2nd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Wellington on Feb 6, 2016

[ANTiLAG]

Hang on... you don't rely purely on stats, but in your anti-Bevan debate you dig deep into his strike rate as a basis for him being rubbish (which I absolutely cannot agree with).

Or you misinterpreted what I meant by not really to which is your claim that a lot is going on that is not numbers. Count the wickets, count the runs. The Wisden textbook manual critics are dinosaurs that would never have had Malcom Marshall bowl front on, or Graeme Smith bat on off stump, or many other things taken for granted these days in limited overs cricket pushing run rates to the ceiling. How someone regularly scores runs or gets wickets matters less to whether they are good players in the form of cricket or not. Someone has to open the batting, bowling play middle overs and close it off.

Then you argue that Anderson and Agarkar have such amazing numbers that they must be doing something right? Gilly and Jayasuriya walk into their respective teams on batting alone, yet they have fairly crappy numbers. It goes the other way too, the context of an innings or a wicket haul is worth much more.

But I say Gilly and Jayasuriya have amazing numbers. They're SR is outstanding, and they're both more than batsmen. One bowls, one keeps. And both do that job well, to boot.

The reason Bevan's strike rate was low was because he played in a different era and usually made his best scores with the team in trouble. He has saved countless games for Australia, too many to even list. One of the all time ODI greats. Strike rates actually don't mean anything anymore because the game has changed so much.

Played in the same era as Jayasuriya and a large part with Giulchrist. SR has always mattered in limited overs cricket.

Agarkar is a useless bowler, stats or not. His ODI 6 wicket haul in Australia is a prime example of dishing up rubbish and taking wickets.

Who should have bowled for India instead of him?

 

[Bazal]

Bevan was the original finisher, and absolutely brilliant at it. He still played in an era where middle order bats were generally the blokes who knocked it around, after guys like Sanath and Gilly did the damage early and before the death overs where blokes like Klusener and Cairns did their damage. You simply couldn't go hard all 50 overs. People criticise him for having a lot of not outs, but the fact is he had those because he was damned good at guiding us through the back of an innings. And when he needed it to be, his SR was just fine.

I also don't think Agarkar was useless. He wasn't an all time great or anything, but he was the kind of bowler who could be very hard to get away, especially in the middle overs. Plus he had a couple of handy pace changes and was pretty deceptive. I suppose he was a bit like Nathan Bracken, in a lot of ways.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Bevan was the original finisher, and absolutely brilliant at it. He still played in an era where middle order bats were generally the blokes who knocked it around, after guys like Sanath and Gilly did the damage early and before the death overs where blokes like Klusener and Cairns did their damage. You simply couldn't go hard all 50 overs. People criticise him for having a lot of not outs, but the fact is he had those because he was damned good at guiding us through the back of an innings. And when he needed it to be, his SR was just fine.

I also don't think Agarkar was useless. He wasn't an all time great or anything, but he was the kind of bowler who could be very hard to get away, especially in the middle overs. Plus he had a couple of handy pace changes and was pretty deceptive. I suppose he was a bit like Nathan Bracken, in a lot of ways.

His SR was below 80 in the first innings. He was not out 32% of that time.

 

[Rod]

Antilag who would you have in your ODI team, Bevan or Anderson?

 

[Bazal]

His SR was below 80 in the first innings. He was not out 32% of that time.

What was the average first innings score with Bevan in the side? And what was it when he was out vs not out at the end?

 

[vvvrulz]

I also don't think Agarkar was useless. He wasn't an all time great or anything, but he was the kind of bowler who could be very hard to get away, especially in the middle overs. Plus he had a couple of handy pace changes and was pretty deceptive. I suppose he was a bit like Nathan Bracken, in a lot of ways.

I don't rate him as highly as Bracken, but 'useless' was probably too strong a word.
That said, he came in at a time where India had next to no pace resources.
Srinath & Khan were miles better but with worse ODI records.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Antilag who would you have in your ODI team, Bevan or Anderson?

I've answered that in the past to much conjecture. I'm sure it'd kick off again.

But yeah I'd take any of Hussey, Maxwell, Anderson, Symonds and many more players over Bevan.

Bevan may be a better 5 but I assume you mean to bat 6 with your comparative question to Anderson. Either way, Bevan's real run output per match is lower than people think and chews up a lot of deliveries.

 

[ANTiLAG]

What was the average first innings score with Bevan in the side? And what was it when he was out vs not out at the end?

Good questions. Better questions would be his SR in the not outs as against the out innings.

Now find the answers and report back to us. You may find that the first innings score a little lower than you think it will be. But you did have atg bowlers to defend those scores.

 

[Bazal]

I don't rate him as highly as Bracken, but 'useless' was probably too strong a word.
That said, he came in at a time where India had next to no pace resources.
Srinath & Khan were miles better but with worse ODI records.

Oh no, don't get me wrong he wasn't in the same league as Bracken by any means. At his best Bracks was the number 1 ODI bowler in the world, Agarkar was never close to that.

Srinath and Khan were also quicker than Agarkar by quite a bit, and I think that lends itself to greater leakage of runs in ODI cricket.

Actually, looking at it, Srinath has a far superior record to Agarkar IMO. And Zaheer is quite similar. Agarkar couldn't be called superior to either I reckon, on stats or in real terms

 

[JJ]

SR has always been important, but it has increased markedly

Bevan was brilliant - whether you'd choose him over Hussey, I am not sure - but at this stage to suggest the likes of Anderson, The Show, or Faulkner are better is pretty much insane imo - unless you specifically want someone who can bowl 5-10 overs (which Bevan could do on occasion).

Wouldn't have him in my best side, simply because I'd take 6 better bats and Gilchrist, but he is an ODI great, no question

 

[ANTiLAG]

SR has always been important, but it has increased markedly

Bevan was brilliant - whether you'd choose him over Hussey, I am not sure - but at this stage to suggest the likes of Anderson, The Show, or Faulkner are better is pretty much insane imo - unless you specifically want someone who can bowl 5-10 overs (which Bevan could do on occasion).

Wouldn't have him in my best side, simply because I'd take 6 better bats and Gilchrist, but he is an ODI great, no question

Who of the 6 better bats bowls the ten remaining overs?

Can they bowl better than the Show and Anderson?

10 overs today out of Viv Richards would be a challenge.

But telling Bevan when he played that batsmen could average mid 30s ( 30 run real output) and strike at 120 he'd think that was an insane suggestion. Yet here we are.

Why did Bevan suck at test cricket?

 

[Rod]

I've answered that in the past to much conjecture. I'm sure it'd kick off again.

But yeah I'd take any of Hussey, Maxwell, Anderson, Symonds and many more players over Bevan.

Bevan may be a better 5 but I assume you mean to bat 6 with your comparative question to Anderson. Either way, Bevan's real run output per match is lower than people think and chews up a lot of deliveries.

You said you like to look deeper than the stats, do you think that Bevan's strike rate might have something to do with the fact that some of his best work was done when his top order was in trouble early and he simply had to hang around?

I'm also not sure why Bevan would be a better 5 than 6 when he played much more as a 6 and averaged 56 there compared to 41 as a 5.

Averages are averages for a reason, especially over such a large sample size like Bevan's of over 200 matches. Yes he technically only got 35 per innings but the merkin never got out as we as NZers well know. Why should that count against him?

Even applying runs per innings to both of them Bevan still has 7 more runs per innings on Anderson. Apart from the strike rate which as others have said is partially to do with the way the game has evolved and also the fact that Anderson has spanked around some dog average Indian and West Indian pie-throwers for a large chunk of his short career, I can't for the life of me think why someone would take Anderson over Bevan at this stage.

 

[Twizzle]

Anyone can bowl better than the Toyman, as you saw yesterday

 

[Bazal]

Bevan never got the chances others have in Test cricket because of the era he played in. He was much like Steve Smith, brought in as a spin bowling option who could bat a bit, then dropped, but unlike Smith he never got the benefit of a decent second chance.

A first class average of 57 with 68 hundreds suggests he was probably hard done by

 

[Twizzle]

you cant compare Bevan to modern day players especially if you are going to rely on stats, its just irrational logic

different bats
different field sizes
different pitches

 

[Bazal]

you cant compare Bevan to modern day players especially if you are going to rely on stats, its just irrational logic

different bats
different field sizes
different pitches

Different play styles as well. Like I said earlier, the general tactic was to belt it for 10-15 overs, tick it over at 3-4 an over until the 40th, then belt it again. Quite often Bevan played those middle overs, so of course his SR isn't going to match Jayasuriya and Gilchrist. It's a farcical comparison as it is, let alone comparing statistically to modern players

 

[Bazal]

SR has always been important, but it has increased markedly

Bevan was brilliant - whether you'd choose him over Hussey, I am not sure - but at this stage to suggest the likes of Anderson, The Show, or Faulkner are better is pretty much insane imo - unless you specifically want someone who can bowl 5-10 overs (which Bevan could do on occasion).

Wouldn't have him in my best side, simply because I'd take 6 better bats and Gilchrist, but he is an ODI great, no question

Personally, I'd say Bevan is the best ODI batsman I've ever seen, but that's because his understanding of ODI batting was so impressive. I grew up watching him pull us out of the fire more times than he had any right to...they call Faulkner the finisher but he has absolutely nothing on Bevan.

That said, there are certainly about 15 batsmen who would be considered very good company for him in the process of nutting out a "best of all time".

 

[hineyrulz]

Viv is first batsman picked no question, the. Work out your team from there.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You said you like to look deeper than the stats, do you think that Bevan's strike rate might have something to do with the fact that some of his best work was done when his top order was in trouble early and he simply had to hang around?

So unlikely to have a major influence given Australias dominance with such batting talent ahead of him (M Waugh, Hayden, Ponting, S Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist yadda et al and Symonds after him) and all those not outs in the first innings when trying to post a winning score.

I'm also not sure why Bevan would be a better 5 than 6 when he played much more as a 6 and averaged 56 there compared to 41 as a 5.

Have you seen Anderson's record at 5 from 8 games. It is statistically unfair to Bevan to use it as a comparison.

Averages are averages for a reason, especially over such a large sample size like Bevan's of over 200 matches. Yes he technically only got 35 per innings but the merkin never got out as we as NZers well know. Why should that count against him?

Because the scorecard only measures runs, and he was not out all a third of the time in the first innings with a SR below 80. It is the death overs man, hit the ball!

Even applying runs per innings to both of them Bevan still has 7 more runs per innings on Anderson. Apart from the strike rate which as others have said is partially to do with the way the game has evolved and also the fact that Anderson has spanked around some dog average Indian and West Indian pie-throwers for a large chunk of his short career, I can't for the life of me think why someone would take Anderson over Bevan at this stage.

7 less runs, true, far more deliveries avialble for the 10 other batsman to score those 7 runs and more (batting partners and batsman to follow, plus batsman ahead know there is more SR power comming in below), and bowls at an ER and average below his batting equivalent. Anderson gets you ahead of the game in both facets, batting and bowling.

Bevan bowls at a worse ER 5.05 than his equivalent batting rate 4.45. Good luck defending 222.

 

[JJ]

Who of the 6 better bats bowls the ten remaining overs?

Can they bowl better than the Show and Anderson?

10 overs today out of Viv Richards would be a challenge.

But telling Bevan when he played that batsmen could average mid 30s ( 30 run real output) and strike at 120 he'd think that was an insane suggestion. Yet here we are.

Why did Bevan suck at test cricket?

My initial response would be 5 each from Mark Waugh and Viv Richards, perhaps some from Greg Chappell - depends on which batsmen one chooses... could also justify the likes of Kapil, Botham, or Imran as one of the 6 which would end that debate

It was a different game then, which is what makes Viv remarkable - I don't care what stats you come up with, Bevan was a great, Viv is light years ahead of anyone else - and the likes of Dean Jones, Greg Chappell, Greenidge and Haynes wonderful... their records don't stack up, but if we only look at records some mongs would argue Michael Clarke was better than Neil Harvey