Bevan vs. Hussey vs. Dhoni

[Top_Cat]

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.

You're reading too much into what I said. Certainly was no sarcasm. You've somehow taken me asking (seriously) how much you'd seen Bevvo bat in Tests as a question of your cricket knowledge in general. Not what I intended but meh.

Probably a direct consequence of where CC has been at for a while.

 

[social]

This thing has gone downhill quickly!

 

[Ikki]

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?

Yeah, well put. My own idea put more eloquently than me.

Bevan:

Batting 1st: 52 @ 80
Batting 2nd: 57 @ 68

 

[Uppercut]

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.

They wouldn't have lost directly because of him, one player can't normally lose you a match. There could be instances where they might have won had he scored more quickly though. Bevan struck at 80.61 in matches where he was not dismissed, which is perfectly reasonable, but Dhoni strikes at 104.79 when not out. I don't mean to criticise Bevan for "costing his side games" by scoring too slowly. He was an absolutely fantastic player who won countless matches with his top-class batting towards the end of an innings. But we're comparing two of the greatest middle order ODI batsmen of all time here, and this is undoubtedly an area where Bevan's lagging well behind.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, well put. My own idea put more eloquently than me.

Bevan:

Batting 1st: 52 @ 80
Batting 2nd: 57 @ 68

Yeah, there you go. 80 was quite a good strike rate during the era in which Bevan played, and his strike rate batting second is influenced in no small part by whatever the target was - something he very, very rarely got wrong. I feel a lot more comfortable about my vote now, tbh.

 

[Ikki]

They wouldn't have lost directly because of him, one player can't normally lose you a match. There could be instances where they might have won had he scored more quickly though. Bevan struck at 80.61 in matches where he was not dismissed, which is perfectly reasonable, but Dhoni strikes at 104.79 when not out. I don't mean to criticise Bevan for "costing his side games" by scoring too slowly. He was an absolutely fantastic player who won countless matches with his top-class batting towards the end of an innings. But we're comparing two of the greatest middle order ODI batsmen of all time here, and this is undoubtedly an area where Bevan's lagging well behind.

The whole point was regarding the fact that Bevan's speed, barring 1 maybe 2 occasions, was not a hindrance to his team winning matches. If he could bat at a slower speed and win a match then what difference does it make if he had batted faster and won it? Batting faster may have even been likely to make him lose his wicket earlier; what's the use in that? That's why his SR being less than the others is not a big talking point in terms of him finishing off matches and winning it for his team.

I think my post to PEWS also helps illustrate this. Anyway, you can go through the not-out innings even when he batted first - in case his slow scoring meant a lower total and could have hindered his team there, but none of the those innings suggests so either. In fact, in not-out innings batting first he struck at 87.35.

 

[social]

They wouldn't have lost directly because of him, one player can't normally lose you a match. There could be instances where they might have won had he scored more quickly though. Bevan struck at 80.61 in matches where he was not dismissed, which is perfectly reasonable, but Dhoni strikes at 104.79 when not out. I don't mean to criticise Bevan for "costing his side games" by scoring too slowly. He was an absolutely fantastic player who won countless matches with his top-class batting towards the end of an innings. But we're comparing two of the greatest middle order ODI batsmen of all time here, and this is undoubtedly an area where Bevan's lagging well behind.

And the only area where I have the MSDs behind in ODIs is that he's NEVER produced on the biggest stage

 

[Uppercut]

The whole point was regarding the fact that Bevan's speed, barring 1 maybe 2 occasions, was not a hindrance to his team winning matches. If he could bat at a slower speed and win a match then what difference does it make if he had batted faster and won it? Batting faster may have even been likely to make him lose his wicket earlier; what's the use in that? That's why his SR being less than the others is not a big talking point in terms of him finishing off matches and winning it for his team.

I think my post to PEWS also helps illustrate this.

Well, yeah. But scoring quickly is better than scoring slowly under all circumstances. Cricket scores aren't discretely divided between "enough" and "not enough". The more you score, the more chance you have of winning. Striking at 80 is good but striking at 105 is better. Particularly batting first, Bevan would tend to get you a score which made you big favourite for the match, but Dhoni will often bat the other side completely out of the game.

 

[Teja.]

And the only area where I have the SRTs and MSDs behind in ODIs is that they've NEVER produced on the biggest stage

I know people will point to the 2nd round of this or semi-final of that but, let's face it, that means jack diddley squat in the scheme of things

Sachin averages 69.73 in Finals.

Sachin's WC performance.

'Most runs (1,796 at an average of 59.87 as on 20 March 2007) in World Cup Cricket History including 4 centuries & 13 fifties

673 runs in 2003 Cricket World Cup, highest by any player in a single Cricket World Cup
Player Of The World Cup Tournament in the 2003 Cricket World Cup.

523 runs in the 1996 Cricket World Cup at an average of 87.16, making him the highest run scorer in the 1996 World Cup and setting the then record for the highest runs by any player in a single Cricket World Cup - subsequently bettered by himself in the 2003 World Cup'

'-'*-Taken from Wikipedia.

 

[Uppercut]

And the only area where I have the SRTs and MSDs behind in ODIs is that they've NEVER produced on the biggest stage

I know people will point to the 2nd round of this or semi-final of that but, let's face it, that means jack diddley squat in the scheme of things

It's a fair criticism as far as Dhoni's concerned. All I can say is that there's a very small sample size, and that the quality of Australia's side during Bevan's career meant that he often got a second chance if he got out cheaply in the earlier rounds. Whereas when Dhoni didn't make the runs in 2007, that was the end of it.

 

[Ikki]

Well, yeah. But scoring quickly is better than scoring slowly under all circumstances. Cricket scores aren't discretely divided between "enough" and "not enough". The more you score, the more chance you have of winning. Striking at 80 is good but striking at 105 is better. Particularly batting first, Bevan would tend to get you a score which made you big favourite for the match, but Dhoni will often bat the other side completely out of the game.

Unless it puts you at undue risk of getting out. And frankly, cricket scores are divided between "enough" and "not enough". They're scores that help you "win" or "lose". Strike-rate can only help you win. They don't actually count for anything. The runs do.

 

[Uppercut]

Unless it puts you at undue risk of getting out. And frankly, cricket scores are divided between "enough" and "not enough". They're scores that help you "win" or "lose".

Nah, batting first it's a continuous scale. Because cricket's a team game, and you're at the mercy of your bowlers to do the job in the second innings. The more you score, the better.

 

[Ikki]

Because cricket's a team game, and you're at the mercy of your bowlers to do the job in the second innings. The more you score, the better.

Exactly:

"Strike-rate can only help you win. They don't actually count for anything. The runs do."

Unlike Test cricket, it doesn't matter at what SR you score for your own bowlers. The opposition is going to get the same amount of time as you are and the same amount of overs. All that matters is scoring enough to win.

 

[Sir Alex]

And the only area where I have the SRTs and MSDs behind in ODIs is that they've NEVER produced on the biggest stage

I know people will point to the 2nd round of this or semi-final of that but, let's face it, that means jack diddley squat in the scheme of things

Ha ha, rubbish.

 

[Uppercut]

Stop being facetious. A higher strike rate invariably leads to a higher first innings total. Which in turn helps your side win. That's a self-evident fact that I don't need to spoon-feed to you.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, yeah. But scoring quickly is better than scoring slowly under all circumstances. Cricket scores aren't discretely divided between "enough" and "not enough".

Obviously this is the case in most circumstances, but I'm not sure I agree when it comes to batting six in the second innings of an ODI. The aim in that situation is to make the win as likely as possible, not as quickly as possible. Winning the game is more likely if you stay in and bat just above the rate than if you bat way above the rate for a little while but put greater risk on your wicket, particularly if it's late in the innings and there isn't much batting behind you.

It's different in the first innings or even if you bat up the order in the second, but if your job is to finish off a chase, the best pace is the one that gives you the least chance of getting out without falling behind the rate. If you need 4.3rpo over 20 overs, it's a much better idea to score at about 4.5rpo than attempt to score at 6, unless the bowling is poor or your optimum strike rate (ie. the one likely to make your average as high as possible; the one you bat at in Tests) is 100, as forcing the pace brings about what would be an entirely unnecessary risk. Bevan struck at 80 in the first innings of games, which was the equivalent of striking at about 87 during Dhoni's career. Dhoni still has him covered for strike rate but I don't think it's anywhere near by the amount the numbers suggest - even the standardised numbers.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

And the only area where I have the SRTs and MSDs behind in ODIs is that they've NEVER produced on the biggest stage

I know people will point to the 2nd round of this or semi-final of that but, let's face it, that means jack diddley squat in the scheme of things

 

[Uppercut]

Obviously this is the case in most circumstances, but I'm not sure I agree when it comes to batting six in the second innings of an ODI. The aim in that situation is to make the win as likely as possible, not as quickly as possible. Winning the game is more likely if you stay in and bat just above the rate than if you bat way above the rate for a little while but put greater risk on your wicket, particularly if it's late in the innings and there isn't much batting behind you.

It's different in the first innings or even if you bat up the order in the second, but if your job is to finish off a chase, the best pace is the one that gives you the least chance of getting out without falling behind the rate. If you need 4.3rpo over 20 overs, it's a much better idea to score at about 4.5rpo than attempt to score at 6, unless the bowling is poor or your optimum strike rate (ie. the one likely to make your average as high as possible; the one you bat at in Tests) is 100, as forcing the pace brings about what would be an entirely unnecessary risk. Bevan struck at 80 in the first innings of games, which was the equivalent of striking at about 87 during Dhoni's career. Dhoni still has him covered for strike rate but I don't think it's anywhere near by the amount the numbers suggest - even the standardised numbers.

I agree with all of this, obviously, but I was referring to Ikki's claim that none of the matches in which Bevan finished not-out and lost were Bevan's fault. But there are grey areas. How about this match? 65 off 87 isn't a match-losing innings, but MS Dhoni could have scored the few extra runs that might have led to Sri Lanka falling short in their chase. (Or he might have got out earlier of course, but given their averages are so similar, that's not really a valid line to take).

Because Dhoni scores so heavily when he remains unbeaten, India almost never lose when he does. When Bevan bats through the first innings, it's a difficult ask to win, but he still gives you a chance. When Dhoni bats through he's usually put you out of the game.

 

[social]

Ha ha, rubbish.

Anyone that believes MSD is better than Bevan assigns more importance to just another series in the subcontinent than the most important tournies

Pretty simple really and the suggestion is really farcical IMO

 

[Shri]

So SRT has scored more runs at a better average than anyone in WCs

Can you seriously claim that he's in the top 5 WC batsmen ever - no friggin way

Anyway, let's not derail the thread - anyone that believes MSD is better than Bevan assigns more importance to just another series in the subcontinent than the most important tournies

Pretty simple really and the suggestion is really farcical IMO

Unimportant to neutrals. A series win in an Ind-Pak ODI series is twice as important to me and a lot of indian fans(similarly to Pakistani fans) as a WC win. Don't decide what is important and non-important for everyone, thanks.