Bevan vs. Hussey vs. Dhoni

[silentstriker]

I was talking about Tests - those stats were from Tests.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Bevan wasn't a great finisher. He was great at winning games and chasing down targets, but when it came to batting in the final overs in the first innings he'd often get bogged down. He was great at manipulating the opposition, but struggled hitting boundaries which is probably why his strike-rate is low.

However, I would rate him as the best ODI batsman out of the 3, but rate him third as far as finishing an innings goes (which is the poll question).

 

[social]

Bevan easily - won countless games for the best team in ODI history, performed in "massive" matches and changed the way people played the game

BTW, those people that talk about his "weakness vs short ball" never saw him play - nerves got the better of him in test matches (it actually became embarrassing to see him dismissed by jokers that he'd reeled a big hundred off day in, day out because he couldnt move his feet due to nerves)

 

[Ikki]

I was talking about Tests - those stats were from Tests.

Oh, well in that case I still don't see your point. Gilchrist may have played many innings where he saved Australia, but when Gilchrist plays a significant innings in Tests it's at such a pace where Australia probably end up winning because of it.

Dhoni's pace in ODIs while fast is not as relatively fast as Gilchrist's is in Tests. Hussey, who has played in a comparable position bats at comparable speed in a team that is just as strong. As I said, I am not sure Streetwise is right - it could be that India win whenever Dhoni makes runs anyway - but he's played in a lot of losses and has a pretty ordinary average in them in a team full of good ODI batsmen capable of winning without him. I wouldn't pass it off as nothing either.

 

[Sir Alex]

Those scorecards are astonishing. If Dhoni pulled something similar today he'd be slaughtered. My mind had completely glossed over such matches in memory of Bevan as the defiant match-winner.

I remember one of your posts in gilly vs Dhoni thread saying only 1 of 35 not outs of Dhoni had seen india lose.

Am pretty sure an official investigation would be initiated into had it been Dhoni who did what Bevan did in those matches listed by top cat.
In fact I am forced to reevaluate my assessment of Bevan after those examples tbh.

 

[Migara]

No idea how any of that is relevant to when Bevan was actually playing.

Anyway, Bevvo's troubles against the short-ball were always so overplayed. The guy had a couple of admittedly very, very ugly outs to short ones and suddenly he's scared of short-pitched bowling? Not having that, sorry. Did the job many times against some quick bowlers at all levels, certainly enough to put paid to any doubt he could play short stuff. Had far bigger issues outside off-stump, especially in Tests.

As for the comparison, Bevvo was an innovator and Dhoni probably hasn't caught him yet but geez he can't be too far off. Been excellent for a while now.

Bowlers were not allowed to test him with bouncer in ODIs. When they did in tests, he certainly flopped. It does not say he's scared of it, but he was not the best when the ball was passing the nose. That effected him a lot in test matches and there is lot of chance that same might happen in ODIs if short ball was allowed to use as today.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, well in that case I still don't see your point. Gilchrist may have played many innings where he saved Australia, but when Gilchrist plays a significant innings in Tests it's at such a pace where Australia probably end up winning because of it.

Dhoni's pace in ODIs while fast is not as relatively fast as Gilchrist's is in Tests. Hussey, who has played in a comparable position bats at comparable speed in a team that is just as strong. As I said, I am not sure Streetwise is right - it could be that India win whenever Dhoni makes runs anyway - but he's played in a lot of losses and has a pretty ordinary average in them in a team full of good ODI batsmen capable of winning without him. I wouldn't pass it off as nothing either.

I don't understand your point. We're talking about runs, not pace. If Gilchrist has a pretty ordinary average in a team full of good Test batsmen capable of winning without him, how is it different?

 

[Migara]

Thats right. No one ever bowled short stuff to Bevan in Sheffield Shield or the County Championship. EVER.

But go so ****ed up by international bowlers sending at his throat. He was done by English seamers. Can imagine what West Indians,Pakstanis and Saffies would have sent at him, who are bit more quicker than Englishmen.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bowlers were not allowed to test him with bouncer in ODIs. When they did in tests, he certainly flopped. It does not say he's scared of it, but he was not the best when the ball was passing the nose. That effected him a lot in test matches and there is lot of chance that same might happen in ODIs if short ball was allowed to use as today.

That there makes me wonder how often you saw him play in Tests. You're talking in hypotheticals; I'm here to tell you he barely got out to the short ones. Like I said, nicking out was his biggest problem and where bowlers tended to bowl to him anyway once they realised the short ball thing was a myth and he was far more vulnerable to being squared-up. There was little wrong with his play against the short ones. His first series in Pakistan against the W's suggests he could play the pace pretty comfortably. I mean, I know this anyway but even looking at the scorecards for his last few Tests, you can see how many times he got out nicking behind.

Serious question, how much did you see him play?

 

[Migara]

Rubbish. Ranatunga and Inzamam were fat and lazy and relied on hitting boundaries. Bevan was not fat or lazy and was a billion more times athletic than those 2 obese whales. And Bevan's running between wickets and intensity was a feature of his batting.

Azharuddin and Bevan do have similarities but azharuddin did sometimes play up higher in the order.

Rubbish. You have not seen anyone of them. Ranatunga and Inzi were sublime placers of the ball. They placed the ball for two and half runs when a lesser batsman would place it for a single run. That extra half run placement allowed them to score very quickly, in fact quicker than Bevan as well. Azhar was a classic big innigs batsman. He hardly used to finish them off.

 

[Ikki]

I don't understand your point. We're talking about runs, not pace. If Gilchrist has a pretty ordinary average in a team full of good Test batsmen capable of winning without him, how is it different?

Because the speed at which runs are scored can determine whether you win or lose. In Gilchrist's case with regards to Tests, he scores at such a high clip in comparison to others, that if he has a substantial innings it's more likely to go towards the wins column and we're usually in a position of victory. There are only 2 instances where Gilchrist scored sizeable scores (91 and 133) that Australia ever lost in. And he only ever lost 11 times in 96 Tests.

 

[Migara]

That there makes me wonder how often you saw him play in Tests. You're talking in hypotheticals; I'm here to tell you he barely got out to the short ones. Like I said, nicking out was his biggest problem and where bowlers tended to bowl to him anyway once they realised the short ball thing was a myth and he was far more vulnerable to being squared-up. There was little wrong with his play against the short ones. His first series in Pakistan against the W's suggests he could play the pace pretty comfortably.

Serious question, how much did you see him play?

Serious question, how much you watch cricket? Do you know that bouncer in not necessarily the wicket taking ball? Do you know that most often that the series of deliveries after the bouncer is the one that get wickets? Bevan got set up by the short ball. He did play short balls OK. But his footwork and approach took a toll because he was bombarded by short stuff, and failed to play what he played properly. Being squared up is precisely the effect of bouncer on following deliveries, because the batsman doesn't push forward enough.

 

[Uppercut]

I remember one of your posts in gilly vs Dhoni thread saying only 1 of 35 not outs of Dhoni had seen india lose.

Yep. It's another reason why I rate Dhoni so highly tbh. Even the all-time greats like Bevan occasionally played innings where you think they scored too slowly and cost their side. Dhoni never does it. He has a sublime understanding of exactly how much risk is required in order to see his side home- although in many ways, he's building on what Bevan started.

Ftr, Australia lost 14 of the 67 matches in which Bevan finished his innings not-out.

 

[Top_Cat]

Serious question, how much you watch cricket? Do you know that bouncer in not necessarily the wicket taking ball? Do you know that most often that the series of deliveries after the bouncer is the one that get wickets? Bevan got set up by the short ball. He did play short balls OK. But his footwork and approach took a toll because he was bombarded by short stuff, and failed to play what he played properly. Being squared up is precisely the effect of bouncer on following deliveries, because the batsman doesn't push forward enough.

Again, you're talking in hypotheticals. I'm telling you what I actually saw and I'm sorry, I didn't think he was unduly affected by short ones in Tests.

 

[Migara]

Again, you're talking in hypotheticals. I'm telling you what I actually saw and I'm sorry, I didn't think he was unduly affected by short ones in Tests.

You are also having hypothetical ideas of what you saw. I am neither too young not to have seen Bevan nor too old to have amnesia.

 

[Top_Cat]

You are also having hypothetical ideas of what you saw. I am neither too young not to have seen Bevan nor too old to have amnesia.

Yeah, y'know what? I actually tried discussing this with you but you've chosen to be rude. My mistake.

 

[silentstriker]

Because the speed at which runs are scored can determine whether you win or lose. In Gilchrist's case with regards to Tests, he scores at such a high clip in comparison to others, that if he has a substantial innings it's more likely to go towards the wins column and we're usually in a position of victory. There are only 2 instances where Gilchrist scored sizeable scores (91 and 133) that Australia ever lost in. And he only ever lost 11 times in 96 Tests.

McWarne might have slightly something to do with that. I'd venture a guess.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, y'know what? I actually tried discussing this with you but you've chosen to be rude. My mistake.

If you go through your posts once more, you'll clearly see who has started bout questioning about the knowledge of cricket. Don't give it if you cannot take it. Even the sarcasm does down the same line.

 

[Ikki]

Yep. It's another reason why I rate Dhoni so highly tbh. Even the all-time greats like Bevan occasionally played innings where you think they scored too slowly and cost their side. Dhoni never does it. He has a sublime understanding of exactly how much risk is required in order to see his side home- although in many ways, he's building on what Bevan started.

Ftr, Australia lost 14 of the 67 matches in which Bevan finished his innings not-out.

I've checked all the innings. Apart from the ones T_C has mentioned, you couldn't say they lost because of him in any of them. In fact, in those matches his SR is 82.

McWarne might have slightly something to do with that. I'd venture a guess.

Well, yes. Definitely.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Ikki's point about Bevan's strike rate is that if you bat second, your strike rate is determined in a large way by what you're chasing. It's the natural game of about 98% of batsmen to score a strike rate of 65 or below, so scoring more quickly than that brings unnecessary risk to your wicket - an inverse relationship between strike rate and average exists once a batsman's optimum strike rate is exceeded.

If you're not chasing a large score there's no need to take that extra risk, which is why strike rates and averages in ODIs are never good measures on their own. There are limited examples of Bevan scoring too slowly for a chase, so one could argue that Bevan scoring more quickly (again, while batting second, anyway) would be inconsequential barring two or three examples and would increase the risk of him getting out and, in turn, the chance of Australia losing. Hence it was wise for him to score at that rate to maximise his run output and ensure he was there at the end.

Of course, this does completely ignore the fact that teams bat first 50% of the time. What's Bevan's strike rate batting first?