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

[ANTiLAG]

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

Maybe. Him or De Villiers for sure.

Kohli and Tendulkar not too far behind.

Really want ten overs out of them?

 

[JJ]

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

yeah, he literally is head and very broad shoulders above any ODI bat ever - it is just frightening to think what he might do with the gear they have now on these roads...

 

[JJ]

good as de Villiers is, Viv is Viv mon

 

[ANTiLAG]

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

18 tests.

30 innings.

29 average.

He had chances.

This is no Brad Hodge hard luck story.

Bevan played 3 times as many tests as Hodge and sucked.

 

[Bazal]

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 all those not outs in the first innings when trying to post a winning score.

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



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!

Did you even watch ODI cricket when Bevan was playing? Because I think you have absolutely failed to grasp the difference in the game between then and now...like, abjectly. As in, you talk up Steve Waugh right here, with his average of 33 and SR of 75. Again, all time great, and Bevan absolutely blitzes him. Damien Martyn? 41 at 77. Mark Waugh? 39 at 77.

You know, it almost sounds like middle order tactics were vastly different in the 90s!

 

[JJ]

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".

Fair enough - I can only assume you didn't see Viv Richards, because there is nobody to compare.

Dean Jones is underrated as an Aust odi bat

And much as I like Bevan, hard to make an argument that he's a better odi bat than de Villiers who you have seen

 

[Bazal]

18 tests.

30 innings.

29 average.

He had chances.

This is no Brad Hodge hard luck story.

Bevan played 3 times as many tests as Hodge and sucked.

Bevan was a far better player than Brad Hodge. Half of those tests were played as a bowler, remember. Not sure why the vendetta, but it's pretty clearly just that

 

[ANTiLAG]

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

Bats are the same. Still made of willow. No aluminium allowed. Still have the rules applying to the width accross the face.
Chunky bats were allowed, Lance Cairns had one. I see no reason to favour batsman for not choosing a chunkier bat, but rather one that was easier to move around to defend their wicket.

Different field sizes have made next to 0 difference in test scores. Some 6's would be 4's.

Pitches have not changed in length.

Test scores have increased by an average of 5 runs per wicket from the 1990s to now. Bevan played half his career in the new part. The increase in runs is also due in a large part to tail enders and wicket keepers batting so much better now (Sanga, Flower, Gilchrist, Flower, Watling, Dhoni, Prior, Taylor, De Villiers). More than any of the three reasons you have given. Yes there are still Chris Martins, but look at your own recent tail enders, they can bat. From Rhino to Lee.

 

[Bazal]

Fair enough - I can only assume you didn't see Viv Richards, because there is nobody to compare.

Dean Jones is underrated as an Aust odi bat

And much as I like Bevan, hard to make an argument that he's a better odi bat than de Villiers who you have seen

Viv was before my time, and while I would have seen Deano I was too young to really get it. De Villiers is definitely right up there, but a completely different player in a different time. AB is a freak, I appreciate that and he's the number one bat in the world IMO.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Did you even watch ODI cricket when Bevan was playing? Because I think you have absolutely failed to grasp the difference in the game between then and now...like, abjectly. As in, you talk up Steve Waugh right here, with his average of 33 and SR of 75. Again, all time great, and Bevan absolutely blitzes him. Damien Martyn? 41 at 77. Mark Waugh? 39 at 77.

You know, it almost sounds like middle order tactics were vastly different in the 90s!

How does that make Bevan better than today's batsmen in comparison?

His SR is pathetic for all those not outs.

His SR leads to scores of 222 - those will lose Australia many games. He was batting behind the 8 ball when he played in an all conquering team. Can you not grasp that fact?

Waughs spent a lot of their careers in the 1980's but I am pretty sure that Steve Waugh dominated the 1999 world cup did he not? Mark Waugh the 1995 world cup? Safe to say they could play a bit of cricket.

 

[Bazal]

How does that make Bevan better than today's batsmen in comparison?

His SR is pathetic for all those not outs.

His SR leads to scores of 222 - those will lose Australia many games. He was batting behind the 8 ball when he played in an all conquering team. Can you not grasp that fact?

Waughs spent a lot of their careers in the 1980's but I am pretty sure that Steve Waugh dominated the 1999 world cup did he not? Mark Waugh the 1995 world cup? Safe to say they could play a bit of cricket.

And yet Bevan blitzes them both. What was it? Safe to say he could play a bit of cricket

Edit. It's completely irrelevant comparing him to modern players, and everyone but you can see that. Even your precious stats show that

 

[ANTiLAG]

And yet Bevan blitzes them both. What was it? Safe to say he could play a bit of cricket

No.

He was overrated due to a large average that ignored his SR.

He hated getting out. As such, he rarely risked his wicket, even for the team as against other players. He got a lot of not outs that advanced his average.

And was dropped.

And replaced by Mr Cricket, who could play cricket.

 

[Bazal]

No.

He was overrated due to a large average that ignored his SR.

He hated getting out. As such, he rarely risked his wicket, even for the team as against other players. He got a lot of not outs that advanced his average.

And was dropped.

And replaced by Mr Cricket, who could play cricket.

And yet his SR is almost exactly comparable to the other middle order batsmen in the side at the time. You are applying 400 run modern ODI logic to 250 run historical ODIs in some kind of ridiculous attempt to discredit a player you clearly don't like

 

[Rod]

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 don't even know what to do with this.

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

8 innings against WI, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is not statistically unfair it is statistically stupid to hold that as a measure against Bevan's. Plus didn't you say Bevan was the better 5?

 

[Twizzle]

Bats are the same. Still made of willow. No aluminium allowed. Still have the rules applying to the width accross the face.
Chunky bats were allowed, Lance Cairns had one. I see no reason to favour batsman for not choosing a chunkier bat, but rather one that was easier to move around to defend their wicket.

Different field sizes have made next to 0 difference in test scores. Some 6's would be 4's.

Pitches have not changed in length.

Test scores have increased by an average of 5 runs per wicket from the 1990s to now. Bevan played half his career in the new part. The increase in runs is also due in a large part to tail enders and wicket keepers batting so much better now (Sanga, Flower, Gilchrist, Flower, Watling, Dhoni, Prior, Taylor, De Villiers). More than any of the three reasons you have given. Yes there are still Chris Martins, but look at your own recent tail enders, they can bat. From Rhino to Lee.

Well that clearly went through to the keeper. We didn't play on batting roads back then, 220 was a good score.

After saying you cant compare the stats thats exactly what you did.

 

[Twizzle]

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

yep

if you ever saw him play you wouldn't worry about looking up any stats, he was the man

 

[ANTiLAG]

Bevan was a far better player than Brad Hodge. Half of those tests were played as a bowler, remember. Not sure why the vendetta, but it's pretty clearly just that

See that is what is wrong with the Bevan myth.

You guys a remembering a fiction.

You're telling me he played 9 test matches as part of a bowling 4?

That is false.

He did it five times with Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh and Greg Blewett sharing Bevan's load. He was batting at 6 and 7. His batting average was unaffected and actually improves from when he batted at 5.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63732.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63743.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63742.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63779.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63744.html

The rest of the time he was a 5th or 6th bowling option after 4 main bowlers, or did not bowl at all.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I don't even know what to do with this.



8 innings against WI, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is not statistically unfair it is statistically stupid to hold that as a measure against Bevan's. Plus didn't you say Bevan was the better 5?

Which is why I didn't use Anderson as a direct comparison at 5.

I've had this debate about Bevan many times.

You will not change my mind on it. In my opinion, he was too slow to be great. Even for his era. Viv Richards played in an even slower era, and had a much better SR. Clive Lloyd was around at the start of ODI - SR higher than Bevan, too. Yes, they played in the dominant side winning strong side of their era's - so did Bevan.

You asked me the question - I answered it - and I said it would kick off in here. It has.

No offence to you, but I do find the Bevan debate a touch boring.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Well that clearly went through to the keeper. We didn't play on batting roads back then, 220 was a good score.

After saying you cant compare the stats thats exactly what you did.

What did Viv Richards and Clive Lloyd play on and play with?

222 was below par for Bevan's era - but possibly easier to defend more often than it should have been with atg bowlers McGrath and Warne in the attack.

Bevan is more Neil Fairbrother with a few more not outs than he is rubbing shoulders with the ATG status that you seem keen to assume for him.

But like I say, Bevan is a boring argument.

 

[Bazal]

You seem to use "boring" a lot...particularly when you run out of steam....