Virat Kohli, the greatest ODI bat ever?

[stephen]

What's the wattage on Stephen? Mega? Tera?

I mean it has to be something greater than Kilo.

Peta

 

[h_hurricane]

Nice to see this thread coming to life after many days. And what better time to do it than a weekend. Also happy to see so many of my Aussie friends online at this time

 

[Gob]

Think Virat has surpassed everyone by now. AB DeVilliers when on song has a sixth gear unlike any but Virat's numbers are just too ludicrous to overlook now. My top five would look like

1 Virat
2 AB
3 Viv
4 Sachin
5 Bev/Dhoni (can't split)

 

[h_hurricane]

5 Bev/Dhoni (can't split)

This is so clear isn't it ? And yet, claiming one is significantly superior to other is what keeps threads going.

 

[Gob]

This is so clear isn't it ? And yet, claiming one is significantly superior to other is what keeps threads going.

Think Bevan is slightly better than Dhoni in most aspects of limited overs batting (rotation of the strike, gap finding, phasing the innings in a chase etc) but Dhoni is significantly better when it comes to accelerating towards the end of an innings. We never quite saw it from Bevan except for the odd occasion like the Asia vs ROW or whatever the **** that game was when Bev made a big ton and kept clearing the fence. They just played in two different eras of OD cricket and i wouldn't bet one to be better than the other in the other's era

On an unrelated note, Bevan could have been a great test bat had he played for any other team or any other era in Aust cricket. An average of close to 60 in first class cricket is just amazing especially considering the quality of shield cricket at the time.

 

[Kilowatt]

So I'm assuming that you rate Voges as the second best batsman ever. After all, his average came after 31 innings which is a far larger sample size than Dhoni's 18 innings batting at number 3. Voges average of 61.87 is no joke especially given how late it came in his career.

His ability to consistently build innings, survive difficult conditions with little support and finally accelerate at will would have seen him break almost all test records. Even today, it wouldn't be a bad bet to bat him if we didn't have 6 batsmen under 35. It takes him a little while to settle down at his age just like Tendulkar, except the match situations he normally comes in at normally don't afford him any balls to face, just like Tendulkar.

There's so many matches he won with his big scoring ability where any other batsman would have obviously failed.

Sarcasm aside, nobody is saying Dhoni isn't an ATG batsman and wicketkeeper. It's just that he's not the best in class as a batsman. Being second best is no shame. Except when you're in a world cup semi final (sorry SA).

Nobody rates Voges outside of Australia.

Anything Bevan could do, Dhoni can also do. But Nobody in their right mind would have Bevan over Dhoni in a match like this for example

Chennai Super Kings beat Kings XI Punjab by 6 wickets (with 2 balls remaining) - Kings XI Punjab vs Chennai Super Kings, Indian Premier League, 54th match Match Summary, Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

His ability to do pull these kind of chases consistently over such a long period of time puts him ahead of Bevan. Bevan would have been completely overwhelmed by that RR. Dhoni walked over it like a boss, while keeping and captaining to boot. Bevan and Dhoni would make a fine No.5 and No.6 in an ATG team but Bevan would clearly be second best.

 

[h_hurricane]

Think Bevan is slightly better than Dhoni in most aspects of limited overs batting (rotation of the strike, gap finding, phasing the innings in a chase etc) but Dhoni is significantly better when it comes to accelerating towards the end of an innings. We never quite saw it from Bevan except for the odd occasion like the Asia vs ROW or whatever the **** that game was when Bev made a big ton and kept clearing the fence. They just played in two different eras of OD cricket and i wouldn't bet one to be better than the other in the other's era

On an unrelated note, Bevan could have been a great test bat had he played for any other team or any other era in Aust cricket. An average of close to 60 in first class cricket is just amazing especially considering the quality of shield cricket at the time.

Agreed mostly here, but not fully convinced if Bevan would have become a great test batsman had be played for another team. Great first class bats necessarily do not translate to great test bats. Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are classic examples. The standard of county cricket was pretty good at that time with many quality overseas cricketers participating as well. Both were technically better than Bevan too.

Rohit Sharma, a more recent example. Great against short bowling but does not have the necessary temperament. When he started off, every one expected him to have a great test career, still has a great FC record but turned out to be a six hitting monster in ODIs and a below par test match player.

Vinod Kambli was another example. Made it big in the first season, then got brutally exposed against short pitch bowling (very similar weakness to Bevan).

If Bevan would have been a 19th century player, people who never saw him bat would easily mistake him to be a bowler who could bat a bit looking at his test record.

 

[Gob]

Agreed mostly here, but not fully convinced if Bevan would have become a great test batsman had be played for another team. Great first class bats necessarily do not translate to great test bats. Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are classic examples. The standard of county cricket was pretty good at that time with many quality overseas cricketers participating as well. Both were technically better than Bevan too.

Rohit Sharma, a more recent example. Great against short bowling but does not have the necessary temperament. When he started off, every one expected him to have a great test career, still has a great FC record but turned out to be a six hitting monster in ODIs and a below par test match player.

Vinod Kambli was another example. Made it big in the first season, then got brutally exposed against short pitch bowling (very similar weakness to Bevan).

If Bevan would have been a 19th century player, people who never saw him bat would easily mistake him to be a bowler who could bat a bit looking at his test record.

Most shield teams were better than most international teams tbh. Visiting teams usually get beaten in the warm up games even before they meet Estraya. He had a weakness to the short ball but it was exaggerated imo could have been a solid test bat with a mid 40ish average but we'd never know.

 

[stephen]

Nobody rates Voges outside of Australia.

Anything Bevan could do, Dhoni can also do. But Nobody in their right mind would have Bevan over Dhoni in a match like this for example

Chennai Super Kings beat Kings XI Punjab by 6 wickets (with 2 balls remaining) - Kings XI Punjab vs Chennai Super Kings, Indian Premier League, 54th match Match Summary, Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

His ability to do pull these kind of chases consistently over such a long period of time puts him ahead of Bevan. Bevan would have been completely overwhelmed by that RR. Dhoni walked over it like a boss, while keeping and captaining to boot. Bevan and Dhoni would make a fine No.5 and No.6 in an ATG team but Bevan would clearly be second best.

Nobody rates Voges in Australia either. But my very obvious parody of your arguments went over your head.

And I can't believe you're arguing about how good a player is in ODIs by pointing to a domestic T20. I can provably argue that Chris Lynn is a fantastic ODI player by the same reasoning...

 

[stephen]

Most shield teams were better than most international teams tbh. Visiting teams usually get beaten in the warm up games even before they meet Estraya. He had a weakness to the short ball but it was exaggerated imo could have been a solid test bat with a mid 40ish average but we'd never know.

His weakness to the short ball was entirely mental IMO. His test record overstates his bowling and understates his batting IMO. It remains one of the many "what ifs" of Australian cricket's golden era. At least he got a decent run, unlike Law, Love, di Venuto and others of the era.

 

[mr_mister]

Agreed mostly here, but not fully convinced if Bevan would have become a great test batsman had be played for another team. Great first class bats necessarily do not translate to great test bats. Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are classic examples. The standard of county cricket was pretty good at that time with many quality overseas cricketers participating as well. Both were technically better than Bevan too.

Rohit Sharma, a more recent example. Great against short bowling but does not have the necessary temperament. When he started off, every one expected him to have a great test career, still has a great FC record but turned out to be a six hitting monster in ODIs and a below par test match player.

Vinod Kambli was another example. Made it big in the first season, then got brutally exposed against short pitch bowling (very similar weakness to Bevan).

If Bevan would have been a 19th century player, people who never saw him bat would easily mistake him to be a bowler who could bat a bit looking at his test record.

Re your last paragraph, Bevan fluked a ridiculously flattering bowling average, he wouldn't have sustained that if he kept bowling in more tests. But I suppose that's besides the point. His batting average of 28 is pretty standard for a specialist 19th century bat anyway

And if he got to play 50 tests like Ramp and Hicks I'm confident he could have come good. He faced a lot of quality bowlers in his short test career and did fine against Wasim/Waqar and Ambrose/Walsh.

His failure in the 97 ashes, the main reason for his crappy overall record, isn't enough to say he would have never cut it.

Edit - I see he also had a bad series against SA. Basically 2 good series and 2 bad ones. Could happen to plenty of players.

 

[Bolo]

This would apply a bit less today, but when a player from his era is good in 3 formats (long and short, domestic and international) and unproven in the 4th, you can be pretty confident he would do pretty well. And you can be very sure he would have got a chance to prove himself in a different team.

How well he would have done is likely being overestimated though. Claiming shield is stronger than international is a reach. Visitors are using tour games to acclimatize and practice. See last Indian tour. And if there is an area that shield was comparable to international in, it's batting. The fact that every bowler in domestic was theoretically worse than Lee means the attacks couldn't really have been international standard.

 

[Borges]

Even if not exactly international standard, the FC scene in Australia in Bevan's time would have been very strong.
The strength and the depth of the test team that evolves from a FC set up is an unbiased indicator of how strong the FC competition is.

 

[Bolo]

Even if not exactly international standard, the FC scene in Australia in Bevan's time would have been very strong.
The strength and the depth of the test team that evolves from a FC set up is an unbiased indicator of how strong the FC competition is.

It's an indicator, but it's not necessarily strong. The strength of a team tends to be heavily influenced by a few really talented individuals. To get an idea of the domestic strength based only the natiomal team you need to look at the worst players in the team. There were no weak links in the batting. Bowling (relevant to Bevan) is a different issue- even though it is an ATG attack it doesn't indicate much strength at FC level.

 

[stephen]

It's an indicator, but it's not necessarily strong. The strength of a team tends to be heavily influenced by a few really talented individuals. To get an idea of the domestic strength based only the natiomal team you need to look at the worst players in the team. There were no weak links in the batting. Bowling (relevant to Bevan) is a different issue- even though it is an ATG attack it doesn't indicate much strength at FC level.

Yeah Australia's bowling depth through the 90s was definitely overstated.

McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee, Kasprowicz and Bichel were all test class, but behind them you had a bunch of blokes like Adam Dale who were good first class operators but not really up to test standard.

And one only needs to look at Blewett and Elliot to see that sometimes good first class stats don't translate to test level very well.

Still, I'd kill to have a few of those guys like Law, Love, di Venuto and Bevan floating around the first class system right now.

 

[Bolo]

Fleming and Macgill overlooked, but your point stands.

 

[trundler]

Always thought Law was good enough to average mid 40s at test level.. Comparable to Martyn in ability wasn't he? Unlucky.

 

[stephen]

Fleming and Macgill overlooked, but your point stands.

One always misses a player or two rattling off lists of players from memory. But yeah, most shield attacks were at best considered a "strong shield attack". Queensland and New South Wales had a very good first choice attack but most of the rest of the attacks had one very good bowler and the rest were not great. TBH the batting was similar. There were probably 15 test quality batsmen, but there were many more players who weren't in that same grouping.

 

[stephen]

Always thought Law was good enough to average mid 40s at test level.. Comparable to Martyn in ability wasn't he? Unlucky.

Very unlucky. But such was life for the 90s shield guys averaging around 50.

 

[Bolo]

One always misses a player or two rattling off lists of players from memory. But yeah, most shield attacks were at best considered a "strong shield attack". Queensland and New South Wales had a very good first choice attack but most of the rest of the attacks had one very good bowler and the rest were not great. TBH the batting was similar. There were probably 15 test quality batsmen, but there were many more players who weren't in that same grouping.

I find it much tougher to assess test quality bats than bowlers. You can get a good idea by watching a bowler, and if they have the numbers as well they will probably succeed. I can get a good idea a flawed bat with good numbers in domestic will fail, but not whether one who I'm not spotting flaws for will do well.

Anyway, sounds pretty likely there were (nearly) as many test quality bats in some shield teams as some test teams at the end of the 90s.