Is Dhoni greatest captain wicket keeper ever ?

[The Outsider]

And how is that a metric to judge players' date='H.Singh got a century against NZ when everyone else failed,so can we assume that Darty>Indian lineup[/quote'] Completely missed the point. Yeah, Harbhajan scored against NZ when all failed, but: 1. The bowling attack was mediocre. 2. The pitch was benign. 3. And most importantly, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid, Sehwag, Gambhir all have better knocks than that innings by Harbhajan on other occasions. Which innings does Dhoni have which is better than not one, not two, but three innings of Mongia.

[Trichromatic]

Are you saying that Dhoni's average of 38 in today's era makes him "not worse" than Engineer who averaged 31 while opening in a bowler friendly era? :blink: Is Thilan Samaraveera also "not worse" than Gavaskar? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

So, a player with lower average in 70s and 80s is automatically better batsman than player with higher average in 2000s? That would make Boycott better than Tendulkar.

[The Outsider]

So you are saying you'd have any of the above in the test team over MSD? OK.

Yes. They are all much better keepers than Dhoni and Dhoni is no Gilchrist that the difference in keeping can be made by being a better batsman in case of Kirmani, Mongia, and More while Engineer was even a better batsman than Dhoni or at worse roughly equal.

[The Outsider]

So, a player with lower average in 70s and 80s is automatically better batsman than player with higher average in 2000s? That would make Boycott better than Tendulkar.

How are you drawing that conclusion? Dhoni fan boys are claiming that he is better than Engineer because he has more runs at a better average and presenting it as statistical proof. The same logic can be used to prove Jayawardene to be better than Richards when that's clearly not the case. The fallacy in the statistical proof is being pointed out, not a claim being made that anyone with a similarly lower average in the 70s is better than someone today. That's why blanket statistical proofs make little sense in a game like cricket with so many variables.

[Trichromatic]

How are you drawing that conclusion? Dhoni fan boys are claiming that he is better than Engineer because he has more runs at a better average and presenting it as statistical proof. The same logic can be used to prove Jayawardene to be better than Richards when that's clearly not the case. The fallacy in the statistical proof is being pointed out, not a claim being made that anyone with a similarly lower average in the 70s is better than someone today. That's why blanket statistical proofs make little sense in a game like cricket with so many variables.

I'm drawing conclusion because just like some Dhoni fanboys are using average to say Dhoni is better, Ganeshran used directly opening and better bowling criteria.

Are you saying that Dhoni's average of 38 in today's era makes him "not worse" than Engineer who averaged 31 while opening in a bowler friendly era?

Then there must be some argument to suggest how they are better batsman than Dhoni if stats are not good enough to decide. :dontknow: It looks like both sides are saying same thing again and again in different threads without adding much extra to argument.

[The Outsider]

Then there must be some argument to suggest how they are better batsman than Dhoni if stats are not good enough to decide. :dontknow:

Where am I claiming them to be better batsmen? Can you quote a post of mine where I made that claim? Summary for your benefit: They are much better keepers than Dhoni and Dhoni's batting is not so much superior to them (if at all in Engineer's case) to make up for the difference.

[The Outsider]

A former poster, CC, had ripped apart the Wisden rankings. Here is the article: http://www.cricketnetwork.co.uk/main/s119/st61161.htm

Wisden's controversial top 100 Test innings rating fails the test of objectivity, proving to be skewed even based on its own published parameters. Wisden publishes a set of 12 parameters which are considered when evaluating their top 100 test innings of all time. However, Wisden says only that "blahblah things are taken into account", and not what percentage of each thing counts towards the total score. So we don't know, for example, whether a given parameter contributes 80% of the "innings rating" or 20%. I would like to know: 1. The precise weight each parameter carries to determine the final tally and, 2. What was the logic used to arrive at that weighting. Interestingly, they don't say a word about how many times a batsman was dropped, or how freely he scored his runs. None of Sachin Tendulkar's record number of Test centuries make it into Wisden's top 100 list. Let's take just one of these innings -- Sachin Tendulkar's 136 v Pakistan at Chennai in 1999 -- and compare it to Wisden's number 10 innings of all time: Brian Lara's 375 v England at Antigua in 1994, based on their own rules. 1. Batting Base points The Batting Base points are given for Runs scored. Brian Lara, for his 375 and 400*, gets the highest Index value. No problem. Lara gets more points, for he scored over 200 more runs than Tendulkar. Tendulkar 0, Lara 1. 2. Pitch Index This index is determined based on the Runs scored in a match and number of wickets, which have fallen. Normalizing is done to take care of wide variations. Additional normalization is done to reflect the pre-WW1 situation with uncovered pitches. At Chennai, 1036 runs were scored for the loss of 40 wickets. Surely, this parameter awards more points to Tendulkar than to Lara -- in Antigua 1229 runs were scored with just 16 wickets falling during the course of the match. Tendulkar 1, Lara 1. 3. Bowling Quality Index The Bowling Quality Index is based on the quality of bowlers who have bowled in the innings. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 bowlers are taken for determining this Index value. Care is taken that the fifth bowler (e-g, Richards) does not lower the Index determination adversely. Can we even begin to compare Fraser-Caddick-Tufnell-Lewis to Akram-Waqar-Saqlain (version 1 where he was getting returns like Murali today)-Afridi ? Okay, Afridi is an inferior bowler to all 4 Englishmen above, but the other three Pakistani bowlers were all superior. This parameter must go to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 2, Lara 1. 4. Percentage of Score Index This reflects the % of team runs scored by the batsman. Surprisingly, Bannerman's 166 in the first test ever is still the highest % score in a completed innings. Lara scored 63% of the team's runs and Tendulkar scored 52% of the team's runs. This one goes to Lara. Tendulkar 2, Lara 2. 5. Point of Entry Index This index reflects the entry point and distinguishes between 5 for 1, 27 for 2, 35 for 3 etc. For the first innings of the test, the index is absolute. For the other three innings, the Index is linked to a target score, exact for the last innings and national for the other two. Lara comes in at 1-11 and Tendulkar comes in at 2-6. This one goes to Tendulkar: he came in when team had lost an extra wicket, and for less runs. Tendulkar 3, Lara 2. 6. After point of Entry Index This index reflects the difference between entering at, say, 10 for 2 with a third wicket partnership of 100 and entering at 10 for 2 and the score going down to 20 for �. Lara's 2nd wicket partership with Simmons yielded 1 run, and 3rd wicket parsnership with Arthurton yielded 179 runs. Tendulkar's 3rd wicket partnership with Dravid yielded 44 runs and 4th wicket partnership with Azharuddin yielded 23 runs. This parameter again favors Tendulkar. Tendulkar 4, Lara 2. 7. Wickets falling while at crease Index This index reflect the number of wickets seen through by the batsman. An opening batsman, carrying his bat through, gets the highest value. Lara came in with 1 wicket down, and was the 5th wicket to fall. Thus, his tenure at the crease saw 3 wickets fall. Tendulkar came in when 2 wickets were down and was dismissed as the 7th wicket. He saw 4 wickets fall at the other end. Again, this one goes to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 5, Lara 2. 8. Support Index This reflects the support received by the batsman while he played his innings. Lara had partnerships of 1 run, 179 runs, 183 runs and 219 runs. Simmons scored 1 with Lara,Adams scored 59, Arthurton scored 47 and Chanders an unbeaten 75. Total support cast: 182 runs. Tendulkar had partnerships of 44 runs, 23 runs, 9 runs, 136 runs and 36 runs. Dravid scored 10 runs with Tendulkar, Azhar 7, Ganguly 2, Mongia 52 and Joshi scored 8 Total support cast: 79 runs. Lara had more support. This category also goes to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 6, Lara 2. 9. Shepherding of Tailenders Index This index is based on the way the batsman has nursed the 8-11 batsmen and built partnerships. The highest value is given for a batsman who has been involved in 4 significant partnerships. Batsmen nursed from 8-11 counts. Lara didn't nurse any such batsman, so he gets a zero for this one. Tendulkar nursed number 8 Joshi for a 36-run partnership. Tendulkar gets this one. Tendulkar 7, Lara 2. 10. Highest score Index This is the lowest rated parameter and is given to the innings if the same is the highest for the team. Both score even number of points in this category, as Lara's 375 was HS for the team and Tendulkar's 136 was HS for the team as well. Even stevens. Tendulkar 8, Lara 3. 11. Match Status Index This is a complex index, which reflects the status of the match. The highest value is given to a successful and close fourth innings chase (Lara's 153*). Tendulkar should get a higher rating here, as the match status was more dire compared to when Lara came out. Tendulkar's was a 4th innings chase, whereas Lara's was a 1st innings tally. Wisden mentions that the highest points are given to a successful 4th innings chase. Logic dictates that it means a good score in the 4th innings in a failed chase should mean AT LEAST as many points as a big bang in the 1st innings when the match-state isn't as developed. However, this is complex as Wisden says. I am tempted to give this one to Tendulkar, but let's be generous here and call it a tie. Tendulkar 9, Lara 4. 12. Result contribution Index This index is based on the sum of the 11 index values and reflects the value of the players contribution, through the considered innings, to the match result. The match should be a win (x points) or a draw (0.3x points) for this index value to be allocated. Additional weightage is given for away wins. Lara fares better here, because his efforts were in a drawn match and Tendulkar's in a narrowly lost one. I disagree with this rating parameter: ONE player doesnt win or lose a match and how good YOU played should be independent of the result, that is dependent on TEN OTHER TEAM-MATES. However, I am playing by their rules and not mine, so I will consider it and count it in Lara's favour. FINAL TALLY: Tendulkar 9, Lara 5. Tendulkar outscores Lara in over twice as many categories, but apparently his innings must be at least 41.3 pts below Lara's rating (the difference between Lara's innings and #100 innings, and optimistically assuming that Wisden would rate Tendulkar's effort as 101). Go figure! There are several scores less than Tendulkar's that were mentioned in that list, so don't give me the "375 is a heck of a lot more than 136" stupidity. This rating system can mean only one thing: A hugely disproportionate number of rating points are attached to 1, 4 and 6. If that's the case, then Tendulkar's 241*, or his innings against AUS/RSA in the early 90s etc, should figure in the list as they boost Tendulkar's percentage of team runs scored. But do they feature? NO! So I am forced to conclude that Wisden's top 100 innings is a bogus rating system -- no better than my, or your, subjective opinion.

[maniac]

Best Keeper/Batsman ever from India yes... in the world you must be out of your mind

[Ultimate_Game]

Sachin's desert storm inning is rated higher than 98 v Pak.n it came in losing cause. so u'll rate Gambhirs inning in T20 WC differently if Misbah connected with that scoop n we lost.wierd. a batsman can put in winning position,if others cant even do basic stuff right,how is it the batsman's fault

Don't care how Sachin's Desert Storm is rated, fans will always rate his 98 and assault on Akhtar & co. a lot higher. And yes, result of the game does change the perception of the batsman's innings.

Are you saying that Dhoni's average of 38 in today's era makes him "not worse" than Engineer who averaged 31 while opening in a bowler friendly era? :blink: Is Thilan Samaraveera also "not worse" than Gavaskar? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Now that we have this clear , Can we have the posts where I said that More and Mongia are better batsmen than Dhoni, since you have copy pasted that in every reply of yours to me

Now would you rate a batsman averaging 45 and with 7000 runs higher than Tendulkar just because the other batsman played in a "bowler friendly" era? Or let's say would you put Chappell higher than Tendulkar? Yup, same way I wouldn't put a guy averaging 31 and scoring 2500 runs over a player averaging 38 and 3800 runs. The day Samaraweera averages 59 and aggrgates 50% more than Gavaskar (approx. 15000 Test runs), yes I will rate Samaraweera higher. Clearly you have no clue how to figure out averages and aggregates :haha: Doesn't surprise me for a guy who thinks Dhoni's average is inflated by his dismissals off no-balls :hysterical: Ok, so are you saying now Dhoni is one of our best wk-batsman of all time as now you are saying Dhoni's better than Mongia and More?

Care to let us know which match Jaya's 242 won? Here is the scorecard for your benefit: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63831.html Please pay special attention to the 500 plays 500 pitch and the terrifying Indian bowling attack of Prasad, Nehra, Kumble, Harbhajan (pre 2001), Tendulkar, and Ganguly.

And clearly you didn't read my post which started with "If" as in "If Jayawardene's knock came in a win". No wonder for a guy who keeps on claiming everyone is "intellectually dishonest" but himself :haha:

Cricinfo also says Jayawardene has more runs and a better average than Viv Richards. Nothing happened. I've always maintained Dhoni is number 5 behind Engineer, Kirmani, More, and Mongia. You can look up my earlier posts for confirmation.

Yup, I am sure More, Mongia, Kirmani etc. are all ahead of Dhoni :haha: I am actually shocked Ratra, Dahiya and Saba Karim didn't make the cut :giggle: After all More's "fighting" knocks of which we haven't seen any proof, and Mongia's excellent away average of 18 are out of this world and Dhoni's average of 38 is due to "cheap" runs :cantstop:

[Ultimate_Game]

Best Keeper/Batsman ever from India yes... in the world you must be out of your mind

Read the title a bit more closely... it says "best wk captain" :facepalm:

[maniac]

Read the title a bit more closely... it says "best wk captain" :facepalm:

Way to be specific Lol...maybe should have added who could play the Helicopter shot as well to the OP

[CSK Fan]

Read the title a bit more closely... it says "best wk captain" :facepalm:

Hilarious . BTW, he is also the best wicketkeeper batsman with the longest hair.

[CSK Fan]

If Jaya's 242 wins the match and Tendulkar's 136 doesn't I will actuall rate it higher. But I guess we don't have the "anyone but Dhoni" goggles on :haha:

With that you prove how less a capability of critical thinking you have and how much you just look at the score board for results in a team game. I didn't expect such a stupid post from a newbie let alone someone who watched cricket for so long. It's like when I tried making my girl friend watch cricket. Hey this guy won, that guy didnt so he much be better. But then you are the same one who thinks that a person who leaves the team 17 runs to win is worse than someone who leaves the team 250 runs to win (Sehwag) just because other players finished the job in one. How can one eve argue with such retarded logic. Only the basest of moron will ignore a factor of 10:1 ie the contribution of other 10 players in a match in a team game. And these are supposedly educated people who have even studied in elementary school - to compare two things all other factors must be equal. Which just goes to prove no matter how much one learns by rote, there is no substitute for logic and common sense. And whenever someone talks of team results, ie, the combined efforts of 11 players on both sides, while comparing 2 individual players, he demonstrates a complete lack of both.

[The Outsider]

-> But he played great innings which are so amazing. Ans. So did Dhoni and Dexter provided the examples. -> But they were not good. Ans. That's subjective.

Fair or unfair that's how we judge greatness. Why do you think the term "clutch" was invented? Or why do you think lot of people consider Brady a better QB than Peyton Manning or Marino. In a team sport, at the end of the day weightage is given to teh team result.

Now, take a peak at Dexter Morgan's list with which you are touting Dhoni's batting abilities and let us know how many came in matches won? Want a refresher? Here is the list again with scorecards from your favorite source of cricket:

57 * vs Pakistan Delhi http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/297806.html 148 vs Pakistan Faislabad http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/233797.html 64 vs England Mumbai http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238187.html 34 and 47 vs South Africa Durban http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/249216.html 76* vs England Lords http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/258468.html

How many in matches won, again? One and that too not a standout innings in the test by any stretch of biased imagination. A score of 57 cluttered between 82, 72, 67,45, 53, 56*, and 48.

And clearly you didn't read my post which started with "If" as in "If Jayawardene's knock came in a win". No wonder for a guy who keeps on claiming everyone is "intellectually dishonest" but himself :haha:

Now, that it has been shown that Jayawardene's innings did not come in a won match, do you agree that Tendulkar's deserves to be ahead of it and that Wisden ratings are crap?

[GautiMaan]

Not only that. The quality of bowling and the state of the pitch and match situation also play major role. Where am I claiming Mongia to be a better batsman than Dhoni? On average, Dhoni is a better batsman but Mongia was a much better keeper and not a poor batsman by any means given the fact that Dhoni has not been able to play a single innings better than Mongia's top 3.

Then we are in agreement

Yes. They are all much better keepers than Dhoni and Dhoni is no Gilchrist that the difference in keeping can be made by being a better batsman in case of Kirmani' date=' Mongia, and More while Engineer was even a better batsman than Dhoni or at worse roughly equal.[/quote'] And he has compensated for his "average" keeping skills with the bat that hasnt he? He has more than contributed with the bat,u will say that he made the runs on pattas,but those runs were the difference between a win and a draw/loss,the best example is the last test. Even abroad before our nightmarish 2011 season he has contributed more than any wk(except Engineer maybe) before him has ever done If the axe did not fall on Sehwag/Gambhir/VVs who failed in their specialist roles in these tours,then how can u ask for Dhoni alone to be dropped.

[rkt.india]

Personal Opinion 57 * vs Pakistan Delhi http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/297806.html 148 vs Pakistan Faislabad http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/233797.html 64 vs England Mumbai http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238187.html 34 and 47 vs South Africa Durban http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/249216.html 76* vs England Lords http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/258468.html These are some stand out performances by Dhoni (not comparing to Mongia or anyone). PS - I have not included innings where he has come and scored quick runs for the team when required. I count them very important innings too.

These 2 innings. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/engine/match/474474.html

[rkt.india]

So, a player with lower average in 70s and 80s is automatically better batsman than player with higher average in 2000s? That would make Boycott better than Tendulkar.

That is why Chetan Chauhan and Sanjay Manjeraker are better than VVS and ganguly.:cantstop:

[Trichromatic]

That is why Chetan Chauhan and Sanjay Manjeraker are better than VVS and ganguly.:cantstop:

At least in Dhoni's case he has 1000 runs more and average difference is of 7. I don't know how the example of Samarweera and Gavaskar where Gavaskar has more runs and average is almost same goes against Dhoni. If Samarweera had 15000-20000 runs at an avg of 60 even in this era, then I guess there would have been many people saying that he is easily not worse than Gavaskar. :dontknow:

So, Dhoni with his average of 38 against poor attacks at home isnt worse than Engineer who scored at 31 opening the innings against great attacks in a bowler friendly era. Indeed stats prove the same, they also prove that Samaraveera isnt worse than Gavaskar :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Engineer is considered as best wicketkeeper Indian produced and he was certainly better batsman than most of the other Indian wicketkeepers.

[Raghav_12]

Dont know whether they were better than Mongia's but off the top of my head i can say faisalabad and the Lords test in 2007' date='but u were terming Dhoni as a walking wicket bcoz of his performances abroad,so now will u admit that Mongia was also a walking wicket?[/quote'] Dhoni did well on that tour to England in 2007, particularly in Lords test. However in that series we had both Karthick and Dhoni playing all test matches and Karthick had come out as better bat between two of them. Not to suggest that Karthick should replace Dhoni in test team now (Saha should IMHO), but once when he had run in same race as Dhoni, he had come first.

[Trichromatic]

Dhoni did well on that tour to England in 2007' date=' particularly in Lords test. However in that series we had both Karthick and Dhoni playing all test matches and Karthick had come out as better bat between two of them. Not to suggest that Karthick should replace Dhoni in test team now (Saha should IMHO), [b']but once when he had run in same race as Dhoni, he had come first.

When?