Gilchrist v Dhoni

[thierry henry]

Athlai's post would tend to suggest otherwise, no?

I definitely would've put #4 in the "top-order" category. Most of the players on Athlai's list are really top-order players.

 

[Xuhaib]

MSD is the 4th best ODI bat ever just behind VIV,Sachin and Bevan and when you add his WK and captaincy skills imo he becomes the best ever ODI player.

 

[Top_Cat]

I definitely would've put #4 in the "top-order" category. Most of the players on Athlai's list are really top-order players.

Haha, convenient. At a guess, I'd say most people would say 1-3 as 'top order' when asked.

 

[thierry henry]

Haha, convenient. At a guess, I'd say most people would say 1-3 as 'top order' when asked.

Well, I wouldn't.

Dhoni/Hussey/Bevan clearly play(ed) a different role than, say, Martin Crowe or Ramnaresh Sarwan.

The specific point I was trying to make is that players in that "late overs finisher" role rarely average HIGHER as a result of it, they usually average lower because of how often they get out cheaply hitting out.

Athlai's stats tend to suggest that the "not out" effect and the "hit out, get out" effect balance each other out more than I thought, although I'd be interested to see the stats with #4 in the other group.

TBH the only point I was really trying to make is that averaging 50-something as a primarily down the order player is much more rare than averaging mid-30s as an opener.

 

[bagapath]

i would have both in my all-time XI

tendulkar
gilchrist +
richards
bevan
dhoni
symonds
flintoff
pollock
akram
murali
garner

if have to choose only one i would go for gilchrist and replace dhoni with lara/pietersen/jones/ponting and shuffle the batting order a little bit. if dhoni maintains these numbers for a few more years, then he might edge out gilly (and jayasuriya or anwar would open with tendulkar)

 

[honestbharani]

If I've missed a very long and detailed explanation of this opinion that you've already given then I apologise, but I'd be interested to hear the thinking behind this. For Richards and Sobers as much as Gilchrist.

the simplest answer would be statsguru...

 

[honestbharani]

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?"

The fact that those "most people" were ones who have known far more about the game at the international level than any of us will ever do is one thing.


And for the other, see the post in my sig by Jack.. That, coming from a guy who is probably playing at a level most of us will never ever even be close to, suggests that there is more to cricket than statsguru, which is pretty much the only argument you guys have got with reg. to denigrating the greats of the game....

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Numbers tell you roughly what happened, quantitatively.. They never tell you the quality of what went on.. You can go on statsguru to compare two bowlers based on how many top order wickets they got.. But a Warne would never get as many opportunities as a Murali to have a go at the top order because he has got better pacemen bowling in his side than Murali has on his side... As Jack had said, no two batsmen or bowlers have EVER had to face or bowl deliveries with all other external factors being the same, EVER...


And that is why in cricket, trusting the numbers alone is the fallacy of the highest order and men who know nothing about the subtleties of the game, and don't care to know about the subtleties would place the highest premium on what is essentially the most unreliable way to judge players, the crude stats.......

 

[honestbharani]

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.

How are the numbers "unbiased"? The game itself is "biased" by the conditions and the quality of the players and the numbers are just a reflection of that... It is a reflection of how many runs the batsmen scored and how many wickets a bowler took.. It never differentiates between a shot that is edged and a shot that is middled... How is that EVER reliable??? Take the Tim Paine dismissal in the first ODI against India.. The ball was short and wide and of the sort he had put away for four during the first few overs.. But it juz bounced a trifle higher.. Did Ishant Sharma have any special skill that made THAT particular ball alone bounce half a centimetre higher? Paine went for the same cut shot that gave him runs earlier in the innings off the exact same kinda delivery and ended up nicking it to the keeper.. I am pretty sure the ball bouncing a trifle higher had nothing to do with Ishant Sharma's skill and the ball getting the nick had nothing to do with Paine's skill (or any lack of it, at least)... How and where do the stats account for this and the number of other times when the ball bounces even more of a trifle and ends up beating the bat?


Is there any real way for you to prove that stats like these DEFINITELY even out over the course of the game? When the most reliable tool's biggest error can only be explained by you people ASSUMING that stuff like these happen to everyone and even out, what is wrong in listening to opinions' of people who know MUCH MUCH more of the game and what it takes to be successful at the highest level?????



One of the worst things ever about CW is the constant denigration of the greats and the opinions of other ex-players simply because they decided to see beyond the crude stats alone........

 

[honestbharani]

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.

You do understand that TC does stats for a living and as such, a guy who knows much more about how stats work and what stats are reliable and what aren't.... And yet you claim to know more than him about stats in cricket... Well...

 

[Varun05]

Not much of a fair comparison here between Gilchrist and Dhoni.
Gilchrist has achieved much greater than Dhoni, and is hands down one of the greatest WK-Batsman. If Dhoni is able to carry out his current form and captaincy over the next few years then I think there will be a very close comparison between the two.

 

[thierry henry]

hb, you're a condescending twit. End.

 

[Ikki]

As SS said, even when you consider the not outs as outs of Dhoni, he averages more. The difference of 14 is plenty. Dhoni can rotate the strike in the middle overs and bludgeon it in the later overs. You have other explosive openers to replace Gilly but there is hardly a player like Dhoni (who is a wicket keeper as well) who has played ODI cricket. Over all Gilchrist>Dhoni at the moment but some would still pick Dhoni to make a stronger XI even right now. Bevan and Dhoni coming in later on is just mouth watering.

Yes, he does score more, but not much more. As I mentioned earlier, runs per innings Dhoni is 2 ahead, but Gilchrist's SR is 7 points superior so it more or less makes it even.

 

[honestbharani]

hb, you're a condescending twit. End.

ur sig should probably tell u who is condescending and who isn't... And the number of times I have seen you thrash some of the greats' achievements and other greats' opinions made me post this way. I may not have actively participated in the debates with you before but I have read enough to know that you have been exactly what you called me towards many of the game's greatest ever AND their opinions....

 

[Migara]

i would have both in my all-time XI

tendulkar
gilchrist +
richards
bevan
dhoni
symonds
flintoff
pollock
akram
murali
garner

if have to choose only one i would go for gilchrist and replace dhoni with lara/pietersen/jones/ponting and shuffle the batting order a little bit. if dhoni maintains these numbers for a few more years, then he might edge out gilly (and jayasuriya or anwar would open with tendulkar)

Jayasuriya has a huge shout in that XI (may be over Flintoff or Symonds), with McGrath over Garner.

 

[bagapath]

Jayasuriya has a huge shout in that XI (may be over Flintoff or Symonds), with McGrath over Garner.

not really. jayasuriya would make it only if he were to open the batting. with gilly also being a wk besides an equally devastating bat, he gets the nod. i dont think sanath will be as good down the order. i dont think he is an all-round batsman; but he is great at what he does best which is opening the batting. to get the best out of him, he needs to take on the fast bowlers when the ball is new with field restrictions in place. symonds and flintoff are excellent in the late overs. flintoff is also a full fledged allrounder and a great oneday bowler.

garner was much more effective than any other fast bowler in one day cricket. he is a must in any dream team. if mcgrath were to be taken in, that would be at the cost of pollock, since this team doesnt need his batting.

 

[Uppercut]

The fact that those "most people" were ones who have known far more about the game at the international level than any of us will ever do is one thing.


And for the other, see the post in my sig by Jack.. That, coming from a guy who is probably playing at a level most of us will never ever even be close to, suggests that there is more to cricket than statsguru, which is pretty much the only argument you guys have got with reg. to denigrating the greats of the game....

Numbers tell you roughly what happened, quantitatively.. They never tell you the quality of what went on.. You can go on statsguru to compare two bowlers based on how many top order wickets they got.. But a Warne would never get as many opportunities as a Murali to have a go at the top order because he has got better pacemen bowling in his side than Murali has on his side... As Jack had said, no two batsmen or bowlers have EVER had to face or bowl deliveries with all other external factors being the same, EVER...


And that is why in cricket, trusting the numbers alone is the fallacy of the highest order and men who know nothing about the subtleties of the game, and don't care to know about the subtleties would place the highest premium on what is essentially the most unreliable way to judge players, the crude stats.......

Paha. Love when people say something to the effect of, "stats don't tell the whole story", then take a condescending step back as if they've just said something fantastically profound. I don't know what you were responding to but I'm pretty sure it wasn't anything I said.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's a very interesting point, and an excellent post. Not something I'd ever thought about before, but thinking about it now I'd say my experiences would lead to a similar conclusion.

And it's certainly not restricted entirely to "OZ", though it may well be a stronger correlation there than elsewhere.

 

[Richard]

if have to choose only one i would go for gilchrist and replace dhoni with lara/pietersen/jones/ponting and shuffle the batting order a little bit. if dhoni maintains these numbers for a few more years, then he might edge out gilly (and jayasuriya or anwar would open with tendulkar)

Personally I'd go for Jayasuriya, Anwar and quite a few others over Gilchrist purely as a ODI opener. And if you have Dhoni in the team there's no need to pick Gilchrist for his wicketkeeping.

 

[Migara]

You can get Jaya to open and play Tendulkar at #4. You rarely find a player who can last 400 ODIs, score 10,000 runs and take 300 wickets in ODIs.