Gilchrist v Dhoni

[Ikki]

Worse than Whom ?

Worse than those who average higher while batting lower, due to not-outs; i.e. someone like Bevan or Hussey.

I don't see why this is an issue. You cannot compare averages between an opener with someone who bats middle-order or lower and not take into account not-outs.

 

[Ikki]

In that case you should not have stepped into the discussion then. You should have simply said that the sample isn't big enough to compare him, if 29 matches is all you are using for the comparison.

That point should be a given. Dhoni hasn't batted as an upper order batsman near enough to compare to Gilchrist. In those terms he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath. It's only once we take into account his mid-to-lower order batting he can even begin to enter the discussion.

His overall sample is more than enough to suggest that Dhoni has so far outscored Gilly by quite a distance.

his overall sample includes the not-outs from his lower order batting.

That's like someone arguing Hussey is better than Viv because "overall" he averages 53, which is more than Viv and use his 39 innings at 3,4,5 to say he averages more than Viv, so he is "quite a distance" ahead, ignoring that it's only 30-40 innings. ...oh Sanz.

 

[Sanz]

Worse than those who average higher while batting lower, due to not-outs; i.e. someone like Bevan or Hussey.

But the comparison is not with Bevan or Hussey, it is with Gilchrist.

What you are doing is splitting his stats into two parts comparing his 1-4 stats with Gilly and saying sample is not enough and then comparing his lower order record with Hussey/Bevan's and again saying it is not good enough.

As usual selective manipulation of Statistics.

PS :- Now go ahead and accuse me of being intellectually Dishonest, that's the missing piece of your argument so far .

 

[Sanz]

That point should be a given. Dhoni hasn't batted as an upper order batsman near enough to compare to Gilchrist. In those terms he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath. It's only once we take into account his mid-to-lower order batting he can even begin to enter the discussion.



his overall sample includes the not-outs from his lower order batting.

That's like someone arguing Hussey is better than Viv because "overall" he averages 53, which is more than Viv and use his 39 innings at 3,4,5 to say he averages more than Viv, so he is "quite a distance" ahead, ignoring that it's only 30-40 innings. ...oh Sanz.

Putting up laughter smilies in an argument is akin to mocking people. You seem to have a habit of it when you run out of valid arguments. I take it you have lost the argument.

 

[pasag]

Patto

 

[Ikki]

But the comparison is not with Bevan or Hussey, it is with Gilchrist.

What you are doing is splitting his stats into two parts comparing his 1-4 stats with Gilly and saying sample is not enough and then comparing his lower order record with Hussey/Bevan's and again saying it is not good enough.

As usual selective manipulation of Statistics.

PS :- Now go ahead and accuse me of being intellectually Dishonest, that's the missing piece of your argument so far .

But that's the point: you cannot compare an opener with a mid-to-lower positioned bat. It's like night and day. So either you look at when Dhoni batted further so we can compare him to Gilchrist; or you judge him with those who bat in similar positions, like Bevan and Hussey; or you try to even it out someway so you can compare them directly.

On one hand he didn't bat near enough up the top to compare properly with Gilchrist, and at the bottom he doesn't fare very well against the likes of Hussey and Bevan. It doesn't mean he isn't a great bat, and truthfully I think he'd do better if they just gave him a solid go at one position (which they seem to be doing) and once he has done that we can them compare him fairly.

Putting up laughter smilies in an argument is akin to mocking people. You seem to have a habit of it when you run out of valid arguments. I take it you have lost the argument.

I am sorry, but I can't seriously discuss this with you if you cannot grasp the difference, at least for statistical analysis, between the two different roles they play. This is just another matter where you show you do not grasp the basics. IIRC in another thread you were putting a qualifier on Bradman (was it?) where you limited him to a certain amount of runs per inning - making sure he'd fail - and compared that to what I was doing.

That's almost the case here where you again accuse me of "statistical manipulation". You either don't grasp the difference between an opener and a finisher or you're purposely ignoring it.

IMO, my way was fairer - you may argue it was not the fairest, I wouldn't know what that would be, but at least it made the comparison somewhat equitable: I simply removed all not-outs for both batsmen to see how much they score per innings. It showed their records were both fairly good but Dhoni has more to do to equal Gilchrist's legacy. It's too early for him to compare truly.

If you're just fishing for a way to say Dhoni is greater, well good luck to you.

 

[Sir Alex]

There is another interesting statistic.

Gilchrist averages 46.87 in matches chased and won. Dhoni averages 124.08 in same kind of matches.

Even if you disregard the not outs, Dhoni still averages more than Gilchrist.

 

[Ikki]

There is another interesting statistic.

Gilchrist averages 46.87 in matches chased and won. Dhoni averages 124.08 in same kind of matches.

Even if you disregard the not outs, Dhoni still averages more than Gilchrist.

You should probably mention that without the not-outs Dhoni averages 44 and strikes at 92 whilst Gilchrist averages 42 and striking at 103.

You know, not to mislead anyone here .

 

[Manee]

Well no, I would not accept that. In a completed chase, taking out not outs is horrendously unjustified. Moreover, noting a lower strike rate in a successful chase is also similarly unjust.

 

[Ikki]

Well no, I would not accept that. In a completed chase, taking out not outs is horrendously unjustified. Moreover, noting a lower strike rate in a successful chase is also similarly unjust.

To who? How likely is it ever for Gilchrist to be not-out compared to a lower order batsman? How much better is it for an opener to have a higher SR in a chase?

If you don't take SR out it is unfair to Gilchrist, so what do you propose?

 

[Jono]

Ikki I hope you toe the same line of argument in a Sachin vs. Bevan debate for ODIs.

 

[Manee]

To who? How likely is it ever for Gilchrist to be not-out compared to a lower order batsman? How much better is it for an opener to have a higher SR in a chase?

If you don't take SR out it is unfair to Gilchrist, so what do you propose?

If anything has been established, it is that Dhoni's statistics are irrefutably superior. However, their value in this comparison is limited and so one must make a value judgement between quick runs at the top of the order, at the rate in which Gilchrist scored them, and quick runs in the middle order, at the rate in which Dhoni scored them. The fact that this will bring varying results from person to person, due to reasons which should be astatistical,but stated, does not mean they are worthless or that discussion should cease.

 

[Sir Alex]

You should probably mention that without the not-outs Dhoni averages 44 and strikes at 92 whilst Gilchrist averages 42 and striking at 103.

You know, not to mislead anyone here .

I don't agree with the concept of completely disregarding not outs by the way. It can be argued that Dhoni sacrificed that little bit of strike rate to ensure he stayed not out till the end also which is a very good factor in his favor.

 

[Migara]

You should probably mention that without the not-outs Dhoni averages 44 and strikes at 92 whilst Gilchrist averages 42 and striking at 103.

You know, not to mislead anyone here .

Then I'll give another stat that will make your eyes pop out.

Chasing the scores and won (Field first and win)

[B]Player			Inns	No	Runs	Avg	R/I	SR[/B]
[URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4144.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting"]Michael Bevan[/URL]		45	25	1725	86.25	38.33	66.42
[URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/48462.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting"]Aravinda de Silva[/URL]	66	20	2643	57.45	40.05	86.45
-----------------

Now according to Ikki's stats Bevan is nowhere close to Dhoni, Gilchrist or even Aravinda de Silva when chasing down the scores

 

[Ikki]

If anything has been established, it is that Dhoni's statistics are irrefutably superior.

In which respect?

However, their value in this comparison is limited and so one must make a value judgement between quick runs at the top of the order, at the rate in which Gilchrist scored them, and quick runs in the middle order, at the rate in which Dhoni scored them. The fact that this will bring varying results from person to person, due to reasons which should be astatistical,but stated, does not mean they are worthless or that discussion should cease.

There can be a discussion, but there must be a leveler. I mean, the stat that Sir Alex brings is ridiculously high...for someone who only scored 1 century and that was at #3.

If you do take not-outs for their full value, you exaggerate Dhoni's contribution because he has as many lower and middling scores as he does potentially high ones that were stopped short because the chase stopped.

 

[Ikki]

Then I'll give another stat that will make your eyes pop out.

Chasing the scores and won (Field first and win)

[B]Player			Inns	No	Runs	Avg	R/I	SR[/B]
[URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4144.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting"]Michael Bevan[/URL]		45	25	1725	86.25	38.33	66.42
[URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/48462.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting"]Aravinda de Silva[/URL]	66	20	2643	57.45	40.05	86.45
-----------------

Now according to Ikki's stats Bevan is nowhere close to Dhoni, Gilchrist or even Aravinda de Silva when chasing down the scores

What is your point?

 

[Manee]

In which respect?

In the respect that Dhoni has scored runs at a better average, with a better strike rate and having a tangibly greater effect on the team's positive performances - but to simplify it to that would be absurd, I'd like to make clear.

There can be a discussion, but there must be a leveler. I mean, the stat that Sir Alex brings is ridiculously high...for someone who only scored 1 century and that was at #3.

If you do take not-outs for their full value, you exaggerate Dhoni's contribution because he has as many lower and middling scores as he does potentially high ones that were stopped short because the chase stopped.

That is true, but to even look to extrapolate to the possible continuation of a knock cut short by the end of the innings would be to severely misunderstand the complex mental state which goes to completing a chase - something which would make such a task impossible.

I do not think that statistics are a suitable leveller here, there are so many and it is so hard to have one with credence over another. Here, the discussion should be toward an astatistical value judgement, imo.

 

[silentstriker]

You should probably mention that without the not-outs Dhoni averages 44 and strikes at 92 whilst Gilchrist averages 42 and striking at 103.

You know, not to mislead anyone here .

Ah yes, because staying till the end is irrelevent for a batsman. That's what all the coaches always tell players. As long as you do well, staying till the end is not important.

 

[Manee]

Ah yes, because staying till the end is irrelevent for a batsman. That's what all the coaches always tell players. As long as you do well, staying till the end is not important.

No SS, that isn't what coaches tell players at all. In fact, what you've said has undermined Ikki's argument, if anything, rather than supports it.

 

[Migara]

What is your point?

See closely. Don't pretend.