Is MS Dhoni an ATG OdI batsmen?

[viriya]

Out of interest, here is the list of batsmen who have batted since 2010 from positions 4-6 using the same criteria (average over 35).

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see, most players are striking between 80 and 90. When I said that 80 was an acceptable strike rate for a #4 batsman even in this era I may have been under, but not by much. 85 is average and only the freaks have a strike rate over 90. This is with modern bats and the batsman-centric laws.

Yes, on the surface Bevan had a poor strike ratebut when you look deeper, Bevan struck at the rate he needed to to win us games of cricket in a low scoring era. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that he would have done so at a higher rate if needed.

You can't just explain away bevan's low end SR for a finisher by saying "he did what was necessary to win". That's really not very persuasive.

Lower order finishers during his era struck in the high 70s at least (Rhodes, ranatunga, Malik, ijaz all had a higher SR). So his average becomes less impressive - if he was a #3 with those stats that would be more excusable.

 

[viriya]

To be clear I think Bevan is an ATG - if he had a 77+ SR he would probably be in GOAT consideration.

I would pick Dhoni over him as it is, but I can understand why people might pick Bevan too.

 

[weldone]

Why are you ignoring the SR when picking those players. 50+ average at high SR at lower order is non existent. All the other examples you give are top or middle order batsmen.

Just focusing on the average is very deceving especially for lower order batsmen.

Exactly

I also think not outs in 1st innings don't add any extra value than outs. 50*(40) has the same value as 50(40) getting out in the last ball when you are batting first. And that's why Bevan's average is inflated IMO.

Not outs are important only in successful run chases. (Bevan has quite a few of those too of course)

Overall, I think Bevan is overrated (in cw, not outside).

 

[Red]

I think you are overrating earlier era bowlers (Garner, Ambrose, hadlee) and underrating strike rate.


I think Lee is at least in the same tier of all these bowlers.

I think you're underrating economy rate a lot, and overrating SR. Anyone who has maintained an ER of under 4 over a lengthy ODI career in any era is pretty amazing.

I'd argue it's more important than SR, which can be misleading in bowlers who concede more runs while getting wickets.

 

[stephen]

Why are you ignoring the SR when picking those players. 50+ average at high SR at lower order is non existent. All the other examples you give are top or middle order batsmen.

Just focusing on the average is very deceving especially for lower order batsmen.

Dhoni doesn't have a 50+ strike rate in the lower order though. His average only crosses 50 when he's batting 3 or 4. Similarly his strike rate goes up the higher he bats. His average batting 6 is 45 @ 84, which is excellent but not GOAT batsman territory.

 

[viriya]

I think you're underrating economy rate a lot, and overrating SR. Anyone who has maintained an ER of under 4 over a lengthy ODI career in any era is pretty amazing.

I'd argue it's more important than SR, which can be misleading in bowlers who concede more runs while getting wickets.

You are ignoring how most bowlers during that era had sub 3.8 economy rates. Any comparisons between eras needs to adjust for the era. When you do that those econ rates are not as impressive.

 

[viriya]

Dhoni doesn't have a 50+ strike rate in the lower order though. His average only crosses 50 when he's batting 3 or 4. Similarly his strike rate goes up the higher he bats. His average batting 6 is 45 @ 84, which is excellent but not GOAT batsman territory.

I don't think anyone suggested he was the goat.. just potentially goat finisher.

Whwn Dhoni comes into bat earlier than his usual position he is still coming in as a finisher because the team hasn't lost a lot of wickets but overs are running out. So you can't separate his finishing by looking at batting position.

 

[stephen]

And by strike rate I of course meant average.

 

[Red]

You are ignoring how most bowlers during that era had sub 3.8 economy rates. Any comparisons between eras needs to adjust for the era. When you do that those econ rates are not as impressive.

Which era did most bowlers have sub 3.8 ERs?

 

[viriya]

Which era did most bowlers have sub 3.8 ERs?

The Garner hadlee era average econ was significant lower than post 2000. 90s was in-between.

 

[Red]

The Garner hadlee era average econ was significant lower than post 2000. 90s was in-between.

I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't discredit Garner having an ER of 3.12, when other guys in his era were much closer to 4.

And the lower scores of the era actually accentuate how much good he was for his time. Even 0.5 runs less an over is highly significant.

Anyway, the original point was that Brett Lee was a great bowler in ODIs, I agree with that. But not the GOAT.

 

[stephen]

My dad raves about how good Garner was in the gully as well with his large hands.

 

[viriya]

I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't discredit Garner having an ER of 3.12, when other guys in his era were much closer to 4.

And the lower scores of the era actually accentuate how much good he was for his time. Even 0.5 runs less an over is highly significant.

Anyway, the original point was that Brett Lee was a great bowler in ODIs, I agree with that. But not the GOAT.

Garner was unique yes but he didn't play a lot of games even compared to his peers. But I agree his econ is exceptional.

Lee isn't my goat either, I just think he has a claim.

 

[Shri]

What's more, other than in New Zealand, Dhoni's average outside Asia is way worse than his average inside Asia.

If you take out all the games where he has batted with two hands, he averages 0!

That's to take nothing away from Dhoni's accomplishments. He's one of the two best keeper-batsmen ever to have played the game but suggesting that he's as good as Bevan with the bat is laughable.

Laugh away. He's better than him anyway, considering his strike rate, his number of world cup winning knocks compared to Bevan, his wicket keeping and his captaincy. In addition to be a superior finisher capable of coming in at multiple spots in the lineup.

I never said that Bevan was the fastest scorer. He scored at an acceptable rate for his era. In fact the truth is that he scored at the rate he needed to to win is games. And that's what cricket is about.

Bevan in successful chases: Runs 1725 Average 86 SR 66
MSD in successful chases: Runs Runs 2434 Avg 97 SR 90

Bevan looks like a schoolboy finisher in ODIs compared to MSD. Lets look at how they set up a winning total:

Won batting first, Bevan: Runs 2777 Average 56 SR 83
Won batting first, MSD: Runs 3112 Average 60 SR 105

He is clearly inferior again.

Dhoni has been very impressive in his career but ignoring his keeping he hasn't done anything than hasn't been done by others.

What hasn't he done that a lot of others have? List them.


And as for all those others? Lol at Trott, Rayudu etc. and lol at you if you think everyone in the list is comparable.

 

[stephen]

You do realise how different the eras are Shri?

Bevan was way better than his contemporaries than Dhoni. There's literally a better batsman in Dhoni's team. Yes, he's an excellent finisher but he's not really any better than Hussey or Kohli or ABDV, all of whom are his contemporaries.

Dhoni is very good, there's no denying that. But he's not the GOAT batsman. He's not even the GOAT finisher. He is an ATG, particularly in Asia, but Gilchrist is ahead of him as a keeper and arguably as a keeper-batsman too. Bevan was a better finisher. That's not to take anything away from Dhoni, it's like saying that a $5000 bottle of wine is better than the $1000 bottle - they're both top shelf, there's not much in it but one is better than the other.

 

[viriya]

You do realise how different the eras are Shri?

Bevan was way better than his contemporaries than Dhoni. There's literally a better batsman in Dhoni's team. Yes, he's an excellent finisher but he's not really any better than Hussey or Kohli or ABDV, all of whom are his contemporaries.

Dhoni is very good, there's no denying that. But he's not the GOAT batsman. He's not even the GOAT finisher. He is an ATG, particularly in Asia, but Gilchrist is ahead of him as a keeper and arguably as a keeper-batsman too. Bevan was a better finisher. That's not to take anything away from Dhoni, it's like saying that a $5000 bottle of wine is better than the $1000 bottle - they're both top shelf, there's not much in it but one is better than the other.

There's just a lot more atg batsmen in this era.

Ab, Dhoni, Kohli, Amla are all atg top 10 material.

At this point your posts just seem to be blind to facts though so I'll stop here.

 

[Shri]

The stats literally tell you you are wrong. This different era bs doesn't fly when the difference in strike rate is like Steve Smith vs Bradman in averages.

You do realise how different the eras are Shri?

Bevan was way better than his contemporaries than Dhoni. There's literally a better batsman in Dhoni's team. Yes, he's an excellent finisher but he's not really any better than Hussey or Kohli or ABDV, all of whom are his contemporaries.

Dhoni is very good, there's no denying that. But he's not the GOAT batsman. He's not even the GOAT finisher. He is an ATG, particularly in Asia, but Gilchrist is ahead of him as a keeper and arguably as a keeper-batsman too. Bevan was a better finisher. That's not to take anything away from Dhoni, it's like saying that a $5000 bottle of wine is better than the $1000 bottle - they're both top shelf, there's not much in it but one is better than the other.

That might well be true but this was always about how dire your style of debating is more than anything.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I think people are reading way too much into Asia/Non Asia given that we are talking about ODIs.
The Asia/Non Asia factor means something when talking about test batsmen but to use that as a factor when comparing Dhoni with Gilchrist or others is silly. It means for ****. I just don't see the merit of making points like "ATG in Asia vs non ATG outside of Asia"

Conditions don't play a major part in ODI cricket the way it does in Tests. What is required from batting positions at 5 or 6 is very different in this format. Gilchrist has no clear superiority over Dhoni in this format. Gilchrist has a decent ODI average but hardly exceptional.

Dhoni on the other hand was a revolutionary batsman in the position he batted in, something like what Gilchrist did at 7 in Test Cricket.

We need to change our criteria here. Number of centuries, conditions, regions. Irrelevant in this thread.

 

[stephen]

What hasn't he done that a lot of others have? List them.


And as for all those others? Lol at Trott, Rayudu etc. and lol at you if you think everyone in the list is comparable.

Firstly, I only said that other people have done what Dhoni has done, not that he had anything to prove.

Secondly, Dhoni's average is very good but there are others in the modern era with a similar average. That means he had contemporaries who are at or around his level. The next best behind Bevan was averaging a full 6 runs less than him (Abbas, Richards and Turner all had averages of 47, though their careers ended before Bevan's began).

The thing about Bevan though was that he was not a statistics machine, he was a match-winning machine. He never took risks unless he had to. It almost never happened that he was not out in a losing chase. People criticise him for his not outs, but when he was not out, Australia generally won.

It's only people who didn't see him play who think he's not the GOAT finisher. He's the second batsman on the team sheet behind Viv. Dhoni is up there but there is no point playing Dhoni if you pick Gilchrist.

 

[Shri]

You do realise how different the eras are Shri?

Bevan was way better than his contemporaries than Dhoni. There's literally a better batsman in Dhoni's team. Yes, he's an excellent finisher but he's not really any better than Hussey or Kohli or ABDV, all of whom are his contemporaries.

Is Bradman only as good as the other greats of the game that the past few decades have spit out? If we are talking about different eras and using that as an excuse, that is.