Andy Flower: Underrated or Overrated?

[Jayro]

Neither

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Dhoni was no where the batsman Sanga, Flower or Gilchrist were in test matches. And Dhoni even wasn't the best keeper to come out of Asia in last 25 years.

Sanga averaged 40, playing only in top order..
Dhoni averaged 38 ( mostly at 7, though he averaged more than 50 in top 6 )

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

And Dhoni even wasn't the best keeper to come out of Asia in last 25 years.

It’s Mushfiqur Rahim

 

[trundler]

Flower is one of those players who's called underrated so often he isn't really. Like Shaun Pollock. They're both appropriately rated.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Fair enough, but if you are comparing him to Sanga, I think the context has to be LOs, surely.

No.. Its other way around.
Sanga and Dhoni comparable in Tests as WK-Batsmen.
ODIs, Dhoni = 2 x Sanga.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

It’s Mushfiqur Rahim

Rishabh Pant already there and improving..

 

[Migara]

Fair enough, but if you are comparing him to Sanga, I think the context has to be LOs, surely.

Sanga keeped 40 odd test matches. That is larger than some people's careers. If I am not mistaken even then he averaged better than Dhoni with the bat.

 

[Migara]

No.. Its other way around.
Sanga and Dhoni comparable in Tests as WK-Batsmen.
ODIs, Dhoni = 2 x Sanga.

Sanga with his batting alone is worth as two Dhoni's in tests. It's so far it is not even a joke. ODIs Dhoni is an ATG bat. We are not discussing it here.

 

[Migara]

Dhoni averages 38 in test as a keeper. Flower 53, Gilchrist 47.6, Prior 40.2, Koch 41.2, Sanga 40.5, Ames 43.9, de Villiers 57.4, Chandimal 39.5, and Pant 43.3 all average better than Dhoni, while keeping. Some of these kept early in their career before they hit their peaks. Those numbers only could go up.

And Dhoni is not even the best gloveman in Asia in last 30 years. Best were Latif and Prasanna Jayawardanea, and few Indians were around who were not that good with bat. Nayan Mongia was superb with gloves.

So no, Dhoni is not event relevant as a great keeper batsman in test matches.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Dhoni was superb with the gloves.
What utter trash is this?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sanga is better than Dhoni in Tests by about the same amount that Dhoni is better than Sanga in ODIs

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Dhoni averages 38 in test as a keeper. Flower 53, Gilchrist 47.6, Prior 40.2, Koch 41.2, Sanga 40.5, Ames 43.9, de Villiers 57.4, Chandimal 39.5, and Pant 43.3 all average better than Dhoni, while keeping. Some of these kept early in their career before they hit their peaks. Those numbers only could go up.

And Dhoni is not even the best gloveman in Asia in last 30 years. Best were Latif and Prasanna Jayawardanea, and few Indians were around who were not that good with bat. Nayan Mongia was superb with gloves.

So no, Dhoni is not event relevant as a great keeper batsman in test matches.

Sanga averaged 40
Dhoni 38
Dhoni played far more matches, and Sanga batted only in top order.
Actual data, no speculation.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sanga with his batting alone is worth as two Dhoni's in tests. It's so far it is not even a joke. ODIs Dhoni is an ATG bat. We are not discussing it here.

In an Imaginary world.

38 and 40 same ballpark for me.

 

[Migara]

In an Imaginary world.

38 and 40 same ballpark for me.

It is an imaginary world where you think Sanga's average would stay at 40. He averaged 57 FFS ending his career. Initial matches of a batsman vs a whole career. Not even in the same ball park.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

It is an imaginary world where you think Sanga's average would stay at 40. He averaged 57 FFS ending his career. Initial matches of a batsman vs a whole career. Not even in the same ball park.

Thats just speculation.. Dhoni would have averaged more than 100 if not for WK, who knows. ( afterall he was worlds best ODI batsman in mid to late 00s. )
Sanga played as WK until mid 00s, and averaged 40.. In the same phase he averaged like 75 when played as specialist batsman..
So, it could be exact opposite to what you are suggesting.. Sanga's peak coincided with his WK phase, and he would have ended up as a 30 avg WK batsman if he continued with WK.

 

[Migara]

Thats just speculation.. Dhoni would have averaged more than 100 if not for WK, who knows. ( afterall he was worlds best ODI batsman in mid to late 00s. )
Sanga played as WK until mid 00s, and averaged 40.. In the same phase he averaged like 75 when played as specialist batsman..
So, it could be exact opposite to what you are suggesting.. Sanga's peak coincided with his WK phase, and he would have ended up as a 30 avg WK batsman if he continued with WK.

He came in as a keeper, so no. His selection was because he was a keeper.

And No it never happened, your argument makes no sense. Sanga's peak came after he gave up the gloves. If you suggest he would have not be the same batsman if he kept keeping, would mean, he would be much better if he never kept. What ever the argument you make, there is a opposite side to it..

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

He came in as a keeper, so no. His selection was because he was a keeper.

And No it never happened, your argument makes no sense. Sanga's peak came after he gave up the gloves. If you suggest he would have not be the same batsman if he kept keeping, would mean, he would be much better if he never kept. What ever the argument you make, there is a opposite side to it..

Sanga averaged 80 until 2006 as a specialist batsman.
whether he was 2nd best to Bradman or not is not my concern, He was Dhoni level as WK batsman in tests.. Thats my point.

 

[Migara]

Sanga averaged 80 until 2006 as a specialist batsman.
whether he was 2nd best to Bradman or not is not my concern, He was Dhoni level as WK batsman in tests.. Thats my point.

He was a Dhoni level batsman even before he hit his peak. That is the more correct argument.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Sanga kept keeping he almost certainly wouldn't have ended up averaging 57. Keeping in Test cricket is an insanely hard and exhausting job, especially keeping up to the stumps a lot as Sanga would have. So you can't just assume he would have still averaged 50+, let alone 57, if he kept his whole career.

However you obviously can't just look at his average as keeper, of 40, and assume that it would have stayed there forever if he kept keeping. He became a much better batsman afterward. PFK makes a good point though, if Sanga didn't give up keeping who knows he might never have had the opportunity to put time and effort into improving his batting that much. It's plausible that Sanga's improvement as a batsman afterward could have been a lot down to being able to focus purely on that and not worry about wicket-keeping.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

He was a Dhoni level batsman even before he hit his peak. That is the more correct argument.

What peak? He was averaging 79 as specialist batsman until 2006.
He averaged only 64 as a specialist batsman since.

So, Dhoni averaged 38 in whole career, while Sanga averaged 40 in his peak 6 years.