Dhoni's amazing ability to 'finish' games.

[Contra]

With Dhoni, he gets out trying to play a more aggressive shot at times. If he is there, he will win you games. .

This is the first time I've seen someone criticize Dhoni for playing aggressive shots lol. If anything he's perhaps not aggressive enough with the kind of shots he plays until the very end.

 

[Pratters]

Err, Contra, keep in mind I am comparing with Bevan who was a lower risk player. Bevan almost never played risky shots.

 

[Pratters]

Dhoni played in an era where an average of 40 in ODIs was considered great. Today, that is 45+

Dhoni v Bevan in second innings of games:

Batting Average

MSD 53.3
Bevan 56.5

What really separates Bevan from any other player was the chancelessness. Bevan hit only 9 sixes in the second innings in ODIs. He was unique. As a comparison, Klusener hit 43 sixes in 20 less innings.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Having watched a lot of Bevan and Dhoni, Bevan's analyses of the game situation was extraordinary. He would keep taking singles, twos and threes. Then, he would hit that calculated, almost, four, where it was needed. His innings didn't have much risk in them.

With Dhoni, he gets out trying to play a more aggressive shot at times. If he is there, he will win you games. However, he is not always there. With Bevan, one was certain, he will be there 9 times out of 10 and win it for you more often than not.

What is the average of the innings scores chased by them? You've got one man chasing after McGrath and co have bowled, in an era where 300 was a rarity, and the other chasing after Ishant and co have bowled, in an era where 300 is the new 250. There's bound to be a difference in risks taken.

 

[Pratters]

What is the average of the innings scores chased by them? You've got one man chasing after McGrath and co have bowled, in an era where 300 was a rarity, and the other chasing after Ishant and co have bowled, in an era where 300 is the new 250. There's bound to be a difference in risks taken.

i) That doesn't explain the lack of Bevan's six hitting. Klusener was a member of a really competent team in the 90s and he hit far more sixes, say.

ii) Bevan's average of 56 and Dhoni's average of 53 speaks volumes. If you put that averages have risen 10% on an average, you are comparing Bevan at 61.5 v Dhoni at 53. That's a big difference.

iii) If Bevan had a really competent Aussie attack, Dhoni also had the flat Indian wickets in his career.

 

[G.I.Joe]

i) That doesn't explain the lack of Bevan's six hitting. Klusener was a member of a really competent team in the 90s and he hit far more sixes, say.

Yes, it does. It's plain mathematics. The innings is still 50 overs long but the amount of runs to be chased is greater in one case. Bigger numerator over the same denominator = greater RRR = greater need for risk taking. You can't just put down a batsman for taking more risks without considering why that might be the case.

You can't compare Klusener. Apples and oranges. Dhoni is farthest thing from a compulsive six hitter. He only goes for the big shots when required.

ii) Bevan's average of 56 and Dhoni's average of 53 speaks volumes. If you put that averages have risen 10% on an average, you are comparing Bevan at 61.5 v Dhoni at 53. That's a big difference.

Strike rates also speak volumes. 67 vs 83 is not explained away by a 10% rate of inflation. A criticism of Dhoni is that he tends to take chases right till the end, which in combination with the SR of 83 suggests that he's been required to bat faster than Bevan (with 67) on a consistent basis. Hence the greater need for risk taking.

iii) If Bevan had a really competent Aussie attack, Dhoni also had the flat Indian wickets in his career.

If the wickets are flat, then you can't label Dhoni's greater propensity for the big shots as greater risk taking. Flat wickets should make it easier to go for the big shots, no? Make an argument that's consistent with itself.

 

[cnerd123]

I think you both are arguing the same point.

Bevan had lower-risk run chases thanks to the Aussies good attack, and played in better bowling conditions. Hence the higher average but lower SR and few sixes
MSD has had to chase larger scores in better batting conditions, so more sixes, higher SR, but consequently a lower average.

You can't argue who is better, IMO, because Bevan would have had to bat in a different style to MSD. He would need to be correct technically and more compact to keep out the bowling, given the better bowling tracks, the fine exponents of reverse swing at the time, smaller bats and longer boundaries. MSD's game has evolved to be more expansive, more suited to the big hits and run scoring, but less capable of keeping out good bowling.

Basically you'd back Bevan to seal off an Eden-gardens style 150 run chase against Boult, but Dhoni to take you over the rope in a 350 run chase n India against Sri Lanka.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Oh, I agree. I'm not trying to make a case for one being better than the other. I was only addressing Pratter's post where the implication was that Bevan's chancelessness was unique and that Dhoni takes too many risks. Of course it's going to be that way - their games are a product of their times and circumstances.

 

[ankitj]

Dhoni is screwing up his legacy by batting too low though. He either comes so late that his contributions are insignificant or he comes in after a collapse and match almost totally lost. If he played at 4 or 5 regularly, he would be playing great knocks by the week. He is that good.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, it does. It's plain mathematics. The innings is still 50 overs long but the amount of runs to be chased is greater in one case. Bigger numerator over the same denominator = greater RRR = greater need for risk taking. You can't just put down a batsman for taking more risks without considering why that might be the case.

You can't compare Klusener. Apples and oranges. Dhoni is farthest thing from a compulsive six hitter. He only goes for the big shots when required.

Yeah, Dhoni isn't a compulsive six hitter. That's beside the point. When you analyse two players, you analyse the risk they offer as the bankability of the lower risk player is more. Bevan was unique in the sense that he made his runs in singles and twos rather than fours and sixes and then he hit the fours where it was necessary to a crazy degree, far more than I have seen any player attempt.

Strike rates also speak volumes. 67 vs 83 is not explained away by a 10% rate of inflation. A criticism of Dhoni is that he tends to take chases right till the end, which in combination with the SR of 83 suggests that he's been required to bat faster than Bevan (with 67) on a consistent basis. Hence the greater need for risk taking.

Strike rate of 67 and 83 in different times. As strike rates have improved in ODIs drastically, we shouldn't discount on the basis of strike rates. I get the point that Dhoni requires greater risk taking because of the way he bats, in the end. That's exactly my point though - Bevan required to take lesser risks because of the way he batted. There can be a propensity to say, oh look, nowadays ODIs are more high scoring, so you need to hit bigger. However, show me some batsmen in even Bevan's time who was close to the style he played in with any near degree of success. I don't think Bevan would suddenly have started hitting lots of sixes in this era either. Maybe some more fours and that too according to the situations. Now Dhoni does it too but Bevan did it to such a mathematical perfection at times, you marvelled at his genius, not just his ability as is the case with Dhoni, to draw a distinction between the two here.

If the wickets are flat, then you can't label Dhoni's greater propensity for the big shots as greater risk taking. Flat wickets should make it easier to go for the big shots, no? Make an argument that's consistent with itself.

Flatter wickets argument was made in counter of your argument regarding Bevan having it easier as he was in Australia. Same way Dhoni had it easier as he batted on Indian flatter wickets. This is besides the point about bankability.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, Dhoni isn't a compulsive six hitter. That's beside the point. When you analyse two players, you analyse the risk they offer as the bankability of the lower risk player is more. Bevan was unique in the sense that he made his runs in singles and twos rather than fours and sixes and then he hit the fours where it was necessary to a crazy degree, far more than I have seen any player attempt.

That's if you ignore the entire reason why Dhoni needs to take more risk. If the RRR necessitates chasing at a SR of 83, then he's not going to be nurdling the ball around for singles at a SR of 67 just so that he looks more bankable to you. Not keeping up with the RRR loses one matches. It's not like he's hitting out unnecessarily and finishing off matches with plenty of balls to spare. He's having to hit out simply because of the RRR. You don't ignore the situation when assessing bankability.

Strike rate of 67 and 83 in different times. As strike rates have improved in ODIs drastically, we shouldn't discount on the basis of strike rates. I get the point that Dhoni requires greater risk taking because of the way he bats, in the end.

No, that's the exact opposite of what's the point, FFS. He bats the way he does because of the RRR, not because "it's the way he bats". If it were because of the way he bats, he'd routinely be finishing off matches with plenty to spare, which any observer would tell you is not the case.

That's exactly my point though - Bevan required to take lesser risks because of the way he batted. There can be a propensity to say, oh look, nowadays ODIs are more high scoring, so you need to hit bigger. However, show me some batsmen in even Bevan's time who was close to the style he played in with any near degree of success. I don't think Bevan would suddenly have started hitting lots of sixes in this era either. Maybe some more fours and that too according to the situations. Now Dhoni does it too but Bevan did it to such a mathematical perfection at times, you marvelled at his genius, not just his ability as is the case with Dhoni, to draw a distinction between the two here.

If Bevan had to chase at a SR of 83 instead of 67, he'd have to take a lot more risks and hit more boundaries. There's no way around it. You don't just nurdle your way up from 67 to 83. Why don't you pull up some scorecards with Bevan chasing and making 50+ at a SR of above 80 and see if he's nurdled his way up from 67 or hit his way up?

Flatter wickets argument was made in counter of your argument regarding Bevan having it easier as he was in Australia. Same way Dhoni had it easier as he batted on Indian flatter wickets. This is besides the point about bankability.

So tell me how you reconcile this with your claim that Dhoni takes more risks? Either the conditions are easy and he's not taking risks hitting out in those conditions, or the conditions are tough and he's taking risks hitting out there. Which is it? If you're making a claim, shouldn't all the arguments in favour not be incompatible with each other? You've got to decide if you're seeking to make a cogent argument or simply playing the multi-quote game here.

 

[Pratters]

I am not interested in any multi-quote game either buddy. Bevan was more bankable as that was the player he was. Jack Hobbs was more bankable/dependable than Dennis Compton, say. That's unrelated to styles. Saying Bevan had it easier because he was in Australia is confusing my point.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah, it's not confusing the point. I'm saying your perception of Bevan being more bankable or risk-averse is a direct consequence of him being required to bat slower, which you don't acknowledge. I do not mean this as a knock on Bevan's game.

Pretty simple hypothetical - The current Dhoni is transported to an alternate reality where due to a combination of circumstances (different era, his team possessing better bowlers, whatever) he's required to chase at a SR of 67 instead of 83.

Do you think he

(a) cuts out the big shots, knocks the ball around and minimises risk doing just enough to cross the finish line,

or

(b) continues to play the sort of "risky" game he plays now, striking at 83 and finishing off games earlier in that reality.

I think it is pretty apparent to anyone watching him bat that post-haircut Dhoni would do (a), which lends credence to the theory that his risk taking is a product of his circumstances rather than an innate drive or limited facet of his game that he fails to escape.

If you think the answer is still (b), I think you'll be in the minority here.

 

[Shri]

No, that's the exact opposite of what's the point, FFS.

Cracked me up.

 

[Pratters]

Nah, it's not confusing the point. I'm saying your perception of Bevan being more bankable or risk-averse is a direct consequence of him being required to bat slower, which you don't acknowledge. I do not mean this as a knock on Bevan's game.

Pretty simple hypothetical - The current Dhoni is transported to an alternate reality where due to a combination of circumstances (different era, his team possessing better bowlers, whatever) he's required to chase at a SR of 67 instead of 83.

Do you think he

(a) cuts out the big shots, knocks the ball around and minimises risk doing just enough to cross the finish line,

or

(b) continues to play the sort of "risky" game he plays now, striking at 83 and finishing off games earlier in that reality.

I think it is pretty apparent to anyone watching him bat that post-haircut Dhoni would do (a), which lends credence to the theory that his risk taking is a product of his circumstances rather than an innate drive or limited facet of his game that he fails to escape.

If you think the answer is still (b), I think you'll be in the minority here.

As I said earlier, Bevan would hit more fours maybe, or start hitting those fours earlier. So, it would be a bit more risky. But in that same vein, Dhoni would play a bit less riskily if he played in the 90s as would any other batsman if you transport them from one decade to the other, for the most part. I get how you would feel I am overstating the bankability of Bevan. Obviously, I don't feel this is the case. He would take more risk in another era, but I would still think he would be more bankable compared to MSD. An innings like this just gives me so much confidence in Bevan. Obviously you can recount many MSD innings too. I just get far more faith in Bevan's finishing.

The times in which these two players played have ODI cricket played in such different ways, it is actually quite difficult to compare, just like it would be difficult to compare Tendulkar with Hutton.