Gilchrist v Dhoni

[Ikki]

In the respect that Dhoni has scored runs at a better average, with a better strike rate and having a tangibly greater effect on the team's positive performances - but to simplify it to that would be absurd, I'd like to make clear.

The average is reliant on the scores made and the innings finished. That is the whole reason there is a debate here. Dhoni's positioning can give a whole other average with differing variables. The SR is just plain wrong; Gilchrist is notably superior in the SR range - regardless of position.

As for effect on a team, well that's almost purely subjective. When I see Dhoni holding a WC I'll consider it a discussion.

That is true, but to even look to extrapolate to the possible continuation of a knock cut short by the end of the innings would be to severely misunderstand the complex mental state which goes to completing a chase - something which would make such a task impossible.

I do not think that statistics are a suitable leveller here, there are so many and it is so hard to have one with credence over another. Here, the discussion should be toward an astatistical value judgement, imo.

In terms of astatistical value judgement, I think it is, or should be, pretty clear that Gilchrist is ahead. As a batsman Dhoni still has to put in more hard yards and maintain his scoring, and has to actually do it at the highest stage. As a WK, will need some improving before he can compare to Gilchrist.

 

[Ikki]

Ah yes, because staying till the end is irrelevent for a batsman. That's what all the coaches always tell players. As long as you do well, staying till the end is not important.

Staying till the end is very important, as long as you score runs. I'll take Gilchrist scoring 100 runs at a run a ball and getting out just fine. Because in the end, you need to score runs and doing it very fast will lead you to win: the most important thing.

 

[Ikki]

See closely. Don't pretend.

I don't see your point, nor did you understand mine.

 

[Sir Alex]

In successful chases of 250 or more, Dhoni averages 203.25 in 16 games (62.54 disregarding not outs) at SR of 111. Gilchrist averages 56.53 (50.57 disregarding notouts) at 111 in 19 such games for Australia.

Clearly Dhoni is more valuable when it comes to tough chases.

 

[Manee]

The average is reliant on the scores made and the innings finished. That is the whole reason there is a debate here. Dhoni's positioning can give a whole other average with differing variables. The SR is just plain wrong; Gilchrist is notably superior in the SR range - regardless of position.

Something like strike rate epitomises the futility of a statistical discussion as surely a strike rate is as valuable as the situation. Ie. the SR of a successfully completed chase (outside of a tournament) in which a batsman has played a substantial role can be modelled as infinite (not numerically, but valued as such) as one could not expect more, especially if the wicket was maintained.

As for effect on a team, well that's almost purely subjective. When I see Dhoni holding a WC I'll consider it a discussion

And what is wrong with a subjective discussion? You note that Dhoni's lack of a WC victory means that he has had little notable effect on the quality of his team. Very few people would agree with you on that, if any, and so that would be a reason renderred unsuitable for such a discussion. I am adamant that a subjective discussion can exist, even on these forums, to a reasonable level of intelligence.

In terms of astatistical value judgement, I think it is, or should be, pretty clear that Gilchrist is ahead. As a batsman Dhoni still has to put in more hard yards and maintain his scoring, and has to actually do it at the highest stage. As a WK, will need some improving before he can compare to Gilchrist.

Other than the 'highest stage' bit which I think refers to a World Cup, I'd agree with all of that above quote and this is my current position.

 

[Sir Alex]

What is your point?

I think that he is trying to state that if you ignore the not outs, the averages are:

Dhoni - 43.79
Gilchrist - 41.67
Aravinda - 40
Bevan - 38.33

 

[Manee]

In successful chases of 250 or more, Dhoni averages 203.25 in 16 games (62.54 disregarding not outs) at SR of 111. Gilchrist averages 56.53 (50.57 disregarding notouts) at 111 in 19 such games for Australia.

Clearly Dhoni is more valuable when it comes to tough chases.

Surely you can appreciate the distortion of a pure average from a not out at the end of a chase.

 

[Ikki]

Something like strike rate epitomises the futility of a statistical discussion as surely a strike rate is as valuable as the situation. Ie. the SR of a successfully completed chase (outside of a tournament) in which a batsman has played a substantial role can be modelled as infinite (not numerically, but valued as such) as one could not expect more, especially if the wicket was maintained.

If we were talking about Bevan or Hussey, I could see the use in the above point. But does Dhoni do anything like the aforementioned two and slow down play simply to score as the situation arises? To my knowledge, he strikes fast as much as possible. The same goes for Gilchrist.

And what is wrong with a subjective discussion? You note that Dhoni's lack of a WC victory means that he has had little notable effect on the quality of his team. Very few people would agree with you on that, if any, and so that would be a reason renderred unsuitable for such a discussion. I am adamant that a subjective discussion can exist, even on these forums, to a reasonable level of intelligence.

There's nothing wrong with subjective discussion. For instance, it may be completely subjective but to me the only thing that really counts in ODI are world cups with CTs off in the distance. It's all fine and well if you score well regularly ODIs, but I know a lot of people who won't give you the highest respect with regards to a sport unless it is achieved at the highest stage. Much like football (soccer). You will probably never be regarded as one of the best of all-time unless you win in a WC or do extremely well in them. Because those are the situations where the best teams come together to face each other at the highest stage of which plenty of pressure is on to win a title that can only be achieved every 4 years.

Other than the 'highest stage' bit which I think refers to a World Cup, I'd agree with all of that above quote and this is my current position.

Well, that's fine .

 

[silentstriker]

Ah yes, because staying till the end is irrelevent for a batsman. That's what all the coaches always tell players. As long as you do well, staying till the end is not important.

Haha, sarcasm detector son.

 

[Ikki]

I think that he is trying to state that if you ignore the not outs, the averages are:

Dhoni - 43.79
Gilchrist - 41.67
Aravinda - 40
Bevan - 38.33

He said "Now according to Ikki's stats Bevan is nowhere close to Dhoni, Gilchrist or even Aravinda de Silva when chasing down the scores"

Which couldn't be further from my thoughts nor did I imply Dhoni or Gilchrist were far from each other, either way. The reason I replied to your post in the first place is that averaging 124 is completely different to averaging 44 (when you do not count not-outs). So when you mentioned "even without not-outs" you should post the exact number so people can see how much above Gilchrist is.

I actually think it's impressive that Dhoni averages higher than Gilchrist without not-outs for I would have guessed the other way.

 

[Manee]

Haha, sarcasm detector son.

If that was referring to me, British humour detector would be more appropriate.

 

[Manee]

If we were talking about Bevan or Hussey, I could see the use in the above point. But does Dhoni do anything like the aforementioned two and slow down play simply to score as the situation arises? To my knowledge, he strikes fast as much as possible. The same goes for Gilchrist.

Definitely not, Dhoni often grinds out innings from the start and then accelerates. You'll seldom see Dhoni get out for 12 off 10 deliveries during a chase, you're more likely to see him depart for 4 off 20 balls. He most certainly does not strike fast as possible.

There's nothing wrong with subjective discussion. For instance, it may be completely subjective but to me the only thing that really counts in ODI are world cups with CTs off in the distance. It's all fine and well if you score well regularly ODIs, but I know a lot of people who won't give you the highest respect with regards to a sport unless it is achieved at the highest stage. Much like football (soccer). You will probably never be regarded as one of the best of all-time unless you win in a WC or do extremely well in them. Because those are the situations where the best teams come together to face each other at the highest stage of which plenty of pressure is on to win a title that can only be achieved every 4 years.

Even though it is subjective though, I'd still be in my rights to disagree with you (and that's what I'm going to do). To note the soccer analogy would be to miss the difference in that non tournament football matches are considered friendlies whereas this is not the case for cricket. Football matches against top teams tend to only happen in great abundance, in tournaments and this is also not the case for cricket. I've been reading a critical thinking book recently that, if I may put some of it into use, your analogy weakens the argument rather than strengthens it.

Well, that's fine .

 

[Sir Alex]

He said "Now according to Ikki's stats Bevan is nowhere close to Dhoni, Gilchrist or even Aravinda de Silva when chasing down the scores"

Which couldn't be further from my thoughts nor did I imply Dhoni or Gilchrist were far from each other, either way. The reason I replied to your post in the first place is that averaging 124 is completely different to averaging 44 (when you do not count not-outs). So when you mentioned "even without not-outs" you should post the exact number so people can see how much above Gilchrist is.

I actually think it's impressive that Dhoni averages higher than Gilchrist without not-outs for I would have guessed the other way.

Those numbers indeed have a point don't they Ikki? As Manee said it shows how deceptive averages can be. When one thinks about the best ODI batsmen during the 90s, Bevan would be in the top 3, but not necessarily Aravinda, provided you are not a Sri Lankan fan or an Aravinda fan. But I was surprised by Aravinda having a better runs/matches than Bevan in chases.

I guess we need to take a middling point here, it cannot be pure averages nor it can be runs/matches. Both are not exact indicators.

I think to assess the risk of a player we can use standard deviations and medians etc.

 

[Ikki]

Definitely not, Dhoni often grinds out innings from the start and then accelerates. You'll seldom see Dhoni get out for 12 off 10 deliveries during a chase, you're more likely to see him depart for 4 off 20 balls. He most certainly does not strike fast as possible.

Ok, must be my mistake. He always seemed to strike much faster than that in my mind.

Even though it is subjective though, I'd still be in my rights to disagree with you (and that's what I'm going to do). To note the soccer analogy would be to miss the difference in that non tournament football matches are considered friendlies whereas this is not the case for cricket. Football matches against top teams tend to only happen in great abundance, in tournaments and this is also not the case for cricket. I've been reading a critical thinking book recently that, if I may put some of it into use, your analogy weakens the argument rather than strengthens it.

It's fine to disagree there but friendlies do count in football. They count towards your world ranking just as ODI matches will do. And confederations play within and amongst themselves too, but still, the highest regard for players comes from performances in the WC.

 

[Ikki]

Those numbers indeed have a point don't they Ikki? As Manee said it shows how deceptive averages can be. When one thinks about the best ODI batsmen during the 90s, Bevan would be in the top 3, but not necessarily Aravinda, provided you are not a Sri Lankan fan or an Aravinda fan. But I was surprised by Aravinda having a better runs/matches than Bevan in chases.

I guess we need to take a middling point here, it cannot be pure averages nor it can be runs/matches. Both are not exact indicators.

I think to assess the risk of a player we can use standard deviations and medians etc.

I agree with this. Another thing you have to be careful when you take out these not-outs is how many of them were achieved and in which position. For example, 17 of Bevan's 67 not-outs come from positions 2, 3 and 4. The lower batting argument shouldn't exist for these scores, really.

 

[Manee]

Ok, must be my mistake. He always seemed to strike much faster than that in my mind.

Well, the raw strike rates end up high simply because he succeeds in turning 4 from 20 into 60 from 60 through his hockey like manipulation of the ball and the odd smashed boundary.

It's fine to disagree there but friendlies do count in football. They count towards your world ranking just as ODI matches will do.

Must concede that I did not know that. However, I feel that they still hold a far lower esteem in football due to their lower frequency and, some may argue, secondary nature (of friendlies, not the World Cup), in comparison to club football.

 

[Ikki]

Well, the raw strike rates end up high simply because he succeeds in turning 4 from 20 into 60 from 60 through his hockey like manipulation of the ball and the odd smashed boundary.

Ok.

Must concede that I did not know that. However, I feel that they still hold a far lower esteem in football due to their lower frequency and, some may argue, secondary nature (of friendlies, not the World Cup), in comparison to club football.

Well yes, that's kind of my point; it's all relative. In fact, friendlies have less value when calculating points in the Fifa ranking table as well.

Friendies < Friendly Tourneys (LG cup, etc) < Confederations cup (champions of each federation play each other) < Confed tourneys (European Cup, Copa America, etc) < World Cup.

That's why achievement in the highest valued tournament is more important than achievement in friendlies. You can actually argue the European cup is of similar difficulty (team-wise) to that of the World Cup but the prestige and the added pressure of winning a WC is almost incomparable. I think those reasons apply to cricket too.

 

[Sir Alex]

I agree with this. Another thing you have to be careful when you take out these not-outs is how many of them were achieved and in which position. For example, 17 of Bevan's 67 not-outs come from positions 2, 3 and 4. The lower batting argument shouldn't exist for these scores, really.

Good point.. Also notouts shouldn't be a factor for discounting scores above 35.

 

[Uppercut]

Good point.. Also notouts shouldn't be a factor for discounting scores above 35.

You could, if you so wished, remove not-out scores under 35 completely (simply counting them as outs would be even more grossly unfair) but I suspect it would make little difference to anyone's average.

 

[Sir Alex]

You could, if you so wished, remove not-out scores under 35 completely (simply counting them as outs would be even more grossly unfair) but I suspect it would make little difference to anyone's average.

That's an excellent point Uppercut. Yes, I will try to work out the statistics using that aspect.