MS Dhoni does not have a single century outside Asia in any format

[Kaptan]

He has 12 test 50 s outside asia. 5 in eng, 3 in nz, 2 in wi, 1 each in aus and sa

Africa - 1
Americas - 2
Europe - 8
Oceania - 4
Total - 15

Home - 15
Away - 18
Grand total - 33

 

[The_Odd_One]

Well, why don't you compare apple to apple. Just take a look at Dhoni performance when he batted 2-5.

Avg of 58 & SR of 92 4700 runs

What do you think his record would have been if he had batted higher up his entire career? Had he scored more runs and better Strike rate or it would have been other way around?

The same becomes 21 in Australia, 24 in England, and 18 in SA when played against top 7 teams in those countries without a single 50 or 100 in 18 matches. There is a reason, he has refrained from batting in the top and middle order even when India needed him to do so.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

 

[Kaptan]

Where are u getting u r stats from? He has 15 half centuries outside asia and 12 half centuries outside asia in odis and tests respectively

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28081.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28081.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting

 

[Drreddymd]

Africa - 1
Americas - 2
Europe - 8
Oceania - 4
Total - 15

Home - 15
Away - 18
Grand total - 33

Sorry. He has 8 fifties in eng and not 5

 

[The_Odd_One]

Point is you guys are talking about a something like ton in non-Asia for batsman who has mostly played at 6 or lower. You are not going to score many tons coming at 6 so picking and talking about this hardly going to prove anything one way or other way. I can start talking about double tons by guys like Rohit Sharma and ask why some other ATG who bats higher up doesn't have it? It's hardly going to make other guy stature less. Reason is, very few have made doubles and same logic applies here as well. That was the point of my post. Ton is a non-issue for a keeper batsman coming at 6 specially if we start picking venues. Hardly matters. Not that I won't criticize Dhoni for not playing big knocks in coutries like SA, but this talk iof ton is a non-issue.

Dhoni has mostly played at 5 or 6. Bevan scored a century from that position, so did Yuvraj and AB. How come Dhoni scored 10 centuries despite being a finisher in Asia but did not manage to score even one outside? Does not it sound strange to you?

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Gilly has an avg of 35-36 not 38 firstly.

Btw Kallis and his own teammate Hayden averaged 40+ too. So , its 6 not 4.

There are many players who average higher than Gilly from his era not just 4 or 6.

Only Kock comes closer to Gilly, Kock will surpass Gilly and is already second best keeper after Gilly now

 

[Tusker]

Got caught pants down by bringing ABD in even when I was clear I was talking about ODIs and in another comment, referred to him as a choker in T20Is?

Yet another logical sequence constructed.

DING DING DING.



How to get out of this Dhoni pickle?

Construct your own logic.

Ever noticed how you mention so many times that most people resort to trolling in forums when faced with so called tough questions.

Newsflash bro.

ITS NOT THEM. ITS YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Only reason people don't engage much is cos they don't bother after a while.

But hey...keep constructing logical sequences in your head.

See your post 57 where you clearly say MSD failing in T20 right on First line. You also posted elsewhere that the topic in this thread deserves to be discussed when it clearly is based on a meaningless stat. Yet to see you respond to the stats I posted.

So yeah the only one who is constricting all sorts of imaginary sequences is YOU! !!

 

[Buffet]

Dhoni has mostly played at 5 or 6. Bevan scored a century from that position, so did Yuvraj and AB. How come Dhoni scored 10 centuries despite being a finisher in Asia but did not manage to score even one outside? Does not it sound strange to you?

Nothing strange about it. Dhoni has better game for Asian conditions. I won't club 5 or 6 together. He has batted less than 30 times at 5 and above outside of Asia. In comparison, he has batted 58 times at 6 or below. It's not surprise to see that his performance will be less outside of Asia. Simply because he had better game for Asian conditions, but this talk of tons needs to be seen in context and he has batted less than 30 times outside of Asia above 6 and hardly batted above 5. So ton being absent is hardly an issue here. You can certainly pick on him for not doing enough outside of Asia. That's a fair criticism.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

See your post 57 where you clearly say MSD failing in T20 right on First line. You also posted elsewhere that the topic in this thread deserves to be discussed when it clearly is based on a meaningless stat. Yet to see you respond to the stats I posted.

So yeah the only one who is constricting all sorts of imaginary sequences is YOU! !!

Chalo then I will do the honors for you.

Here is post #57.

MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.

This guy is like Inzi. Scored a jaw dropping knock and then flopped in WCs everytime. Sure, he will be remembered as a success in WC for that great knock which won his team the WC but no one who digs into data deep is gonna call Dhoni clutch in WC knockouts.

Cos the bitter truth is that he was a choker in those situations.

But no...let's mock ABD for his ill luck and praise Dhoni for all his luck in WCs.

Here is also a post in the same post.

But no...let's mock ABD for his ill luck and praise Dhoni for all his luck in WCs.

You also posted elsewhere that the topic in this thread deserves to be discussed when it clearly is based on a meaningless stat.

Yes. I said this thread deserves to be discussed. Just because something deserves to be discussed does NOT mean it changes the equation completely. It just means its worth a debate as to why he hasn't achieved it.

Further posts down, you see me calling Dhoni as ODI ATG regardless. Check it for yourself by going back.

ALSO this was my first post in the thread:

Wasn't there a series in England 2011 where Dhoni didn't even get out even once? He does have decent averages in outside Asia countries.

In the quest to not over-rate Dhoni, let's not under-rate him too.

Stats can be used to prove Yuvi, Sehwag, Ashwin, etc, etc were nothing players too.

It can be used to prove SRT was an Asian bully in 90s in ODI.

It can be used to prove Anwar was useless as hell against quality bowlers in 90.

Dhoni was a gun finisher (not in ICC tournaments though). 2nd best finisher.

ATG ODI bat.

Surprise surprise.

I guess I got caught with my pants down. )

Now who is automatically constructing logical sequences in their head?

Now I will expect some other pointless new time consuming diversion from you (since Dhoni has failed in all World T20s, all WCs, all knockouts except 1 and is also a poor pure bat in tests) for which I won't respond (hopefully).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

*ICC knockouts

 

[Tusker]

I did not decide anything. Dhoni beat both Hayden and AB in the "GO-Bat" competition held on PP last year. Even against, Tendulkar, 1/4th of the posters voted for Dhoni.

And how is is it meaningless statistic? Someone who is considered an ATG bat does not have a single century outside Asia in any format. FYI, Bevan has a couple of them in Asia batting at the same position.

Go Bat Poll on a forum is your benchmark ? Seriously? )

The stat is meaningless because it is normal for keeper's to not score 100s in ODIs. Even top order proper batsman like Inzi , Azharuddin, YK , Raina, Gambhir etc have just one or two inngs. It means nothing.

If you flip that around for Non Asian top order batsmentry in Asia you get batsmen like Steve Waugh, Fleming, Duminy, Border who have zero ODI hundreds and Hayden has 1 hundred.

BTW Bevans highest score in Asia is 101 and For MSD outside Asia its 95. Do you think that those 6 runs separate MSD and Bevan even if we both pretend Keeping and Captaincy add no extra burden.

I can go on and on but don't think you are into facts. You basically dislike MSD and you will clutch on to any stat that appears to show him in poor light without realizing that it's a meaningless stat.

 

[Statsman]

Mike Hussey has only 1 century outside Asia. 3 in total (Bangladesh, WI and NZ). Australia lost 2/3 of those games. Its about the batting position. Not easy to score 100s so low down the order.

 

[TestMatch]

He bats too low to expect tons. But one would expect better averages, and yet Dhoni averages 27 in SA, 35 in Aus, 37 in England.

 

[cr7great]

dhoni is okayish player in odi outside asia
but good odi captain

 

[Chrish]

Beven has 6 hundreds in 232 ODIs and grad-total 1 hundred in Asia out of 67 games..

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Beven has 6 hundreds in 232 ODIs and grad-total 1 hundred in Asia out of 67 games..

But his average must surely be good in Asia

 

[Chrish]

But his average must surely be good in Asia

Guys like Dhoni aren't rated for their averages..

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Guys like Dhoni aren't rated for their averages..

Then I presume it must be for his finishing .

His SR in that case ??

 

[Chrish]

Then I presume it must be for his finishing .

His SR in that case ??

What about the SR?

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

What about the SR?

I was asking. I dont have access to statsguru.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Centuries or no centuries this is a fact that Indian LOI teams need his services currently. Kohli will learn a lot from him.

 

[Ankit007]

Today's game proves one more thing, if he bats at 4 or above, he would have had lot more centuries....

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Today's game proves one more thing, if he bats at 4 or above, he would have had lot more centuries....

In LOI's or Tests?

 

[Ankit007]

In LOI's or Tests?

LOIs bro...

 

[Pollack]

Today's game proves one more thing, if he bats at 4 or above, he would have had lot more centuries....

Lot of only in Asia. Not many outside.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Today's game proves one more thing, if he bats at 4 or above, he would have had lot more centuries....

He was the captain . Then why didn't he promote himself up the order? He played 60 odd innings outside Asia at the top order and have an abysmal record. 60 odd innings is a good enough sample. The FACT is he is done . He might strike gold once in a while ,but that's not good enough.

 

[Mobashir]

Always said that he is way overrated.
What jus defenders Has to say "he is a proven match winner" but will never proove it as he isn't.

A good or at best very good ODI wk batsman. But never an all time great!
He is the champion of useless runs! A complete failure in world cups and ICC's trophies.

 

[Drreddymd]

He was the captain . Then why didn't he promote himself up the order? He played 60 odd innings outside Asia at the top order and have an abysmal record. 60 odd innings is a good enough sample. The FACT is he is done . He might strike gold once in a while ,but that's not good enough.

Why present truths when they are in some parallel world where dhoni would have scored centuries left right and centre if he opened

 

[DHONI183]

MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.

This guy is like Inzi. Scored a jaw dropping knock and then flopped in WCs everytime. Sure, he will be remembered as a success in WC for that great knock which won his team the WC but no one who digs into data deep is gonna call Dhoni clutch in WC knockouts.

Cos the bitter truth is that he was a choker in those situations.

But no...let's mock ABD for his ill luck and praise Dhoni for all his luck in WCs.

This was an ICC event semi-final, a match that India won by 15 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/287878.html

 

[Saurav]

This was an ICC event semi-final, a match that India won by 15 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/287878.html

Also his knock in WC Semi 2015,might be useless but wasnt a choke

 

[DHONI183]

Also his knock in WC Semi 2015,might be useless but wasnt a choke

Don´t show the cards yet! We´ll come to that later on, if the need arises at all.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This was an ICC event semi-final, a match that India won by 15 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/287878.html

5 points:

1. Scoring runs in a few games (ok SF here) does not mean the tourney was a success. Virat scored a wonderful 100 against Pakistan in 2015 WC but people regard his performance in WC 2015 as a failure overall (and rightly so).

2. Dhoni did score 36 runs at a good SR but the real game changers were Yuvi and Uthappa who resurrected our batting when we were struggling at 41-2 in 8 overs. In this game, even if Dhoni hadn't thrashed, we had other bats (Rohit and Irfan) to swing a few.

3. Interestingly, the VERY NEXT GAME, in the finals when India needed Dhoni to score when he came out at 103-3...he scored 6 runs eating up 10 CRUCIAL balls after coming in at the 14th over.

4. The very fact that nobody remembers these random slogfest knocks where someone has to come and swing a few runs is a testament to how much impactful Dhoni has been in T20. People to this day, remember Yuvi and Uthappa knocks while they would be surprised to see Dhoni's score in that very game. It may sound harsh but its the reality.

5. I can give you many instances where Dhoni after coming down in T20 actually lost the game. The NZ t20 which was Yuvi's comeback after cancer saw Dhoni play a match losing slow knock.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/565820.html

Then you have the T20 against England in 2014 where Dhoni again lost a winnable match for his side.

While the scorecard may suggest 27 runs at 150 SR, it was a super match losing knock cos at one stage Dhoni was at 9 runs off 10 balls and tried to take the game to the last over instead of closing out the game. We lost by 3 runs.

Then you have World T20 SF where again Dhoni was needed a smash a few quick runs in a super patta pitch and instead he scores 15 runs off 9 balls. SR of 160 odd but in the game context, it was super slow. Dhoni scored 1 boundary in 9 balls which tells us everything we need to know.

Sadly, the truth is Dhoni has time and time again played impactless and/or match losing knocks in T20.

Here and there when he got good chances to slog, he has smashed a few but even those knocks are hardly remembered which is a testament to what kind of T20I career he has really had.

 

[anoop]

Didn't he played an important knock in 2007 WC opposite SA in a must win match.

 

[DHONI183]

5 points:

1. Scoring runs in a few games (ok SF here) does not mean the tourney was a success. Virat scored a wonderful 100 against Pakistan in 2015 WC but people regard his performance in WC 2015 as a failure overall (and rightly so).

On whether that tournament was a failure or not will be answered below, on point three.

2. Dhoni did score 36 runs at a good SR but the real game changers were Yuvi and Uthappa who resurrected our batting when we were struggling at 41-2 in 8 overs. In this game, even if Dhoni hadn't thrashed, we had other bats (Rohit and Irfan) to swing a few.

How can this even be debated logically when you´ve already made the assumption that Rohit and Irfan would´ve done the job? Tell me honestly, is that a fair approach?

So, how would you even think of debating it with me if I say that even if Gambhir had failed in the WC final 2011 India would´ve won because they after all ended up only losing four wickets, and with Dhoni set, an in-form Yuvraj going well and an in-form Raina to come, India would´ve easily got those 97 runs with six wickets to go, and perhaps in less time than 122 balls?

As it is, Dhoni´s knocked proved to be crucial in a game which Australia were on course to win if had any of Yuvraj, Uthappa and MS failed in putting up a score that was won by 15 runs. I´m not sure this even demands a debate, except for the sake of it.

3. Interestingly, the VERY NEXT GAME, in the finals when India needed Dhoni to score when he came out at 103-3...he scored 6 runs eating up 10 CRUCIAL balls after coming in at the 14th over.

So now you jump over to the final, which is a different game. See my post which quoted yours, of which the agenda was that "MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.... " Your issue was WCs and WC KOs, not finals.

Also, interestingly, IN THE GAME BEFORE THAT SEMI-FINAL, a virtual knock-out game for India, on a bowler´s paradise (in answer to your "slog-fest" point), with no Yuvraj in the team, India were 61-4 in 10.3 overs. MS forged an 85-run partnership with the debutant Rohit to see India to 153, which the bowlers defended. With no MS as batsman (45 off 33), India wouldn´t made into to the knock-out stage (a fact that you can´t dispute), and his contribution in the semi-final has already been discussed.

Again, interestingly, in a game in which if Pakistan had chased the given target in some 15 overs I think INDIA WOULD´VE BEEN KNOCKED OUT of the tournament based on net run-rate and the Netherlands would´ve progressed to the Super Eight, India were 36-4, MS put in a minor contribution of 33 off 31 and stayed with Uthappa to see India to 141. India went on to tie the game and win the bowl-out. A minor contribution, but the context of the game and the collapse should be kept in mind. I´m not sure from which angle these three matches and the whole tournament is supposed to be labelled as a failure.

4. The very fact that nobody remembers these random slogfest knocks where someone has to come and swing a few runs is a testament to how much impactful Dhoni has been in T20. People to this day, remember Yuvi and Uthappa knocks while they would be surprised to see Dhoni's score in that very game. It may sound harsh but its the reality.

So now, the whole agenda shifts to Dhoni´s incapability in T20Is and people´s memory. I don´t think the world´s whole population in unison remembers Uthappa 28-ball 34 to this day either, or even the next day I´m afraid. The whole talk was just about Yuvraj, only about him.

Now, let me solve your riddle regarding why people don´t remember his contributions much. I think it must be firstly down to none of these being a fifty, or a 60 or 70+ score, and secondly, none of these came at a kind of strike-rate that for example Yuvraj managed in those two crazy knocks in that tournament. These two things play a huge role in how we remember an innings.

As it is anyway, what people remember is hardly a point that should be discussed. It´s totally irrelevant. The conclusive point on the WT20 2007 is, India wouldn´t have been in the final without his performances - same goes all other who contributed.

5. I can give you many instances where Dhoni after coming down in T20 actually lost the game. The NZ t20 which was Yuvi's comeback after cancer saw Dhoni play a match losing slow knock.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/565820.html

Then you have the T20 against England in 2014 where Dhoni again lost a winnable match for his side.

While the scorecard may suggest 27 runs at 150 SR, it was a super match losing knock cos at one stage Dhoni was at 9 runs off 10 balls and tried to take the game to the last over instead of closing out the game. We lost by 3 runs.

Hell no, no sir, I wouldn´t be debating here about how good or bad a T20I player he´s because we´ll go on for weeks like that, drifting away from one topic to another. I only jumped in because some misinformation was being spread here that apart from a certain day in the spring of 2011, MS has woken up each day in the ICC events to fail after having the morning coffee.

But I´d still say that despite being such a nightmare T20I player for India, he can still be proud of playing an integral part in their only WT20 tournament win.

Then you have World T20 SF where again Dhoni was needed a smash a few quick runs in a super patta pitch and instead he scores 15 runs off 9 balls. SR of 160 odd but in the game context, it was super slow. Dhoni scored 1 boundary in 9 balls which tells us everything we need to know.

Can you see the contradiction in your single post? So when MS makes 36 off 18 in a "slog-fest" semi-final of the same tournament nine years ago, you "In this game, even if Dhoni hadn't thrashed, we had other bats (Rohit and Irfan) to swing a few", "The very fact that nobody remembers these random slogfest knocks where someone has to come and swing a few runs is a testament to how much impactful Dhoni has been in T20. People to this day, remember Yuvi and Uthappa knocks while they would be surprised to see Dhoni's score in that very game", but when he didn´t quite match the result that you desire, you take no time in bringing it up! So why does his "failure" in the same match of the same tournament count, but a performance nine years ago at the same stage doesn´t?

On that innings, everybody knows he didn´t quite set the stage on fire that night, but how much of a sample size are nine balls? How often do you see batsmen make a mark in a nine-ball innings, except a rarity of cases - cases which people remember for ages, like Carlos Brathwaite´s. You yourself know this, which is why you´d to invent a whole new dimension of him hitting one boundary in nine balls to make your point. I´d really disagree however if anyone for the sake of it is hell-bent on proving a nine-ball 15 as a failure.

Sadly, the truth is Dhoni has time and time again played impactless and/or match losing knocks in T20.

Here and there when he got good chances to slog, he has smashed a few but even those knocks are hardly remembered which is a testament to what kind of T20I career he has really had.

"Hell no, no sir, I wouldn´t be debating here about how good or bad a T20I player he´s because we´ll go on for weeks like that, drifting away from one topic to another. I only jumped in because some misinformation was being spread here that apart from a certain day in the spring of 2011, MS has woken up each day in the ICC events to fail after having the morning coffee.

But I´d still say that despite being such a nightmare T20I player for India, he can still be proud of playing an integral part in their only WT20 tournament win."

This statement though - "MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.... " - is factually wrong, and I only jumped in to prove that, which I´ve.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

On whether that tournament was a failure or not will be answered below, on point three.



How can this even be debated logically when you´ve already made the assumption that Rohit and Irfan would´ve done the job? Tell me honestly, is that a fair approach?

So, how would you even think of debating it with me if I say that even if Gambhir had failed in the WC final 2011 India would´ve won because they after all ended up only losing four wickets, and with Dhoni set, an in-form Yuvraj going well and an in-form Raina to come, India would´ve easily got those 97 runs with six wickets to go, and perhaps in less time than 122 balls?

As it is, Dhoni´s knocked proved to be crucial in a game which Australia were on course to win if had any of Yuvraj, Uthappa and MS failed in putting up a score that was won by 15 runs. I´m not sure this even demands a debate, except for the sake of it.



So now you jump over to the final, which is a different game. See my post which quoted yours, of which the agenda was that "MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.... " Your issue was WCs and WC KOs, not finals.

Also, interestingly, IN THE GAME BEFORE THAT SEMI-FINAL, a virtual knock-out game for India, on a bowler´s paradise (in answer to your "slog-fest" point), with no Yuvraj in the team, India were 61-4 in 10.3 overs. MS forged an 85-run partnership with the debutant Rohit to see India to 153, which the bowlers defended. With no MS as batsman (45 off 33), India wouldn´t made into to the knock-out stage (a fact that you can´t dispute), and his contribution in the semi-final has already been discussed.

Again, interestingly, in a game in which if Pakistan had chased the given target in some 15 overs I think INDIA WOULD´VE BEEN KNOCKED OUT of the tournament based on net run-rate and the Netherlands would´ve progressed to the Super Eight, India were 36-4, MS put in a minor contribution of 33 off 31 and stayed with Uthappa to see India to 141. India went on to tie the game and win the bowl-out. A minor contribution, but the context of the game and the collapse should be kept in mind. I´m not sure from which angle these three matches and the whole tournament is supposed to be labelled as a failure.



So now, the whole agenda shifts to Dhoni´s incapability in T20Is and people´s memory. I don´t think the world´s whole population in unison remembers Uthappa 28-ball 34 to this day either, or even the next day I´m afraid. The whole talk was just about Yuvraj, only about him.

Now, let me solve your riddle regarding why people don´t remember his contributions much. I think it must be firstly down to none of these being a fifty, or a 60 or 70+ score, and secondly, none of these came at a kind of strike-rate that for example Yuvraj managed in those two crazy knocks in that tournament. These two things play a huge role in how we remember an innings.

As it is anyway, what people remember is hardly a point that should be discussed. It´s totally irrelevant. The conclusive point on the WT20 2007 is, India wouldn´t have been in the final without his performances - same goes all other who contributed.



Hell no, no sir, I wouldn´t be debating here about how good or bad a T20I player he´s because we´ll go on for weeks like that, drifting away from one topic to another. I only jumped in because some misinformation was being spread here that apart from a certain day in the spring of 2011, MS has woken up each day in the ICC events to fail after having the morning coffee.

But I´d still say that despite being such a nightmare T20I player for India, he can still be proud of playing an integral part in their only WT20 tournament win.



Can you see the contradiction in your single post? So when MS makes 36 off 18 in a "slog-fest" semi-final of the same tournament nine years ago, you "In this game, even if Dhoni hadn't thrashed, we had other bats (Rohit and Irfan) to swing a few", "The very fact that nobody remembers these random slogfest knocks where someone has to come and swing a few runs is a testament to how much impactful Dhoni has been in T20. People to this day, remember Yuvi and Uthappa knocks while they would be surprised to see Dhoni's score in that very game", but when he didn´t quite match the result that you desire, you take no time in bringing it up! So why does his "failure" in the same match of the same tournament count, but a performance nine years ago at the same stage doesn´t?

On that innings, everybody knows he didn´t quite set the stage on fire that night, but how much of a sample size are nine balls? How often do you see batsmen make a mark in a nine-ball innings, except a rarity of cases - cases which people remember for ages, like Carlos Brathwaite´s. You yourself know this, which is why you´d to invent a whole new dimension of him hitting one boundary in nine balls to make your point. I´d really disagree however if anyone for the sake of it is hell-bent on proving a nine-ball 15 as a failure.



"Hell no, no sir, I wouldn´t be debating here about how good or bad a T20I player he´s because we´ll go on for weeks like that, drifting away from one topic to another. I only jumped in because some misinformation was being spread here that apart from a certain day in the spring of 2011, MS has woken up each day in the ICC events to fail after having the morning coffee.

But I´d still say that despite being such a nightmare T20I player for India, he can still be proud of playing an integral part in their only WT20 tournament win."

This statement though - "MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.... " - is factually wrong, and I only jumped in to prove that, which I´ve.

Have a wonderful day!

Its seems like you have misunderstood my point (my fault for not being clear) and taken some WAY out of context. Without going into a point by point answer which would honestly take way too long plus this ain't a topic I am too keen to debate about considering I have talked lots about it already, let me say this:

1. First of all, I am sorry if I came across as someone who was dismissive of that particular Dhoni knock against Aus. It was a good knock for the context. No question about it.

2. Now in a 8 year long career, if we have to take those small knock to make a point about him not failing in a World T20, then that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

3. Since you took that knock, I dug in and saw what he did in World T20 2007:

India vs Scotland - Washed out

India vs Pakistan - Dhoni scored 33 runs at 106 SR. While this may seem a poor knock, fact was Dhoni came in at 36-4 and stayed till the 19th over to help us get to that position. So it was kind of a solid knock. HOWEVER, the fact that Dhoni stayed on till 19th over and still maintained 106 SR (while Uthappa scored a 50 at 128 SR getting out way before) makes this a okay knock only. MORE SO, when we find that Pakistan choked in an epic way in the end to tie the game and lose the bowl out. This knock was made into a passable decent one (due to Indian win and Pak choke) when in reality, it wasn't a great one by any means. And mind you, this is one his more IMPORTANT knocks in T20I career.

3. India vs NZ - Chasing 190, Dhoni came UP THE ORDER at number 4, scored 24 off 20 balls and got out. Neither did he blast through nor did he score lots.

4. India vs Eng - Again up the order, 10 runs off 8 balls.

5. India vs SA - 45 at 136 SR. Proper solid match winning knock.

6. India vs Aus - 36 off 18 balls.....good cameo. Good knock

7. India vs Pak - 6 off 10 balls....poor knock both in terms of score and SR

Now.....if we breakdown and analyze, he scored 1 proper knock, 1 cameo, 1 slow coach knock which would have led to a loss any other day....against Eng, NZ and Pak...apart from that he did nothing.

World T20 tourney may not be a bumper failure with the bat per se but its hardly a success.

But I´d still say that despite being such a nightmare T20I player for India, he can still be proud of playing an integral part in their only WT20 tournament win."

Sure, there is some truth to it.

But as I said, a few performances here and there doesn't make it a tourney success for him (which was what the point of my MAIN post was which you quoted). People remember Dhoni for his captaincy in 2007 World T20 and not for his knocks.

As for Uthappa's knock against Aus in World T20 2007...oh yes...lots remember it. There is absolutely no agenda in it. It's a fact. I have seen people talking about it online too. Many even remember that down the track 6 he played in that Aus game.

This statement though - "MSD failed in 6 World T20s...failed in all WCs....failed in 5 out of 6 WC knockout games.... " - is factually wrong, and I only jumped in to prove that, which I´ve.

He did play a part but as a tournament but 2007 World T20 was not a batting success for Dhoni for reasons I mentioned above. But I can see where you are coming from reg World T20 2007.

The larger point is that for someone who has played T20 for 8 years and is STILL clinging on to it...he does have extremely meager returns with a performance here and there (that have to be searched for using a microscope).

We can sugarcoat it as much as we want but he did fail in all World T20s in the general sense. Sure, TECHNICALLY speaking, we can make a point he can't exactly be called a failure in World T20 2007 (I get your point) or some other tourney but in a general sense, what I said does hold true.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

^Small point: Irfan Pathan and Karthik in that Pak game who came up and below him in the batting order had SRs of 122 and 133.

 

[Hawkeye]

The same becomes 21 in Australia, 24 in England, and 18 in SA when played against top 7 teams in those countries without a single 50 or 100 in 18 matches. There is a reason, he has refrained from batting in the top and middle order even when India needed him to do so.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

This is unbelievably bad.

I know he was a bit overrated with "ATG" titles, but this is absolutely shambolic. [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] 's argument has been ripped to the pieces, where he wasn't showing the true picture.

People go way overboard in praising Dhoni.

He was a very good bat on flat tracks, decent captain who benefited from a GREAT ODI lineup, and had services of excellent Asian condition bowlers.

We need to stop with labeling any person you want as ATG.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Just want to add one small point:

As for the 9 ball 15 and its implied relation with slogfest comment of mine.....I could go and write a huge explanation for it but chose to ignore it.

To give you the short version:

Coming in at death and scoring 15 runs off 9 balls with just 1 boundary on a super patta pitch against WI is anything but a good knock. Its not criticism for the sake of it. It was without a question a poor knock. The fundamentals of high scoring T20 will go for a toss if we start looking at it as a good knock. SR of 150 or 160 is amazing in general...but not when you face very few balls at the death.

If someone scores 5 runs off 3 balls in the final over of a high scoring game , that's a SR of 166. No one would call it a good batting.

 

[Buffet]

This is unbelievably bad.

Unbelievably bad terms comes when you start talking about 50 or 100 matches.

Taking a filter and coming out with grand total of 18 matches, you think it's unbelievably bad, lol. What next? Bad in 7 or 9 matches?

 

[Buffet]

We can sugarcoat it as much as we want but he did fail in all World T20s in the general sense. Sure, TECHNICALLY speaking, we can make a point he can't exactly be called a failure in World T20 2007 (I get your point) or some other tourney but in a general sense, what I said does hold true.

Dhoni is not a good T-20 batsman and not sure why you guys are having a long discussion here on that. He often takes time to get going and in T-20 you can lose games if lower order batsmen take time to get going.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Dhoni is not a good T-20 batsman and not sure why you guys are having a long discussion here on that. He often takes time to get going and in T-20 you can lose games if lower order batsmen take time to get going.

Absolutely.

Dhoni183 was contesting my point about Dhoni failing in all World T20s by pointing out 2007 World T20 was not necessarily a failure.

Surprisingly (just like Dhoni) ABD has been flopping in T20I too. And seems to choke terribly in that format too. And he doesn't even need time to get going.

Weird really.

 

[Buffet]

Absolutely.

Dhoni183 was contesting my point about Dhoni failing in all World T20s by pointing out 2007 World T20 was not necessarily a failure.

Surprisingly (just like Dhoni) ABD has been flopping in T20I too. And seems to choke terribly in that format too. And he doesn't even need time to get going.

Weird really.

AB has far more skills and his style is suited for T-20, but his output is worse. Weird for sure. That's why I always look for actual performance rather than potential , talent etc to judge any player.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

AB has far more skills and his style is suited for T-20, but his output is worse. Weird for sure. That's why I always look for actual performance rather than potential , talent etc to judge any player.

Yeah...performance is what matters in the end.

 

[DHONI183]

2. Now in a 8 year long career, if we have to take those small knock to make a point about him not failing in a World T20, then that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

The fact that he didn´t make great contributions in all of the next WT20s doesn´t mean that he failed in the first one. The post that I quoted stated exactly that. You can see, I´m not arguing for the sake of it as I´ve just stated that he didn´t do anything great ever since, nor have I cherry-picked any of his cameos or contributions from any other WT20. I´m not denying a fact, but I´m stating a fact as well with regards to the only WT20 that his team won, that he performed in three out of six matches, and bailed India out of two big collapses batting first, one of which was a quarter-final of some sorts.

India vs Pakistan - Dhoni scored 33 runs at 106 SR. While this may seem a poor knock, fact was Dhoni came in at 36-4 and stayed till the 19th over to help us get to that position. So it was kind of a solid knock. HOWEVER, the fact that Dhoni stayed on till 19th over and still maintained 106 SR (while Uthappa scored a 50 at 128 SR getting out way before) makes this a okay knock only. MORE SO, when we find that Pakistan choked in an epic way in the end to tie the game and lose the bowl out. This knock was made into a passable decent one (due to Indian win and Pak choke) when in reality, it wasn't a great one by any means. And mind you, this is one his more IMPORTANT knocks in T20I career.

You see, there´s one extremely important point that needs to be highlighted to put the innings into a context; that if Pakistan had chased the given target in some 15 overs I think India would´ve been knocked of the tournament based on net run-rate and the Netherlands would´ve progressed to the Super Eight. This is a point that was mentioned as early as the toss took place. Everybody on the ground knew as far as I remember. I never said MS pulled off a last-ball six there. It is for other reasons that his innings as well as of Uthappa or even Irfan are valuable.

^Small point: Irfan Pathan and Karthik in that Pak game who came up and below him in the batting order had SRs of 122 and 133.

Now, here are some inconsistencies in the way you look at those matches: Uthappa makes 34 off 28 (in a slog-fest), Yuvraj makes 70 off 30, MS batting below him makes 36 off 18, but you state regarding his innings:

"the real game changers were Yuvi and Uthappa who resurrected our batting when we were struggling at 41-2 in 8 overs."

MS makes 33 off 31 whilst the team crumbles to 36-4, you choose to highlight firstly Uthappa´s strike-rate in that partnership, then KARTHIK´S 11 off nine (SERIOUSLY?!), then Irfan´s 20 off 15.

Why don´t you here credit MS (too alongside Uthappa) for resurrecting the innings, and actually cling on to an 11 and 20?

And above all, you analyse it as deep as Pakistan´s batting choking in the chase. Cricket doesn´t work like that mate. If a player scores runs, they don´t get undermined based on how the opposition chased.

It isn´t about how great or good the innings was, but moreso about how much India needed at being four down for 36. But for the sake of it, alright, let´s move on to other matches: he still performed very well in two KO matches. He did exactly what was needed of him, simple. The one that you initially called just a "cameo" of 36 in a "slog-fest", I hope it helps to remember that it is a format of 120 balls after all. Not too many good innings end up as fifties or centuries. Besides, if MS had failed in putting up that cameo of 36 off 18, you´d have posted the scorecard of that game five times already, just like how you´ve been continuously being highlighting his 15 off nine.

3. India vs NZ - Chasing 190, Dhoni came UP THE ORDER at number 4, scored 24 off 20 balls and got out. Neither did he blast through nor did he score lots.

4. India vs Eng - Again up the order, 10 runs off 8 balls.

7. India vs Pak - 6 off 10 balls....poor knock both in terms of score and SR

This is where the difference lies, without resorting to analysing these games or anything, I just accept there what you´ve said. Nothing of note in those three games, I admit. I don´t need to argue here, facts are facts.

Now.....if we breakdown and analyze, he scored 1 proper knock, 1 cameo, 1 slow coach knock which would have led to a loss any other day....against Eng, NZ and Pak...apart from that he did nothing.

World T20 tourney may not be a bumper failure with the bat per se but its hardly a success.

I disagree on that. I´ll just repeat what I said, "he still performed very well in two KO matches. He did exactly what was needed of him, simple." and in one of those matches him alongside Rohit were the sole reason why India even managed to put up a defendable total. As for the Pakistan game, again, cricket doesn´t work like that, that that would´ve led to a loss any other day. On that day, it was that contribution, alongside Uthappa´s, that led to them tying the game. Besides, that innings value lies in India putting up a total that helped them qualify for the next stage.

But as I said, a few performances here and there doesn't make it a tourney success for him (which was what the point of my MAIN post was which you quoted). People remember Dhoni for his captaincy in 2007 World T20 and not for his knocks.

Three performances out of six. That doesn´t qualify as a failure. Two vital contributions in KO games can´t make the tourney a failure, one of which pulled his team out of a massive hole.

"Now, let me solve your riddle regarding why people don´t remember his contributions much. I think it must be firstly down to none of these being a fifty, or a 60 or 70+ score, and secondly, none of these came at a kind of strike-rate that for example Yuvraj managed in those two crazy knocks in that tournament. These two things play a huge role in how we remember an innings.

As it is anyway, what people remember is hardly a point that should be discussed. It´s totally irrelevant. The conclusive point on the WT20 2007 is, India wouldn´t have been in the final without his performances - same goes to all other who contributed."

The larger point is that for someone who has played T20 for 8 years and is STILL clinging on to it...he does have extremely meager returns with a performance here and there (that have to be searched for using a microscope).

"The fact that he didn´t make great contributions in all of the next WT20s doesn´t mean that he failed in the first one. The post that I quoted stated exactly that. You can see, I´m not arguing for the sake of it as I´ve just stated that he didn´t do anything great ever since, nor have I cherry-picked any of his cameos or contributions from any other WT20. I´m not denying a fact, but I´m stating a fact as well with regards to the only WT20 that his team won, that he performed in three out of six matches, and bailed India out of two big collapses batting first, one of which was a quarter-final of some sorts."

We can sugarcoat it as much as we want but he did fail in all World T20s in the general sense. Sure, TECHNICALLY speaking, we can make a point he can't exactly be called a failure in World T20 2007 (I get your point) or some other tourney but in a general sense, what I said does hold true.

No, I´m not sugarcoating anything. Again, your words hold true for all the next WT20s, but not for the one that his team won. There´s nothing "technical" about it, and neither about big or minor failure. That tournament wasn´t a failure for him. No big scores of 60s or 70s alright, but this is a 120-ball innings cricket, where even an over changes the whole game.

Just want to add one small point:

As for the 9 ball 15 and its implied relation with slogfest comment of mine.....I could go and write a huge explanation for it but chose to ignore it.

To give you the short version:

Coming in at death and scoring 15 runs off 9 balls with just 1 boundary on a super patta pitch against WI is anything but a good knock. Its not criticism for the sake of it. It was without a question a poor knock. The fundamentals of high scoring T20 will go for a toss if we start looking at it as a good knock. SR of 150 or 160 is amazing in general...but not when you face very few balls at the death.

If someone scores 5 runs off 3 balls in the final over of a high scoring game , that's a SR of 166. No one would call it a good batting.

Please provide my post where I called it a massive contribution, or hid behind his strike-rate of 166. I just pointed out that nine-balls is hardly a sample size, and that very rarely we´ve seen a nine or eight-ball innings being the talking points of a game. If you want to label it a failure then go on, fine. I disagree with it based on the sample size, but that doesn´t mean it was a substantial innings. As it is anyway, my whole jumping into this thread was based on WT20 2007.

Dhoni is not a good T-20 batsman and not sure why you guys are having a long discussion here on that. He often takes time to get going and in T-20 you can lose games if lower order batsmen take time to get going.

It was BEFORE the WT20 2012 that I once said here that he needs to quit that format. He doesn´t have the game for it and has really regressed in his game there. My disagreement relates to labelling his performance in a tourney as failures where he played at least three (okay two!) very crucial knocks.

 

[Saurav]

Dhoni played at 5-6 mostly in T20Is.As [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] said he takes a while to get going which is not good for 5-6(though its better in last year).However both in IPL and otherwise,hes largely been decent when he had some time

Now as a finisher is he dispensable?Absolutely

But as a no.4,wicketkeeper and former captain (Kohli looks clueless most times),specially given his record since 2016?I'm not that sure

There's gotta be a reason he's been picked even after leaving captaincy

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The fact that he didn´t make great contributions in all of the next WT20s doesn´t mean that he failed in the first one. The post that I quoted stated exactly that. You can see, I´m not arguing for the sake of it as I´ve just stated that he didn´t do anything great ever since, nor have I cherry-picked any of his cameos or contributions from any other WT20. I´m not denying a fact, but I´m stating a fact as well with regards to the only WT20 that his team won, that he performed in three out of six matches, and bailed India out of two big collapses batting first, one of which was a quarter-final of some sorts.



You see, there´s one extremely important point that needs to be highlighted to put the innings into a context; that if Pakistan had chased the given target in some 15 overs I think India would´ve been knocked of the tournament based on net run-rate and the Netherlands would´ve progressed to the Super Eight. This is a point that was mentioned as early as the toss took place. Everybody on the ground knew as far as I remember. I never said MS pulled off a last-ball six there. It is for other reasons that his innings as well as of Uthappa or even Irfan are valuable.




Now, here are some inconsistencies in the way you look at those matches: Uthappa makes 34 off 28 (in a slog-fest), Yuvraj makes 70 off 30, MS batting below him makes 36 off 18, but you state regarding his innings:

"the real game changers were Yuvi and Uthappa who resurrected our batting when we were struggling at 41-2 in 8 overs."

MS makes 33 off 31 whilst the team crumbles to 36-4, you choose to highlight firstly Uthappa´s strike-rate in that partnership, then KARTHIK´S 11 off nine (SERIOUSLY?!), then Irfan´s 20 off 15.

Why don´t you here credit MS (too alongside Uthappa) for resurrecting the innings, and actually cling on to an 11 and 20?

And above all, you analyse it as deep as Pakistan´s batting choking in the chase. Cricket doesn´t work like that mate. If a player scores runs, they don´t get undermined based on how the opposition chased.

It isn´t about how great or good the innings was, but moreso about how much India needed at being four down for 36. But for the sake of it, alright, let´s move on to other matches: he still performed very well in two KO matches. He did exactly what was needed of him, simple. The one that you initially called just a "cameo" of 36 in a "slog-fest", I hope it helps to remember that it is a format of 120 balls after all. Not too many good innings end up as fifties or centuries. Besides, if MS had failed in putting up that cameo of 36 off 18, you´d have posted the scorecard of that game five times already, just like how you´ve been continuously being highlighting his 15 off nine.








This is where the difference lies, without resorting to analysing these games or anything, I just accept there what you´ve said. Nothing of note in those three games, I admit. I don´t need to argue here, facts are facts.



I disagree on that. I´ll just repeat what I said, "he still performed very well in two KO matches. He did exactly what was needed of him, simple." and in one of those matches him alongside Rohit were the sole reason why India even managed to put up a defendable total. As for the Pakistan game, again, cricket doesn´t work like that, that that would´ve led to a loss any other day. On that day, it was that contribution, alongside Uthappa´s, that led to them tying the game. Besides, that innings value lies in India putting up a total that helped them qualify for the next stage.



Three performances out of six. That doesn´t qualify as a failure. Two vital contributions in KO games can´t make the tourney a failure, one of which pulled his team out of a massive hole.

"Now, let me solve your riddle regarding why people don´t remember his contributions much. I think it must be firstly down to none of these being a fifty, or a 60 or 70+ score, and secondly, none of these came at a kind of strike-rate that for example Yuvraj managed in those two crazy knocks in that tournament. These two things play a huge role in how we remember an innings.

As it is anyway, what people remember is hardly a point that should be discussed. It´s totally irrelevant. The conclusive point on the WT20 2007 is, India wouldn´t have been in the final without his performances - same goes to all other who contributed."




"The fact that he didn´t make great contributions in all of the next WT20s doesn´t mean that he failed in the first one. The post that I quoted stated exactly that. You can see, I´m not arguing for the sake of it as I´ve just stated that he didn´t do anything great ever since, nor have I cherry-picked any of his cameos or contributions from any other WT20. I´m not denying a fact, but I´m stating a fact as well with regards to the only WT20 that his team won, that he performed in three out of six matches, and bailed India out of two big collapses batting first, one of which was a quarter-final of some sorts."



No, I´m not sugarcoating anything. Again, your words hold true for all the next WT20s, but not for the one that his team won. There´s nothing "technical" about it, and neither about big or minor failure. That tournament wasn´t a failure for him. No big scores of 60s or 70s alright, but this is a 120-ball innings cricket, where even an over changes the whole game.



Please provide my post where I called it a massive contribution, or hid behind his strike-rate of 166. I just pointed out that nine-balls is hardly a sample size, and that very rarely we´ve seen a nine or eight-ball innings being the talking points of a game. If you want to label it a failure then go on, fine. I disagree with it based on the sample size, but that doesn´t mean it was a substantial innings. As it is anyway, my whole jumping into this thread was based on WT20 2007.



It was BEFORE the WT20 2012 that I once said here that he needs to quit that format. He doesn´t have the game for it and has really regressed in his game there. My disagreement relates to labelling his performance in a tourney as failures where he played at least three (okay two!) very crucial knocks.

We both got each other's points mostly.

1. I am willing to concede Dhoni didn't have a flop World T20 in 2007. But I don't believe it is a success either.

2. Karthik's Pak game SR was not a main point but just a passing supporting point. It was not a relevant example I took. The only reason I took it was to HIGHLIGHT Dhoni's knock. Irfan's knock in that game was of course more crucial of the 2 (I mean compared to Karthik) and in fact, turned out to be super crucial in the match. Note that that game was relatively lower scoring so SR can't be compared with the higher scoring games (not saying you did but just making an observation).

3. As for 9 ball 15 runs in World T20 2016, I have to say you can't be more wrong reg this. The debate of that would go beyond the scope of this discussion but to say 9 balls is LESS sample set when someone comes at the death and scores just 15 runs in a match where 200 is no safety (I think 230 was chased down there in that tourney before) is as far from reality as possible.

The concept of SR COMPLETELY CHANGES based on when you come to bat.

Ashwin has an ODI SR of 86. Is he a dynamic bat?

No.....cos he only comes to bat when the situation demands super hitting (due to modern ODI and Indian batting). In his situation, he should have a career SR of atleast 110.

Here's the SR of number 7 onwards from 2013 who scored atleast 200 runs in ODI:



As you can see, you can't use low sample set of balls for bats coming down the order. I will never agree about Dhoni's knock against WI being even an ok one (he should have got out if he couldn't smash) for the main reason it's a fundamentally faulty way of looking at data.

Conclusion:

I don't look at his World T20 2007 as a success for the simple reason he actually succeeded properly in only 2 games while wasting balls in 2 games coming down the order (Eng, Pak in finals) and playing a super slow knock against Pak in preliminaries. Yes, it can't be called a failure per se and I do accept it.

Still doesn't invalidate the general point I made about Dhoni in World T20s. But yeah, it wasn't perfectly accurate either.

 

[DHONI183]

.... Irfan's knock in that game was of course more crucial of the 2 (I mean compared to Karthik) and in fact, turned out to be super crucial in the match.

Absolutely! I fully agree on this without disputing, but MS´ knock of 36 off 18 in a semi-final that was ultimately won by 15 runs was equally crucial. I´m not starting a 're-discussion' on that SF innings, but just making a point to make it clear why I in the first place posted the scorecard of that match. It´ll be very inconsistent of me though if I were to dismiss Irfan´s innings as just a cameo, but write in praise of MS´ innings. T20 cricket is all about the very little time that it gives, and such knocks sometimes decide the game.

Note that that game was relatively lower scoring so SR can't be compared with the higher scoring games (not saying you did but just making an observation).

Exactly my point! If MS´ innings of 33 off 31 in a low-scoring tie is "A super slow knock", then where does that leave Uthappa´s 28-ball 34 in a high-scoring semi-final? This is exactly the point that I tried to make by comparing the two games, one of which was a low-scorer where the said team was 36-4 and then 82-5, and the other a high-scoring affair 41-2. This was my whole logic behind myself comparing the two matches.

3. As for 9 ball 15 runs in World T20 2016, I have to say you can't be more wrong reg this. The debate of that would go beyond the scope of this discussion but to say 9 balls is LESS sample set when someone comes at the death and scores just 15 runs in a match where 200 is no safety (I think 230 was chased down there in that tourney before) is as far from reality as possible.

The concept of SR COMPLETELY CHANGES based on when you come to bat.

Ashwin has an ODI SR of 86. Is he a dynamic bat?

No.....cos he only comes to bat when the situation demands super hitting (due to modern ODI and Indian batting). In his situation, he should have a career SR of atleast 110.

Here's the SR of number 7 onwards from 2013 who scored atleast 200 runs in ODI:

View attachment 72344

As you can see, you can't use low sample set of balls for bats coming down the order. I will never agree about Dhoni's knock against WI being even an ok one (he should have got out if he couldn't smash) for the main reason it's a fundamentally faulty way of looking at data.

I don´t understand how a discussion on one innings leads to a table on strike-rates. I really didn´t understand that. I know full well that MS doesn´t have any extraordinary SR in T20I cricket, but his career SR for example would be irrelevant to what he did that night at Wankhede. An innings individually is good or bad based on that particular match, its situation, the rate that it comes at etc. If you believe that that 15 off nine was a massive failure on his part, fine enough, but I´m not sure how that´d that very innings sound any justifiable if he´d had a good career SR. I still don´t believe that nine balls is enough for people to be criticising an innings for, especially batting first. In my opinion, this would´ve stood as more valid if for example batting second in a tense chase he´d made eight or nine off nine. But there´s nothing wrong in saying that you or other people expected more from him that night. MS´ running alongside Kohli was inspirational that night, and he did well in the partnership in wasting no time in getting Kohli on strike, but that is an utter misinterpretation of T20 cricket on MS´ part (and also highlights his inability in the format). This format doesn´t work like that - as exactly was showcased by the West Indies in their chase when they reached home with no fuss by blazing boundaries. It looked good and worked better against Australia in the previous game though, since there they were going after a set target.

I personally believe that that night, it was Rahane who punctured India´s bid of getting past 200 or 210 - not to say that he "failed" or anything. He just couldn´t bat at the rate required on that pitch (having faced 35 balls), especially given that India were going great in terms of wickets lost.

So, again, Ashwin´s strike-rate is valid if we were to discuss his ability as an ODI batsman overall, not when discussing a nine-ball 15 - not in my view.

Conclusion:

I don't look at his World T20 2007 as a success for the simple reason he actually succeeded properly in only 2 games while wasting balls in 2 games coming down the order (Eng, Pak in finals) and playing a super slow knock against Pak in preliminaries. Yes, it can't be called a failure per se and I do accept it.

Still doesn't invalidate the general point I made about Dhoni in World T20s. But yeah, it wasn't perfectly accurate either.

As discussed above, the super slow innings against Pakistan was almost what the situation required of him, as was the case in the SF in Uthappa´s innings. The scorecard reflects them both being slow innings, but anyone who watched the game understood it well how crucial both were. However, it´ll be grossly bias and unfair if one were to label one innings as success and the other as super slow, especially if you consider the number of wickets lost in both. I, from my side, remember Uthappa´s innings very well and thought it was a very good innings. He did his bit by stitching together a vital partnership with Yuvraj, and label not only his that innings as success but his overall showings too in the tournament - although, he wasn´t INDIA´S SECOND HIGHEST run-getter in the tournament, like MS WAS.

Three good innings in a tournament, a bilateral T20I, ODI or a Test series are good no matter what, especially if two of them come in knock-out matches. No big scores of 60s or 70s alright, but he did what was required of him and did what he could in the time that he got. Anyone wants to write negatively about all the next WT20s, sure enough do that, but he was amongst the reasons why India made it to the final in the inaugural WT20. If it were possible for India to be the final even without him, this discussion would´ve stood some ground. Any batsman who´s his team´s second highest run-getter in a tournament that his team wins, can´t be labelled as anything else apart from a success (except if someone were to get most of them in one innings in a match that has no impact on the tournament and fail in all other, or wash his hands off minnows); not a failure by any means.

Dhoni played at 5-6 mostly in T20Is.As [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] said he takes a while to get going which is not good for 5-6(though its better in last year).However both in IPL and otherwise,hes largely been decent when he had some time

Now as a finisher is he dispensable?Absolutely

But as a no.4,wicketkeeper and former captain (Kohli looks clueless most times),specially given his record since 2016?I'm not that sure

There's gotta be a reason he's been picked even after leaving captaincy

Saurav, you of all the people know best how much I´ve myself ciricised MS for his performances in T20I cricket. I in no way contest that. He takes a while before getting on with the game and often 120 balls have been found to have been done by that time. I´m not arguing with facts.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Fortunately the game is not played on spreadsheets, otherwise MS Excel and not MS Dhoni would have captained India.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Exactly my point! If MS´ innings of 33 off 31 in a low-scoring tie is "A super slow knock", then where does that leave Uthappa´s 28-ball 34 in a high-scoring semi-final? This is exactly the point that I tried to make by comparing the two games, one of which was a low-scorer where the said team was 36-4 and then 82-5, and the other a high-scoring affair 41-2. This was my whole logic behind myself comparing the two matches.

I don´t understand how a discussion on one innings leads to a table on strike-rates. I really didn´t understand that. I know full well that MS doesn´t have any extraordinary SR in T20I cricket, but his career SR for example would be irrelevant to what he did that night at Wankhede. An innings individually is good or bad based on that particular match, its situation, the rate that it comes at etc. If you believe that that 15 off nine was a massive failure on his part, fine enough, but I´m not sure how that´d that very innings sound any justifiable if he´d had a good career SR. I still don´t believe that nine balls is enough for people to be criticising an innings for, especially batting first. In my opinion, this would´ve stood as more valid if for example batting second in a tense chase he´d made eight or nine off nine. But there´s nothing wrong in saying that you or other people expected more from him that night. MS´ running alongside Kohli was inspirational that night, and he did well in the partnership in wasting no time in getting Kohli on strike, but that is an utter misinterpretation of T20 cricket on MS´ part (and also highlights his inability in the format). This format doesn´t work like that - as exactly was showcased by the West Indies in their chase when they reached home with no fuss by blazing boundaries. It looked good and worked better against Australia in the previous game though, since there they were going after a set target.

I personally believe that that night, it was Rahane who punctured India´s bid of getting past 200 or 210 - not to say that he "failed" or anything. He just couldn´t bat at the rate required on that pitch (having faced 35 balls), especially given that India were going great in terms of wickets lost.

So, again, Ashwin´s strike-rate is valid if we were to discuss his ability as an ODI batsman overall, not when discussing a nine-ball 15 - not in my view.



As discussed above, the super slow innings against Pakistan was almost what the situation required of him, as was the case in the SF in Uthappa´s innings. The scorecard reflects them both being slow innings, but anyone who watched the game understood it well how crucial both were. However, it´ll be grossly bias and unfair if one were to label one innings as success and the other as super slow, especially if you consider the number of wickets lost in both. I, from my side, remember Uthappa´s innings very well and thought it was a very good innings. He did his bit by stitching together a vital partnership with Yuvraj, and label not only his that innings as success but his overall showings too in the tournament - although, he wasn´t INDIA´S SECOND HIGHEST run-getter in the tournament, like MS WAS.

Three good innings in a tournament, a bilateral T20I, ODI or a Test series are good no matter what, especially if two of them come in knock-out matches. No big scores of 60s or 70s alright, but he did what was required of him and did what he could in the time that he got. Anyone wants to write negatively about all the next WT20s, sure enough do that, but he was amongst the reasons why India made it to the final in the inaugural WT20. If it were possible for India to be the final even without him, this discussion would´ve stood some ground. Any batsman who´s his team´s second highest run-getter in a tournament that his team wins, can´t be labelled as anything else apart from a success (except if someone were to get most of them in one innings in a match that has no impact on the tournament and fail in all other, or wash his hands off minnows); not a failure by any means.

As I said, I could go on a point by point explanation but it would get way too long.

Here's a bit though:

If MS´ innings of 33 off 31 in a low-scoring tie is "A super slow knock", then where does that leave Uthappa´s 28-ball 34 in a high-scoring semi-final? This is exactly the point that I tried to make by comparing the two games, one of which was a low-scorer where the said team was 36-4 and then 82-5, and the other a high-scoring affair 41-2. This was my whole logic behind myself comparing the two matches.

Nah.

You are completely missing the point my friend.

Uthappa in SF and even in Pak game had good SR and got out MUCH BEFORE. Dhoni in Pak game stayed till the end and still ended up with 106 SR.

It was a useful match winning knock retrospectively speaking but it wasn't a knock that was good on its own cos inspite of staying till the end, Dhoni didn't accelerate and due to Pak choke we lost.

Do you want an example of a slow T20 knock that was objectively SOLID regardless of the result?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/current/match/548379.html

Badri scored at 120 SR only YET it was a supreme knock cos he came in 1-2 and steadied the ship without playing too slowly and got out at the right time which allowed his team mates (mainly MSD) to accelerate.

EVEN if they hadn't accelerated and we lost the game, it was a good knock.

If he had stayed till the end and scored at 106 SR on that pitch, then the result of the game depends on OTHERS really for his knock to be deemed good or bad.

--

Reg the 15 run off 9 balls...

The point is that when you come down the order with the intention of swinging, SRs need to be much higher for THAT innings to be a success.

15 off 9 with 1 boundary on a super patta is actually a MASSIVE FAILURE for the reason that not only do you NOT score runs fast but you also PREVENT others from scoring. Doing an Afridi is better than what Dhoni did that game. Low sample set of balls is irrelevant in such a situation.

The table was to show how fast bats have to score when they come in down the order as opposed to SRs when they bat up. Yes, it was in ODIs but you can see the co-relation if you really think about it.

As for World T20 2007 being a success, let's agree to disagree. It wasn't a success for me when I really look into it but it wasn't a failure too.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Of course, if some tailender rescues us and plays the slow SR knock in a T20 game that was not exactly low scoring, perception would be a bit different cos he is a tailender.

As for that specific Dhoni knock: At one stage, he was 13 off 19 balls....then 19 off 23 balls...even after 16 overs.

If he had got out there, it would have been hailed a stupid knock but just because he slammed a 6 and a 4, he got his SR to be barely above 100. Then Pak choked and that knock became calculated match winning innings retrospectively speaking.

That's the problem with Dhoni and T20I in general. He does the same time and time again.

Now we can say Pathan was also at 7(10) at one stage but the thing is:

1. He was at that stage in 10 balls...NOT 25 balls....
2. He is held to much lesser scrutiny cos he is not a pure bat who is expected to win games for us
3. He did score those crucial double sixes and got out without wasting too many balls.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Without Dhoni's knock we surely wouldn't have won the Pak game. No disagreements over that.

It's just that it was not an objectively good knock. It just became one due to situation.

 

[srh]

Dhoni cannot be consider an ATG.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Without Dhoni's knock we surely wouldn't have won the Pak game. No disagreements over that.

It's just that it was not an objectively good knock. It just became one due to situation.

Bro, how do you determine a cricket performance objectively?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Bro, how do you determine a cricket performance objectively?

A knock that is good enough to be rated as one regardless of the end result & what happens in various situations.

Sometimes, a slow knock (on a tough low scoring pitch) will look not so good at first but when the other side bats, it will put that knock into perspective.

Example of an objectively good knock - Take Dhoni's 100 against Pakistan in 2012 ODI series. It was an absolute all time great jaw dropping knock regardless of whether we won or not. That was not a slow knock by any means but you get the point.

And I humbly request you to stop the condescending "bro" tone.

 

[CricketCartoons]

A knock that is good enough to be rated as one regardless of the end result & what happens in various situations.

Sometimes, a slow knock (on a tough low scoring pitch) will look not so good at first but when the other side bats, it will put that knock into perspective.

Example of an objectively good knock - Take Dhoni's 100 against Pakistan in 2012 ODI series. It was an absolute all time great jaw dropping knock regardless of whether we won or not. That was not a slow knock by any means but you get the point.

And I humbly request you to stop the condescending "bro" tone.

But that is still subjective..you factor in the context of the performance before declaring it an all time great knock. I was wondering if you have a method which determines the greatness of a performance objectively.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

But that is still subjective..you factor in the context of the performance before declaring it an all time great knock. I was wondering if you have a method which determines the greatness of a performance objectively.

There is no such formula in cricket or any sports.

Objective in the sports sense refers to any performance that is undeniably good on its own.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There is no such formula in cricket or any sports.

Objective in the sports sense refers to any performance that is undeniably good on its own.

undeniably good is subjective to ones opinion. How valuable that opinion is based on how keen observer of the game the person is and factors in the context of the knock. Still subjective.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

undeniably good is subjective to ones opinion. How valuable that opinion is based on how keen observer of the game the person is and factors in the context of the knock. Still subjective.

Ok. In the purest technical sense, you are right.

Take looks for example. Technically subjective.

Technically, we can argue that for some, Aishwarya Rai looks ugly but from a general objective standpoint, her looks are considered beautiful.

 

[Saurav]

Of course, if some tailender rescues us and plays the slow SR knock in a T20 game that was not exactly low scoring, perception would be a bit different cos he is a tailender.

As for that specific Dhoni knock: At one stage, he was 13 off 19 balls....then 19 off 23 balls...even after 16 overs.

If he had got out there, it would have been hailed a stupid knock but just because he slammed a 6 and a 4, he got his SR to be barely above 100. Then Pak choked and that knock became calculated match winning innings retrospectively speaking.

That's the problem with Dhoni and T20I in general. He does the same time and time again.

Now we can say Pathan was also at 7(10) at one stage but the thing is:

1. He was at that stage in 10 balls...NOT 25 balls....
2. He is held to much lesser scrutiny cos he is not a pure bat who is expected to win games for us
3. He did score those crucial double sixes and got out without wasting too many balls.

1. Dhoni came in at 36-4 with ball swinging corners.Pathan came in at 80-5 when things had settled down a bit.
2. Pathan wouldnt have license or confidence to hit if there wasnt a batsman at the other end.One of Dhoni or Uthappa had to bat through,even if it meant SR ended up low

 

[CricketCartoons]

Ok. In the purest technical sense, you are right.

Take looks for example. Technically subjective.

Technically, we can argue that for some, Aishwarya Rai looks ugly but from a general objective standpoint, her looks are considered beautiful.

You said that the win was not possible without that Dhoni innings, but then went on to say that objectively it wasnt a great innings. So I was wondering why did you dismiss the context of that innings. Surely more context means better judgement, no?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. Dhoni came in at 36-4 with ball swinging corners.Pathan came in at 80-5 when things had settled down a bit.
2. Pathan wouldnt have license or confidence to hit if there wasnt a batsman at the other end.One of Dhoni or Uthappa had to bat through,even if it meant SR ended up low

1. Uthappa came way above Dhoni in the first over itself and batted at a healthy SR. Dhoni came in at the 7th over and still batted slowly.

2. Batting through may have been on Dhoni's mind but that doesn't mean you score 13 off 19....or 19 off 23 balls in that pitch. Even in the end, he hardly made up for his batting.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You said that the win was not possible without that Dhoni innings, but then went on to say that objectively it wasnt a great innings. So I was wondering why did you dismiss the context of that innings. Surely more context means better judgement, no?

I said the win was possible due to Dhoni retrospectively speaking which is true.

However it wasn't an objectively good innings.

Dhoni held the innings but in the same innings, cameos of Irfan and Agarkar helped us get to that total (and not Dhoni inspite of him being present all the way till the end). Not to mention Uthappa's 50 at a healthy SR for that pitch. And then Pak choked in the end.

Too many things clicked for him then.

Different game...almost similar approach by him while others scored fast....led to a loss.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/565820.html

 

[CricketCartoons]

I said the win was possible due to Dhoni retrospectively speaking which is true.

However it wasn't an objectively good innings.

Dhoni held the innings but in the same innings, cameos of Irfan and Agarkar helped us get to that total (and not Dhoni inspite of him being present all the way till the end). Not to mention Uthappa's 50 at a healthy SR for that pitch. And then Pak choked in the end.

Hence not an objectively good knock. Too many things clicked for him then.

Different game...different situation...almost similar approach by him while others scored fast....led to a loss.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/565820.html

You are being very flippant about the term "objectively". It is fine to rate an innings however you want, and attach your own values to cameos vis a vis knocks that hold the innings together. Just don't call it objective. It is not.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

You are being very flippant about the term "objectively". It is fine to rate an innings however you want, and attach your own values to cameos vis a vis knocks that hold the innings together. Just don't call it objective. It is not.

It is simple. Out of 10 times Dhoni plays that type of innings against a non minnow side, how many matches would you think India will be in good position battingwise?

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is simple. Out of 10 times Dhoni plays that type of innings against a non minnow side, how many matches would you think India will be in good position battingwise?

If out of 10 times everyone plays the same way they played in that match, India would win 10 times.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

If out of 10 times everyone plays the same way they played in that match, India would win 10 times.

Not everybody plays the way they played in that match,but Dhoni generally plays that way.

 

[Saurav]

1. Uthappa came way above Dhoni in the first over itself and batted at a healthy SR. Dhoni came in at the 7th over and still batted slowly.

2. Batting through may have been on Dhoni's mind but that doesn't mean you score 13 off 19....or 19 off 23 balls in that pitch. Even in the end, he hardly made up for his batting.

Uthappa was 16 off 21 and 21 off 25.Scored 29 of his last 14 deliveries.Got out with 8 overs to go.India still in danger of being bowled out

Dhoni was 19 off 23.Scored 14 off his 7 deliveries.Got out in the last over.

Hypothetically,to match Uthappa and end up 50 off 39,Dhoni needed 17 off his next 9 deliveries.Entirely possible with the way he picked up in the end

How is Dhoni's innings any less good 'objectively'?

Can't even believe you are micro-analysing to that point

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Uthappa was 16 off 21 and 21 off 25.Scored 29 of his last 14 deliveries.Got out with 8 overs to go.India still in danger of being bowled out

Dhoni was 19 off 23.Scored 14 off his 7 deliveries.Got out in the last over.

Hypothetically,to match Uthappa and end up 50 off 39,Dhoni needed 17 off his next 9 deliveries.Entirely possible with the way he picked up in the end

How is Dhoni's innings any less good 'objectively'?

Can't even believe you are micro-analysing to that point

Obviously scoring 16 runs off 21 balls at the end of the 6th over (and scoring 21 off 25 at the end of 9th over) in a game where the top order was BLASTED OFF is the SAME as scoring 19 off 23 balls at the end of 16th over and not even making up the SR even after staying till the 20th over.

Seems like micro analyzing is the only problem here. Hehe.

The problem is that a simple point like calling a knock, where someone scores at 106 SR despite being till the end, as poor gets contested like crazy which leads to all this pointless micro analysis. Trust me bro...I wasn't even interested in digging into Dhoni's breakup.

 

[Saurav]

Obviously scoring 16 runs off 21 balls at the end of the 6th over (and scoring 21 off 25 at the end of 9th over) in a game where the top order was BLASTED OFF is the SAME as scoring 19 off 23 balls at the end of 16th over and not even making up the SR even after staying till the 20th over.

Seems like micro analyzing is the only problem here. Hehe.

The problem is that a simple point like calling a knock, where someone scores at 106 SR despite being till the end, as poor gets contested like crazy which leads to all this pointless micro analysis. Trust me bro...I wasn't even interested in digging into Dhoni's breakup.

Its Dhoni if anything who came in after the top order was blasted off.

I meant ,that Uthappa also was as slow and cautious which was required in that situation.He caught up via 2 sixes off Arafat but in doing that he also lost his wicket.We were 5 down with 8 overs to go and only Irfan with somewhat reliable batting ability left.

From then on,you couldnt expect Dhoni to up his SR.He had to dig in to ensure we batted 20 overs.

Before you,no one else has called that knock as poor.Connect me to some links etc if you can.So its expected that it will be contested

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Its Dhoni if anything who came in after the top order was blasted off.

I meant ,that Uthappa also was as slow and cautious which was required in that situation.He caught up via 2 sixes off Arafat but in doing that he also lost his wicket.We were 5 down with 8 overs to go and only Irfan with somewhat reliable batting ability left.

From then on,you couldnt expect Dhoni to up his SR.He had to dig in to ensure we batted 20 overs.

Before you,no one else has called that knock as poor.Connect me to some links etc if you can.So its expected that it will be contested

If losing wickets means you are allowed to bat slow all the way...then what can I say.

Dhoni stayed till the 20 over and had an SR of 106.

20th over.

If he was only playing slowly for the situation, why couldn't he make up his score at the end?

One could argue Uthappa had to reconstruct the innings and since Dhoni was also slow (6 off 10), he had to take on the bowlers and go for the kill which got us crucial quick runs but at the cost of his wicket after which Dhoni played like a slow coach till the end and became the hero (after a couple of boundaries mixed in with Irfan's and Agarkar's quick runs). Once we start making points like this...we can take any direction and spin anything.

Fact is Dhoni's knock wasn't great cos he stayed on till the end and yet had a SR of 106.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

^Ok its not a fact. Just a figure of speech.

 

[DHONI183]

Here's a bit though:

Nah.

You are completely missing the point my friend.

Uthappa in SF and even in Pak game had good SR and got out MUCH BEFORE. Dhoni in Pak game stayed till the end and still ended up with 106 SR.

I knew, I swear I knew this will be your next point! I know you since years man.

Right, Uthappa got out MUCH BEFORE MS got out in that game, but don´t you see a difference between the team being 36-4 and then 82-5, and the team being 41-2 and then going superbly all the way till the end? Why is there no criticism on Uthappa for not accelerating from the 10th, 11th or the 12th over onwards when Yuvraj was going ballistic at the other end and India were in no danger of being bowled out anymore?

At one stage, he was 13 off 19 balls....then 19 off 23 balls...even after 16 overs.

If he had got out there, it would have been hailed a stupid knock but just because he slammed a 6 and a 4, he got his SR to be barely above 100. Then Pak choked and that knock became calculated match winning innings retrospectively speaking.

Now we can say Pathan was also at 7(10) at one stage but the thing is:

1. He was at that stage in 10 balls...NOT 25 balls....

Here, right here´s a contradiction again in the way you interpret MS´ innings against Pakistan when India were 36-4, and Uthappa´s one where India were 41-2.

By your logic: Uthappa was 22 off 25 at one stage and it would´ve been hailed a stupid knock that was proving out to be the worst antagonist to Yuvraj´s heroics, but then HE HIT TWO SIXES before the ball he got out to have a 28-ball 34 next to his name, a strike-rate touch above 100.

And now you´ll see that Uthappa got out WAY BEFORE MS did, and then my answer will be the same: there´s a difference of situation when a team is 36-4 and 41-2, and hence a difference in the approach a batsman adopts for these situations.

So it can´t be that one needs such deep analysis and the other is hailed as very good innings (which it was, I know).

It was a useful match winning knock retrospectively speaking but it wasn't a knock that was good on its own cos inspite of staying till the end, Dhoni didn't accelerate and due to Pak choke we lost.

Do you want an example of a slow T20 knock that was objectively SOLID regardless of the result?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/current/match/548379.html

Badri scored at 120 SR only YET it was a supreme knock cos he came in 1-2 and steadied the ship without playing too slowly and got out at the right time which allowed his team mates (mainly MSD) to accelerate.

EVEN if they hadn't accelerated and we lost the game, it was a good knock.

If he had stayed till the end and scored at 106 SR on that pitch, then the result of the game depends on OTHERS really for his knock to be deemed good or bad.

Again the same point, see the recovery and the number of wickets lost prior to it. CSK lost their 3rd wicket in the 14th over when they´d recovered well, being 95-2.

You didn´t have to go looking for an example from the IPL. MS´ own innings in the same tourney against South Africa would suffice, but the fact is that in that game both him and Rohit stayed till the 20th over which allowed both the chance to go for the slog post the 15th-16th, whereas in that game against Pakistan India again kept on losing wickets from the 13th over post a minor recovery.

Reg the 15 run off 9 balls...

The point is that when you come down the order with the intention of swinging, SRs need to be much higher for THAT innings to be a success.

15 off 9 with 1 boundary on a super patta is actually a MASSIVE FAILURE for the reason that not only do you NOT score runs fast but you also PREVENT others from scoring. Doing an Afridi is better than what Dhoni did that game. Low sample set of balls is irrelevant in such a situation.

The table was to show how fast bats have to score when they come in down the order as opposed to SRs when they bat up. Yes, it was in ODIs but you can see the co-relation if you really think about it.

That table can, at most, reflect what Ashwin´s career SR is batting at number seven, not how good or bad he played in an innings. The career SR would´ve hardly been impacted even if he´d made a 60-ball hundred.

I don´t hail that as a success, I´m not even justifying his that innings, but my point stands that I´ve never seen any expert, fan or anyone criticise a batsman for a nine-ball 15, and there´s a reason behind it, which´s that very rarely does a batsman make a difference in a match in a space of nine bals. If someone does, all hail that, all sing praises of it and sometimes people even argue that that guy should´ve been the Man of the Match for his match-turning innings, and all this mostly because it´s widely acknowledged that making a difference in an over or in an over and a half isn´t easy.

You hail that as a MASSIVE FAILURE, no issues with that. We can agree to a disagree there too it seems.

Uthappa was 16 off 21 and 21 off 25.Scored 29 of his last 14 deliveries.Got out with 8 overs to go.India still in danger of being bowled out

Dhoni was 19 off 23.Scored 14 off his 7 deliveries.Got out in the last over.

Hypothetically,to match Uthappa and end up 50 off 39,Dhoni needed 17 off his next 9 deliveries.Entirely possible with the way he picked up in the end

How is Dhoni's innings any less good 'objectively'?

Can't even believe you are micro-analysing to that point

Hun aaya ee mera sheyr! Aetthey rakkh!

This discussion with [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION] has been so dominant on my mind that watching 'Raees' yesterday at a theatre, I was wondering all the while how Shah Rukh Khan is going to catch up with his strike-rate, having only one child in so many years of marriage. Expectedly, he was out before the slog-overs came.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I knew, I swear I knew this will be your next point! I know you since years man.

Haha.....you know me very well no doubt.

How was Raees? [MENTION=6745]DHONI183[/MENTION]

 

[cr7great]

dhoni is flop t -20 batsman

 

[DHONI183]

I love how Siffy quotes and replies to my post to make it known that he´s read it, but avoids replying to it and instead shifts the conversation to 'Raees', showing me how he values relations above these useless arguments. Here´s your perfect husband material!

How was Raees? [MENTION=6745]DHONI183[/MENTION]

It's tough to critically analyse a film that you happen to watch on the big, giant screen - certainly not as is as it is watching a film at home. There, the emotions, the drama, the sound-effects, the surroundings and the occasion just take over. A film has to be really, really bad for me at least to rate it negatively having watched it at a theatre.

There are great films in which actors do full justice to the roles, then there´re okay-ish, good films or even bad ones which are graced by good performances, and then there´re those where you completely forget what the story or the plot is, because of a power performance like Shah Rukh Khan has pulled of here. Such films and instances are rare, but I was totally blown away by his performance.

And no, I´m no die-hard SRK fan by any means. My admiration for him is renewed on product-by-product basis and I even shun it when he tries to sell a product like 'Dilwale'.

 

[Saurav]

I love how Siffy quotes and replies to my post to make it known that he´s read it, but avoids replying to it and instead shifts the conversation to 'Raees', showing me how he values relations above these useless arguments. Here´s your perfect husband material!



It's tough to critically analyse a film that you happen to watch on the big, giant screen - certainly not as is as it is watching a film at home. There, the emotions, the drama, the sound-effects, the surroundings and the occasion just take over. A film has to be really, really bad for me at least to rate it negatively having watched it at a theatre.

There are great films in which actors do full justice to the roles, then there´re okay-ish, good films or even bad ones which are graced by good performances, and then there´re those where you completely forget what the story or the plot is, because of a power performance like Shah Rukh Khan has pulled of here. Such films and instances are rare, but I was totally blown away by his performance.

And no, I´m no die-hard SRK fan by any means. My admiration for him is renewed on product-by-product basis and I even shun it when he tries to sell a product like 'Dilwale'.

Ab toh dekhni padegi

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I love how Siffy quotes and replies to my post to make it known that he´s read it, but avoids replying to it and instead shifts the conversation to 'Raees', showing me how he values relations above these useless arguments. Here´s your perfect husband material!

It's tough to critically analyse a film that you happen to watch on the big, giant screen - certainly not as is as it is watching a film at home. There, the emotions, the drama, the sound-effects, the surroundings and the occasion just take over. A film has to be really, really bad for me at least to rate it negatively having watched it at a theatre.

There are great films in which actors do full justice to the roles, then there´re okay-ish, good films or even bad ones which are graced by good performances, and then there´re those where you completely forget what the story or the plot is, because of a power performance like Shah Rukh Khan has pulled of here. Such films and instances are rare, but I was totally blown away by his performance.

And no, I´m no die-hard SRK fan by any means. My admiration for him is renewed on product-by-product basis and I even shun it when he tries to sell a product like 'Dilwale'.

Haha......keen observer. And a very kind way to put it which you always do (but sadly am a bit way too argumentative which needs to change ).

Yeah I read every part of the post and felt this was one of those times when a discussion stops moving forward and becomes a bit more cyclic. There were a few points raised for which I do have a response but felt eventually it would lead to a predictable arc.

As for Raees, about time SRK starts taking on proper roles so in that aspect Raees may be a welcome sign. This guy can act when he puts his mind into it. Its fascinating to see how things can keep clicking for you for a long time and after a while, once the slide starts, you don't what to do or how to arrest it. It will be interesting to see how his career pans out from now on on even his movies aren't. That's what I look at when SRK releases movies these days.

 

[Thivagar]

All the Indian players are ATG according some Indian fans.

 

[Bilal7]

The conversation now is Dhoni's poor performances outside of Asia, specifically in South Africa, England and Australia. Number of centuries for a lower order batsman isn't a good parameter like others have already explained.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The conversation now is Dhoni's poor performances outside of Asia, specifically in South Africa, England and Australia.

35 in Aus
27 in SA
37 in ENG

These aren't bad batting avgs considering he comes in at 5/6 and is a wicket keeper batsmen...