Is Dhoni greatest OdI cricketer off all-time

[Daemon]

His strike rotation game, which was one half of his incredible middle overs batting, deserted him completely at the end. He could still hit out, but you can’t just start going ape**** in the 30th over with our tail.

So instead the dot balls would accumulate while the game would reach a stage where the risk of bringing out the shots was worth it. Would often be too late by then though.

 

[Dan]

On the batting average point, it's a terrible metric for ODI cricket in that it doesn't consider resource utilisation at all re time/balls.

In Tests, there's rarely a need to consider whether the batsman optimised the number of balls available to them because in most situations it isn't an innings-limiting factor. In ODIs, you do need to consider it - and batsmen in different positions have wildly differing resources available to them.

Doesn't make RPI any better, mind.

 

[srbhkshk]

I suppose in Dhoni's defence, we did end up with a pretty rubbish middle order in the later stage of his career. Not being at your best and having to transition to play an even more important role with Yuvi and Raina either gone or being useless was something that a lot of players might struggle with. That said he still played a few terrible innings and wasn't quite able to give the team the same sort of momentum he used to.

I distinctly remember his strike rate used to be 90+ at one point of his career and was touching 92-93 at some time, then 2015 world cup went and most Batsman went into god mode with the rule changes but Dhoni couldn't adapt that well, his SR actually fell quite a bit which given the batting post 15 period is almost ridiculous.

 

[Dan]

There is something to be said about Aussie players retiring/being-nudged at the right time. It's a better culture. Ponting's the only anomaly. Clarke retired too soon though. It was kind of a "the establishment celebrated him into it" retirement and seemed weird from afar.

I don't think Dhoni necessarily timed it incorrectly (other than not announcing right after the WC vs doing it now after it was long since clear that he wasn't being picked again). He was still capable of making valuable contributions and I don't think that India would have been better off if they had someone else in the team for the 2019 World Cup. If a cricket-related Wins Above Replacement stat existed, I think Dhoni would still have had the biggest impact of any available wicketkeeping option tbh.

Ponting wasn't really an anomaly either - the weirdest thing with him was playing on after giving up the captaincy. Like Dhoni I guess, he was nowhere near his former self, but I'd have definitely kept picking late career Ponting over the alternatives through that period. Different story if he was keeping someone exceptional out of the side, but the talent depth wasn't there.

 

[srbhkshk]

It was all that **** Kohli's fault, we could have won CT and Dhoni would have retired.

 

[_00_deathscar]

We know he takes his time to get going, it's fine for an opener and what makes his partnership with Dhawan works. He does not bat at a SR of 50-60 till his 50 though, that's just not true and he bats faster than that plenty of times.

Okay 50-60 is probably an exaggeration. I don't have the stats and have no idea how to find them, but he has a VERY low strike rate early on - worse than many players around.
It works fine when he ends up smashing a 100, which to his credit he does a lot of times. But when it doesn't, it ends up putting pressure on the opposite batsman.

What was the World Cup game where Kohli was motoring along at 85-90 and Rohit was really taking his time? Kohli ended up getting out trying to push harder, while Rohit stayed and blasteda few deliveries at the end for four to bring his strike rate up to 80+. The score card reads that they both had a similar strike rate.
But if you watched the game, Kohli was being pressured into trying to keep the run rate respectable and ended up hitting out.

Edit: I think it might have been the England game? He ended up with a higher S/R than Kohli, but Rohit wasn't good at rotating the strike.

 

[srbhkshk]

That was the England game, probably one of the poorer Rohit innings in quite a bit of time and Kohli batted pretty below average too. Both of them started too slow and didn't make up for it as much as they could have but they still left a win quite plausible by the time they both went.

And regardless. our top 3 is not our problem, it hasn't been for years, like wtf.

 

[Burgey]

It works fine when he ends up smashing a 100, which to his credit he does a lot of times. But when it doesn't, it ends up putting pressure on the opposite batsman

This was something I recall a number of Indian fans mentioning in the lead up to the WC. Like you say, when he stays in he more than makes up for it though.

 

[Red]

Yeah coz Watson, Tendulkar, Amla, Watson and Dilshan never played before the last 5 years. And of course, ODIs in the last 5 years should not count coz they prove you wrong.

Would you honestly take Watson, Amla or Dilshan over Gilchrist if we were in a schoolyard match with players lined up against the wall? Because I'd be stoked if you did and it meant I could take Gilchrist.

Tendulkar's a different story, I consider him the par excellence of ODI opening bats.

 

[honestbharani]

Would you honestly take Watson, Amla or Dilshan over Gilchrist if we were in a schoolyard match with players lined up against the wall? Because I'd be stoked if you did and it meant I could take Gilchrist.

Tendulkar's a different story, I consider him the par excellence of ODI opening bats.

Nah.. I already mentioned I would take Jayasuriya. See, if he is surplus to requirements, I don't need him. And Watson as an ODI player is extremely under rated. And I did not even mention Lara.

 

[Burgey]

There is something to be said about Aussie players retiring/being-nudged at the right time. It's a better culture. Ponting's the only anomaly. Clarke retired too soon though. It was kind of a "the establishment celebrated him into it" retirement and seemed weird from afar.

his back was ****ed tbh, but given some of the blokes who’ve played since, it would have been great had he played on a bit longer

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is something to be said about Aussie players retiring/being-nudged at the right time. It's a better culture. Ponting's the only anomaly. Clarke retired too soon though. It was kind of a "the establishment celebrated him into it" retirement and seemed weird from afar.

If India had nudged Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman out in 2008, we probably dont even get to world number 1. Pretending one of the approaches is better is wrong, there's clear demonstrable merit to persisting with proven oldies even when it seems they're done.

Edit: But in Dhoni's case, yeah, it went on for way too long. India couldve groomed a replacement for the WC if they'd prepared for it since like 2016 but just refused to do it.

 

[honestbharani]

There is a definite case to nudge them in the shorter formats though, especially if the output is dwindling. Anyways, what will be interesting is to see how India reshape their middle order now in ODIs. Its clear KL is basically gonna replace MSD at #5. The question now goes to whom do we have who can bat 6 and have the ability go from ball 1. I really hope we try Surya Kumar Yadav.

Rohit
Dhawan
Virat (c)
Shreyas
KL Rahul (wk)
Suryakumar Yadav
Hardik
Jaddu
Bhuvi
Kuldeep
Bumrah

 

[Dan]

I would not be giving Rahul the gloves long-term. Give Pant a decent run to start with imo and go from there.

 

[honestbharani]

They seem to have decided this is the way to go, mainly because Rahul has the game to both drop anchor and hit out from ball 1. I actually agree with him at 5, but like you, little unsure if he can do long term role as the keeper.

 

[stephen]

his back was ****ed tbh, but given some of the blokes who’ve played since, it would have been great had he played on a bit longer

A whole heap of things would have been different had Clarke been able to play for the next three years. Newlands for one would probably never have happened. Smith would have been older and wiser when given the captaincy. Who knows if Paine would every have gotten the gloves - maybe Neville would have done a bit better with the bat and would still be the national keeper. Maddinson wouldn't have gotten the run in tests when he did.

Recent Australian cricketing history would certainly have been different.

 

[cricketsavant]

On

It is funny isn't it, that you think someone with half as many dismissals per game is worse. Hilarious I see your value as a poster here, for the comedy!

 

[cricketsavant]

If catches per match were a good indicator of wicket keeping ability, Kamran Akmal and Geraint Jones should be recognised as better keepers than Bob Taylor and Don Tallon. Average catches per match is primarily driven by the style and quality of the bowlers, rather than the standard of wicket keeping. It should not be used as a matrix to compare wicket keepers playing in different eras, in very different parts of the world and with totally different bowling attacks.



Rather hypercritical to accuse someone of racial bias when you already made racially prejudiced comments yourself:








See ya. You won't be missed.

Since you insist your finding your way into my discussions, let me just make some things very clear - I did not say catches, I said dismissals. That includes all the possible ways a keeper can help the team take a wicket (catch, stumping etc). And it is not as if the difference is small, Dhoni played 63 more games, each one of those as a keeper and has taken far fewer dismissals. If you want to claim he is the greatest ODI player ever...it is weird because he isn't even greatest keeper in ODIs ever. If you want to claim, as bharan did that it is "absurd to the extreme" to think Gilly was better, it clearly is not. There is a very very strong argument. Look, it's ok if you have a personal soft spot for a player (for me it is Freddy over Stokes any day but I can see, from an objective POV that Stokes is now the better cricketer) but to claim it is some sort of unbiased cricketing choice with silly language doesn't work.

The rest of your post is nonsense. bharan is clearly Indian, I am pretty sure I have seen this poster post racially biased nonsense in other forums too. I however, am not what he claimed, just because he claimed I supported a particular. in fact I have never posted anything pro or anti any cricket nation on here.

I do hope the quality of your posts improve.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Just looking through their stats, Dhoni has double the stumpings that Gilchrist has, as you would expect from someone of his skills standing up to the stumps and playing as much as he did on slow pitches in a team where spinners routinely bowl more than half of the overs. By the same token, Gilchrist has some hundred caught behinds over Dhoni, which is again something you would expect from someone playing a majority of their games outside the SC in a team with a seam-reliant attack. Their wicket-keeping skills cannot be seen out of context and for the most part cancel each other out.

 

[honestbharani]

It is funny isn't it, that you think someone with half as many dismissals per game is worse. Hilarious I see your value as a poster here, for the comedy!