Gilchrist v Dhoni

[The Sean]

I don't have a long and detailed explanation, more a long history of getting increasingly irritate by people mythologising these three players. You could add Lillee to the list as well I guess and maybe even Warne (and at least in Warne's case I actually saw his whole career).

In a nutshell, Lille, Warne, Richards= players who probably have 20 other players you could legitimately compare them to, yet often get held above said players for reasons I find inadequate.

Sobers= probably in the top 5 all-rounders ever but, again, no matter how hard I try I can't wrap my head around the logic that he was so much better than Imran/Miller/Kallis as to not even warrant comparison. People are particularly irritating when refusing to compare him to Kallis despite the similarity in their records being unique in cricket history.

Gilchrist= imo the most diabolically unwatchable biffer in an era of "supposedly average batsmen who benefitted from flat pitches", yet bizarrely in my estimation he gets more praise than almost all of his batting contemporaries despite having nearly the worst record and looking the least like a proper batsman.

Fair enough, there's not much to argue with any of that as it's all perfectly reasonable. One thing I would ask is how you view the thoughts and opinions of fellow cricketers, as well as those who have watched, written about and commentated on them close at hand? With the likes of Lillee, Richards and Warne, for example, the opinions from pretty much anyone and everyone who has played with and against them or viewed them closely is that they are a level above those around them, even if their raw numbers don't necessarily suggest this. Do you attribute any weight to this, particularly as the opinions are nearly universal, or think that this is just more evidence of judging players by their style rather than their substance?

 

[vic_orthdox]

No - the same do or a different one? If it was a second one, surely no one would have turned up again.

Same do. Actually, think I might've mentioned it on CW before.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...omestic-season-2007-08-a-172.html#post1507989 Indeed.

 

[The Sean]

Same do. Actually, think I might've mentioned it on CW before.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...omestic-season-2007-08-a-172.html#post1507989 Indeed.

Wow. How reliable is your source on that?

 

[Uppercut]

Fair enough, there's not much to argue with any of that as it's all perfectly reasonable. One thing I would ask is how you view the thoughts and opinions of fellow cricketers, as well as those who have watched, written about and commentated on them close at hand? With the likes of Lillee, Richards and Warne, for example, the opinions from pretty much anyone and everyone who has played with and against them or viewed them closely is that they are a level above those around them, even if their raw numbers don't necessarily suggest this. Do you attribute any weight to this, particularly as the opinions are nearly universal, or think that this is just more evidence of judging players by their style rather than their substance?

Haha, that's the point though, isn't it? You've essentially responded to "I think Player X is overrated by most people" with, "But doesn't the fact that most people think he's good make you change your mind?"

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wow. How reliable is your source on that?

A Victorian first class cricketer who played with Bevan at Manly.

 

[The Sean]

Haha, that's the point though, isn't it? You've essentially responded to "I think Player X is overrated by most people" with, "But doesn't the fact that most people think he's good make you change your mind?"

No not all all, I'm not asking if it changes his mind nor am I trying to - but I am curious to know TH's (or anyone else's, for that matter) thoughts on why it might be that so many people who should know what they're taling about think about certain players in a certain way despite what the numbers may say.

 

[Uppercut]

No not all all, I'm not asking if it changes his mind nor am I trying to - but I am curious to know TH's (or anyone else's, for that matter) thoughts on why it might be that so many people who should know what they're taling about think about certain players in a certain way despite what the numbers may say.

Personally, I'm inclined to trust numbers more than contemporary opinions. Both are worth looking at, no doubt, but for me how many wickets someone takes or runs they score comes first. The human mind is a notoriously unreliable tool.

An example which may interest you is that of Ray Lindwall- thought by so many at the time to be the best bowler in the world, while the figures put him quite comfortably behind the likes of Trueman. Now, Lindwall took 98 of his 228 test wickets "bowled". That's got to have an impact on onlookers, right? You just see stumps flying left, right and centre, and you've got to be impressed. I'm much more inclined to trust figures.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh hell yeah. But you do feel sometimes- or rather, I feel, and thierry henry generally agrees with me- that the players who score bucketloads of runs but don't impress quite so much are getting a bit of a raw deal. Greg Chappell, perhaps?

In OZ at least, reckon the number of plaudits a bloke gets is directly proportional to how far they're prepared to play outside their 'natural game' (whatever that is). A bloke like Kallis/G Chappell, you know exactly what you get with them so the team plays around that. You'd never bother to ask JK to go out and have a slog before a declaration, for example nor imagine G Chappell ramping Andy Roberts over the 'keeper. Ian Chappell, on the other hand, is rated very highly because he was more prepared to change his game to suit the circumstances of the team.

It's why I reckon Gilly's so highly rated. Really, his batting evolved the in the opposite fashion to someone like Dhoni; started off as a bloke known for some heavy hitting but preferred, in between the 6's, to just place the ball around. After a while he was given the opportunity to open in ODI's (don't think he ever did for WA before playing for OZ) and the wrecking-ball was born which, really, wasn't ever his natural game unless he was in for a long time and in good touch or given a license to slog. Problem with that style of play is that sometimes it comes off, a lot of the time it doesn't. So his record takes a hit but, because he was prepared to do it for the team, gets more credit. Mark Waugh gets similar credit. So despite averaging significantly less than others of his time, Gilly gets the bouquets because of the perceived selflessness of it.

Again, speaking generally and mainly of OZ, but I think guys who find a groove and get awesome at it just aren't as respected as much as guys who play according to the needs of the team. Glenn McGrath vs Dennis Lillee, for example. Steve Waugh vs AB, Justin Langer vs Mark Taylor, Viv vs Chappell, etc. Certain players are a bit beyond it because they're just guns but a lot of the time, this is what happens.

 

[thierry henry]

Fair enough, there's not much to argue with any of that as it's all perfectly reasonable. One thing I would ask is how you view the thoughts and opinions of fellow cricketers, as well as those who have watched, written about and commentated on them close at hand? With the likes of Lillee, Richards and Warne, for example, the opinions from pretty much anyone and everyone who has played with and against them or viewed them closely is that they are a level above those around them, even if their raw numbers don't necessarily suggest this. Do you attribute any weight to this, particularly as the opinions are nearly universal, or think that this is just more evidence of judging players by their style rather than their substance?

When any thread in cricket chat gets any substance to it it generally ends up in this exact argument about "stats vs general opinion".

I really appreciate the fact that you can take my opinions for what they are and not turn it in to a petty slanging match (which is usually the case) but I'm really just going over old stuff. I'm one of those posters who I guess has been branded with the "only cares about stats and therefore is not worth listening to" label.

It simply strikes me as self-evident that the factual number of runs scored/wickets taken v runs conceded, etc, is by far the most definitive and unbiased source of information about a cricketer's actual performances. Cricket is a game where results and successes are defined by an accumulation of numbers. The opinions of watchers or players are swayed so much by extraneous things that I fail to see how they can compare to "statistics" as a valid measure of a player's contribution.

And I suppose perhaps that's a key point- imo it doesn't matter how "good" a player was, but how good his actual contribution was.

 

[Top_Cat]

And I suppose perhaps that's a key point- imo it doesn't matter how "good" a player was, but how good his actual contribution was.

Your definition of 'contribution' will differ to others. Hence, the debates go on......

 

[thierry henry]

Your definition of 'contribution' will differ to others.

I really struggle to see how.

You can't win cricket games with anything other than runs/wickets/lack of runs conceded.

 

[Top_Cat]

I really struggle to see how.

You can't win cricket games with anything other than runs/wickets/lack of runs conceded.

Not all runs and wickets are equal. By your logic, a ton against Bangladesh = a ton against OZ. Going further, cricket data provides zero context for runs/wickets. They aren't scientific data and should not be treated as such.

 

[thierry henry]

Not all runs and wickets are equal. By your logic, a ton against Bangladesh = a ton against OZ.

No, that's not my logic at all.

All I'm saying is that cricket is entirely, 100%, defined by runs and wickets.

There's no connection between saying that, and saying that all runs and wickets are equal.

 

[thierry henry]

Going further, cricket data provides zero context for runs/wickets.

Sure it does. It's possible to go back and look individually at every score a player made, who the opposition was, what score he came in at, what bowlers he faced...the detail available for analysis is endless.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sure it does. It's possible to go back and look individually at every score a player made, who the opposition was, what score he came in at, what bowlers he faced...the detail available for analysis is endless.

Yeah but you're defining the worth of a player/performance on the basis of quite macro-level data. You can use it as a general guide but not as definitive evidence of who's better. It's not useless but for serious, detailed analysis/rankings, even if the difference between players are great, context and caveats are always needed.

 

[NUFAN]

Dhoni averaging an awesome 78 and SR 100 in Indian wins, absolutely awesome.

I can see the majority would pick Gilchrist though as Dhoni had only made 28 runs ave 9.33 in World Cup matches and 89 runs at 22.25 in Champions Trophy. So far he underperforms on the big stage, pretty small data though as this stage.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah but you're defining the worth of a player/performance on the basis of quite macro-level data. You can use it as a general guide but not as definitive evidence of who's better. It's not useless but for serious, detailed analysis/rankings, even if the difference between players are great, context and caveats are always needed.

I rarely try to make "definitive" statements anyway.

My bugbear is actually with those who make "definitive" statements based on "what they saw" when two players have decidedly similar records even when said records are subject to a high level of scrutiny and contextualisation.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah but you're defining the worth of a player/performance on the basis of quite macro-level data. You can use it as a general guide but not as definitive evidence of who's better. It's not useless but for serious, detailed analysis/rankings, even if the difference between players are great, context and caveats are always needed.

Also, I think when you say something like that, you're basically saying that it's impossible to judge a player on "contribution" at all. Given that every single ball has its own unique "context" it would probably take a lifetime's study to compare even two players properly.

If that's true then we might as well stop talking cricket altogether.

 

[Furball]

Just a point on "averages in ODI cricket for middle-order batsmen"- there seems to be an assumption that Bevan/Hussey/Dhoni's averages don't count because of all of the not-outs.

Given that these three are damn near the only players in ODI history to have their averages boosted by this phenomenon, I daresay there's a little more to it than that.

I'm not saying they don't count, I'm saying that generally speaking averaging 40 in the top order is vastly different to averaging 40 in the middle order.

 

[Top_Cat]

I rarely try to make "definitive" statements anyway.

My bugbear is actually with those who make "definitive" statements based on "what they saw" when two players have decidedly similar records even when said records are subject to a high level of scrutiny and contextualisation.

Exactly, that's why neither first-person account nor cricket statistics in isolation cut it. You need both. Even then, a measure of circumspection about your conclusions is necessary.