It's not that I don't rate Maxwell, he's slowly turning around my opinion of him but...why?
So many reasons.
First but not least, it comes down to this, Glen Maxwell's 36.25 at 126.40 will win more games for Straya than Bevan's 53 at 74.
Want proof?
Okay.
Bevan scored 6912 runs in 232 matches (29.7 runs per match). Maxwell 1704 in 59 matches (28.88 runs per match).
The difference is Bevan takes 40 balls of the allotted 300 balls to get his 29.7.
Maxwell only takes less than 23 balls! That is near a 3 over difference between the two batsmen. That is huge, those 18 balls can be used for more runs.
Bevan hated getting out. Listen to the former players, he would throw a tantrum for getting dismissed - shower in his clothes and pads that kind of thing. But a not out does not do the team any good at all (as long as 50 overs are batted). It only boosts that batsman's average. The team only gets the benefit of real runs scored. That is why I like a runs per match average - and the captains and coaches put the batting order together generally for sound reasons, high SR openers for the power plays, high percentage century makers either open or bat 3 and 4.
Maxwell values the team more than his own wicket. That is what you want in a 5 and 6. You do not want them to be selfish. You want them to either, maximise and cash in on the innings that the top order has laid the base for, or set the road to rebuilding.
But here is the problem with early cricket, a rebuild to a respectable score of 190-220 - will lose you more games than it will win (even if McGrath and Warne are in the attack). Maxwell's way to rebuild is to counter attack - and while the team may not pass 190-220 as a result as often, it will win more games because 275-300+ is always an option with a big innings from Maxwell, regardless of how the top order crashed and burned. While Maxwell is in, and the earlier he gets in, the bigger headache it can be for the opposition. His wicket is coveted.
This is all before Maxwell's playing of novel and modern shots that are incredibly difficult to set a field for and drive bowlers to wanting to pull their hair out, and his ability in the field, or his greater contribution as a bowler (Maxwell goes 5.5 runs an over when he scores at 7.56 runs per over himself at a similar average to his batting average. Bevan went for 5.05 runs per over when scoring at 4.45 runs per over himself - again both at relatively similar average to their own batting averages).
Basically Maxwell's contribution to a match is sorely undervalued - and Bevan's is ridiculously overvalued.
Players like Bevan and Dhoni who in chases or score setting, just bat for run accumulation and leaving the boundary hitting to the very last minute, sure they score runs themselves and build up their average, but the players batting behind them are under such greater RRR pressure to get the game done when they fail. When they suceed they're labelled as legends of the game, great chasers yadda yadda, but when they fail - they still score about 50 runs - but they've cost the team a good chance at winning by putting the tail enders are stupid pressure.
Maxwell, as soon as he starts batting, is reducing RRR pressure for those that follow and bat with him. Whether a long innings or a short innings, he inevitably assists getting RRR to managable levels.
Nothing takes more wickets in ODI cricket than scoreboard and run rate pressures. Regardless of Warney and Pidgeon.
The funny thing is, I am sure you are aware of Jayasuriya's importance to Sri Lanka - but his batting average was only 32. Gilchrist - 35.9. These are both players I have ahead of Bevan. If Bevan was as good a batsman as commonly claimed, he would have batted at higher at 3 and 4. When the selectors did put him there,
he dropped his SR further, 59 batting at 3 and 69.5 at number 4.
Seems a little selfish. And not good for the team.
Yes, Maxwell has the luxury of possibly a stronger tail (although this is debatable because Bevan played mostly in a Gilchrist era and Harvey and Symonds were playing), but that stronger tail is in part a result of wanting Maxwell at 5. That tail also has more balls to work with due to Maxwell's quick scoring in a first innings, and less RRR pressure in a second innings. It is a trade off between say a middle order of Smith, Bailey, S Marsh - but the bowling is also strengthened with that stronger tail with additional options. It is not as though Bevan's era was without Mark Waugh's contribution with the ball. (Mark Waugh comfortably averages more runs per game than Bevan at a slightly faster SR, much better bowling stats. Steve Waugh could bowl a few too.)
Glen Maxwell is a class act, even if not in the same realms as ABDV. He is a genuine match winner. All opposition fear him. He can turn a match on its head - and does so regularly. It is no war of attrition, nurdle it around with self preservation and taking it deep and hoping to get lucky, no it is an outright blitzkreig. It is no Afridi either - there is genuine fear that this will last more than 5 overs, and could go ten, 15 - game over if any more than that.
I firmly believe that average runs per match, or even innings is more indicative of a players limited overs contribution to a team than a batting average boosted with meaningless not outs that do the team no favors. And batting orders are set to give the best batsmen the most balls to bat (new ball tradeoff with openers conceded but even then Tendulkar opened - and most top players bat 3, 4 at the very least). Bevan was not thought to be that good by the selectors. When he was thought to be possibly that good - he scored even slower!
There is far less of a need for a #5 batsman to be there at the end, than there is for him to get the RRR to a level where the allrounders and tail enders can just nurdle the ball around for victory.
The way he can carry his head high, when he knows that is reverses are widely loathed (regardless of how many runs he scores from them), and that he will take those 0 and sub 20 scores, in the pursuit of getting the SR through the roof to finish off Smith, Bailey and Warner centuries before him - intending to take the score to 350+ is remarkable. He could drop it down a few gears, and coast his way - get a cushy mid 40's average. who knows with not outs get it past 50 like Dhoni and Bevan - but no - he puts the team scoreboard first.
And this is all in addition to the fact that Bevan played in the strongest ODI team batting line up that the world has ever seen bar perhaps the Clive Lloyd era Windies and the Indian teams who could not bowl fast.
Bevan batted first innings 115 times, and was not out 37 times, roughly a third of his innings, striking at less than 80. That is inexcusable. It is selfish. It cost Australia runs. Runs win games. The batting average was over 50, but the average per game was a mere 33 or 35 per innings. Hussey had a lower batting average of 49 in first innings, and was dismissed more often, 24% not out, but more runs per match and per innings at 37, with a strike rate over 90. Maxwell is fairly close on runs per match batting first to Bevan at over 31, with only one not out for about 3% of not outs, but his SR is 130. Who is doing best for the team? Rank them. Maxwell's 31 runs take less than 24 balls. Bevan's 33 runs take 43 balls! Maxwell can bat not out in the second innings, and does do so at 35%, but his strike rate is 120 - chasing! Bevan is 67. Imagine what scoreboard pressure the side is under when he gets out in the second innings. Maxwell is out averaging and striking Hussey in the second innings. Yes, the great Mike Hussey. Maxwell average 44 despite being not out on 28% of the time, Huss only 42, with not out about a third of the time. Bevan is not out 37% of the time, averaging over 50 but a SR in the 60s. For me, it easy an decision to have Maxwell ahead of Bevan. Now I am not attempting any conclusion between Hussey and Maxwell, but between Maxwell and Bevan, it is an easy decision to take Maxwell any day of the week.
People need to get over the mindset of a player getting out being bad when advancing SR, when they bat at 5, and there is more batting to follow. They're helping the team in doing so, not there own average. Teams do not get the benefit of not outs, first innings especially!
That is my opinion.
And while irrelevant as to who was better, the biggest hurdle with Maxwell is that cricket is an entertainment product, even when rooting for the opposition to beat Australia, it is hard to find a person who does not want to watch Maxwell bat. I bet even in England, the cues at the bar either at the ground or the clubhouse, shorten when he is at the crease. But this is due in large to his SR and shot selections, the relevance of which I have discussed. I would not be surprised for Maxwell to increase his batting average and maintain his current SR. He is very talented.
