Clipping for sixes to 15 ball 50!

[vvvslaxman]

Dhoni will fail 9/10 against any half a decent bowler on most pitches...Pitches even overseas are pretty flat for LOI games ,hence he has had the success in the format. But credit where due....what seperates him from the likes of Pollard,etc is he picks his battles and is a real master at that,for that :hatsoff:....There is a reason why he doesn't have a single test 100 overseas or he goes about slogging in test cricket like a headless chicken where as he plays a more waiting game in LOI's. There is a reason why this guy is succesful he is very smart but as a cricketer pretty mediocre.

That rule applies to most players bar some top order batsman. he has been in top 10 ODI ranking almost for 6 years something very few (i don't think of any) has done. 2 years on the trot as no.1 ODI batsman in the world. You seriously undervalue his knocks like 113 against Pakistan at chennai. Let me put this way, if all the teams in the world is asked to pick a player from India that would be 100% Dhoni. You won't know the value until you have it. His T20 records are shady because of his mindset not because of lack of ability. He has changed a bit nowadays.

[Ram]

You are joking right??? The guy is good probably will make it to the top 50-100 greatest LOI cricketers of all time but in terms of memorable innings he is not even in the same league as Yuvraj..

You have no clue, dont you? If MSD is between 50-100, why dont you go ahead the list 50 players (min), who you think rank above him?

[SLICKR392]

LOL. Top 50-100? Talk about being partial with your own players.

[The Outsider]

You have no clue, dont you? If MSD is between 50-100, why dont you go ahead the list 50 players (min), who you think rank above him?

I don't consider Dhoni to be a 50-100 player, more like 20-30, but since I have some time to waste at the moment thought will list down whom I consider better and whether my perception is correct: Wicket Keepers: 1. Gilchrist 2. Sangakkara 3. De Villiers Batsmen: 4. Tendulkar 5. Richards 6. Dean Jones 7. Lara 8. Martin Crowe 9. M Waugh 10. Ganguly 11. Anwar 12. Miandad 13. M Hussey 14. Haynes 15. De Silva Bowlers: 16. Akram 17. McGrath 18. Warne 18. Murali 20. Marshall 21. Garner 22. Lee 23. Waqar 24. Saqlain 25. Ambrose 26. Donald 27. Holding All Rounders: 28. Kapil 29. Imran 30. Kallis 31. Pollock 32. Klusner 33. Jayasuriya 34. Cairns 35. Symonds Now, I agree some of them are borderline comparable with Dhoni, on whom personal judgments come into play, and I might have missed or included a few without checking stats, but it can be safely said Dhoni is not a top 20 international ODI cricketer.

[Ram]

Great, now we are getting somewhere! :nice: To start off, shall we be very clear that the comparison between players is only valid if their playing days fall in the same eras? (roughly speaking). That is why I called Dhoni the greatest Limited overs player of his generation (not all time best player ever..) When I mean same eras, I mean those players who have significant portion of their player years occur after the 96-98 timeline? Their careers need not have started after that timeline, but a significant body of their work - not a majority of it, but a meaningful portion of it - must have happened after that time? If you agree to this, we can use that to prune your list and then take it from there.

I don't consider Dhoni to be a 50-100 player, more like 20-30, but since I have some time to waste at the moment thought will list down whom I consider better and whether my perception is correct: Wicket Keepers: 1. Gilchrist 2. Sangakkara 3. De Villiers Batsmen: 4. Tendulkar 5. Richards 6. Dean Jones 7. Lara 8. Martin Crowe 9. M Waugh 10. Ganguly 11. Anwar 12. Miandad 13. M Hussey 14. Haynes 15. De Silva Bowlers: 16. Akram 17. McGrath 18. Warne 18. Murali 20. Marshall 21. Garner 22. Lee 23. Waqar 24. Saqlain 25. Ambrose 26. Donald 27. Holding All Rounders: 28. Kapil 29. Imran 30. Kallis 31. Pollock 32. Klusner 33. Jayasuriya 34. Cairns 35. Symonds Now, I agree some of them are borderline comparable with Dhoni, on whom personal judgments come into play, and I might have missed or included a few without checking stats, but it can be safely said Dhoni is not a top 20 international ODI cricketer.

[The Outsider]

Great, now we are getting somewhere! :nice: To start off, shall we be very clear that the comparison between players is only valid if their playing days fall in the same eras? (roughly speaking). That is why I called Dhoni the greatest Limited overs player of his generation (not all time best player ever..)

That's an entirely different discussion. And would easily knock away half or more of my list. I have no issues either way, but the rankings would change quite dramatically and from being a 20-30 player, he would probably be a 10-15 player.

When I mean same eras, I mean those players who have significant portion of their player years occur after the 96-98 timeline? Their careers need not have started after that timeline, but a significant body of their work - not a majority of it, but a meaningful portion of it - must have happened after that time? If you agree to this, we can use that to prune your list and then take it from there.

I can agree to it for argument's sake, but the game in '96-'98 was very different to what it is today. If you are happy to make that leap of faith, I am not sure what stops you from considering the entire ODI set.

[Ram]

I can agree to it for argument's sake, but the game in '96-'98 was very different to what it is today. If you are happy to make that leap of faith, I am not sure what stops you from considering the entire ODI set.

I think its an even bigger leap of faith for anyone to claim that they can possibly assess player credentials across eras, with any degree of confidence. The game is constantly evolving over time and the competition that a player in the 80s faced is not quite the same as someone in the 2000s. That is not to imply that a player who was great in the 80s will not be great in the 2000s as well (someone like Viv will be unbelievable if he plays in Mars in 2050), but speculation and theorizing is not much help when you are trying to come to definitive conclusions on player assessments. And If you noticed, I didnt say 96-98 is when the player career should have started. And that is why guys like Akram, Donald will still be under consideration.

[The Outsider]

I think its an even bigger leap of faith for anyone to claim that they can possibly assess player credentials across eras, with any degree of confidence. The game is constantly evolving over time and the competition that a player in the 80s faced is not quite the same as someone in the 2000s. That is not to imply that a player who was great in the 80s will not be great in the 2000s as well (someone like Viv will be unbelievable if he plays in Mars in 2050), but speculation and theorizing is not much help when you are trying to come to definitive conclusions on player assessments. And If you noticed, I didnt say 96-98 is when the player career should have started. And that is why guys like Akram, Donald will still be under consideration.

Sure the game has changed - I would be the last person to deny it. But if you've watched, followed, and read about the game over eras you can come to very legitimate conclusions. For example, and this is a bit of a presumption, you started following the game in the 90s so you don't have any problems including players from that time with Dhoni even though the ODI game has changed drastically since then. Judging a player across eras is exactly what you are doing when you are comparing him to cricketers from '96. But not to get into the eras debate as it has been done countless and more times, go ahead and specify your time frame and things like even though Waqar and Donald might have played beyond '98 are you going to judge them only on their post '98 performance or their overall careers. It would be better if we get the specifics out of the way before I can rank Dhoni in your sample.

[maniac]

You have no clue, dont you? If MSD is between 50-100, why dont you go ahead the list 50 players (min), who you think rank above him?

Ok fair enough 50-100 might have been harsh,but my original response was in relation to putting dhoni in the league of srt,ganguly or even yuvraj solely as a batsman. Let me say this dhoni will move ahead of a lot of players ,his contemporaries and peers when he is measured in terms of what he accomplished collectively as a keeper,batsman and captain especially given his trophy cabinet.even then he may not be top10-20 But I believe the original topic was dhonis hitting capabilities,well he would defintetely be a top 10 candidate there but calling him the best ever as an overall bat in loi's is ridiculous.....outsider has given a decent list of batsmen who superseed dhoni even in the limited formats.

[Ram]

Sure the game has changed - I would be the last person to deny it. But if you've watched, followed, and read about the game over eras you can come to very legitimate conclusions. For example, and this is a bit of a presumption, you started following the game in the 90s so you don't have any problems including players from that time with Dhoni even though the ODI game has changed drastically since then. Judging a player across eras is exactly what you are doing when you are comparing him to cricketers from '96. But not to get into the eras debate as it has been done countless and more times, go ahead and specify your time frame and things like even though Waqar and Donald might have played beyond '98 are you going to judge them only on their post '98 performance or their overall careers. It would be better if we get the specifics out of the way before I can rank Dhoni in your sample.

Ok cool. This is how I define 'Greatness' (with a Capital 'G') For somebody to be called 'Great', I need them to tick the 5 boxes, in the following order. 1. Longevity - This is by far to me the MOST important criteria of all, for me. If you think about it, it is not implausible for someone to be the best in the game for a limited amount of time. We have had many many examples of it. But father time is the ultimate test of character and talent. That is why guys like Mendis, Klusener etc - who dominated the game for a certain period of time - do not even come into the conversation for me. Some times, teams can take a few months before they figure out your strengths and weaknesses and it is entirely plausible that a player could have hit a few 100s or taken a 100 wickets before that time. 2. Winning - Bottomline, you have to be a winner, as simple as that. And by that I do not mean percentage of victories in the games you played, but winnings titles - World Cup, Champions trophy, Tri series', WC T20 etc. That is why I feel guys like Pollock, who had a fantastic individual careers in his own right, should never even be in the conversations when you think about greatest limited overs players of all time. And this is also a primary reason why someone like Lara's resume is hit hard because his West Indian team didnt win anything for an extended period of time 3. Delivering under pressure - This separates the men from the boys. How many games have you won for the team, when the chips are down? 4. You should have been the most valuable player in your team at least for a handful of years - Boiled down, what this means is that, when the selectors sit down to pick the squad, yours is the first name that they write on that piece of paper. Not the 2nd or the 3rd, but the first. 5. You should have never been dropped from the team for significant periods of time from the team, for reasons that mostly maybe cricketing related, but could be non-cricketing related as well.

[The Outsider]

Ok cool. This is how I define 'Greatness' (with a Capital 'G') For somebody to be called 'Great', I need them to tick the 5 boxes, in the following order. 1. Longevity - This is by far to me the MOST important criteria of all, for me. If you think about it, it is not implausible for someone to be the best in the game for a limited amount of time. We have had many many examples of it. But father time is the ultimate test of character and talent. That is why guys like Mendis, Klusener etc - who dominated the game for a certain period of time - do not even come into the conversation for me. Some times, teams can take a few months before they figure out your strengths and weaknesses and it is entirely plausible that a player could have hit a few 100s or taken a 100 wickets before that time.

Has it's value to a certain extent, like 10 years or so. Beyond that it's diminishing returns for me - if you were able to perform at a top level for 10 years versus 20 years, the 20 years wins, but not by a huge margin. Since you brought up Klusner, his lack of longevity is not due to performance, but due to politics. Or someone like Houghton or Flower whose careers were curtailed due to reasons completely beyond their control?

2. Winning - Bottomline, you have to be a winner, as simple as that. And by that I do not mean percentage of victories in the games you played, but winnings titles - World Cup, Champions trophy, Tri series', WC T20 etc. That is why I feel guys like Pollock, who had a fantastic individual careers in his own right, should never even be in the conversations when you think about greatest limited overs players of all time. And this is also a primary reason why someone like Lara's resume is hit hard because his West Indian team didnt win anything for an extended period of time

That would be at best a marginal indicator in my ratings. Except for a few rare occasions, even in ODIs, a team performance is required to win games. It would be dishonest to compare individuals based on the performance of their team.

3. Delivering under pressure - This separates the men from the boys. How many games have you won for the team, when the chips are down?

Agree. Though one needs to factor in that chips always appear to be more down for middle order batsmen than top order ones because you are viewing the game closer to the end.

4. You should have been the most valuable player in your team at least for a handful of years - Boiled down, what this means is that, when the selectors sit down to pick the squad, yours is the first name that they write on that piece of paper. Not the 2nd or the 3rd, but the first.

That's plain rubbish. I don't know how you would separate between Waqar and Akram or Donald and Pollock or Ponting and Gilchrist. Why should a player be penalized if there is an equally capable or greater player in the same team?

5. You should have never been dropped from the team for significant periods of time from the team, for reasons that mostly maybe cricketing related, but could be non-cricketing related as well.

Are we judging cricketing skills or politics of which we have no concrete evidence of? Klusner was not dropped for his performance, but for his attitude of which no concrete evidence was given in public. Yet you will penalize him? I can understand that line of thinking with someone like Afridi, but there is no way to make that generalization. And you did not address my point that if '96 is taken as the cutoff should the performance of players active across that year be taken into account only from that year or their entire career?

[maniac]

Ok cool. This is how I define 'Greatness' (with a Capital 'G') For somebody to be called 'Great', I need them to tick the 5 boxes, in the following order. 1. Longevity - This is by far to me the MOST important criteria of all, for me. If you think about it, it is not implausible for someone to be the best in the game for a limited amount of time. We have had many many examples of it. But father time is the ultimate test of character and talent. That is why guys like Mendis, Klusener etc - who dominated the game for a certain period of time - do not even come into the conversation for me. Some times, teams can take a few months before they figure out your strengths and weaknesses and it is entirely plausible that a player could have hit a few 100s or taken a 100 wickets before that time. 2. Winning - Bottomline, you have to be a winner, as simple as that. And by that I do not mean percentage of victories in the games you played, but winnings titles - World Cup, Champions trophy, Tri series', WC T20 etc. That is why I feel guys like Pollock, who had a fantastic individual careers in his own right, should never even be in the conversations when you think about greatest limited overs players of all time. And this is also a primary reason why someone like Lara's resume is hit hard because his West Indian team didnt win anything for an extended period of time 3. Delivering under pressure - This separates the men from the boys. How many games have you won for the team, when the chips are down? 4. You should have been the most valuable player in your team at least for a handful of years - Boiled down, what this means is that, when the selectors sit down to pick the squad, yours is the first name that they write on that piece of paper. Not the 2nd or the 3rd, but the first. 5. You should have never been dropped from the team for significant periods of time from the team, for reasons that mostly maybe cricketing related, but could be non-cricketing related as well.

Don't agree......This is not Tennis or Boxing were victories can be measured by individual brilliance....Tom Moody has what 2 Wc's?You mention Pollock but Waqar,Donald,Ambrose,walsh have never won anything significant wither.

[Ram]

Has it's value to a certain extent' date=' like 10 years or so. Beyond that it's diminishing returns for me - if you were able to perform at a top level for 10 years versus 20 years, the 20 years wins, but not by a huge margin.[/quote'] Of course, I dont expect every player to have the longevity that Sachin had.. that would just be impractical.. By that yardstick, even MSD would be disqualified because his international career started less than 10 years ago. But I need the player to have been part of the international game at least for 7-8 years minimum. Klusenser did come back into the team, but was a shadow of his previous self. I personally think it is a joke that you would even bring up Klusener's name in this list to begin with. To me, he's an incredible hitter, but a very limited batsmen. But we shall leave that debating for a later time. I vehemently disagree. In fact, I strongly considered putting this as criterion #1. Part of being great is to have the ability to inspire your team members to greatness as well. I understand the limitations of being an individual player in a team game, but if you are great, you should have willed your team to at least a handful of significant victories. I think it is fair to say that Australia had a superior ODI team to India back in 98, but Sachin Tendulkar willed India to victory in Sharjah. Sri Lanka were the eternal under-dogs in 96, but Aravinda's brilliance in the semis and finals propelled them to a famous win. South Africa were well and truly on top on WC semi-final 99, but Shane Warne's magic inspired them to victory in the game and the championship. Michael Jordan is considered one of the best ever not just because he was individually the best, but because many of championship winning bulls teams were a collection ordinary to above average players. For all individual accomplishments, Lara never drove his team to one meaningful win in the LOI game. If you are not a winner, you should come nowhere to being called 'great'. That is generally true. But keep in mind that, when i assess someone like Ganguly, it always weighs heavily on my mind that, for all his machine like scoring, he was never a finisher in ODIs (barring a few exceptions..). His ODI record chasing is significantly worser than his record batting first. This is in sharp contrast to someone like Kohli, who, just like Ganguly, is a top order player too. I think you have not fully understood my criterion. I did not say you should have been the MVP of your team, throughout your career. I know that it is literally impossible to be that. But if you are laying your claim to be greatest LOI player of your generation, then it is pretty reasonable to expect you are your team's most valuable asset for a given period of time. Taking your own example, I think that is exactly Waqar cannot be labeled as being one of the LOI legends. For all his exploits, he was not even the best player in team most of the time. Your attitude is what makes you, it is part of your package as a player. I am amazed that you would consider divorcing the player's talent from his mental discipline to begin with. Shane Bond may possibly have been the best ODI bowler of all time (his figures still blow my mind..). But he could never keep his health and had to be dropped for fitness reasons. It is not his fault that his body did not hold up, but it sure does affect his claim to being the best ever. Remember, we are talking 'the greatest player' here, not some random 'he's very good player' types.. You can consider those whose significant body of work happened after 96. That does not mean their performances before 96 is not considered. Case in point - Wasim brilliant 92 performance can absolutely be considered in support of his case.

[Ram]

Don't agree......This is not Tennis or Boxing were victories can be measured by individual brilliance....Tom Moody has what 2 Wc's?You mention Pollock but Waqar' date='Donald,Ambrose,walsh have never won anything significant wither.[/quote'] Sure, when did i say otherwise. That is why Donald or Walsh would not be in 'greatest' list either.

[Ram]

Btw, shwetabh, I think you have done great disservice by not including Rahul Dravid in your original list. He is definitely not the greatest, but he deserves to be in the conversation.

[The Outsider]

Of course, I dont expect every player to have the longevity that Sachin had.. that would just be impractical.. By that yardstick, even MSD would be disqualified because his international career started less than 10 years ago. But I need the player to have been part of the international game at least for 7-8 years minimum.

Fair enough.

Klusenser did come back into the team, but was a shadow of his previous self. I personally think it is a joke that you would even bring up Klusener's name in this list to begin with. To me, he's an incredible hitter, but a very limited batsmen. But we shall leave that debating for a later time.

Klusner came back under the same setup which had thrown him out. At least, I did not expect him to perform to the same level.

I vehemently disagree. In fact, I strongly considered putting this as criterion #1. Part of being great is to have the ability to inspire your team members to greatness as well. I understand the limitations of being an individual player in a team game, but if you are great, you should have willed your team to at least a handful of significant victories. I think it is fair to say that Australia had a superior ODI team to India back in 98, but Sachin Tendulkar willed India to victory in Sharjah. Sri Lanka were the eternal under-dogs in 96, but Aravinda's brilliance in the semis and finals propelled them to a famous win. South Africa were well and truly on top on WC semi-final 99, but Shane Warne's magic inspired them to victory in the game and the championship.

We might as well quit the discussion then. Because I don't rate Tendulkar's 136 below Lara's 153 just because Indian lost the match. Talking about ODIs, some of the best Tendulkar knocks, not just considered by me, but by many cricket experts the 143 at Sharjah or 175 against Australia, both in losing causes well beyond the realms of what one would expect any great cricketer to pull off.

Michael Jordan is considered one of the best ever not just because he was individually the best, but because many of championship winning bulls teams were a collection ordinary to above average players. For all individual accomplishments, Lara never drove his team to one meaningful win in the LOI game.

Lara has done the best that cricket as sport allows him in order to win matches, like Jordan. If you put Jordan in some thakela team, he would have lost as well.

If you are not a winner, you should come nowhere to being called 'great'.

True for individual sports, and far from the truth in team sports.

That is generally true. But keep in mind that, when i assess someone like Ganguly, it always weighs heavily on my mind that, for all his machine like scoring, he was never a finisher in ODIs (barring a few exceptions..). His ODI record chasing is significantly worser than his record batting first. This is in sharp contrast to someone like Kohli, who, just like Ganguly, is a top order player too.

Why should Ganguly be a finisher? There are roles in an ODI team. Can Dhoni be an opener?

I think you have not fully understood my criterion. I did not say you should have been the MVP of your team, throughout your career. I know that it is literally impossible to be that. But if you are laying your claim to be greatest LOI player of your generation, then it is pretty reasonable to expect you are your team's most valuable asset for a given period of time. Taking your own example, I think that is exactly Waqar cannot be labeled as being one of the LOI legends. For all his exploits, he was not even the best player in team most of the time.

What period of time? That's a complete rubbish argument. Warne and McGrath's careers coincided almost perfectly - how could anyone pick one over the other is beyond me!

Your attitude is what makes you, it is part of your package as a player. I am amazed that you would consider divorcing the player's talent from his mental discipline to begin with. Shane Bond may possibly have been the best ODI bowler of all time (his figures still blow my mind..). But he could never keep his health and had to be dropped for fitness reasons. It is not his fault that his body did not hold up, but it sure does affect his claim to being the best ever. Remember, we are talking 'the greatest player' here, not some random 'he's very good player' types..

I am not talking about mental discipline and injuries - I have no qualms in penalizing the player for it. I was more referring to selection politics playing a part, where a fit and performing player is left out.

You can consider those whose significant body of work happened after 96. That does not mean their performances before 96 is not considered. Case in point - Wasim brilliant 92 performance can absolutely be considered in support of his case.

Okay.

[The Outsider]

Btw' date=' shwetabh, I think you have done great disservice by not including Rahul Dravid in your original list. He is definitely not the greatest, but he deserves to be in the conversation.[/quote'] That's the problem of not referring to stats guru while making a list like that - there will be some worthy exclusions and some unworthy inclusions.

[Ram]

Off to the gym.expect a delayed response

[The Outsider]

Off to the gym.expect a delayed response

Off to bed. Let's try to continue tomorrow, if not, then on Monday.

[jalebi_bhai]

I personally feel that his captaincy is overrated.......his batting is aptly rated....... Top 50 greatest cricketers of all time? Quite comfortably......