ODI Cricket - Mike Hussey or Michael Bevan?

[akilana]

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.

he wasn't striking fast enough for Australia to win the match.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Well, he's always in the right gear. It isn't his fault that the RRR doesn't always get the memo.

 

[Ikki]

O.k.

Sorry, just get annoyed when people mention those instances without context.

he wasn't striking fast enough for Australia to win the match.

That's a very loose criticism anyone can make of any player who loses a match while being not-out. When Bevan came in there was about 8 overs left of which Australia needed more than 50 runs from. He scored 24 runs at a higher rate than anyone in the match. If you're going to blame someone, you blame Symonds who also finished not out but who scored 36 @ 69. In the last over we needed 7 runs.

49.1
Vaas to Symonds, 1 run
49.2
Vaas to Bevan, 1 run
49.3
Vaas to Symonds, no run
49.4
Vaas to Symonds, no run
49.5
Vaas to Symonds, 1 run
49.6
Vaas to Bevan, 3 runs

Credit to Vaas, but poor from Symonds who was tasked to use his big-hitting to win it.

Well, he's always in the right gear. It isn't his fault that the RRR doesn't always get the memo.

Tripe. It's one thing to criticise a player for batting slowly (and that's a contextual point as what is slow varies depending on circumstances) and another thing to criticise a player who was scoring at a faster rate than everybody else in the match. If he wasn't scoring fast enough, neither was anyone else. One player can only be responsible for so much. One can't assume that you can just up your scoring without an inherent risk of getting out.

The irony is in the innings where a player tries to score too fast, or takes a risky shot, and gets out it isn't going to show up in your sample. If he had gotten out by trying to force the scoring, and instead Australia fell 10 runs short; it would actually help him in this argument using that flawed logic, even though it's worse for his team.

 

[NUFAN]

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.

Your post said you looked at notable Bevan chases in WC's. This wasn't a chase.

I followed this game being a semi final and all. Bevan was good yes, Law really stood up but the feeling was that 210 was a decent fightback but about 30 short and ultimately looked better once we won the match.

 

[Ikki]

Your post said you looked at notable Bevan chases in WC's. This wasn't a chase.

I followed this game being a semi final and all. Bevan was good yes, Law really stood up but the feeling was that 210 was a decent fightback but about 30 short and ultimately looked better once we won the match.

Ah okay, it was an old post I kept on a file for reference. It must have been his notable knocks (of which there were chases).

 

[zaremba]

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.

I agree - a batting average doesn't tell you everything you need to know. For me, a batting average is a good (though obviously incomplete) measure of how good a batsman is, but it doesn't necessarily tell you very much about the contribution he has made. As your example illustrates.

 

[watson]

As of March 2013;

Bevan
ODI Innings = 196
Runs = 6194
Average = 53.6
Strike Rate = 74.4
Runs per Innings = 35.3
SR/100 x RpI = 26.2

Dhoni
ODI Innings = 196
Runs = 7259
Average = 51.85
Strike Rate = 88.2
Runs per Innings = 37.0
SR/100 x RpI = 32.7

Blogs: The ODI batting giants: part 1 | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[watson]

Bevan: Late Order Runs (5 onwards)
Innings = 139
Runs = 5848
Team Runs = 11117
%Team Runs = 40.6

Dhoni: Late Order Runs (5 onwards)
Innings = 160
Runs = 5258
Team Runs = 13831
%Team Runs = 38.0


Very difficult to split aren't they?

 

[zaremba]

Blogs: The ODI batting giants: part 1 | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

With due respect to the chap, Anantha Narayanan is a master of utterly arbitrary and unhelpful statistical analysis.

 

[ankitj]

with due respect to the chap, anantha narayanan is a master of utterly arbitrary and unhelpful statistical analysis.

awta

 

[uvelocity]

Ah okay, it was an old post I kept on a file for reference. It must have been his notable knocks (of which there were chases).

you're a strange individual

 

[watson]

With due respect to the chap, Anantha Narayanan is a master of utterly arbitrary and unhelpful statistical analysis.

That might be the case. But his article was useful to help drag up a few relevant stats like RpI and %tTeam Runs. Appeals to my laziness.

 

[Ikki]

you're a strange individual

Haha, for some reason it's the only post I have saved. It's mostly stats, graphs, spreadsheets, etc.

 

[uvelocity]

Haha, for some reason it's the only post I have saved. It's mostly stats, graphs, spreadsheets, etc.

my advice is make my post your wallpaper

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I'd argue MSD's one inning of note > all of Bevan's cause it was WC Final...

Apologies to non-rugby fans, but by that logic Stephen Donald is better than Dan Carter

 

[ankitj]

This one seems excusable given the steep target.

Coincidentally, star sorts was just showing highlights of this match. When Bevann entered Aus needed 100 runs in 99 balls. The RRR was well within reach up until 45-46th over. Bevan would have had to score about 60 off 43 to win the game. But I think his pace was thrown off by Harvey, Lee and Gillespie who slowed the innings down

 

[vic_orthdox]

Probably Bevan; think there's bonus points for being a pioneer of sorts, and showing others the method.

 

[harsh.ag]

Bump. More votes required.

 

[mr_mister]

Bevan every day of the week. Twice on Sundays. Did his feats against ATG bowlers.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I was always somewhat of a Hussey fan, but it has to be Bevan. Some of his innings were truly phenomenal, ahead of their time in a very tough and competitive era.