MS Dhoni is better than Michael Bevan - He is the BEST finisher of the game

[Garuda]

If we keep giving WC final importance all the time, all other innings will pale in comparison because it was a world cup final. Bevan didn't play any good innings in a WC final (he wasn't even required in 99 and 2003), so that settles it in favour of Dhoni.. Congrats!!!

Alright, let's apply the same logic in favor of Dhoni.

So if Bevan never got a chance to play in innings like that so his 10th match in VB series in the best but he is given higher rank than Dhoni.

But Dhoni has not got a chance to play similar innings in SA and you are ready to drop him below Bevan ? Reason ?

If Bevan didn't play an innings in big stage is not Dhoni's problem. Dhoni played and hence proved he is a big stage player.

You provided % of runs scored (stats), did you deliberately ignore the no. of wickets in hand when Dhoni came on to bat in WC2011 final, and that Bevan did it alone without any support whereas Dhoni had Gambhir to support (and in your opinion, you rate Gambhir's innings better than Dhoni's).

Dhoni came after 3 wickets down and Bevan came when 4 wickets down. Not much difference.

Again, when we are talking about finisher we are talking about with how minimal wicket loss they took the team home. Dhoni did better.

In Bevan's case he was dependent on others to hit few big hits to keep the chase under control and he kept the wicket at one end.

In Dhoni's case he did both. not only in WC final but in few other matches.

He keeps rotating strike till end and then he also manages to hit big and bring the RRR down.

So, I do not see why Bevan is given more credit than Dhoni.

We should better discuss and prove only those things which are objective in nature. You may also want to (if you care) look at the second innings of Bevan I posted which is similar to Dhoni's WC 2011 innings.. (against SA)

You yourself has said its equal to Dhoni's innings. You can put the same logic I put in the first and tell me which aspect of that innings topples Dhoni's innings. Let me know.

I have seen that innings already and in my view it's not.

Anyway, let us not argue on comparing innings.. when we both agree that both are very good innings, I don't think we will be able to convince each other on such subjective perceptions. I feel it is pointless to argue and damn difficult to convince among two very good innings one as "definitely" better than the other. I suppose sometimes we should let the opinions differ.. how can someone "prove" it I don't know..

Comparison will be there as long as you make one batsmen better than the other without any real fact.

If you can not provide then better to say it's your personal choice than making a claim that "Bevan was a better finisher than Dhoni".

I will like to request you to close this discussion with me. We can agree to disagree for now.

Fair enough. I have already provided all the details about why I do not agree with your claim. So there is nothing more I can do.

Like they say, "You can bring the horse to water but you can't make him drink".

 

[vicky_iisc]

Dhoni came after 3 wickets down and Bevan came when 4 wickets down. Not much difference.

Again, when we are talking about finisher we are talking about with how minimal wicket loss they took the team home. Dhoni did better.

In Bevan's case he was dependent on others to hit few big hits to keep the chase under control and he kept the wicket at one end.

In Dhoni's case he did both. not only in WC final but in few other matches.

minimal wicket loss ?? It was due to Gambhir who did not lose his wicket.. rather than Dhoni who made others not to lose .. In case of Bevan other batsmen got out and he stayed.. is it his fault ? You are crediting Dhoni because he chased the score with others not losing their wicket ? Ha ha ha... Gambhir will shout at you for crediting Dhoni for his own staying at the wicket..

You are saying as if "minimal wicket loss" after one comes to bat is what defines the batsman as a good chaser.. whereas reverse is true.

In that innings against NZ, who hit the big sixes to bring the RR down ? Shane Warne ?

Chalo, with this superb logic of yours, we can close the discussion.

 

[mr.crickett]

 

[Scrolln]

In India, the results say 75% Dhoni

Where are you logging in from?

 

[IndianWillow]

Yeah 76% Dhoni. I didn't know cricinfo polls were regional.

 

[Garuda]

minimal wicket loss ?? It was due to Gambhir who did not lose his wicket.. rather than Dhoni who made others not to lose .. In case of Bevan other batsmen got out and he stayed.. is it his fault ? You are crediting Dhoni because he chased the score with others not losing their wicket ? Ha ha ha... Gambhir will shout at you for crediting Dhoni for his own staying at the wicket..

You are saying as if "minimal wicket loss" after one comes to bat is what defines the batsman as a good chaser.. whereas reverse is true.

In that innings against NZ, who hit the big sixes to bring the RR down ? Shane Warne ?

Chalo, with this superb logic of yours, we can close the discussion.

Are you done with Dhoni Vs Bevan ?

Should I give you Dhoni Vs Gambhir stats now regarding who is the best finisher?

Regarding logic, I will leave it to readers to decide who provided logic and who provided personal opinion.

 

[IndianWillow]

Sir... there was a huge difference b/w Bevan's ability as a Test player and an ODI player of fast bowling.. I know he had a problem against short pitch bowling.. but in ODIs I didn't see him struggle that much against quick bowling of the kind Wasim/Donald/Pollock/Akhtar bowled.. though the same set of bowlers would trouble him in Test matches.

Bevan usually came at 4 or 5 (rather than 6 or 7).. and the rescue innings I am talking about had him early on the crease.

Anyway, facing Wasim Akram with or without new ball is equally difficult I think.. Donald was also better with the old ball.. but these are selective picking of bowlers which I don't want to put forward as argument.

Did I say I consider Bevan because he performed in Aus ? No.. we can look at his record in match winning efforts in India also.

if Aus was more batting friendly, I wouldn't have reconed that. It's about batting/bowling supportive pitches. You will agree Indian pitches are more batsmen friendly in general.

PS: Did you watch his innings against Asia XI ?

India was/is batting friendlier than Australia for ODIs, so I am not surprised that Bevan did well here. In test matches, the view is rather subjective. Ask the Australians why they were white washed fair and square in batsmen friendly Indian conditions recently? Bevan is used to his home conditions and his performances in Australia cannot be accorded more value than Dhoni's sterling performances in India.

Just like batsmen have good days and bad days, so do bowlers. Selectively making references to matches against Akram, Donald etc don't serve the purpose well here, especially for an ODI match. If Bevan was such a good batsman against top quality bowling he would have made his mark in test matches too. These facts don't lie.

Yes, I did see the match versus Asia XI, it was a fantastic knock, but it was a high scoring low pressure exhibition match and I am sure every one was surprised to see the accumulator Bevan as a master blaster there. He batted very unusual to his self, as if he had nothing to loose and was hitting boundaries over after over even after the match appeared to be over at 7/195. I have also seen Kirti Azad spank Imran at his peak left and right in an exhibition match, so we should take these kind of matches with a pinch of salt - http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1983-84/PAK_IN_IND/PAK_IND_BFT_11OCT1983_SCORES.html

Bevan's only role in the side was to bat, and bat in an ODI match. It is difficult to compare him with a multi dimensional player like Dhoni who bats, keeps, captains and some times even bowls in all formats, and plays in 120+ 'international' days an year. I personally think we don't see the best of Dhoni due to multiple responsibilities that he shoulders. Yet, if we are actually comparing him to Bevan as a pure batsman alone, that is really something.

 

[vicky_iisc]

India was/is batting friendlier than Australia for ODIs, so I am not surprised that Bevan did well here. In test matches, the view is rather subjective. Ask the Australians why they were white washed fair and square in batsmen friendly Indian conditions recently? Bevan is used to his home conditions and his performances in Australia cannot be accorded more value than Dhoni's sterling performances in India.

Just like batsmen have good days and bad days, so do bowlers. Selectively making references to matches against Akram, Donald etc don't serve the purpose well here, especially for an ODI match. If Bevan was such a good batsman against top quality bowling he would have made his mark in test matches too. These facts don't lie.

Yes, I did see the match versus Asia XI, it was a fantastic knock, but it was a high scoring low pressure exhibition match and I am sure every one was surprised to see the accumulator Bevan as a master blaster there. He batted very unusual to his self, as if he had nothing to loose and was hitting boundaries over after over even after the match appeared to be over at 7/195. I have also seen Kirti Azad spank Imran at his peak left and right in an exhibition match, so we should take these kind of matches with a pinch of salt - http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1983-84/PAK_IN_IND/PAK_IND_BFT_11OCT1983_SCORES.html

Bevan's only role in the side was to bat, and bat in an ODI match. It is difficult to compare him with a multi dimensional player like Dhoni who bats, keeps, captains and some times even bowls in all formats, and plays in 120+ 'international' days an year. I personally think we don't see the best of Dhoni due to multiple responsibilities that he shoulders. Yet, if we are actually comparing him to Bevan as a pure batsman alone, that is really something.

Indian pitches are batsmen friendly for ODIs and spinner friendly for Test matches. That will perhaps explain, Australia's white wash in India because their current set of batsmen aren't good enough to play more than average spin bowlers on turning wickets in Test matches.

I agree exhibition matches are to be taken with a pinch of salt.. but watching that particular game, I didn't get the feeling that the teams were taking it lightly. Then again, it is my feeling only, and not a proof. The fact that innings of Bevan is recognised by many, seems to suggest it wasn't a light game. We credit Tendulkar for MCC game in Eng too. Later ICC started giving such games official status too. Anyway, if the game was light, other players in World XI got out cheaply whereas Bevan didn't take it lightly perhaps.. also Asia Xi had people with good scores and it "appeared" they were not light about it. Anyway, I can't prove it that what all of them were thinking, so if you want to discard this innings, we should. It was an exhibition match afterall. But just to provide another match reference where Bradman was deciding his world XI and he picked Dennis Lillee, and cited his bowling against some of the best batsmen in the world in the Australia Vs ROW Test match (I guess it was not an official Test match, correct me I am wrong on it), and also Sobers 254 in the same match is still regarded by many as one of the great innings. Many Indians regard Tendulkar's sixes of Qadir very fondly, I suppose that was an exhibition game too.

We can't be selective and picky when choosing exhibition games and the validity of performances in them.

About the second point of Bevan being good batsman of fast bowling/spin bowling in ODIs and not in Tests is not my opinion. It was his captain, Steve Waugh who said it. You will agree it's easier to face quality bowling in ODIs than in Tests (if you have a technical difficulty against short pitched stuff), because ODIs bouncers were mostly called no balls (not even 1 ball per over was allowed then). Please note that Bevan was not having problem against fast bowling as such, he was having problem against good short pitched stuff, and he couldn't overcome it in Test matches. Other examples are Raina, Bairstow and Steve Waugh himself (he overcame it by avoiding hook shot)

About the point of Bevan playing well in Australia alone, let us observe if his record in India or Pak went down. If he only performed in Australia (or conditions familiar to him like SA/NZ etc.), and failed away (India/Pak) then I agree he was only playing well when conditions suited him, and that would prove he is no better than Dhoni.

Yes, I agree Dhoni has added responsibilty of being captain and WK, so if we take them into consideration, Dhoni is way ahead of Bevan.. but I suppose we were only comparing their batting in ODIs (that too in a particular genre).

 

[vicky_iisc]

Are you done with Dhoni Vs Bevan ?

Should I give you Dhoni Vs Gambhir stats now regarding who is the best finisher?

Regarding logic, I will leave it to readers to decide who provided logic and who provided personal opinion.

No, I am still on Dhoni Vs Bevan. Let us not deviate from topic and get to Dhoni vs Gambhir comparison. Why I included Gambhir is not to compare him with Dhoni, but just to point out that Gambhir provided good support to Dhoni in that chase. So no point comparing Gambhir Vs Dhoni. But if you talk about that particular innings, I think you also said Gambhir's contribution was better in that particular match. Now, it doesn't mean Gambhir can be compared with Dhoni as an ODI finisher.. no way, he is not a finisher.

Can you please let me know which part of my post you replied to, indicated/implied that I was trying to compare Dhoni and Gambhir as ODI finishers ? All I said was, Dhoni should not be credited for Gambhir's staying on the wicket. It was Gambhir's own effort. Where did I say Gambhir was a better finisher for you to think of providing Gambhir Vs Dhoni stats ?

Now let me repeat why I consider your logic of "minimal wicket loss" theory to prove an innings better absurd at best.

Dhoni came at 114-3, and when India won, they lost only 1 wicket further (of Gambhir) at 225.. do you credit Dhoni for India not losing further wickets ? Are we even talking sense, when we compare it to Bevan's innings who kept facing the wicket loss at the other end ?

Why do you credit Dhoni for India's minimal wicket loss ? I think his partner should be credited for providing support, and in Bevan's innings he did it almost alone (because of more wicket loss)..

I feel you are giving credit in a reverse order, "more wicket loss" should be credited more than "less wicket loss" (after one starts his innings)

I gave another innings against SA because it was similar to what Dhoni played in WC final, in the sense Waugh provided support to Bevan in a big chase..you just please look at it, you will find many similarities b/w the two innings.

 

[Garuda]

No, I am still on Dhoni Vs Bevan. Let us not deviate from topic and get to Dhoni vs Gambhir comparison. Why I included Gambhir is not to compare him with Dhoni, but just to point out that Gambhir provided good support to Dhoni in that chase. So no point comparing Gambhir Vs Dhoni. But if you talk about that particular innings, I think you also said Gambhir's contribution was better in that particular match. Now, it doesn't mean Gambhir can be compared with Dhoni as an ODI finisher.. no way, he is not a finisher.

Can you please let me know which part of my post you replied to, indicated/implied that I was trying to compare Dhoni and Gambhir as ODI finishers ? All I said was, Dhoni should not be credited for Gambhir's staying on the wicket. It was Gambhir's own effort. Where did I say Gambhir was a better finisher for you to think of providing Gambhir Vs Dhoni stats ?

Now let me repeat why I consider your logic of "minimal wicket loss" theory to prove an innings better absurd at best.

Dhoni came at 114-3, and when India won, they lost only 1 wicket further (of Gambhir) at 225.. do you credit Dhoni for India not losing further wickets ? Are we even talking sense, when we compare it to Bevan's innings who kept facing the wicket loss at the other end ?

Why do you credit Dhoni for India's minimal wicket loss ? I think his partner should be credited for providing support, and in Bevan's innings he did it almost alone (because of more wicket loss)..

I feel you are giving credit in a reverse order, "more wicket loss" should be credited more than "less wicket loss" (after one starts his innings)

I gave another innings against SA because it was similar to what Dhoni played in WC final, in the sense Waugh provided support to Bevan in a big chase..you just please look at it, you will find many similarities b/w the two innings.

I never gave minimal wicket loss as a weightage. I said that's what he did or tried to do.

But you ignored the real comparison of data I gave between both the innings.

The main data I gave was Dhoni did the maximum runs after he came to crease compared to Bevan with higher SR.

So why Bevan's innings is better ? In which aspect you feel between those two Bevan's innings was better.

I have clearly posted with data why I don't feel Bevan's innings was better than Dhoni's WC final innings. Let's see what reason you have for feeling Bevan's being better.

If you can then we can discuss on that aspect.

 

[IndianWillow]

Indian pitches are batsmen friendly for ODIs and spinner friendly for Test matches. That will perhaps explain, Australia's white wash in India because their current set of batsmen aren't good enough to play more than average spin bowlers on turning wickets in Test matches.

I agree exhibition matches are to be taken with a pinch of salt.. but watching that particular game, I didn't get the feeling that the teams were taking it lightly. Then again, it is my feeling only, and not a proof. The fact that innings of Bevan is recognised by many, seems to suggest it wasn't a light game. We credit Tendulkar for MCC game in Eng too. Later ICC started giving such games official status too. Anyway, if the game was light, other players in World XI got out cheaply whereas Bevan didn't take it lightly perhaps.. also Asia Xi had people with good scores and it "appeared" they were not light about it. Anyway, I can't prove it that what all of them were thinking, so if you want to discard this innings, we should. It was an exhibition match afterall. But just to provide another match reference where Bradman was deciding his world XI and he picked Dennis Lillee, and cited his bowling against some of the best batsmen in the world in the Australia Vs ROW Test match (I guess it was not an official Test match, correct me I am wrong on it), and also Sobers 254 in the same match is still regarded by many as one of the great innings. Many Indians regard Tendulkar's sixes of Qadir very fondly, I suppose that was an exhibition game too.

We can't be selective and picky when choosing exhibition games and the validity of performances in them.

About the second point of Bevan being good batsman of fast bowling/spin bowling in ODIs and not in Tests is not my opinion. It was his captain, Steve Waugh who said it. You will agree it's easier to face quality bowling in ODIs than in Tests (if you have a technical difficulty against short pitched stuff), because ODIs bouncers were mostly called no balls (not even 1 ball per over was allowed then). Please note that Bevan was not having problem against fast bowling as such, he was having problem against good short pitched stuff, and he couldn't overcome it in Test matches. Other examples are Raina, Bairstow and Steve Waugh himself (he overcame it by avoiding hook shot)

About the point of Bevan playing well in Australia alone, let us observe if his record in India or Pak went down. If he only performed in Australia (or conditions familiar to him like SA/NZ etc.), and failed away (India/Pak) then I agree he was only playing well when conditions suited him, and that would prove he is no better than Dhoni.

Yes, I agree Dhoni has added responsibilty of being captain and WK, so if we take them into consideration, Dhoni is way ahead of Bevan.. but I suppose we were only comparing their batting in ODIs (that too in a particular genre).

Bevan's problem in my opinion was not limited to the short pitch stuff - but against international quality fast bowling in general. Why? Because he did not have a problem having a great record in first class cricket in Australia. Bevan averaged 57 in FC where of course bowlers were not no balled for bowling bouncers and Bevan did very well against domestic fast bowlers in the longer format. He weakness were two fold:

1. Weakness against short pitched bowling.
2. Weakness against top class international bowlers which explains why he was successful in ODI and first class, but could not raise himself to perform at the highest level in test cricket. Perhaps Baven found himself competing with a very extraordinary Aussie team, but even then I think the Aussies would have given him a longer run ( than 18 tests) than necessary due to his unbelievable ODI game. That should prove that Bevan was no better than Dhoni ( or only a little better due to his upbringing on those conditions) when it came to facing fast bowling.

By "weakness" here I don't mean that Bevan was a poor batsman of fast bowling. I used "weak" only in a relative sense, weak compared to the better international test players of his generation.

All exhibition matches are just that, exhibition matches, one day matches or 20 overs games are very much so. There is no pressure to win at all costs in such matches. Yes, I was also watching live when Sachin clubbed Qadir for three sixes - and was jumping with joy. But Qadir was not at his prime nor did Tendulkar carry over that form into the ODI game for the next five years. So while that Tendu cameo threw some glimpses into his future greatness, it was still a flukey innings since Tendulkar needed many more years to replicate similar feats in real ODI cricket.

 

[vicky_iisc]

I never gave minimal wicket loss as a weightage. I said that's what he did or tried to do.

But you ignored the real comparison of data I gave between both the innings.

The main data I gave was Dhoni did the maximum runs after he came to crease compared to Bevan with higher SR.

So why Bevan's innings is better ? In which aspect you feel between those two Bevan's innings was better.

I have clearly posted with data why I don't feel Bevan's innings was better than Dhoni's WC final innings. Let's see what reason you have for feeling Bevan's being better.

If you can then we can discuss on that aspect.

Yes, I will respond on the main data you provided, just to clairfy that 'data' in your post (which should have been more highlighted) got sidetracked by minimal wicket loss discussion, which caught my eye and I picked it up first and only replied to that part. It is easier for me to reply in parts rather than a long post so that I can track it. If we had been discussing F2F, I am sure both parts of your post I would have tried to reply together.

I have no intention to ignore any sane logic (data you provided), and my intention wasn't to ignore that and grill on minimal wicket loss only.. but I felt it was better to get that out of the way, as that was more problematic, and I could not even look at the data part of your post, which was more proper logic.

I will read your post again, and analyse the 'data' section (% of runs), but let me clarify that I consider regular wicket loss at the other end a bigger factor than % of runs scored as a stat. But I agree your data isn't absurd, I may disagree with putting that as weightage but it is still understandable.

Let me reply to that in next post (probably evening).

 

[vicky_iisc]

Bevan's problem in my opinion was not limited to the short pitch stuff - but against international quality fast bowling in general. Why? Because he did not have a problem having a great record in first class cricket in Australia. Bevan averaged 57 in FC where of course bowlers were not no balled for bowling bouncers and Bevan did very well against domestic fast bowlers in the longer format. He weakness were two fold:

1. Weakness against short pitched bowling.
2. Weakness against top class international bowlers which explains why he was successful in ODI and first class, but could not raise himself to perform at the highest level in test cricket. Perhaps Baven found himself competing with a very extraordinary Aussie team, but even then I think the Aussies would have given him a longer run ( than 18 tests) than necessary due to his unbelievable ODI game. That should prove that Bevan was no better than Dhoni ( or only a little better due to his upbringing on those conditions) when it came to facing fast bowling.

By "weakness" here I don't mean that Bevan was a poor batsman of fast bowling. I used "weak" only in a relative sense, weak compared to the better international test players of his generation.

All exhibition matches are just that, exhibition matches, one day matches or 20 overs games are very much so. There is no pressure to win at all costs in such matches. Yes, I was also watching live when Sachin clubbed Qadir for three sixes - and was jumping with joy. But Qadir was not at his prime nor did Tendulkar carry over that form into the ODI game for the next five years. So while that Tendu cameo threw some glimpses into his future greatness, it was still a flukey innings since Tendulkar needed many more years to replicate similar feats in real ODI cricket.

Ok.. I think we are saying almost the same things about Bevan's ODI batting against fast bowling. I agree with you when you say it was his Test match batting which was the problem.

About the exhibition matches, some are taken seriously, some are not. For example, Tendulkar's sixes of Qadir, as you said wasn't serious. Ok, I may agree.

Australia Vs ROW Test match (perhaps not an official Test match), can you comment on Bradman's picking the performance of Lillee in that as a reference for him picking Lillee in his own world XI ? Also Sobers 254 is still talked about by many experts. What about the MCC Vs World XI match in 1998 where Tendulkar played McGrath/Donald etc. and people compared that innings to W.G. Grace himself.

I think some of the international matches are also not taken seriously, and some of exhibition matches are taken seriously. It is only my feeling that Bevan was able to do it that day, and if it had been an international game, the scene wouldn't have been much different.

 

[Bushroda]

Exhibition matches are just that.. Exhibition!! Nothing else.

Here is what happens in exhibition matches
1. No Pressure of Winning & Losing.
2. Fast Bowlers usually bowl with shortened run-ups.
3. Fielders would hardly dive to stop boundaries.
4. Even wicket keepers have given away gloves and tried their hands with ball.

Tendulkar's 3 sixes of Abdul Qadeer are remembered more out of desperation of Indian fans who for the first time saw a young 16 years old break the shackles of the dominant aura of Pakistani players created courtesy Javed Miandad's last ball six. Didn't matter even if it was in an exhibition match. Tendulkar now is remembered more for his desert storm than any practice match in Pakistan or Exhibition match at Lord's. Though the Lord's one was hugely advertised.

Coming back to Dhoni v/s Bevan, Bevan is no doubt a great ODI player. But, as one poster had posted the statistics that clearly showed that Dhoni has scored 50% more runs than Bevan in successful chases while remaining Not Out and doing so in just 8 more matches than Bevan. This seals the argument. It is clearly established that Bevan wasn't a power hitter like Dhoni. Most of the time he relied on Bichel/Lee etc to hit big shots while he kept rotating the strike. Dhoni otoh has won matches all by himself.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Exhibition matches are just that.. Exhibition!! Nothing else.

Here is what happens in exhibition matches
1. No Pressure of Winning & Losing.
2. Fast Bowlers usually bowl with shortened run-ups.
3. Fielders would hardly dive to stop boundaries.
4. Even wicket keepers have given away gloves and tried their hands with ball.

Tendulkar's 3 sixes of Abdul Qadeer are remembered more out of desperation of Indian fans who for the first time saw a young 16 years old break the shackles of the dominant aura of Pakistani players created courtesy Javed Miandad's last ball six. Didn't matter even if it was in an exhibition match. Tendulkar now is remembered more for his desert storm than any practice match in Pakistan or Exhibition match at Lord's. Though the Lord's one was hugely advertised.

What you said is true for most of the exhibition matches, but not for all. Australia Vs ROW, /Asia Vs Africa/ Asia Vs ROW/MCC/ they are some of the examples where unofficial games were played with intensity, and later ICC started giving them official status too.

I agree 3 sixes of Tendulkar off Qadir is remembered more by Indian fans out of desperation and had no real value otherwise.. but not all other examples I gave above were similar.

 

[Singham]

In successful chases, Dhoni’s average hits a remarkable 100. Better than anyone in the world.


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

 

[Singham]

^ u can't argue with these stats man. These are just incredible......

 

[IndianWillow]

I think some of the international matches are also not taken seriously, and some of exhibition matches are taken seriously. It is only my feeling that Bevan was able to do it that day, and if it had been an international game, the scene wouldn't have been much different.

Many of the international matches are to be taken seriously, and a few of the exhibition matches can be taken seriously. The seriousness seen in an international match is often not seen in an exhibition match. You rarely see fielders giving their best in exhibition matches because they definitely don't want to risk injury in an unimportant match that can sideline them from playing important matches which may become a setback to their careers. Similarly, bowlers often do not bend their backs much in an exhibition match.

In the past, exhibition matches were taken a bit more seriously because it was the era of amateurs. In the professional era where you get highly paid for a real match, it is too risky to give your best in an unimportant match, a bad injury can throw you out of the international team for a long time which could even cost your place in the side forever, and it isn't simply worth it.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Many of the international matches are to be taken seriously, and a few of the exhibition matches can be taken seriously. The seriousness seen in an international match is often not seen in an exhibition match. You rarely see fielders giving their best in exhibition matches because they definitely don't want to risk injury in an unimportant match that can sideline them from playing important matches which may become a setback to their careers. Similarly, bowlers often do not bend their backs much in an exhibition match.

In the past, exhibition matches were taken a bit more seriously because it was the era of amateurs. In the professional era where you get highly paid for a real match, it is too risky to give your best in an unimportant match, a bad injury can throw you out of the international team for a long time which could even cost your place in the side forever, and it isn't simply worth it.

Agree, but that match of Bevan, I feel (nothing to prove it of course) was taken seriously, not as seriously as a WC game, but not too much lower than say a league game in a tri series. It was a world stage Asia XI vs ROW.

I know for sure that when Asia XI was being picked and a lot of debate was there on why some of the good players didn't make it to that side. Kind of buzz for that game.

 

[Bushroda]

What you said is true for most of the exhibition matches, but not for all. Australia Vs ROW, /Asia Vs Africa/ Asia Vs ROW/MCC/ they are some of the examples where unofficial games were played with intensity, and later ICC started giving them official status too.

I agree 3 sixes of Tendulkar off Qadir is remembered more by Indian fans out of desperation and had no real value otherwise.. but not all other examples I gave above were similar.

I don't think that an exhibition match happening in Dhaka would be played with full vigor and competitiveness by participating players knowing fully well that its an unofficial match. Dhoni played a similar innings in an official match between Asia XI vs Africa XI where he scored 139 in 95 deliveries decimating Morne Morkel/Botha/Kemp etc. But I don't think Dhoni himself remembers it amongst his greatest innings.

 

[vicky_iisc]

I don't think that an exhibition match happening in Dhaka would be played with full vigor and competitiveness by participating players knowing fully well that its an unofficial match. Dhoni played a similar innings in an official match between Asia XI vs Africa XI where he scored 139 in 95 deliveries decimating Morne Morkel/Botha/Kemp etc. But I don't think Dhoni himself remembers it amongst his greatest innings.

Well we can't prove it either way.. unless we have references from people who played in that game. The match quality was good nevertheless, and wasn't easy scoring either.

I felt that players showed intensity in that game, but then I can't prove it, because my feeling can't be a proof. I only saw the game on TV, and there was a buzz of it because ASIA vs WORLD kind of was rare during that time, and best players were selected to play.

Later such games happened more frequently, and ICC started giving them official status.

 

[Bushroda]

Agree, but that match of Bevan, I feel (nothing to prove it of course) was taken seriously, not as seriously as a WC game, but not too much lower than say a league game in a tri series. It was a world stage Asia XI vs ROW.

I know for sure that when Asia XI was being picked and a lot of debate was there on why some of the good players didn't make it to that side. Kind of buzz for that game.

Bevan has hit just 21 sixes in his 232 ODI appearances. Only once he has hit more than 1 six in an innings (2 to be precise) and that too against Bangladesh. In the exhibition match in DHaka he belted 5 sixes. The fact that he was never able to replicate his Dhaka performance on International stage itself is a testament of how serious that match was taken.

How many times did Abdul Razzaq call out for field placements when he was being belted for boundaries in the last over? Any serious bowler would've been called in by the captain holding up the game for few minutes strategizing where to bowl the next ball.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Bevan has hit just 21 sixes in his 232 ODI appearances. Only once he has hit more than 1 six in an innings (2 to be precise) and that too against Bangladesh. In the exhibition match in DHaka he belted 5 sixes. The fact that he was never able to replicate his Dhaka performance on International stage itself is a testament of how serious that match was taken.

How many times did Abdul Razzaq call out for field placements when he was being belted for boundaries in the last over? Any serious bowler would've been called in by the captain holding up the game for few minutes strategizing where to bowl the next ball.

Ok.. let us agree to discard that innings..if you want. Though I don't think hitting sixes defines seriousness or lack of it, but since he only played that kind of innings once and never repeated, I can agree that it was not his usual self.

I am just trying to put that innings as to prove that it was not that he could not do it ever.. but yes, it was not his style and he was not better than others in this regard.

 

[Bushroda]

Well we can't prove it either way.. unless we have references from people who played in that game. The match quality was good nevertheless, and wasn't easy scoring either.

I felt that players showed intensity in that game, but then I can't prove it, because my feeling can't be a proof. I only saw the game on TV, and there was a buzz of it because ASIA vs WORLD kind of was rare during that time, and best players were selected to play.

Later such games happened more frequently, and ICC started giving them official status.

The very fact that Bevan could not replicate that performance in International matches is proof enough of the seriousness of the match. In the earlier exhibition matches, batsmen used to even voluntarily retire back to pavilion after completing their 100/50s. The only one taking an exhibition match seriously would be an out of form batsmen/bowler or an amateur trying to prove himself.

 

[Garuda]

Ok.. let us agree to discard that innings..if you want. Though I don't think hitting sixes defines seriousness or lack of it, but since he only played that kind of innings once and never repeated, I can agree that it was not his usual self.

I am just trying to put that innings as to prove that it was not that he could not do it ever.. but yes, it was not his style and he was not better than others in this regard.

Dost,

you are just being rigid to prove something which is not reality. You can try to turn it every side to see which side it looks better.

But you need to realize everyone here has given you enough data and evidence to prove otherwise.

If you still try to argue without countering the data points, it's not a healthy argument as you have already closed your mind to data and proof.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Dost,

you are just being rigid to prove something which is not reality. You can try to turn it every side to see which side it looks better.

But you need to realize everyone here has given you enough data and evidence to prove otherwise.

If you still try to argue without countering the data points, it's not a healthy argument as you have already closed your mind to data and proof.

I wouldn't have agreed to discard that innings if I had closed my mind to proving only one thing. Just the fact that I didn't bother to counter some of your 'data' does not mean I am closed on my mind ignoring the facts.

It's the 'self proclaimed data' like % of runs/minimal wicket loss etc. I have a problem with.. does any known cricket expert use this kind of data to rate an innings ? If you are hell bent on calling it 'data' and ignoring the number of wickets left/support from the other end as no-data, I can't argue with you.

I am not going to waste time proving it wrong either.. not enough energy to talk on a different platform of 'data'. You please be happy believing you provided facts and data which was not received well by an illogical reader like me.. there are many others who will accept your 'data'..

PS: I only had problem with this kind of data, no problem in someone calling Dhoni as a better hitter/finisher than Bevan.. the fact that I argued so long with you and only stopped when you provided this 'data' means I don't consider all of your arguments as rubbish. Even I agreed to your earler data of him scoring 1.5 times faster.. so no, I am not closed to opposition views, as you would like to believe.

 

[Garuda]

I wouldn't have agreed to discard that innings if I had closed my mind to proving only one thing. Just the fact that I didn't bother to counter some of your 'data' does not mean I am closed on my mind ignoring the facts.

It's the 'self proclaimed data' like % of runs/minimal wicket loss etc. I have a problem with.. does any known cricket expert use this kind of data to rate an innings ? If you are hell bent on calling it 'data' and ignoring the number of wickets left/support from the other end as no-data, I can't argue with you.

I am not going to waste time proving it wrong either.. not enough energy to talk on a different platform of 'data'. You please be happy believing you provided facts and data which was not received well by an illogical reader like me.. there are many others who will accept your 'data'..

PS: I only had problem with this kind of data, no problem in someone calling Dhoni as a better hitter/finisher than Bevan.. the fact that I argued so long with you and only stopped when you provided this 'data' means I don't consider all of your arguments as rubbish. Even I agreed to your earler data of him scoring 1.5 times faster.. so no, I am not closed to opposition views, as you would like to believe.

My comment is not about that particular post.

You come with one match when people challenge that you leave that and come up with other and that gets challenged. So you do not accept that you are not able to back your view point after 9 pages. But still trying to find something else to prove your claim.

So what does that say?

Secondly, in this post you said "It's the 'self proclaimed data' like % of runs"

That just drops your credibility. I didn't create that data. That data is as correct as it can be. I didn't create or guess it, I gave you that data from the match. So how can you say that "self proclaimed" ?

On the other hand, look at your claims in this thread. Most of the times it's your feeling that a 10th match or a exhibition match is more serious match and even with all stats showing otherwise you feel that is a better performance.

That is called self proclaim as you are claiming it without data or proof to back.

If someone claims something with real data backing it, it can not be called self proclaimed.


Again, don't take my "rigid" word so seriously. I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that after 9 pages and sufficient data you still try to get some match or other to prove your point. People have to respond with the same thing that they have already explained.

 

[vicky_iisc]

My comment is not about that particular post.

You come with one match when people challenge that you leave that and come up with other and that gets challenged. So you do not accept that you are not able to back your view point after 9 pages. But still trying to find something else to prove your claim.

So what does that say?

Secondly, in this post you said "It's the 'self proclaimed data' like % of runs"

That just drops your credibility. I didn't create that data. That data is as correct as it can be. I didn't create or guess it, I gave you that data from the match. So how can you say that "self proclaimed" ?

On the other hand, look at your claims in this thread. Most of the times it's your feeling that a 10th match or a exhibition match is more serious match and even with all stats showing otherwise you feel that is a better performance.

That is called self proclaim as you are claiming it without data or proof to back.

If someone claims something with real data backing it, it can not be called self proclaimed.

Would not like to argue it further.. just to clarify by self proclaimed data, I didn't mean the data was created by you.. hope you get it instead of lowering my credibility you should at least ask me what I mean by that.. even without asking, if you had read my post properly, you wouldn't have come to this conclusion that I was accusing you to create that data yourself.

I never tried to put Asia Xi innings of Bevan in my list as great innings he played.. come on.. go and read my list of good innings of Bevan.. you will not find a mention of this innings.. do you even read my posts before jumping to conclusions about what I did or didn't mean ? I put that innings only as a reference of his capability of hitting.. and never put that innings as a candidate of good innings he played which should be considered.. In each of my references to that innings, I kept on agreeing that it was an exhibition game, and I have no objection if people want to discard it too.. the discussion automatically moved to other exhibition games.. please read all of them before concluding.

You have a habit of collating two different posts into single motive without even confirming.

Good day.

 

[IndianWillow]

Agree, but that match of Bevan, I feel (nothing to prove it of course) was taken seriously, not as seriously as a WC game, but not too much lower than say a league game in a tri series. It was a world stage Asia XI vs ROW.

I know for sure that when Asia XI was being picked and a lot of debate was there on why some of the good players didn't make it to that side. Kind of buzz for that game.

Bevan rarely hits sixes in international matches. How did he hit five sixes in that match? It proves that the players were taking the match lightly. Bevan had a long ODI career and he should have been able to repeat such feats at least once isn't it?

My conclusion has not changed. Dhoni could play in every way Bevan could, and Bevan did not have some of the abilities of Dhoni, like his ability to belt boundaries and go over the top, almost at will. Bevan was good finisher, but his strike rates were within normal parameters for the period he played in. But Dhoni is a good finisher as well scores faster than most other batsmen today. In almost every match situation Dhoni would be an equal or superior to Bevan.

 

[Garuda]

Would not like to argue it further.. just to clarify by self proclaimed data, I didn't mean the data was created by you.. hope you get it instead of lowering my credibility you should at least ask me what I mean by that.. even without asking, if you had read my post properly, you wouldn't have come to this conclusion that I was accusing you to create that data yourself.

I never tried to put Asia Xi innings of Bevan in my list as great innings he played.. come on.. go and read my list of good innings of Bevan.. you will not find a mention of this innings.. do you even read my posts before jumping to conclusions about what I did or didn't mean ? I put that innings only as a reference of his capability of hitting.. and never put that innings as a candidate of good innings he played which should be considered.. In each of my references to that innings, I kept on agreeing that it was an exhibition game, and I have no objection if people want to discard it too.. the discussion automatically moved to other exhibition games.. please read all of them before concluding.

You have a habit of collating two different posts into single motive without even confirming.

Good day.

Then you should have checked the meaning of "self proclaimed" in dictionary before using it and then accusing other posters of misunderstanding you or having a habit of misunderstanding.

Some people don't realize their mistake before blaming it on others.



Chill and have a nice day.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Then you should have checked the meaning of "self proclaimed" in dictionary before using it and then accusing other posters of misunderstanding you or having a habit of misunderstanding.

Some people don't realize their mistake before blaming it on others.



Chill and have a nice day.

Ha ha ha.. you have a habit of putting words in other's mouths.. and hyping on my wrong use of words.. just read the whole sentence before telling me the meaning of my own sentence. You knew the context I was making that comment.. and if you didn't, then I was talking with someone who has one word memory and forgets the words around to get the context... I obviously meant self proclaimed data as your calling that data as a valid argument.. not the numbers in the data.. it was your own choice to get the wrong meaning..

If someone else had just jumped in to read that and got the meaning wrong, I would have understood.. but for you to claim that you did not get the rigt meaning when we were discussing the same point for 3-4 posts, and concentrated on my wrong usage of words (self proclaimed isn't that wrong phrase which you make it look like), it just shows how selective you are about not getting the context.

You are no saint when using the 'right words' are concerned.. you can go and read your own earlier posts to see that.. of course you will ignore them.. because you are busy finding other's mistakes.. "minimal wicket loss" theory.. and you later said you did not put weightage.. if I had been so adamant to hype your wrong choice of words, we would have been discussing only your mistakes, my friend.. but I didn't choose that way .. until it was limit.

Chalo.. see ya in some other thread..

 

[Garuda]

Ha ha ha.. you have a habit of putting words in other's mouths.. and hyping on my wrong use of words.. just read the whole sentence before telling me the meaning of my own sentence. You knew the context I was making that comment.. and if you didn't, then I was talking with someone who has one word memory and forgets the words around to get the context... I obviously meant self proclaimed data as your calling it as a valid argument.. not the numbers in the data.. it was your own choice to get the wrong meaning..

You are no saint when using the 'right words' are concerned.. you can go and read your own earlier posts to see that.. of course you will ignore them.. "minimal wicket loss" theory.. and you later said you did not put weightage..

Chalo.. see ya in some other thread..

In which context "self proclaimed" becomes a different meaning ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

In which context "self proclaimed" becomes a different meaning ?

Presenting the data as a valid fact in an argument by putting weight to it.. I hope you read some of our 3-4 posts conversation where I disagreed with it as a valid argument.. you kept saying I was ignoring the data .. I replied that it was your self-proclaimed 'data' I also put quotes around it.. please take any sentence in the context it was being made, not in isolation.. I also said I agree with that data of 1.5 times faster.. there also the number wasn't in doubt.. only the validity of it's consideration as a weight in the argument was.. I could have used self-proclaimed there as well (I didn't check on cricinfo if the number was correct, but I trusted you) but I didn't. Here also, I didn't doubt the % numbers, I only doubted if any cricket expert uses this data in deciding the greatness of innings apart from few statistians.. but I suppose you missed that part of my post.. understandable.

Anyway, in written communication, there will be wrong usage of words and a chance of misunderstanding.. the difference is you jump on others making less-than-perfect sentences to lower their credibility.. I had a chance to do that with many of your posts, but I tried from my side to get the right intention from you rather than wrong usage of words.. In any case, an asking for clarification wouldn't have lowered your credibility.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Bevan rarely hits sixes in international matches. How did he hit five sixes in that match? It proves that the players were taking the match lightly. Bevan had a long ODI career and he should have been able to repeat such feats at least once isn't it?

I think I already agreed to discard this innings if you want.. because it was an exhibition match afterall.. I personally felt it was played seriously.. but that is only my observation which I am not putting forward as a valid argument.

It would be interesting to see in later part of his career (he was a bad hitter in early part), how many times the situation to hit sixes at will occured to him..

In any case, as a hitter and a slog over finisher he was nowhere near Dhoni .. many others will come better than Bevan..

 

[Bushroda]

One can have an opinion & no harm with that. But an opinion alone cannot be a basis of an argument. One needs facts & stats.

Here are some of the proven facts.
1. Bevan is not a power hitter like Dhoni. Evident from the number of 4s/6s hot by each of them.
2. Dhoni has an average of 51.5 against Bevan's average of 53.5. But Dhoni scores his runs 15% faster than Bevan. Infact, Dhoni has already scored more number of runs playing less number of matches.
3. Dhoni has scored 50% more runs than Bevan remaining Not Out in successful chases while playing only 8 extra matches.
4. In all successful chases Dhoni has an average of 100.7 and strike rate of 94 against Bevan's average of 86 and strike rate of 68. Overall, he has also scored more runs than Bevan in successful chases.

On the basis of above facts one can say that Dhoni is a better finisher than Bevan. If there are any facts in favor of Bevan then kindly put up. We will discuss more.

 

[Garuda]

Presenting the data as a valid fact in an argument by putting weight to it.. I hope you read some of our 3-4 posts conversation where I disagreed with it as a valid argument.. you kept saying I was ignoring the data .. I replied that it was your self-proclaimed 'data' I also put quotes around it.. please take any sentence in the context it was being made, not in isolation.. I also said I agree with that data of 1.5 times faster.. there also the number wasn't in doubt.. only the validity of it's consideration as a weight in the argument was.. I could have used self-proclaimed there as well (I didn't check on cricinfo if the number was correct, but I trusted you) but I didn't. Here also, I didn't doubt the % numbers, I only doubted if any cricket expert uses this data in deciding the greatness of innings apart from few statistians.. but I suppose you missed that part of my post.. understandable.

Anyway, in written communication, there will be wrong usage of words and a chance of misunderstanding.. the difference is you jump on others making less-than-perfect sentences to lower their credibility.. I had a chance to do that with many of your posts, but I tried from my side to get the right intention from you rather than wrong usage of words.. In any case, an asking for clarification wouldn't have lowered your credibility.

Still it can not be called "self proclaimed". can it be ? I am not claiming it by myself. It's real data and I am just presenting it.

You tell us how you decide one is better than other ?

Secondly

You do not think scoring faster makes one better
you do not think scoring more runs makes one better
you do not think scoring more % of run in chasing makes one better
you do not think hitting big shots when needed doessn't make one better
You do not think scoring in WC final is better than a 10th match in some ODI series.

So basically in all this attributes people have showed you Dhoni has done better than Bevan.

Which attribute have you showed us of Bevan what is better than Dhoni ?


Now you will come back and say, I agree but you take the argument to something else....

If you feel someone misunderstood your post then it was not his fault but your choice of words. Don't blame him.

 

[IndianWillow]

One can have an opinion & no harm with that. But an opinion alone cannot be a basis of an argument. One needs facts & stats.

Here are some of the proven facts.
1. Bevan is not a power hitter like Dhoni. Evident from the number of 4s/6s hot by each of them.
2. Dhoni has an average of 51.5 against Bevan's average of 53.5. But Dhoni scores his runs 15% faster than Bevan. Infact, Dhoni has already scored more number of runs playing less number of matches.
3. Dhoni has scored 50% more runs than Bevan remaining Not Out in successful chases while playing only 8 extra matches.
4. In all successful chases Dhoni has an average of 100.7 and strike rate of 94 against Bevan's average of 86 and strike rate of 68. Overall, he has also scored more runs than Bevan in successful chases.

On the basis of above facts one can say that Dhoni is a better finisher than Bevan. If there are any facts in favor of Bevan then kindly put up. We will discuss more.

Part of the higher strike rate of Dhoni can be attributed to our times. Post T20 era, batsmen are playing ODIs a little faster.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Still it can not be called "self proclaimed". can it be ? I am not claiming it by myself. It's real data and I am just presenting it.

You tell us how you decide one is better than other ?

Secondly

You do not think scoring faster makes one better
you do not think scoring more runs makes one better
you do not think scoring more % of run in chasing makes one better
you do not think hitting big shots when needed doessn't make one better
You do not think scoring in WC final is better than a 10th match in some ODI series.

So basically in all this attributes people have showed you Dhoni has done better than Bevan.

Which attribute have you showed us of Bevan what is better than Dhoni ?


Now you will come back and say, I agree but you take the argument to something else....

If you feel someone misunderstood your post then it was not his fault but your choice of words. Don't blame him.

Haven't I already given reasons in favour of Bevan, if you selectively chose not to read them, it's not my fault.. go and read them again, and if you have questions on them, we can discuss, I am not going to answer your assumptions on what I will "come back and say".

About someone else misunderstood my post, and it being my fault .. you can be happy thinking that.. I just hope you apply the same logic on your own posts also.. What did you really mean by "minimal wicket loss" theory of yours.. once I countered it, you chickened out saying you did not put any weightage to it.. the other post of yours where "you were sure I didn't watch that Bevan's innings and only looked from cricinfo", when I proved it wrong too by saying I watched it on TV, you chose not to reply and have decency to take your words back.. proper usage of words.. ha ha ha.

if someone else does it, you become professor and start lecturing him on 'proper usage of words'.. I think you will ignore it again.. and give another totally orthogonal counter comment on my usage of words.


Look in the mirror, my friend..

It is anyway becoming tough to argue with you.. you say I haven't provided any proper reason, when I have already provided many. You can go and read my post where I have said that why minimal wicket loss is wrong and why the reverse is creditable.. I hope you understand it as one of my reasons to rate that innings better. You ignored that comment too perhaps..

And I would only like to answer something which I said (not twisted sentences on my opinion), and if you can't follow the simple rule, let us not discuss further..

 

[vicky_iisc]

One can have an opinion & no harm with that. But an opinion alone cannot be a basis of an argument. One needs facts & stats.

Here are some of the proven facts.
1. Bevan is not a power hitter like Dhoni. Evident from the number of 4s/6s hot by each of them.
2. Dhoni has an average of 51.5 against Bevan's average of 53.5. But Dhoni scores his runs 15% faster than Bevan. Infact, Dhoni has already scored more number of runs playing less number of matches.
3. Dhoni has scored 50% more runs than Bevan remaining Not Out in successful chases while playing only 8 extra matches.
4. In all successful chases Dhoni has an average of 100.7 and strike rate of 94 against Bevan's average of 86 and strike rate of 68. Overall, he has also scored more runs than Bevan in successful chases.

On the basis of above facts one can say that Dhoni is a better finisher than Bevan. If there are any facts in favor of Bevan then kindly put up. We will discuss more.

I think you joined the discussion recently perhaps.. can I request you to go and read from post 550 onwards.. there are some "reasons" I have provided already. Now they may be wrong, we can discuss them and correct them also.. but it will be difficult for me to write the same things again and again.. coz I spent lot of time on writing them then.

I know it will be trouble for you too to read that many posts to get my point, but I request you to read them still. We can discuss then.

I will just like to add one thing that there is a difference b/w stats being fact/correct and their conclusion we derive from them to be fact/correct too. Plus in a subjective discussion of comparison b/w two great players, we need to consider that some stats will not be looked at the same way by all the people. Same, an innings can't be just judged by number of runs/SR as facts alone.. Allow the subjectivity of judging an innings from match situation/number of wickets lost/support of others/quality of bowling.. before presenting these stats. Stats are fine by the way.

 

[Garuda]

I think you joined the discussion recently perhaps.. can I request you to go and read from post 550 onwards.. there are some "reasons" I have provided already. Now they may be wrong, we can discuss them and correct them also.. but it will be difficult for me to write the same things again and again.. coz I spent lot of time on writing them then.

I know it will be trouble for you too to read that many posts to get my point, but I request you to read them still. We can discuss then.

I will just like to add one thing that there is a difference b/w stats being fact/correct and their conclusion we derive from them to be fact/correct too. Plus in a subjective discussion of comparison b/w two great players, we need to consider that some stats will not be looked at the same way by all the people. Same, an innings can't be just judged by number of runs/SR as facts alone.. Allow the subjectivity of judging an innings from match situation/number of wickets lost/support of others/quality of bowling.. before presenting these stats. Stats are fine by the way.

I agree with this.

hence I asked you then if we can not use those stats to decide that I provided, then what aspect of their batting stat you want to see before deciding.

You tell me and we will see those stats. if no of runs, SR, how many runs chased, stage of the event can't be seen then you tell us what aspect I am missing ?

 

[Garuda]

Haven't I already given reasons in favour of Bevan, if you selectively chose not to read them, it's not my fault.. go and read them again, and if you have questions on them, we can discuss, I am not going to answer your assumptions on what I will "come back and say".

About someone else misunderstood my post, and it being my fault .. you can be happy thinking that.. I just hope you apply the same logic on your own posts also.. What did you really mean by "minimal wicket loss" theory of yours.. once I countered it, you chickened out saying you did not put any weightage to it.. the other post of yours where "you were sure I didn't watch that Bevan's innings and only looked from cricinfo", when I proved it wrong too by saying I watched it on TV, you chose not to reply and have decency to take your words back.. proper usage of words.. ha ha ha.

if someone else does it, you become professor and start lecturing him on 'proper usage of words'.. I think you will ignore it again.. and give another totally orthogonal counter comment on my usage of words.


Look in the mirror, my friend..

It is anyway becoming tough to argue with you.. you say I haven't provided any proper reason, when I have already provided many. You can go and read my post where I have said that why minimal wicket loss is wrong and why the reverse is creditable.. I hope you understand it as one of my reasons to rate that innings better. You ignored that comment too perhaps..

And I would only like to answer something which I said (not twisted sentences on my opinion), and if you can't follow the simple rule, let us not discuss further..

Dude you are too much. I didn't blame you. I clearly said I didn't put weightage as there are 4 other stats in that post which were in clear data.

You picked that data because you couldn't challenge other data.

Regarding chickening out. I am not going anywhere. Bring it on

Let me now see which data you can provide. come on. I am still waiting for you to respond to the data I gave you between your best Bevan innings and Dhoni WC final innings.

 

[vicky_iisc]

I agree with this.

hence I asked you then if we can not use those stats to decide that I provided, then what aspect of their batting stat you want to see before deciding.

You tell me and we will see those stats. if no of runs, SR, how many runs chased, stage of the event can't be seen then you tell us what aspect I am missing ?

Some of the factors you highlighted in my post yourself.

Anyway, as I said, I can't "prove" one innings as better than the other.. it will remain subjective only when both of them are very good and the difference in class of the two innings is very less. I will hold my opinion and the reasons which impressed me on Bevan's innings more than Dhoni's WC final.. but I will not grudge anyone who rates it reverse.. both were very good.

Proving or objectivity can only be brought in a clear-cut manner, not in cases of so nearly close things.. you will try to prove them looking at particular stats points, and I will look at different angle (I mentioned already above what those angles will be).. we will not gain anything.. you may be right in your view.. and I will say it again, comparing two innings such as this is a waste of time.. not because either of us is wrong, but because none of us is "wrong" when he says one innings as better than other.

Even if one of us succeeds in proving one of the innings as better, the energy lost here would not be worth it.. I am not interested in investing the energy on something which I believe can't be proven either way.. even if it means conceding the argument.

If there is some objective discussion you want to do per Bevan Vs Dhoni, I can do it.. let me not waste time on comparing "close" innings..unless ofcourse you feel there is a gulf of difference b/w the two innings..

 

[Garuda]

Some of the factors you highlighted in my post yourself.

Anyway, as I said, I can't "prove" one innings as better than the other.. it will remain subjective only when both of them are very good and the difference in class of the two innings is very less. I will hold my opinion and the reasons which impressed me on Bevan's innings more than Dhoni's WC final.. but I will not grudge anyone who rates it reverse.. both were very good.

Proving or objectivity can only be brought in a clear-cut manner, not in cases of so nearly close things.. you will try to prove them looking at particular stats points, and I will look at different angle (I mentioned already above what those angles will be).. we will not gain anything.. you may be right in your view.. and I will say it again, comparing two innings such as this is a waste of time.. not because either of us is wrong, but because none of us is "wrong" when he says one innings as better than other.

Even if one of us succeeds in proving one of the innings as better, the energy lost here would not be worth it.. I am not interested in investing the energy on something which I believe can't be proven either way.. even if it means conceding the argument.

If there is some objective discussion you want to do per Bevan Vs Dhoni, I can do it.. let me not waste time on comparing "close" innings..unless ofcourse you feel there is a gulf of difference b/w the two innings..

But if all aspects of that innings shows one person better. First you said Bevan's innings is better than Dhoni's WC. (now this is not my word, I can get your post to show you).

After I gave you data, now you are saying close. So can not be compared. If it can not be compared then why did you said that innings of Bevan is better than Dhoni's ?



Secondly, this is you said in this thread

first

I think Dhoni might be better than Bevan but only just.. your post implied a gulf of difference b/w the two.

After one page

Dhoni will take some more such innings to go definitely past Bevan, he has just edged ahead at the moment.

So Dhoni was better than Bevan and after one page, Dhoni will take more innings to go past Bevan.

Please don't comeback saying I put this into your mouth.

 

[vicky_iisc]

But if all aspects of that innings shows one person better. First you said Bevan's innings is better than Dhoni's WC. (now this is not my word, I can get your post to show you).

After I gave you data, now you are saying close. So can not be compared. If it can not be compared then why did you said that innings of Bevan is better than Dhoni's ?



Secondly, this is you said in this thread

first


After one page



So Dhoni was better than Bevan and after one page, Dhoni will take more innings to go past Bevan.

Please don't comeback saying I put this into your mouth.

I am sorry dude, but you got me totally wrong here.. Let me prove how. But again after the proof you will ignore it and come back with a fresh allegation. but anyway.. let me still try.

when I said "Dhoni can be considered better than Bevan but only just.." , did you care to read the post I was replying to ? I started participating in the thread only because people were calling "Bevan nowhere near Dhoni"/only running b/w the wickets/only rotating the strike..

For those people, I retorted by saying "Dhoni can be considered better than Bevan but only just. you are implying as if a gulf of class is there b/w them"..

I have no issue someone considering Dhoni (at this point) better than Bevan.. and that's what I replied in the post you mentioned. It doesn't mean I also agree with them. When arguing with them on major rubbish, I will accept smaller differences to bring them to even level..

Hope it's clear.. if not, please get the context of the post by reading a few earlier posts too. I feel unless you take the post in the context, we will keep having this argument.. you extract one post out-of-the-blue and compare it's words with a totally different post in a totally different context.. and then put them as "facts" or "data"

PS: I used "I think" and "might" in my original post, and quoted here "can be considered".. hope I will not be accused of changing my words.. I wrote from memory of my quote, didn't go back and looked at it for exact words. Language professors please excuse me.

 

[Bushroda]

I think you joined the discussion recently perhaps.. can I request you to go and read from post 550 onwards.. there are some "reasons" I have provided already. Now they may be wrong, we can discuss them and correct them also.. but it will be difficult for me to write the same things again and again.. coz I spent lot of time on writing them then.

I know it will be trouble for you too to read that many posts to get my point, but I request you to read them still. We can discuss then.

Thanks very much. I decided into enter the discussion only after reading the posts here. Although the "reasons" given in do not in any way justify as why Bevan is a superior finisher than Dhoni. What basically caught my attention was using a exhibition match to highlight Bevan's big hitting abilities which were practically non-existent in International matches. Apart from that you gave links to few of Bevan's ODI innings where he performed the "rescue" act with tail-enders. Dhoni too has equal number (if not more) of such innings.

Asking posters not to consider Dhoni effort against SL doesn't tilt the balance in Bevan's favor. Most of Bevan's heroics also have come against NZ/SA which are regular cricketing rivals of Aus. It is natural for neighbors to play more against eachother. Unfortunately we can't do the same with Pakistan & therefore might be over-compensating with SL. BTW, Dhoni has played some really good match-winning innings against Pak aswell.

If you are looking into details then one big thing to consider is the respective team they both played. Bevan played in Australian team with probably the finest bowling attack at that time. Even at 50/5, he had the liberty to play his natural game knowing fully well that if he can take the team total to 190 or 200 then McGrath & Warne would make the short work of the opposition. Normally, Bevan relied on his other tail-end partners to hit big shots while he kept taking quick singles or twos.

Dhoni otoh has to do the job himself. He has Ishants, Praveens & Vinays to stop the oppsoition batsmen. He cannot even rely on his tail-end partners to follow simple instructions and keep their wickets safe for couple of deliveries.

These are also some well-known facts.

BTW, if I have any specific point that you made in your previous posts that I have missed out then you can always copy-paste it & keep the discussion going.

I will just like to add one thing that there is a difference b/w stats being fact/correct and their conclusion we derive from them to be fact/correct too. Plus in a subjective discussion of comparison b/w two great players, we need to consider that some stats will not be looked at the same way by all the people. Same, an innings can't be just judged by number of runs/SR as facts alone.. Allow the subjectivity of judging an innings from match situation/number of wickets lost/support of others/quality of bowling.. before presenting these stats. Stats are fine by the way.

It makes sense to look into shades of grey if the stats difference is too close to call which is not the case here.

Can we dispute the fact that
1. Bevan is not a power hitter like Dhoni? Please!! no use of a fringe efforts in exhibition matches.
2. Bevan has scored more runs than Dhoni in successful run chases while remaining not out?
3. Bevan has higher average and higher strike rate than Dhoni in successful run chases?

You are now referring to some grey area that you cannot prove no matter what. Practically, you are drawing lines in the sands that will be washed away with the next wave.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Dude you are too much. I didn't blame you. I clearly said I didn't put weightage as there are 4 other stats in that post which were in clear data.

You picked that data because you couldn't challenge other data.

Regarding chickening out. I am not going anywhere. Bring it on

Let me now see which data you can provide. come on. I am still waiting for you to respond to the data I gave you between your best Bevan innings and Dhoni WC final innings.

Sir, why are you waiting.. you could go and read them just after your posts.. what do you mean waiting ? I have provided my reasons already, just read them..

About chickening out, boss, you are on annual leave.. you will not chicken out and leave the thread.. I know.. by chickening out does not always mean leaving the discussion.. i hope you understand.

Now you understand how does it feel when wrong usage of words is caught by others and they just concentrate on it by ignoring other sane parts of your post ? If you don't even understand now, you will never understand. As per your data, I already provided my reasons to not consider them in isolation without loss of wickets/support/bowling friendly conditions.. but I suppose you ignored it.. what are you asking me for ? Which data do you want from me, which I haven't provided already.. do you want me to define support in percentages ?

 

[Garuda]

I am sorry dude, but you got me totally wrong here.. Let me prove how. But again after the proof you will ignore it and come back with a fresh allegation. but anyway.. let me still try.

when I said "Dhoni can be considered better than Bevan but only just.." , did you care to read the post I was replying to ? I started participating in the thread only because people were calling "Bevan nowhere near Dhoni"/only running b/w the wickets/only rotating the strike..

For those people, I retorted by saying "Dhoni can be considered better than Bevan but only just. you are implying as if a gulf of class is there b/w them"..

I have no issue someone considering Dhoni (at this point) better than Bevan.. and that's what I replied in the post you mentioned. It doesn't mean I also agree with them. When arguing with them on major rubbish, I will accept smaller differences to bring them to even level..

Hope it's clear.. if not, please get the context of the post by reading a few earlier posts too. I feel unless you take the post in the context, we will keep having this argument.. you extract one post out-of-the-blue and compare it's words with a totally different post in a totally different context.. and then put them as "facts" or "data"

PS: I used "I think" and "might" in my original post, and quoted here "can be considered".. hope I will not be accused of changing my words.. I wrote from memory of my quote, didn't go back and looked at it for exact words. Language professors please excuse me.

So what do you "think" now ?

Is Dhoni better than Bevan ?

Please clarify us single cells.

 

[Garuda]

Sir, why are you waiting.. you could go and read them just after your posts.. what do you mean waiting ? I have provided my reasons already, just read them..

About chickening out, boss, you are on annual leave.. you will not chicken out and leave the thread.. I know.. by chickening out does not always mean leaving the discussion.. i hope you understand.

Now you understand how does it feel when wrong usage of words is caught by others and they just concentrate on it by ignoring other sane parts of your post ? If you don't even understand now, you will never understand. As per your data, I already provided my reasons to not consider them in isolation without loss of wickets/support/bowling friendly conditions.. but I suppose you ignored it.. what are you asking me for ? Which data do you want from me, which I haven't provided already.. do you want me to define support in percentages ?

Thanks for giving us English tuition.

First the meaning of "self proclaimed" and now "Chickened out"

You have been saying it in many posts. But never said if we can not see it in isolation then with what we can see it to take a decision ?

Do you want to share it with us ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Thanks very much. I decided into enter the discussion only after reading the posts here. Although the "reasons" given in do not in any way justify as why Bevan is a superior finisher than Dhoni. What basically caught my attention was using a exhibition match to highlight Bevan's big hitting abilities which were practically non-existent in International matches. Apart from that you gave links to few of Bevan's ODI innings where he performed the "rescue" act with tail-enders. Dhoni too has equal number (if not more) of such innings.

Asking posters not to consider Dhoni effort against SL doesn't tilt the balance in Bevan's favor. Most of Bevan's heroics also have come against NZ/SA which are regular cricketing rivals of Aus. It is natural for neighbors to play more against eachother. Unfortunately we can't do the same with Pakistan & therefore might be over-compensating with SL. BTW, Dhoni has played some really good match-winning innings against Pak aswell.

If you are looking into details then one big thing to consider is the respective team they both played. Bevan played in Australian team with probably the finest bowling attack at that time. Even at 50/5, he had the liberty to play his natural game knowing fully well that if he can take the team total to 190 or 200 then McGrath & Warne would make the short work of the opposition. Normally, Bevan relied on his other tail-end partners to hit big shots while he kept taking quick singles or twos.

Dhoni otoh has to do the job himself. He has Ishants, Praveens & Vinays to stop the oppsoition batsmen. He cannot even rely on his tail-end partners to follow simple instructions and keep their wickets safe for couple of deliveries.

These are also some well-known facts.

BTW, if I have any specific point that you made in your previous posts that I have missed out then you can always copy-paste it & keep the discussion going.



It makes sense to look into shades of grey if the stats difference is too close to call which is not the case here.

Can we dispute the fact that
1. Bevan is not a power hitter like Dhoni? Please!! no use of a fringe efforts in exhibition matches.
2. Bevan has scored more runs than Dhoni in successful run chases while remaining not out?
3. Bevan has higher average and higher strike rate than Dhoni in successful run chases?

You are now referring to some grey area that you cannot prove no matter what. Practically, you are drawing lines in the sands that will be washed away with the next wave.

Very long post, I will reply to the highlighted part for now.. coz I cant reply to other parts in one go..

What you said might be true for batting first, but when chasing it doesn't hold true. Most of (not all) the good innings of Bevan I posted (mainly 3) were chasing efforts.. and not in all he relied on hitting power of tailenders. It is anyway not his fault that India has poor bowlers.. or his team's tailenders were better hitters than Indian team's. In the case of Dhoni, was he not provided top order support too to relieve some of the pressure ? Which innings (apart from that 5-29 century against Pak) he did it all-alone ? Support by Gambhir's 98 is ok to take, but Bichel's quickfire 30s is being dependent on tailenders ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Thanks for giving us English tuition.

First the meaning of "self proclaimed" and now "Chickened out"

You have been saying it in many posts. But never said if we can not see it in isolation then with what we can see it to take a decision ?

Do you want to share it with us ?

Tell me how to share it apart from posting it so many times.. yaar you are on annual leave so expect others to post the same thing again and again..

For the last time I am giving "MY" reasons of rating Bevan's that innings better than Dhoni's.. but I will not argue on your reasons, because I think it is waste of time to prove a good innings bad.. (I wrote a long post above on why I think so, so please read that before replying to this).

1. The lack of batsmen support
2. Wickets falling at other end.
3. quality of NZ bowling with Bond in it (Murali was injured in WC final and was half the bowler he usually is).. about Bond Vs Malinga.. you can take any person's opinion on who was better.

I have ignored it being 10th match of VB series because it was not an exhibition game.

 

[Garuda]

Tell me how to share it apart from posting it so many times.. yaar you are on annual leave so expect others to post the same thing again and again..

For the last time I am giving "MY" reasons of rating Bevan's that innings better than Dhoni's.. but I will not argue on your reasons, because I think it is waste of time to prove a good innings bad.. (I wrote a long post above on why I think so, so please read that before replying to this).

1. The lack of batsmen support
2. Wickets falling at other end.
3. quality of NZ bowling with Bond in it (Murali was injured in WC final and was half the bowler he usually is).. about Bond Vs Malinga.. you can take any person's opinion on who was better.

I have ignored it being 10th match of VB series because it was not an exhibition game.

One point you want to do objective argument.

Is that your argument to prove that Dhoni's innings was not better after discarding the stats I gave?

So do you really feel the argument you gave here is better than what I gave between the innings with proper stats ?

If you are comparing then you are trying to select between two. It's not good or bad. Either you say you can not choose between two. If you select Bevan's then you have to give some reason. Like everyone else giving for selecting Dhoni's innings.

 

[Bushroda]

Very long post, I will reply to the highlighted part for now.. coz I cant reply to other parts in one go..

What you said might be true for batting first, but when chasing it doesn't hold true.

The data is already available for the 2nd Innings.

In winning matches,

1. Dhoni has scored 1500 runs in 33 innings while remaining not out against 1020 runs scored by Bevan in 25 innings
2. Dhoni has scored more number of runs scoring at an average of 100 runs per innings @ SR of 94 against Bevan's average of 86 with a SR of 68.

Most of (not all) the good innings of Bevan I posted (mainly 3) were chasing efforts.. and not in all he relied on hitting power of tailenders. It is anyway not his fault that India has poor bowlers.. or his team's tailenders were better hitters than Indian team's. In the case of Dhoni, was he not provided top order support too to relieve some of the pressure ? Which innings (apart from that 5-29 century against Pak) he did it all-alone ? Support by Gambhir's 98 is ok to take, but Bichel's quickfire 30s is being dependent on tailenders ?

Going by your logic, it was not Dhoni's fault that Gambhir decided to hang around scoring 95 in 120 balls when run-rate demanded him to score faster. The need was for someone to score big & score fast. Dhoni did both that whereas, Gambhir did only 1/2 the job.

BTW, this was WC final & not some league match where Bevan hung out with tail-enders where Bevan did the bulk of scoring in 1s/2s and the tail-enders did the occasional heavy hitting to take the score to respectability.

 

[vicky_iisc]

So what do you "think" now ?

Is Dhoni better than Bevan ?

Please clarify us single cells.

You should have atleast accepted you quoted me out of context in previous post.. but why will you ? You are the ultimate professor in proper usage of words.. but when your allegations fall flat, you conveniently ignore them and move on to next allegation of how I am not using the proper words and blaming others.

Anyway, my current opinion is 50-50.. specially after IndianWillow provided the reference of that 5-29 innings of Dhoni (which I consider to be better than his WC final innings).. I said I will think hard about comparison again, coz that innings shifted my inclination from 52-48 to 50-50 and may continue shifting.

Unfortunately, I could not get further time to think on that, and got involved in this innings comparison discussion.. which I am sure was a mistake from me to get involved into, and is proving a waste of time.

 

[Bushroda]

Which innings (apart from that 5-29 century against Pak) he did it all-alone ?

183* in 138 balls against SL. And Yes!!! This wasn't an exhibition match

 

[Garuda]

Very long post, I will reply to the highlighted part for now.. coz I cant reply to other parts in one go..

What you said might be true for batting first, but when chasing it doesn't hold true. Most of (not all) the good innings of Bevan I posted (mainly 3) were chasing efforts.. and not in all he relied on hitting power of tailenders. It is anyway not his fault that India has poor bowlers.. or his team's tailenders were better hitters than Indian team's. In the case of Dhoni, was he not provided top order support too to relieve some of the pressure ? Which innings (apart from that 5-29 century against Pak) he did it all-alone ? Support by Gambhir's 98 is ok to take, but Bichel's quickfire 30s is being dependent on tailenders ?

Didn't you pointed this as not a good thing in Dhoni's WC final inning's saying Against whom ? SL ...

So for Bevan, poor bowling excuse doesn't work ???

Now you will come back with what you actually meant. Let me see what English tuition I will get for this post now

 

[vicky_iisc]

The data is already available for the 2nd Innings.

In winning matches,

1. Dhoni has scored 1500 runs in 33 innings while remaining not out against 1020 runs scored by Bevan in 25 innings
2. Dhoni has scored more number of runs scoring at an average of 100 runs per innings @ SR of 94 against Bevan's average of 86 with a SR of 68.

Let us stick to the point I replied to.. if you are presenting new facts, give me time to answer them separately. I replied to the highlighted part of your post.. citing why it doesn't hold true in second innings.

About the averages you posted, can you please sepatate them into against Aus/SA and others.. you can do the same with Bevan on the good bowling attacks of your choice.


Going by your logic, it was not Dhoni's fault that Gambhir decided to hang around scoring 95 in 120 balls when run-rate demanded him to score faster. The need was for someone to score big & score fast. Dhoni did both that whereas, Gambhir did only 1/2 the job.


Are you trying to say Dhoni's innings was better than Gambhir's (I will let Garuda answer this, Garuda, can you help)? That's not the point of discussion.. point is was Gambhir's support better than tailender's support provided to Bevan in the innings I was highlighting ? BTW, was Gambhir scoring at less than required RPO? Did India ever need quick runs (7-8 RPO) from Dhoni in that WC final ? I think 275 was needed and Gambhir/Kohli kept it well within reasonable level, when Kohli got out they were 114-3 in 22 overs. required run rate : 5.8..

BTW, this was WC final & not some league match where Bevan hung out with tail-enders where Bevan did the bulk of scoring in 1s/2s and the tail-enders did the occasional heavy hitting to take the score to respectability.

please see the scorecard of Bevan's innings and let me know if score was brought to respectable total by tailenders alone ?

Previously you ignored exhibiiton match, now you are ignoring official ODI too.. we should then just talk about WC final innings only .. Tendulkar never played a good innings compared to Dhoni's.. because he never played any good in WC final

My reply in bold.

 

[vicky_iisc]

183* in 138 balls against SL. And Yes!!! This wasn't an exhibition match

Yes.. good.. the same SL again. .. it was a good innings, but perhpas not of the genre.. rescue/back to the wall.. I remember the result of the series was 6-1 perhaps..

Can you show innings played outside SC.. like in Aus/SA.. against good fast bowling? Do the same for Bevan.. outside Aus.. in India/Pak etc.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Didn't you pointed this as not a good thing in Dhoni's WC final inning's saying Against whom ? SL ...

So for Bevan, poor bowling excuse doesn't work ???

Now you will come back with what you actually meant. Let me see what English tuition I will get for this post now

Ha ha ha.. you will not get English coaching.. but "reading properly" is surely like to give you.. as I said earlier, once your one allegation falls flat, you just move to next catch of "proper usage of words".. did you care to apologize for earlier misquotings ? Of course you din't, it never happened.

Now.. on this one.. go and read again on which context I said this.. can you read his post too, highlighted part ? I never talked Bevan's facing Indian bowlers in that post.. the talk was about Dhoni worrying about his own bowlers.. you read that again and come back .. of course you just read selectively.. with this pace you are going, I will not be able to catch you in absurd comments.

But whatever.. English wrong usage is a lesser crime than quoting someone wrongly, no ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

We say Bevan played in Aus in familiar conditions, so ignore it.. but Dhoni played in SC, so let's not ignore that..

I will still say Aus/SA are not batsmen friendly, and SC pitches are mostly roads (favour spinners in Test matches and are batsmen friendly in ODIs) that's why familiarity is not something which can be taken seriously.. Aus/SA are fast bowling friendly conditions.. (not all of them, 434 was chased down in SA, but generally).

Also Bevan faced much better bowlers (look at his innings I posted against Akram, Saqlain, Donald, Pollock) than SL slow medium pacers..

SL has had only one world class bowler in Murali..

 

[Bushroda]

Let us stick to the point I replied to.. if you are presenting new facts, give me time to answer them separately. I replied to the highlighted part of your post.. citing why it doesn't hold true in second innings.

About the averages you posted, can you please sepatate them into against Aus/SA and others.. you can do the same with Bevan on the good bowling attacks of your choice.

These are the same facts which have been repeated dozens of times now in earlier posts but which you are conveniently choosing to ignore.

I still don't understand why it doesn't hold true. Maybe, you are looking at some grey area again which I am missing out. Care to enlighten?

Are you trying to say Dhoni's innings was better than Gambhir's (I will let Garuda answer this, Garuda, can you help)?

Yes!! Dhoni's inning in WC final was in every way better than Gambhir. He paced his innings well. Stayed around to see the job done.

Why do you want Garuda to come & fight your battles?

That's not the point of discussion.. point is was Gambhir's support better than tailender's support provided to Bevan in the innings I was highlighting ?

You are trying to compare a World Cup match with a league match here. The circumstances are different. Environment is different & the pressure situation is different. You lose a league match, you still stand a chance to qualify for the finals. You lose the World Cup final & you do not know when you can get another chance.

Previously you ignored exhibiiton match, now you are ignoring official ODI too.. we should then just talk about WC final innings only .. Tendulkar never played a good innings compared to Dhoni's.. because he never played any good in WC final

You seem to have a habit of using wrong analogy for justifying wrong reasons.

You use a fringe exhibition match effort to justify Bevan's big hitting prowess. Then you are comparing a league match with a WC final to justify how Bevan is a better finisher than Dhoni. I hope you understand the circumstantial situation in both the cases. Better compare a league match effort with another league match game.

Honestly speaking, I will rate Raina's 38 of 39 balls against Pakistan in Mohali a better finish than Bevan effort in a league match against New Zealand.

 

[Bushroda]

Yes.. good.. the same SL again. .. it was a good innings, but perhpas not of the genre.. rescue/back to the wall.. I remember the result of the series was 6-1 perhaps..

Chasing 300 to win always has batting sides back to the wall. It was in 2005 when T20 wasn't played by international teams. India definately hadn't played a single T20 at that time.

How about this one?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/236809.html

Needed 102 runs in 15 overs with only 5 wkts left when he came and scored 72* of 46 balls against Asif/Gul/Afridi/Razzaq and that too on their home turf.

Can you show innings played outside SC.. like in Aus/SA.. against good fast bowling? Do the same for Bevan.. outside Aus.. in India/Pak etc.

Please feel free to use Statsguru. I would love to help you but I am just too tired.

 

[IndianWillow]

We say Bevan played in Aus in familiar conditions, so ignore it.. but Dhoni played in SC, so let's not ignore that..

I will still say Aus/SA are not batsmen friendly, and SC pitches are mostly roads (favour spinners in Test matches and are batsmen friendly in ODIs) that's why familiarity is not something which can be taken seriously.. Aus/SA are fast bowling friendly conditions.. (not all of them, 434 was chased down in SA, but generally).

Australian pitches are generally batsmen friendly. They have of course more bounce than SC but not much movement.

During the 90s, Australia had wonderful wicket takers in McGrath and Warne, and these two could take wickets on those batsmen friendly wickets. The opposition was made to cry trying to remove the strong Aussie batting line up on those batsmen friendly conditions and inevitably surrendered.

Australian tactic in the 90s was to setup batting paradises where the likes of Hayden and Gilchrist just brutalized the opposition, whereas McGrath and Warne had enough skill to dismantle the opposition on those same easy batting wickets.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Honestly speaking, I will rate Raina's 38 of 39 balls against Pakistan in Mohali a better finish than Bevan effort in a league match against New Zealand.

Not that other parts of your post was wrong, I just liked this one so quoting it only..

Ha ha ha...

Chalo.. Raina's innings was better than Bevan... good one.. I won't insult your intelligence to ask why do you think so.. but I get a fair idea of the points you will put forward.. so I agree with you..

I give up on this comment... You have finally broken my resolve of continuing this discussion with you and defeated me with the ultimate logic..

Dhoni > Raina >>>> Bevan (innings).

 

[vicky_iisc]

Australian pitches are generally batsmen friendly. They have of course more bounce than SC but not much movement.

During the 90s, Australia had wonderful wicket takers in McGrath and Warne, and these two could take wickets on those batsmen friendly wickets. The opposition was made to cry trying to remove the strong Aussie batting line up on those batsmen friendly conditions and inevitably surrendered.

Australian tactic in the 90s was to setup batting paradises where the likes of Hayden and Gilchrist just brutalized the opposition, whereas McGrath and Warne had enough skill to dismantle the opposition on those same easy batting wickets.

Please look at some of Bevan's innings in my reply to yours much earlier.. you will know the performance of opposition bowlers like Bond/Akram .. they ran through the top order.. specially you can watch Bond's stats against the same strong batting lineup .. anywhere.. remember the WC 2003 match too ?

But anyway, I think Bushroda's has already proved me wrong and helpless.. Raina's was better innings than Bevan.. I have given up already.

I hereby raise the white flag and accept my defeat due to exhaustion.

 

[Bushroda]

Not that other parts of your post was wrong, I just liked this one so quoting it only..

Ha ha ha...

Chalo.. Raina's innings was better than Bevan... good one.. I won't insult your intelligence to ask why do you think so.. but I get a fair idea of the points you will put forward.. so I agree with you..

I give up on this comment... You have finally broken my resolve of continuing this discussion with you and defeated me with the ultimate logic..

Dhoni > Raina >>>> Bevan (innings).

Your opinion only if you consider a league match inning to be better than a World Cup semifinal innings and that too in Ind v/s Pak match (where some people roll out with cardiac arrest).

 

[Garuda]

Ha ha ha.. you will not get English coaching.. but "reading properly" is surely like to give you.. as I said earlier, once your one allegation falls flat, you just move to next catch of "proper usage of words".. did you care to apologize for earlier misquotings ? Of course you din't, it never happened.

Now.. on this one.. go and read again on which context I said this.. can you read his post too, highlighted part ? I never talked Bevan's facing Indian bowlers in that post.. the talk was about Dhoni worrying about his own bowlers.. you read that again and come back .. of course you just read selectively.. with this pace you are going, I will not be able to catch you in absurd comments.

But whatever.. English wrong usage is a lesser crime than quoting someone wrongly, no ?

Chalo, I will give it to you there as I was not clear.

But that doesn't make your "Self proclaimed data" and "Chickened out" claimed

By the way, who do you decide is ahead now ? Dhoni or Bevan ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Chalo, I will give it to you there as I was not clear.

Ok.. thanks. Good gesture by you..


But that doesn't make your "Self proclaimed data" and "Chickened out" claimed

About these, my English is not good, so I used the wrong words and didn't consult the dictionary. Hope that explains.


By the way, who do you decide is ahead now ? Dhoni or Bevan ?

About the third, after Bushroda's comment above (two posts above), forget Dhoni Vs Bevan, I can't argue against the fact that Raina's innings in WC SF was better than Bevan's against NZ in a league game.. and come to think of it, I felt against NZ that was one of Bevan's best.. seems his best was not good enough against Raina's masterclass in world cup SF.

Now I will be a fool to waste my energy on proving Bevan's innings better than Raina's.. before trying against Dhoni.. of course I don't have unlimited time to argue on so many fronts..

I have accepted my defeat.. if Bevan falls short of Raina, no chance he has against Dhoni logically.
Sorry Bevan, I fought for you long and hard (your last cheque hasn't reached me yet) but finally logic and sense have to win.. you are no better than Raina, don't even think of Dhoni..

 

[Bushroda]

About the third, after Bushroda's comment above (two posts above), forget Dhoni Vs Bevan, I can't argue against the fact that Raina's innings in WC SF was better than Bevan's against NZ in a league game.. and come to think of it, I felt against NZ that was one of Bevan's best.. seems his best was not good enough against Raina's masterclass in world cup SF.

Now I will be a fool to waste my energy on proving Bevan's innings better than Raina's.. before trying against Dhoni.. of course I don't have unlimited time to argue on so many fronts..

I have accepted my defeat.. if Bevan falls short of Raina, no chance he has against Dhoni logically.
Sorry Bevan, I fought for you long and hard (your last cheque hasn't reached me yet) but finally logic and sense have to win.. you are no better than Raina, don't even think of Dhoni..

Request you to be pragmatic rather than making an emotional outburst.

You have been advocating for a subjective discussion claiming that "Stats do not reflect the facts". But how logical is your fact if you are comparing a league match heroic v/s a World Cup knockout? Do you even understand the pressure scenarios in both the games?

Veteran Indian Cricketer Ajay Jadeja has played several match winning knocks (including some great finishes)

Look at this match here..

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64657.html

I am sure this would qualify as one great rescue acts in your books but I don't suppose many Indian fans even remember this match.

If at all Jadeja is remembered for his cricketing heroics, it is for 45 in 25 deliveries against Pak in QF of 96 WC. Ask any Indian poster here and they would rate this inning as a better finish than any of Bevan's heroics in a league match of no consequential importance. Ind v/s Pak in a WC knockout is not for the weak-hearted. Some spectators are known to have died of heart-attack. Some others are known to have commited suicide. Those who survive are disappointed and depressed for days. The winner celebrates like there is no tomorrow. Imagine the pressure on the player who is in the center of all this. It was the pressure of the situation that he was able to handle. And this is exactly the reason why I rate Raina inning against Pak in Mohali as a better finish. His score was the difference between 225 and 260.

I am sure Pak would've very much fancied their chance with a 225 but the 260 was a psychological barrier that helped India put pressure on Pak. Even Pak posters here have said many times that Pak team fails to chase anything above 250.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Look at this match here..

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64657.html

I am sure this would qualify as one great rescue acts in your books but I don't suppose many Indian fans even remember this match.

If at all Jadeja is remembered for his cricketing heroics, it is for 45 in 25 deliveries against Pak in QF of 96 WC. Ask any Indian poster here and they would rate this inning as a better finish than any of Bevan's heroics in a league match of no consequential importance. Ind v/s Pak in a WC knockout is not for the weak-hearted. Some spectators are known to have died of heart-attack. Some others are known to have commited suicide. Those who survive are disappointed and depressed for days. The winner celebrates like there is no tomorrow. Imagine the pressure on the player who is in the center of all this. It was the pressure of the situation that he was able to handle. And this is exactly the reason why I rate Raina inning against Pak in Mohali as a better finish. His score was the difference between 225 and 260.

I am sure Pak would've very much fancied their chance with a 225 but the 260 was a psychological barrier that helped India put pressure on Pak. Even Pak posters here have said many times that Pak team fails to chase anything above 250.

1. Did you watch Bevan's innings against NZ or even read the scorecard ?
2. In what way, the innings you mentioned above of Jadeja isn't better than his innings in world cup QF ?
3. If we start rating the innings by number of people remembering that, we can't have a proper judgment of innings.. people have emotional reasons to remember the innings. It doesn't mean Jadeja hasn't played a better innings than that.
4. What is this about heart attack being caused to people to make the innings played in that greater than other matches where no one died ?
5. I have neither the energy nor the time left to now start arguing that Bevan's was a better innings than Raina's.. and that's why I gave up.. now if I do it, I know I will be accused of not having any solid argument against the "facts/stats" provided.. sorry.. don't expect me to be drawn into it. You can be happy that you won the argument.

 

[Bushroda]

1. Did you watch Bevan's innings against NZ or even read the scorecard ?

You must've watched it more than Sholay has ever been watched so you tell, What was at stake for Australia in that match knowing fully well that they are out of the VB series anyway?

2. In what way, the innings you mentioned above of Jadeja isn't better than his innings in world cup QF ?

Are you even aware of word called "Performance Pressure"? You might rate Bevan's performance in a "Nothing to lose match" far more superior than a performance in a WC knockout match. The one performs well in the final exams is the one who gets felicitated not the one who performs well in practice tests. Why don't you go and ask Bevan what he was doing in the earlier matches when both NZ & SA were pummeling Aus? And why did he have to come out and perform only when everything was lost?

3. If we start rating the innings by number of people remembering that, we can't have a proper judgment of innings.. people have emotional reasons to remember the innings. It doesn't mean Jadeja hasn't played a better innings than that.

Sports is played for the people and the importance of any match is determined by people's interest. People have emotional interest that's what makes Sports interesting.

Jadeja's inning helped India reach the semi-finals of the World Cup 96.
Raina's inning helped India reach the World Cup finals.
Dhoni's inning helped India win the World Cup.
Bevan's inning didn't make any difference in Australia's fortune. They were anyway out of VB series.

I will go back & ask you the same question again. Why do you think Bevan was never able to replicate his Dhaka blitzkrieg on international stage?

One Word - Pressure

4. What is this about heart attack being caused to people to make the innings played in that greater than other matches where no one died ?

This seriously takes the cake

I seriously doubt you are an Indian or a Pakistani to know the pressure involved in Indo-Pak matches. People of both the countries invest their time & emotions in these matches and if it is a world cup knockout match, the excitement grows many folds. The sheer ability of a player to carry the burden of billion people's expectations & help his nation win itself a testemant of grit & mental strength displayed at that time.

You can google for a player called Chetan Sharma. The top search criteria that pops up is "Chetan Sharma last ball six". The guy was relegated to nobody because of the last ball six hot of him by Javed Miandad. Do you even know that after that he took the first hat-trick in a World-Cup. But hardly any regular Indian cricket fan remembers that. Even after that he couldn't wipe off the stigma of that six hit of him.

This is what happens to players in a Indo-Pak match. Its a make or break for them.

5. I have neither the energy nor the time left to now start arguing that Bevan's was a better innings than Raina's.. and that's why I gave up.. now if I do it, I know I will be accused of not having any solid argument against the "facts/stats" provided.. sorry.. don't expect me to be drawn into it. You can be happy that you won the argument.

If you want to argue then discuss with facts. You are simply trying to contort your argument in Bevan's favor by asking other posters to discard Dhoni's performance against SL, comparing Bevan's performance in an inconsequential league match with performances in World Cup knockout matches, & above all trying to justify Bevan's big hitting prowess by bringing up his performance in an exhibition match. And, all the time asking the other posters to look into some celestial grey area and discard the open facts stated.

 

[vicky_iisc]

You must've watched it more than Sholay has ever been watched so you tell, What was at stake for Australia in that match knowing fully well that they are out of the VB series anyway?



Are you even aware of word called "Performance Pressure"? You might rate Bevan's performance in a "Nothing to lose match" far more superior than a performance in a WC knockout match. The one performs well in the final exams is the one who gets felicitated not the one who performs well in practice tests. Why don't you go and ask Bevan what he was doing in the earlier matches when both NZ & SA were pummeling Aus? And why did he have to come out and perform only when everything was lost?



Sports is played for the people and the importance of any match is determined by people's interest. People have emotional interest that's what makes Sports interesting.

Jadeja's inning helped India reach the semi-finals of the World Cup 96.
Raina's inning helped India reach the World Cup finals.
Dhoni's inning helped India win the World Cup.
Bevan's inning didn't make any difference in Australia's fortune. They were anyway out of VB series.

I will go back & ask you the same question again. Why do you think Bevan was never able to replicate his Dhaka blitzkrieg on international stage?

One Word - Pressure



This seriously takes the cake

I seriously doubt you are an Indian or a Pakistani to know the pressure involved in Indo-Pak matches. People of both the countries invest their time & emotions in these matches and if it is a world cup knockout match, the excitement grows many folds. The sheer ability of a player to carry the burden of billion people's expectations & help his nation win itself a testemant of grit & mental strength displayed at that time.

You can google for a player called Chetan Sharma. The top search criteria that pops up is "Chetan Sharma last ball six". The guy was relegated to nobody because of the last ball six hot of him by Javed Miandad. Do you even know that after that he took the first hat-trick in a World-Cup. But hardly any regular Indian cricket fan remembers that. Even after that he couldn't wipe off the stigma of that six hit of him.

This is what happens to players in a Indo-Pak match. Its a make or break for them.



If you want to argue then discuss with facts. You are simply trying to contort your argument in Bevan's favor by asking other posters to discard Dhoni's performance against SL, comparing Bevan's performance in an inconsequential league match with performances in World Cup knockout matches, & above all trying to justify Bevan's big hitting prowess by bringing up his performance in an exhibition match. And, all the time asking the other posters to look into some celestial grey area and discard the open facts stated.

Ok.. whatever makes you happy.. fact/stats.. chalo.. be happy considering Raina's innings better than Bevan.. what takes the cake is your comment :

I will go back & ask you the same question again. Why do you think Bevan was never able to replicate his Dhaka blitzkrieg on international stage?

One Word - Pressure



What ???? Bevan wasn't able to replicate that Dhaka exhibition because he could not do it when "real pressure" was there ?
The most laughable comment I ever heard about Bevan not being able to absorb pressure of international ODIs.. do you know you make lot of sense with this. He didn't hit sixes because he could not hit sixes, is still acceptable.. but that he could not handle pressure.. ?

We should do one thing.. rate only those innings which are played in WC knockouts and discard others because the "PRESSURE" is more..

About your last comment, I provided all the reasons already in Dhoni Vs Bevan context, and if someone doesn't read them and just joins and asks me again now to prove it better than Raina,.. with his own "facts" now, I seriously don't have time for it.

Can you please accept my congrats and close this discussion ? I will keep replying it due to my immaturity.. so better you show some maturity and accept you won the argument.

 

[vicky_iisc]

About the Indo-Pak encounters.. we can have a discussion. I know how much pressure is there in India-Pak, but most of it is media driven and spectators driven nowadays.

Are you sure players feel the same ? Do you hear any Indian players nowadays saying it's a make-or-break for them ? They recently played in CT too (not a knockout I know), but none of the Indian players referred to it as bigger than life ..

In any case, do you credit Ashes performance more than Ind-Aus series by any Aussie player ? Is it fair to give it more credit ? Even though Aussies themselves give it.. but does it reflect in ranking ?

We should request ICC to give more weightage to Ashes and IND-PAK games because they are more imp than other games.

 

[Saurav]

Dhoni is definitely better than Bevan

 

[KIC]

Dhoni is Better Than Bevan - He is the BEST Finisher in the Game

It is close but Dhoni is better in my books. Both could absorb the pressure and pull their teams out of deep holes but Dhoni has a few gears that Bevan just did not have.

 

[Bushroda]

Ok.. whatever makes you happy.. fact/stats.. chalo.. be happy considering Raina's innings better than Bevan.. what takes the cake is your comment :

I will go back & ask you the same question again. Why do you think Bevan was never able to replicate his Dhaka blitzkrieg on international stage?

One Word - Pressure



What ???? Bevan wasn't able to replicate that Dhaka exhibition because he could not do it when "real pressure" was there ?
The most laughable comment I ever heard about Bevan not being able to absorb pressure of international ODIs.. do you know you make lot of sense with this. He didn't hit sixes because he could not hit sixes, is still acceptable.. but that he could not handle pressure.. ?

There is one thing about performing in Exhibition matches/In-consequential matches and another thing when it matters the most. Why is it that some of his best performances you are harping on here have come in exhibition matches or In-consequential matches? I have never seen Bevan open up his soldiers and hit boundaries & sixes like he did in Dhaka exhibition match. The reason is that in a exhibition match, responsibility of winning/losing doesn't lie. He wouldn't be judged if his team losses. In International matches, stakes are high. He will be judged if he makes a mistake of playing un-natural shot & getting out. This is why he never played a Dhaka like inning in International matches.

This is what is Pressure. Pressure to not play unnatural shots.

This also proves the fact that his Dhaka exhibition inning was only that.. exhibition. A sort of an unnatural role-play.

We should do one thing.. rate only those innings which are played in WC knockouts and discard others because the "PRESSURE" is more..

You should do one thing.. learn to apply the circumstantial context with the games you are comparing.

A World Cup Knockout match will always be several notches above an inconsequential 10th match of a tri-series. The stakes are way too high in the former.

About your last comment, I provided all the reasons already in Dhoni Vs Bevan context, and if someone doesn't read them and just joins and asks me again now to prove it better than Raina,.. with his own "facts" now, I seriously don't have time for it.

I am yet too see any proof from you. All I have seen is some lame stick argument of

1. How Bevan's inning in a inconsequential 10th match of a VB series is better than Dhoni knock in WC final
2. How Bevan is a master-blaster for his supreme heroics in Dhaka
3. Why we should not consider Stats as they hide the real facts even though the stats show the gulf is quite big.
4. Why we should not consider Dhoni's matches against SL but should consider Bevan's matches against NZ for comparing the 2.

Can you please accept my congrats and close this discussion ? I will keep replying it due to my immaturity.. so better you show some maturity and accept you won the argument.

So you agree that you are immature. And you still defending the indefensible?

I have got the whole weekend for this. Wife's away on biz tour. Saturday evening.. Got beer in my hand. You are way more fun than spending time watching TV

 

[vicky_iisc]

There is one thing about performing in Exhibition matches/In-consequential matches and another thing when it matters the most. Why is it that some of his best performances you are harping on here have come in exhibition matches or In-consequential matches? I have never seen Bevan open up his soldiers and hit boundaries & sixes like he did in Dhaka exhibition match. The reason is that in a exhibition match, responsibility of winning/losing doesn't lie. He wouldn't be judged if his team losses. In International matches, stakes are high. He will be judged if he makes a mistake of playing un-natural shot & getting out. This is why he never played a Dhaka like inning in International matches.

This is what is Pressure. Pressure to not play unnatural shots.

This also proves the fact that his Dhaka exhibition inning was only that.. exhibition. A sort of an unnatural role-play.



You should do one thing.. learn to apply the circumstantial context with the games you are comparing.

A World Cup Knockout match will always be several notches above an inconsequential 10th match of a tri-series. The stakes are way too high in the former.



I am yet too see any proof from you. All I have seen is some lame stick argument of

1. How Bevan's inning in a inconsequential 10th match of a VB series is better than Dhoni knock in WC final
2. How Bevan is a master-blaster for his supreme heroics in Dhaka
3. Why we should not consider Stats as they hide the real facts even though the stats show the gulf is quite big.
4. Why we should not consider Dhoni's matches against SL but should consider Bevan's matches against NZ for comparing the 2.



So you agree that you are immature. And you still defending the indefensible?

I have got the whole weekend for this. Wife's away on biz tour. Saturday evening.. Got beer in my hand. You are way more fun than spending time watching TV

I am immature in keep replying to you and arguing on different platform.. if you feel I haven't given the reason apart from the 4 you mentioned above, you can be happy being a selective reader.. I think I have given other reasons too which I am not going to keep repeating for days just because someone joined the discussion late, and want to start it all over again.. if you have time away from wife, go and read all my posts in this thread I requested earlier.. I can't be repeating them if you chose to pick only 4 reasons repeatedly and ignore others I provided.

FYI, Bevan didn't even bat in 2 of the 3 WC finals he played in.. so I can't show those innings, it wasn't that he failed in WC final. The top order did the job for them.. so he wasn't required.


IF ALL YOU WANT IS TO SEE WC PERFORMANCES, . and you believe WC knockout alone is real pressure (Though I don't agree) you can watch 1999 WC SF innings if you like, if at all you are interested in comparing WC to WC innings.. compare that with Raina's WC SF innings..

anyway..let's close it. You are free to draw any inference from my reluctance in being interested in arguing further. I am not interested in discussing Raina Vs Bevan.. .

 

[IndianWillow]

About the Indo-Pak encounters.. we can have a discussion. I know how much pressure is there in India-Pak, but most of it is media driven and spectators driven nowadays.

Are you sure players feel the same ? Do you hear any Indian players nowadays saying it's a make-or-break for them ? They recently played in CT too (not a knockout I know), but none of the Indian players referred to it as bigger than life ..

In any case, do you credit Ashes performance more than Ind-Aus series by any Aussie player ? Is it fair to give it more credit ? Even though Aussies themselves give it.. but does it reflect in ranking ?

We should request ICC to give more weightage to Ashes and IND-PAK games because they are more imp than other games.

Yes, it was important for players in the past. Asked Miandad and others - they would tell you that every fan or well wisher who called them on the eve of an Indo-Pak match would tell them "Win the match against India we don't care what happens in the tournament otherwise". The players definitely experienced immense pressure, an ordinary Indo-Pak match had as much pressure like a WC semi final or final.

 

[Bushroda]

About the Indo-Pak encounters.. we can have a discussion. I know how much pressure is there in India-Pak, but most of it is media driven and spectators driven nowadays.

Are you sure players feel the same ? Do you hear any Indian players nowadays saying it's a make-or-break for them ? They recently played in CT too (not a knockout I know), but none of the Indian players referred to it as bigger than life ..

Seriously, You must be living under a rock to be thinking that there is no pressure on players in Indo-Pak knockout matches. Players houses have been stoned. Some receive even death threats. And most important, they lose their valuable contracts with advertising & promotional companies. You see Madan lal, Maninder Singh, Navjot Sidhu & most of other old cricketers making appearances on TV from time-to-time. How many times have you seen Chetan Sharma?

CT result was already decided by the time India - Pak had met. Although, Intensity in CT is not even 5% of World Cup. On 30th Mar 2011, majority of companies in India had declared 1/2 day for their employees even though it was the year-end & it would directly affect their business.

In any case, do you credit Ashes performance more than Ind-Aus series by any Aussie player ? Is it fair to give it more credit ? Even though Aussies themselves give it.. but does it reflect in ranking ?

I honestly do give more weightage to ASHES series performances. In 2005, England won the Ashes & I saw whole of England celebrating at Trafalgar Square. But, just couple of months later the same English team lost to Pakistan in Away series & the frankly speaking not many people even knew their team was playing Pakistan.

I have lived in UK & I was there when England won Ashes in 2005. For the first time, I saw Cricket being the front-page news. Even football fans were celebrating the Ashes victory. Otherwise, Cricket is always 3rd/4th preferred Sport.

We should request ICC to give more weightage to Ashes and IND-PAK games because they are more imp than other games.

1. You can also ask ICC to discard all of Dhoni's performance against SL as he is used to their attack.
2. You can also request ICC to give the official status to Dhaka exhibition match, so you bragging rights that Bevan is a master blaster.
3. You can also ask ICC to stop recording the stats of the matches as they don't present the real facts.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Yes, it was important for players in the past. Asked Miandad and others - they would tell you that every fan or well wisher who called them on the eve of an Indo-Pak match would tell them "Win the match against India we don't care what happens in the tournament otherwise". The players definitely experienced immense pressure, an ordinary Indo-Pak match had as much pressure like a WC semi final or final.

But nowadays players are more professional.. at least I can say it about most Indian players.. not that they don't want to win against Pak, but it's not a bigger than cup game for them.

I remember in 2003 WC game against Pak, someone asked Dravid about how imp is the game against Pak, he replied " It is very imp in the sense that it is an 8-point game for us, if we win it, we may get better ranking in super 6"..

 

[vicky_iisc]

. You see Madan lal, Maninder Singh, Navjot Sidhu & most of other old cricketers making appearances on TV from time-to-time. How many times have you seen Chetan Sharma?

You don't watch Headlines today, or Neo cricket, do you ?