Dhoni Vs Gilchrist in ODIs.

[Bun]

in matches chased and won, 52 of them, dhoni avgs 100 plus wit6 sr of 90, in unsuccessful chases the avg plummets to lower 20s....

for gilly its like 46 and 27.

no question who's innings have had higher weightage in determining his team's success....

 

[Bun]

IIRC Dhoni had been rather meh for quite a while up until the WC Final? Before that he was probably the world's best ODI bat though.

2010 hasnt been too kind, avgs in lower thirties, but most teams wud gladly take that from a lower order bat and keeper I think....

 

[ankitj]

IIRC Dhoni had been rather meh for quite a while up until the WC Final? Before that he was probably the world's best ODI bat though.

Yes, for about an year he was ordinary. Won 2 consecutive "ICC ODI player of the year" awards before that. As Himmanv said he has been holding himself a bit recently which I really think he shouldn't.

 

[Howe_zat]

Performing in big games isn't really to do with nerves because that evens out among all the players on the field. The only time when you're mentally (for want of a better word) having a tough time is when your side is in a hole.

Big games do make a difference though, because they're the only times when it really counts, and so the only time you can guarantee both sides are at full strength. This is particularly true of ODIs, where we're now used to sides changing around their first XI to just about anything if it's not a World Cup or series-deciding match.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Although Zaheer Abbas in all all time ODI 11 is laughable when you bring other players into th equation. He won't make it a Pakistan ODI all time-11,let alone a world all time-11.

Why do you say so? Many people, myself included, regard Zaheer as one of the all-time great one-day batsmen. What shortcomings do you perceive in his approach/record in ODIs?

 

[ankitj]

Performing in big games isn't really to do with nerves because that evens out among all the players on the field. The only time when you're mentally (for want of a better word) having a tough time is when your side is in a hole.

Big games do make a difference though, because they're the only times when it really counts, and so the only time you can guarantee both sides are at full strength. This is particularly true of ODIs, where we're now used to sides changing around their first XI to just about anything if it's not a World Cup or series-deciding match.

Fair enough. That's a separate discussion anyway.

I however demand evidence from TumTum on both his assertions - Gilchrist destroys good fast bowlers and Glichrist performs in big games more often.

 

[weldone]

Big games do make a difference though, because they're the only times when it really counts, and so the only time you can guarantee both sides are at full strength. This is particularly true of ODIs, where we're now used to sides changing around their first XI to just about anything if it's not a World Cup or series-deciding match.

This is a brilliant point.

 

[marc71178]

in matches chased and won, 52 of them, dhoni avgs 100 plus wit6 sr of 90, in unsuccessful chases the avg plummets to lower 20s....

for gilly its like 46 and 27.

no question who's innings have come in at the end of the innings and thus remained not out

Fixed for you.

 

[Bun]

Fixed for you.

u r late by a lot of pages.. the myth of not outs is already debunked....

 

[marc71178]

Not when chasing and winning. Dhoni's 100 average there is very much due to his not outs, which comes from where he bats in comparison to Gilchrist - excluding them the average drops to 42.

 

[ankitj]

If he had not remained not out in many of those matches, his team wouldn't have won many of those games. Number of not outs says more good things about a batsman than bad.

FTR, though, I don't think averages in wins is a good statistic to look at. Wins is a post-facto filter and cannot be used to judge one's match winning ability. Good performances affect wins, and not other way round which is what is revealed by this statistic. Besides, any team wins more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions, therefore applying this filter skews the sample the wrong way. Simply the average while chasing (or while chasing a score >250) is what will interest me more, irrespective of the outcome.

 

[Uppercut]

Performing in big games isn't really to do with nerves because that evens out among all the players on the field. The only time when you're mentally (for want of a better word) having a tough time is when your side is in a hole.

Big games do make a difference though, because they're the only times when it really counts, and so the only time you can guarantee both sides are at full strength. This is particularly true of ODIs, where we're now used to sides changing around their first XI to just about anything if it's not a World Cup or series-deciding match.

Putting too much weight on performances in big games is by far the more common error. It's done naturally, because the high-profile performances are what sticks in the mind. But when people try to incorporate it analytically it just results in a samplesizelol, especially in ODIs because there are almost no games that actually matter. It's really hard to push a meaningful argument based on two or three observations in a sample of a few hundred innings.

We had this argument a year or so ago and IIRC I was making the case for Dhoni. Part of my point was that, as good as Gilchrist's '07 WC final knock was, Australia would have been nowhere near the final had the rest of their team played the way Gilchrist had in the rest of the tourney. It's funny how snugly that qualifier now fits with Dhoni too.

 

[Uppercut]

Not when chasing and winning. Dhoni's 100 average there is very much due to his not outs, which comes from where he bats in comparison to Gilchrist - excluding them the average drops to 42.

The reason Dhoni is "not out" at the end is usually because India have won the game. From memory I think he's been not out in a losing cause once in his career. Maybe twice.

Don't know if you can really hold that against him, it is kinda the whole point .

 

[Howe_zat]

Putting too much weight on performances in big games is by far the more common error. It's done naturally, because the high-profile performances are what sticks in the mind. But when people try to incorporate it analytically it just results in a samplesizelol, especially in ODIs because there are almost no games that actually matter. It's really hard to push a meaningful argument based on two or three observations in a sample of a few hundred innings.

We had this argument a year or so ago and IIRC I was making the case for Dhoni. Part of my point was that, as good as Gilchrist's '07 WC final knock was, Australia would have been nowhere near the final had the rest of their team played the way Gilchrist had in the rest of the tourney. It's funny how snugly that qualifier now fits with Dhoni too.

I wasn't seriously arguing that you should only look at World Cup stats, tbh I don't think I've ever taken a stat particularly seriously. Like you said, the sample size is awful.

I was just saying that it's a point worth remarking on that "big games" as a decider can work in ODIs because you can't guarantee that a team had its best side out in random-match-#493. At the same time, you can't guarantee that they didn't.

In a way, I was trying to point out some of the flaws in using stats for ODIs entirely.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha yeah, ODI stats are terribad. If ODIs had developed organically without tests I don't think stats would be a part of cricketing culture at all.

I was really just mentioning that in my experience, it's more common for people to overvalue the big game knock than undervalue it.

 

[Teja.]

ODI stats are even worse to judge bowlers.

Test stats are not close to perfect either but provide a reasonably sound guide if used with care, effort and reason.

 

[ankitj]

ODI stats are even worse to judge bowlers.

Test stats are not close to perfect either but provide a reasonably sound guide if used with care, effort and reason.

AWTA

Test bowling stats are most analyzable; ODI bowling stats, the least. The batting stats in two formats fall in between.

 

[GIMH]

I'd say Test batting stats are the most reliable, personally.

 

[Uppercut]

Test batting is definitely the most difficult of the four to assess without stats.

 

[Furball]

The reason Dhoni is "not out" at the end is usually because India have won the game. From memory I think he's been not out in a losing cause once in his career. Maybe twice.

Don't know if you can really hold that against him, it is kinda the whole point .

Marc's point was still correct, as Bun's point was badly worded and implied that Dhoni basically hits tons every time India chase successfully.