Gilchrist v Dhoni

[silentstriker]

Yea, I don't think there is even a remote comparison when talking about Test matches. Gilchrist easily makes my all time Test XI.

 

[Athlai]

social was talking about how Gilchrist was on a different plane to Dhoni - I was saying that is indeed the case in Test cricket but anything of Test cricket is irrelevant to comparing the two in ODIs.

Seems completely irrelevant to what social said though? He just said "Gilchrist is one of the greaters players in the history of the game" he didn't say Test player.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist is only one of the greatest players in the history of the game because of his Test exploits (given that "great player" generally means "great Test player"). If he'd never played a Test and only had a career in ODIs he'd be regarded merely as a good ODI specialist.

It's as ODI players that we're comparing them, so whether one is one of the greatest Test players ever is irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

It was comparison as a 5th bowling option.

Hmm, seems a strange thing to do TBH. Harris to me was a fourth\fifth bowler (quite capable of being either), Jayasuriya for most of his career has been a sixth.

 

[Athlai]

Gilchrist is only one of the greatest players in the history of the game because of his Test exploits (given that "great player" generally means "great Test player"). If he'd never played a Test and only had a career in ODIs he'd be regarded merely as a good ODI specialist.

It's as ODI players that we're comparing them, so whether one is one of the greatest Test players ever is irrelevant.

In terms of ODI wicket keepers he is certainly 'great' though?

 

[bagapath]

Gilchrist is only one of the greatest players in the history of the game because of his Test exploits (given that "great player" generally means "great Test player"). If he'd never played a Test and only had a career in ODIs he'd be regarded merely as a good ODI specialist.

no. he averaged 35+ @90+SR. scored 10+ centuries as an opener. and consistently delivered in big games. he also seldom looked foolish as a wk and in fact broke the world record for dismissals. purely as an ODI player, he is an all time top 10 cricketer.

 

[Furball]

I don't neccessarily think so. I think there are others who could do as good a job as Tendulkar in the Powerplays and that the most important time to have him was in the middle overs, because there are precious few with his skill to a) work the ball around and b) manufacture (or pinpoint-place) boundaries with the field back.

As I say, having Tendulkar open is never a decision that I'll decry, but it's certainly not an absolute must in my book.

No opener in the history of the game comes close to what Tendulkar averages as an opener.

Only Sehwag, Afridi, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya have scored their runs faster than Tendulkar.

Generally speaking, you want your openers to be capable of scoring either big runs to aid the side's total, or score quick runs in the Powerplays. Tendulkar is a master at both.

To put it in perspective, only 3 openers in the history of the game to date have averaged over 40 and struck at over 80 - Tendulkar, Graeme Smith, and Chris Gayle. Tendulkar's average and strike rate are at least 5 or 6 points higher than Smith and Gayle's.

Tendulkar is statistically miles ahead of any other opener to have played the game.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah but you said and I quote:


I was pointing out that he did score more runs against the weaker teams until the final. Before the final against the non-weaker teams he scored 109 @ 18.17. So figuratively they did plop out against the weaker teams. And if you really want to take out his failures against New Zealand and the West Indies (which you really shouldn't) he scored 107 @ 26.75.

He did not score "consistently throughout" "regardless of who he was playing".
He scored "consistently throughout" against "weaker teams".

He scored consistently throughout regardless, of which two of the times he failed to get a half-decent score one team was not that strong and the other match was irrelevant. The rest are fine and all his scores across the WC are pretty decent. You seem to discount the other teams so that leaves his matches against Sri Lanka, England (who aren't hot shakes either) and S.Africa (5 matches) of which he averages 50.

Anyway, this is silly and tedious at the same time. Let's agree to disagree or whatever.

 

[Richard]

In terms of ODI wicket keepers he is certainly 'great' though?

Beyond question, but so is Dhoni. Gilchrist is only a cricketing great because of his deeds in Test cricket, something Dhoni is exceptionally unlikely to ever approach.

 

[Richard]

no. he averaged 35+ @90+SR. scored 10+ centuries as an opener. and consistently delivered in big games. he also seldom looked foolish as a wk and in fact broke the world record for dismissals. purely as an ODI player, he is an all time top 10 cricketer.

There is no such thing as a cricketer who is a top-ten player based on ODIs. Best-ever cricketers are based on Tests, simple as - almost all true connoisseurs of the game acknowledge that. Gilchrist was indeed a good ODI batsman and a more than acceptable wicketkeeper, but it's not that that makes him one of the best cricketers in history - it's the fact that he's very probably the best Test wicketkeeper-batsman there's ever been.

 

[Ikki]

Oh, so when Bevan is not out, it was because it was needed. When Dhoni is not out, well, it's just, well because he just did.

I've watched Bevan a tonne more than Dhoni so I can't really comment about the manner of his not-outs so much. But Bevan saved our asses when it was held by a string and also did it at the highest stage on a consistent basis.

Frankly, I find the fact that you're somewhat annoyed funny. Bevan is a legend and his average is only an afterthought when people usually discuss him. Usually average is brought up more with Viv or Sachin. If you're comparing him to Dhoni, you should list the many innings comparable to Bevan's.

Just took a glance at both records, look at their averages at positions 5, 6 and 7, Dhoni doesn't average that well at all compared to Bevan.

 

[Richard]

No opener in the history of the game comes close to what Tendulkar averages as an opener.

That isn't the point. The point is that as a Powerplay batsman (which is the principal purpose of openers) many have equalled and even surpassed Tendulkar - sometimes even his own partners Ganguly and Sehwag.

Tendulkar's average as an opener reflects the number of times he's both batted well in Powerplays and followed this up with middle-over excellence. The middle-over excellence would result from both batting four and opening; the excellence in Powerplays would by-and-large result only from opening. But it was middle-over excellence that set Tendulkar apart, not Powerplay excellence.

There are no stats that can be used to disprove the point I'm making, because such stats are not compiled and kept in the public eye. The only way to know is to have watched Tendulkar and other excellent openers bat.

 

[Shri]

Maybe getting his eye in in the first few overs of a match(i.e opening) in fact made him that good in the middle overs?

 

[Richard]

I've heard people use that one before and it's clutching at straws at best IMO. It doesn't take 15 overs to get your eye in - a batsman of Tendulkar's calibre can do it in a few deliveries.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist is only a cricketing great because of his deeds in Test cricket.

You're right, Nick Knight is better.

 

[Richard]

Not as a Test batsman he isn't - if Gilchrist was as poor a Test batsman as Knight he'd not have all that much of a rep, same way Knight (a superior ODI batsman to Gilchrist) doesn't.

 

[Furball]

That isn't the point. The point is that as a Powerplay batsman (which is the principal purpose of openers) many have equalled and even surpassed Tendulkar - sometimes even his own partners Ganguly and Sehwag.

Tendulkar's average as an opener reflects the number of times he's both batted well in Powerplays and followed this up with middle-over excellence. The middle-over excellence would result from both batting four and opening; the excellence in Powerplays would by-and-large result only from opening. But it was middle-over excellence that set Tendulkar apart, not Powerplay excellence.

There are no stats that can be used to disprove the point I'm making, because such stats are not compiled and kept in the public eye. The only way to know is to have watched Tendulkar and other excellent openers bat.

There are 2 principal purposes of openers:

Anchor an innings and score big.
Tee off in the Powerplays and get your side off to a flier.

Tendulkar is perfectly capable of doing both. No other opener in the history of the game has put the sort of numbers up Tendulkar has, be it runs, centuries or average - and precious few have bettered his strike rate.

IMO, it would be a waste of such a superemely talented player to bring him at 4. Tendulkar in an all time side simply must open.

The reason I put Gilchrist alongside him in my all time ODI side is because I want one opener who can tee off and one who will score big. IMO, no-one has bettered Gilchrist in the "teeing off" role.

 

[silentstriker]

I've watched Bevan a tonne more than Dhoni so I can't really comment about the manner of his not-outs so much. But Bevan saved our asses when it was held by a string and also did it at the highest stage on a consistent basis.

Frankly, I find the fact that you're somewhat annoyed funny. Bevan is a legend and his average is only an afterthought when people usually discuss him. Usually average is brought up more with Viv or Sachin. If you're comparing him to Dhoni, you should list the many innings comparable to Bevan's.

Just took a glance at both records, look at their averages at positions 5, 6 and 7, Dhoni doesn't average that well at all compared to Bevan.

I never compared Bevan and Dhoni, except to say that you're not being consistent in your analysis of the two. I am annoyed not by the fact that I consider them equal as batsman (because I don't), but by people's inconsistency when dealing with a player they prefer, vs. a one they don't.

 

[Ikki]

I never compared Bevan and Dhoni, except to say that you're not being consistent in your analysis of the two. I am annoyed not by the fact that I consider them equal as batsman (because I don't), but by people's inconsistency when dealing with a player they prefer, vs. a one they don't.

If you're talking about me, how can you say I am being inconsistent when I never cared nor gave undue importance with regards to Bevan's average?

Anyway, it seems as even a finisher he has some way to get to Bevan's average.

 

[aussie]

Vaas, Malinga, Thushara, Murali, Mendis, Jayasuriya. There are at least 4 - 5 big names (depending the way you judge Malinga)

And few years back NZ had: Bond, Tuffey, Cairns, Vettori and fwe medium pacers.

Bullet, yea that SRI attack would be superb. But looking at Vaas was he still at his peak in this attack?.