West Indies weren't a minnow and Australia just love losing to New Zealand. Of course he wasn't carried to the final, he was Adam friggin Gilchrist and was Australia's best keeper. Yet he was not consistent. 3 failures and 3 starts against the top teams.
Jaya as the better average. Harris has the better economy. Harris bowled in the middle. Jaya was a death bowler 1995-2000 time. I would put them same with economy. Jayasuriya better bowler.Why would I have been talking about Paul Harris who you hadn't mentioned at all instead of the player from NZ you highlighted.
Wickets are irrelevant as you have already noted he did play 400 ODI's to Harris' 250
The Average and Economy would be the stats way to fight this out and Harris economy rate is far far superior.
Jayasuriya by a fair bit the better batsman
Harris better bowler
Harris better fielder
Both equally awesome in terms of old men running around on the cricket field like young men.
He had just as many successes against the "top teams" in the same tourney. LOL, unbelievable, the guy averages 38 strikes amazing throughout the tournament, doesn't beef up against any minnow, scores a decent amount throughout every match almost...and practically wins the final by himself yet is not consistent.
The Windies finished about as low as Ireland. Ireland beat up Pakistan to the final group stage. Ditto Bangladesh for India. 
Na Harris would roll his arm at the end at times too, and at the very least they were equals.
Hey look you are bringing back the minnows into the argument to boost how Gilly went!He had just as many successes against the "top teams" in the same tourney. LOL, unbelievable, the guy averages 38 strikes amazing throughout the tournament, doesn't beef up against any minnow, scores a decent amount throughout every match almost...and practically wins the final by himself yet is not consistent.
You don't usually play top teams until the finals in the WC, or have you not watched one before? He scored 42 against S.Africa and 30 against Sri Lanka in the prelims. He then scored 149 in the final. So you have 0 case. Especially when one of the "top teams" you are bringing forth are the West Indies and the other a non-event against New Zealand.
No one said Gilchrist was superlative throughout, but at the very least he was consistent. Anyway...
Yeah but you said and I quote:You don't usually play top teams until the finals in the WC, or have you not watched one before? He scored 42 against S.Africa and 30 against Sri Lanka in the prelims. He then scored 149 in the final. So you have 0 case. Especially when one of the "top teams" you are bringing forth are the West Indies and the other a non-event against New Zealand.
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.
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.
Bevan gets a bit of an aura about him because of the times that he got not-out when single handedly saving Australia. In the end though, it was probably less than 10 times that that was the case. He had plenty of not outs like the ones that Dhoni has had in recent times, 35-60 not out at the end of an innings where the team has batted first.
Tbf to Dhoni, he is one of the most extraordinarily successful batsman, for his team, in modern memory.
Well said. But again not surprised to see the source.
The ODI game they played was so very different to the one those of the 1990s and 2000s played that it really is pretty pointless trying to combine the two. I'm happy to leave players who excelled at one game and players who excelled at another in different categories, and pick one team for the 1970s and 1980s and another for the 1990s and 2000s.
I don't consider any of the aforementioned particularly good at all. Yes Rana may have had a brief period of getting heaps of wickets in spite of mostly being smashed but that was never going to last.
Because Gilchrist is merely a decent wicketkeeper. Many have been better at glovework than him.
I'm not denying that. I'm saying that Bevan, with a couple of the best innings in ODI history in that situation, can get looked back at with rose-tints at times, when there isn't that much separating him and Dhoni at this time.
Fix'd.
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.
It was comparison as a 5th bowling option.
