantic.

Besides, Waugh was a slow scorer and not really whom I rate as a ODI great. In tests he's a different beast and easily has claim to be the best or one of the best in the 90s.

Dhoni has played alongwith arguably India's greatest ODI batting lineup. He had the likes of Sehwag, Sachin, Gambhir, Kohli, Yuvraj etc, who were every bit explosive as they were prolific and yet managed to outscore and contribute in absolute terms to team totals, despite having to bat down.

 

[ankitj]

5.05 rpo against 4.77 rpo when batting first. A jump of 14 runs per 50 over in effect.

EDIT: Average is incredibly stable at 29.96 in each case. Of course that will change after just one more match.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Check average team score and run rate for their respective careers maybe...

Bevan - 239 (4.77 p.o)
Dhoni - 252 (5.05 p.o)

 

[Senile Sentry]

5.05 rpo against 4.77 rpo when batting first. A jump of 14 runs per 50 over in effect.

EDIT: Average is incredibly stable at 29.96 in each case. Of course that will change after just one more match.

A jump in SRs of about 6

But the difference in SRs of Bevan and Dhoni = 14

 

[ankitj]

Dhoni has a better SR, Bevan has better average. On balance they are quite close so you could pick either. I still stick with Bevan for doing it for tad longer and having more rounded record against most kind of attacks. There is no reason why Dhoni can't take over though.

----

In that comparison of eras, it's pretty interesting that the W/L ratio for teams batting first has come down from 1.01 to 0.88. From even stevens, to a definite tilt of balance in favour of batting second!

 

[Ikki]

Differences are probably several and varied. I'd say T20 has had an impact on batting. Flatter pitches, less great attacks, and in general I think batsmen have grown more adept at shot selection resulting in higher rates - same thing has happened in Tests to an extent.

I was talking about Mark Waugh FTR and I am fairly sure Clarke and Bevan did play together albeit not long.

 

[Senile Sentry]

So many T20s and burden of captaincy, not to mention the tonloads of cricket Dhoni had to say, in addition to the T20 leagues have probably only increased the load on Dhoni, not to mention his wicketkeeping.

Excuses.

 

[Migara]

A mental problem is something that about all quality batsmen deal with and eventually figure out and overcome when given enough chances. Bevan wasn't. It had nothing to do with his skill set.

mental skill is a part of skill set for sure. Psychiatry is a part of medicine FFS!

Can’t make argument when you don't listen to logic.

Lol!

And thinking a he played slower in the 2nd innings just for the sake of it or somehow lost ability to do that when he plays pretty aggressively in the 1st innings is just being obtuse.

What is obtuse is that you fail to notice that Dhoni was even faster in 1st innings. Can’t make argument when you don't listen to logic.

Plus assuming he could “finish in a flurry” in Bevan’s era by going for big hits without any powerplays is also biased thinking at best.

Ya! There were plenty of players who finished in a flurry despite having no power plays. Even when power plays are taken in to account by looking at the ER for the era they played, Dhoni scores faster than Bevan. Your argument falls flat on the face!

That just proves that you either just don't know what you are talking about or clearly have a biased agenda here. Just because they thrash around Sri Lanka like crazy doesn’t mean they are the best batting team ever.

Meh! Deserves a facepalm.

Bevan has had Ponting, Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hayden, Lehmann, and Symonds in his team. At best I would say they are equal even ignoring the fact that the same Indian batting has managed to look just pathetic a whole lot when they have toured South Africa, England, and Australia in recent times.

Meh! once more. India were finalists in SAF in 2003. And in sub continent on spinning pitches, Aussies were not too flashy as well.

If we are bringing results into this then it should be noted that Bevan’s overall strike was not a problem considering how many games he eventually led his team to a victory. He might not have gotten the job done a very few times but the same could be said about Dhoni. He’s gotten out before playing rash shots leaving his team in the same dilemma only with less wickets at hand.

Reason for vicories were not Bevan's batting, rather Aussie bowling. Simply, put Bevan in Indian team, and he will not win half the amount of matches he has won for Australia. Put Dhoni in Aussie team, he will win additional matches to what he wins for India than now.