Dhoni v Gilchrist

[Daemon]

Modern power openers like Roy are dead weight when their 350 par motorways and reserve bowlers are removed.

There's a reason a lot of test batsmen became so much more valuable in the wc and the wc final was a tie despite the statistics of the english batsmen. Roy especially had no answer to top tier bowling on the big stage. Was almost out first ball too.

Eh, I don't think the WC is the right example to use. 'Power' openers, whatever that means, like Bairstow, Roy and Finch all averaged 50 in the WC or thereabouts and were among the top run getters.

I don't think Roy's ATG like Jack7 does but it's not their fault they generally play in easier batting conditions. It can't be held against them that they dominate in the most predominant conditions they play in.

If you want to go down this line of reasoning, you could just as well argue that Gilchrist's marginal utility compared to some of these biffers couldn't possible have been that much higher in today's easier batting conditions, because it's not like he'd average 50 at 140 strike rate or something if he played now. What made him exceptional back then is that very few people were scoring at such rates.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There was pretty much nobody like Dhoni. Bevan might be close but peak Dhoni was like Bevan on steroids. Like Bevan he could get stuck at the crease, but unlike bevan's 1s and 2s, Dhoni would get a lot of boundaries with those 1s and 2s.

Hussey?
Buttler?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Eh, I don't think the WC is the right example to use. 'Power' openers, whatever that means, like Bairstow, Roy and Finch all averaged 50 in the WC or thereabouts and were among the top run getters.

I don't think Roy's ATG like Jack7 does but it's not their fault they generally play in easier batting conditions. It can't be held against them that they dominate in the most predominant conditions they play in.

If you want to go down this line of reasoning, you could just as well argue that Gilchrist's marginal utility compared to some of these biffers couldn't possible have been that much higher in today's easier batting conditions, because it's not like he'd average 50 at 140 strike rate or something if he played now. What made him exceptional back then is that very few people were scoring at such rates.

This is all shifting the goal posts a bit though. Point remains that Gilchrist was an exceptional ODI opening batsman. Other than Sachin there weren't any you'd say were definitely better than him. You had your Anwars, Gangulys and Waughs that averaged ~40 but scored much slower. His closest likeness would be Jayasuriya who had 3-4 run lower average than him.

 

[Daemon]

This is all shifting the goal posts a bit though. Point remains that Gilchrist was an exceptional ODI opening batsman. Other than Sachin there weren't any you'd say were definitely better than him. You had your Anwars, Gangulys and Waughs that averaged ~40 but scored much slower. His closest likeness would be Jayasuriya who had 3-4 run lower average than him.

I'm not disputing that. Jack7 bringing up how Gilchrist would fare in this era and then you bringing up how Bairstow and Roy would do back then is where the conversation started to veer off course. I was just replying to Flem's post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not disputing that. Jack7 bringing up how Gilchrist would fare in this era and then you bringing up how Bairstow and Roy would do back then is where the conversation started to veer off course. I was just replying to Flem's post.

Yeah I know, wasn't accusing you of doing it. Just responding to the shift of topic in general

 

[Spark]

We aren't really seriously discussing whether Jason Roy is an ATG based on stats alone rather than his record demonstrating just how massive the inflation in ODI totals has been since 2011, right?

 

[sunilz]

I would've been less confident about Matt Henry destroying India's top order in the 2019 semifinal if Gilchrist had been opening for them.

India wouldn't have made SF if we had Gilchrist instead of Dhawan/Sharma considering Gilchrist WC batting average is 20 points below both.

 

[Burgey]

India wouldn't have made SF if we had Gilchrist instead of Dhawan/Sharma considering Gilchrist WC batting average is 20 points below both.

He probably would have won you the KO game though, assuming you got there.

 

[sunilz]

He probably would have won you the KO game though, assuming you got there.

Only final to be precise which is phenomenal achievement in itself.

But players like Gilchrist/Sehwag are only useful if you have solid middle order ( See Warner in Tests)

 

[TheJediBrah]

But players like Gilchrist/Sehwag are only useful if you have solid middle order ( See Warner in Tests)

Don't know about "only" but it definitely helps

Reckon 00's Bangladesh wouldn't mind having Gilchrist or Sehwag instead of Javed Omar and wouldn't say they had a solid middle order

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Don't know about "only" but it definitely helps

Reckon 00's Bangladesh wouldn't mind having Gilchrist or Sehwag instead of Javed Omar and wouldn't say they had a solid middle order

Oh poooor Hannan Sarkar

 

[honestbharani]

I love AB but would never pick him as a keeper in an ODI team (amazing fielder and passable 6th/7th bowler). Likewise Sanga is my favourite non-NZ player, but Gilchrist was a much better ODI batsman.

I actually think Buttler is more likely to be picked ahead of MSD as a keeper-batsman than AB, Sanga, or QDK are to be ahead of Gilchrist.

I was talking about players who played while he was still playing. The next gen has obviously had even more such cases.

 

[sunilz]

Don't know about "only" but it definitely helps

Reckon 00's Bangladesh wouldn't mind having Gilchrist or Sehwag instead of Javed Omar and wouldn't say they had a solid middle order

If Sehwag / Gilchrist played for Bangladesh, they would have batted with more responsibility and their career record would be similar to Ganguly/Anwar/Waugh

 

[yabo101]

MSD

 

[Spark]

If Sehwag / Gilchrist played for Bangladesh, they would have batted with more responsibility and their career record would be similar to Ganguly/Anwar/Waugh

Doesn't Tamim basically contradict this?

But yeah I don't think Gilchrist would have quite batted with the same reckless abandon had he had less of a stacked middle order underneath him, but that's what was best for the team (which is ultimately what truly matters). Sehwag I don't think would have changed the way he bats for anyone, though. That's just who he was.

 

[sunilz]

Doesn't Tamim basically contradict this?

Please check batting strike rate of Tamim in ODI ?

 

[Spark]

Please check batting strike rate of Tamim in ODI ?

Fair point.

 

[honestbharani]

He was always considered a great of the format

I dont think so at all and assuming what he did was something no one before him did is silly too, AFAIC. And I am not sure if many honestly rated him as a "great" of the ODI format unless its a loose definition of the word.

Anyways, I have already stated why Dhoni is the clear choice given what the OP actually posited.

 

[honestbharani]

That's just who he was.

And it was obviously way less effective in ODIs.

 

[Spark]

Eh, I don't think the WC is the right example to use. 'Power' openers, whatever that means, like Bairstow, Roy and Finch all averaged 50 in the WC or thereabouts and were among the top run getters.

This is what I mean though: post-2011 ODI cricket is just fundamentally different in this regard to what came before, especially post-2014. It used to be that opening the batting was the most difficult task because you were subject to what we might call "normal" opening batting constraints, i.e. you had to see off early movement with the new ball. Now in 80% of ODIs there basically is no movement, and the fielding restrictions make it next to impossible to realistically stop runscoring without it on modern featherbed pitches, so it's unquestionably the easiest time to score extremely rapidly. Hence pretty much every top team has had extremely productive opening partnerships at one point or another over the last five years; it's a direct result of the era they're playing in.

There is no way that the likes of Roy, Guptill, Finch etc would have put up the sort of statistical output they did in, say, 2004 when the basic shape of ODI batting was fundamentally different and so much more weighted to platform-building for a big push rather than a full 50-over attack.

I dont think so at all and assuming what he did was something no one before him did is silly too, AFAIC. And I am not sure if many honestly rated him as a "great" of the ODI format unless its a loose definition of the word.

This is straight up revisionism. He scored 9000+ runs in his career in ODIs as one of the first picked members in a side that won basically everything, of course he was thought of as an ODI great at the time.