Is Dhoni greatest OdI cricketer off all-time

[nightprowler10]

I know the discussion has moved on a bit but man, that Gilly knock from the 2007 WC final was so ahead of it's time. Completely demoralizing to watch as someone that desperately wanted Oz to lose.

 

[ankitj]

What Ponting did in 2003 WC final was no less. Stands out more to me but that may be because it came against team I was supporting.

 

[srbhkshk]

I know the discussion has moved on a bit but man, that Gilly knock from the 2007 WC final was so ahead of it's time. Completely demoralizing to watch as someone that desperately wanted Oz to lose.

Haha yeah, I was cautiously optimistic with Sri Lanka having both Murali and Malinga in their ranks, but Gilly really showed Australia weren't going down from #1 for a couple more years at least.

 

[srbhkshk]

What Ponting did in 2003 WC final was no less. Stands out more to me but that may be because it came against team I was supporting.

The difference for me was that SL had 2 key bowlers better than anything we played in 03.

 

[Bolo.]

When I say a "similar story" I'm talking about the comparison between the 2. McGrath's figures post-2000 improve more than Pollock's do.

But yes it's definitely not as stark a contrast as the Test figures, which I was more interested anyway, despite the diversion from the original thread topic.

'Improved less than' indicates nothing about being pace reliant. If you improve after slowing down, you are not pace reliant. The 'less than' is a function of Mcgraths bowling alone- he was mediocre for a few years before going into overdrive once he managed to find a regular spot in the team again.

In tests, yes. Pollock needed pace to generate lift that Mcgrath got from height alone. Plus the fact that Pollock lost more pace makes the contrast starker

 

[TheJediBrah]

In tests, yes. Pollock needed pace to generate lift that Mcgrath got from height alone. Plus the fact that Pollock lost more pace makes the contrast starker

ok so you think agree with my theory that's great

 

[vcs]

The difference for me was that SL had 2 key bowlers better than anything we played in 03.

True. He had a pretty ordinary run coming into the final but boy that knock was something special. Ponting flayed us to all corners in 2003, but if I had to compare the two knocks, I would certainly rank Gilchrist's ahead. Also remember Martyn was the free-scoring one at the start of the partnership, think Ponting took 70 balls or so to get to 50, coming in after a great platform had been laid. Obviously the way he finished makes that irrelevant.

 

[vcs]

The difference for me was that SL had 2 key bowlers better than anything we played in 03.

TBF, our bowlers did a great job coming into the final and outbowled everyone but Australia by a fair margin. It's been a general theme of our WC exits this century, do pretty well all the way and then gas up in the big knockout game. Same in 2015 and 2019, though we can't blame the bowlers for the latter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I thought Nehra was going to be the **** but he didn't really improve after that

 

[vcs]

That spell against England was one of the more memorable things I've seen as an Indian fan.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England gave Nehra his 6/23 and Bichel his 7/20 that series lol

loved a collapse against 2nd tier bowlers

 

[Burgey]

I know the discussion has moved on a bit but man, that Gilly knock from the 2007 WC final was so ahead of it's time. Completely demoralizing to watch as someone that desperately wanted Oz to lose.

Ruined a WC final as a contest in about 14 overs. Quite an effort tbh.

 

[Bolo.]

ok so you think agree with my theory that's great

For tests, Pollocks returns correlate positively with his speed. Mcgraths returns correlate negatively. Sounds more like a statement of fact than a theory.

 

[OverratedSanity]

England gave Nehra his 6/23 and Bichel his 7/20 that series lol

loved a collapse against 2nd tier bowlers

Bichel was actually good though

 

[srbhkshk]

Bichel was actually good though

 

[Migara]

A couple of other interesting stats.

Only player in 1990s to take 100+ ODI wickets with ER less than 3.5 -- Curtly Ambrose(3.48)

Only player in history to take 100+ ODI wickets at ER less than 4 and 2000+ ODI runs at SR greater than 100 in a decade -- Kapil Dev in 1980s(ER 3.68, SR 101.91)

Comparing raw ERs and SRs don't say a damn thing. It has to be adjusted to the era. That will show Pollock was as economical as Garner.

 

[h_hurricane]

Comparing raw ERs and SRs don't say a damn thing. It has to be adjusted to the era. That will show Pollock was as economical as Garner.

I used 3.5 as a benchmark for 1990s, not 4.0. In other words, Ambrose in 90s is as impressive as Pollock's record in 2000s.

Regarding Kapil, you could era adjust, but that doesn't change anything as he was an allrounder.

In other words, is there another all rounder in history who had ER/SR of 4.4/120 for a decade in a different era than Kapil ? I don't think so.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Also Kapil had great support from legendary bowlers like Brown Lightning Binny, mighty Madanlal.. etc

 

[cricketsavant]

Wasim, Tendulkar, Viv, Gilly, Mcgrath, Murali, Kohli and a few others all say hi!

I would say he is probably the second best ODI finisher of all time, behind only Mr Mikey Hussey

 

[Bolo.]

Regarding Kapil, you could era adjust, but that doesn't change anything as he was an allrounder.

In other words, is there another all rounder in history who had ER/SR of 4.4/120 for a decade in a different era than Kapil ? I don't think so.

He was a bowling AR in ODIs. He scored 17 runs per match but gave away 31. Failure to adjust for era makes him look like an atg bowler and a handy lower order slogger. Adjusting makes him look like a decent bowler and a very handy lower order slogger. I know who I am picking.

Why stop at a batting average in the low 20s if you are making this argument? If he had averaged 10 or 15 would you still be making it? How about if he had averaged 1 at a SR of 150? He would be far better in your calculation this way.

There is a threshold below which this parallel becomes increasingly unreasonable. It probably sits closer to batting average/RPI than runs per game compared to expected runs given away. Whatever the threshold though, he is a long way below it.

Your 4.4/120 example is actually not too dissimilar to Afridi, who was not much better than a handy player cos his averages stunk.