ODI Cricket - Mike Hussey or Michael Bevan?

[DingDong]

dhoni > bevan.

 

[Tom Halsey]

For the thousandth time, Not Outs do not inflate a batsman's average. (Quite the reverse: it's harder to get 30* and 30 than a single score of 60, because when you get 60 you only have to play yourself in once.) Oh and I fail to see why the fact that a batsman ends an innings undefeated is somehow held against them in assessing how good they are.

Haha this so, so much.

 

[NUFAN]

I agree about the not out-not inflating the average scenario, but making 54* (56) and being in at the end of 50 overs isn't THAT much better than 53 (55) and getting out after 49.5 overs.

 

[ankitj]

I agree about the not out-not inflating the average scenario, but making 54* (56) and being in at the end of 50 overs isn't THAT much better than 53 (55) and getting out after 49.5 overs.

But if you have the ability to stay not out you will make 53/54 more often than if you did not have that ability.

 

[NUFAN]

But if you have the ability to stay not out you will get to make 53/54 more often than if you did not have that ability.

Not really my point. I was more replying to this.

Quite the reverse: it's harder to get 30* and 30 than a single score of 60, because when you get 60 you only have to play yourself in once.

My point is in ODIs, particularly when setting a target, getting out close to the end isn't as bad for the player and teams cause as it is made out to be statistically.

 

[viriya]

Dhoni is the greatest ODI chaser of all time.

 

[ankitj]

My point is in ODIs, particularly when setting a target, getting out close to the end isn't as bad for the player and teams cause as it is made out to be statistically.

This part of your post is still what I countered. You can't plan to get dismissed on the last ball of the innings every time. You simply can't have a batsman who had exactly same scores as Bevan but always got dismissed at the end. The fact that Bevan stayed not out so often means that he often had the ability of playing a longer innings if he had more time - something he demonstrated in other games where he entered early. So his batting average is accurate representation of his ability, if not per match contribution. But you can't take anything away from him for having a different 'ability' and per match contribution. That's simply a function of what role he played.

There absolutely can not be any consideration of not outs when talking about a batsman's average, no matter how qualified.

 

[Prince EWS]

People seem to have a huge misconception about Bevan setting totals. Averages 52 @ 80 SR (which in those days was quite high).

Yeah this is a point I often make. Bevan's overall strike rate seems lower because, when chasing, he batted in a very calculated fashion and Australia were often not chasing very big scores due to their good bowling attack. When setting a target he scored much more quickly.

 

[watson]

Dhoni is the greatest ODI chaser of all time.

Seen both batsman smash the ball and play brilliantly during the first innings. Point being that I'd have both of them in my team as they are so adaptable and can play any role as required - target setter or chaser.

2nd ODI: England v Australia at The Oval, May 24, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st ODI: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne (Docklands), Aug 16, 2000 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
6th Match: Australia v India at Sharjah, Apr 22, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
12th Match: Australia v Sri Lanka at Perth, Jan 31, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

etc

 

[NUFAN]

This part of your post is still what I countered. You can't plan to get dismissed on the last ball of the innings every time. You simply can't have a batsman who had exactly same scores as Bevan but always got dismissed at the end. The fact that Bevan stayed not out so often means that he often had the ability of playing a longer innings if he had more time - something he demonstrated in other games where he entered early. So his batting average is accurate representation of his ability, if not per match contribution. But you can't take anything away from him for having a different 'ability' and per match contribution. That's simply a function of what role he played.

There absolutely can not be any consideration of not outs when talking about a batsman's average, no matter how qualified.

Most of what you have written is extremely obvious and not my point at all and your last point is completely false. Of course there can be a consideration of not outs when talking about a batsmans average, weird to think not.

 

[ankitj]

Well I have to see a good argument why a batsman's average needs to be qualified by mentioning number of not outs.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah this is a point I often make. Bevan's overall strike rate seems lower because, when chasing, he batted in a very calculated fashion and Australia were often not chasing very big scores due to their good bowling attack. When setting a target he scored much more quickly.

There is similar difference between 1st and 2nd innings SR of Dhoni and Hussey. So Bevan is not doing anything unique here. Not my point to bag him for his SR but it's not a Bevan specialty to score quicker in 1st innings and slower in 2nd.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, Dhoni gets criticised for running a chase all too close (in comparison to how he finishes the first innings), but he always manages to pace it perfectly. He's had 38 second innings not-outs and only one of them has resulted in a loss. Pakistan won that match by 85 runs, and he'd have needed to score 139 at a SR of 156 to pull that one off.

Bevan has had 5 not out failures out of 30 in chases. The ones you could criticise him for are his 45* (59) where Australia fell short by 7 runs and Bevan failed to hit a single boundary, his 56* (76) with 2 boundaries where Australia fell short by 7 runs, and his 24* (21) with one boundary with Australia falling short by 1 run. He also had this 31* (76) with just a single boundary, but in his defence it was against an ATG attack of Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar-Saqlain-Razzaq. This one seems excusable given the steep target.

Basically Bevan had the one single shortcoming of an over-reliance on singles which backfired in 4/30 chases. Whether it was an inability to pull off the boundaries at will or a miscalculation in the case of the failures, one can't say. He did have that mammoth second innings against an excellent Asia XI attack (perhaps the best chasing innings of all time, with all due respect to Herschelle) that almost won his team the game, so I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm the first one to admit that average in wins stats are massively flawed, but look at Dhoni's stats in successful chases :

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Yeah, he has not outs in half of those games, but that just shows he's generally there at the end to finish it off. And no matter what, an average of 103(!) is just bonkers

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is similar difference between 1st and 2nd innings SR of Dhoni and Hussey. So Bevan is not doing anything unique here. Not my point to bag him for his SR but it's not a Bevan specialty to score quicker in 1st innings and slower in 2nd.

He's just pointing out that Bevan not being fast enough when it comes to setting up big totals in the first innings is a bit of a myth

 

[ankitj]

He's just pointing out that Bevan not being fast enough when it comes to setting up big totals in the first innings is a bit of a myth

Yeah I know. Just pointing out others in similar roles did same too. So the question of whether Bevan was as good as say Dhoni in first innings comes down to whether SR of 95 in Dhoni's times is same as 80 in Bevan's.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah I know. Just pointing out others in similar roles did same too..

No they didn't. Not in Bevan's time. Bevan's style of play was absolutely his own, everyone else was focused on bashing the bowling before the field went out, knocking it around until the last ten then throwing the bat. Bevan's ability to knock the ball around and change gears even in the last 10 was unique and paved the way for your Husseys and Dhonis to refine it further.

The big difference was Bevan's ability to pick a bowler or a moment to swing the bat for, like, an over. He'd get to, say, over 44 then sense a key moment and smack someone around for a couple of boundaries to bring the required run-rate down or arrest it's rise then go back to chipping it around. Everyone else, once they decided to tee-off, would just keeping swinging. Bevan assessed things over-by-over, something no one else did at all or not quite as well in the case of some SL middle order players of the time (Mahanama, for example).

 

[Ikki]

That first innings that Ikki mentioned about Bevan doesn't really deserve to be on the list. Sure, we needed someone to build the innings, but out for 69 with a strike rate of 62 wasn't amazing and only looks good in hindsight after an all-time great collapse.

Of course it does, it's actually in hindsight and without context that it ironically looks worse. It was difficult batting conditions, where the top 3 scores in that game came <70 SR; against an all-time great ODI attack (Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh); and Australia had lost 4 wickets for 15 runs. Law and Bevan saved that match with 72 @ 69 and 69 @ 63 respectively.

It was great bowling by the Australians as well that caused the collapse, but even at 165/2, after 41 overs, the run-rate for the WIndies was only 4 an over.

 

[Ikki]

Bevan has had 5 not out failures out of 30 in chases. The ones you could criticise him for are his 45* (59) where Australia fell short by 7 runs and Bevan failed to hit a single boundary, his 56* (76) with 2 boundaries where Australia fell short by 7 runs, and his 24* (21) with one boundary with Australia falling short by 1 run. He also had this 31* (76) with just a single boundary, but in his defence it was against an ATG attack of Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar-Saqlain-Razzaq. This one seems excusable given the steep target.

We've discussed this before, only the first one is a legitimate problem. In the 56* he couldn't get going because all those around him were dropping like flies. The only reason we even got close was because of Bevan. Bevan himself comes in at 4/48 and Blewett goes immediately and it's 5/48. Australia had a really long tail and it's with Julian than they manage to stave off an absolute collapse but he doesn't stay long either and leaves Bevan at 6/94. Warne, Fleming and McGrath struggle to get off strike and ate up a lot of balls, meanwhile losing their wickets for peanuts. It was also clearly a bowler's pitch. In England's line-up only Gough chancing his arm at the end of the innings scored at a higher SR than Bevan but even that was for only 23 runs. Almost every other English batsman struggled to get even to 60 SR. The Australians likewise had problems, and with all this context it's evident why Bevan's match high score of 56 @ 74 was more than fine.

Even the 24(21) innings was not his fault either. He was clearly striking fast enough (114 SR). If anything, Symonds cost us that match with an unusually slow innings 36* @ 69. In the 31* against Pakistan, we fell 45 runs short because the whole team collapsed. Bevan came in at #4 for 2/60 and tried to get some foothold as his team crumbled for a total of 139.

So his method really only cost him 1 time.

 

[G.I.Joe]

O.k.