Bevan vs. Hussey vs. Dhoni

[slippyslip]

Dhoni > Bevan > Hussey

Bevan never had to deal with short stuff, which he flopped against.

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

 

[slippyslip]

Ranatunga, Azhar, Inzy all were earlier proponents of that approach. But fair to say Bevan made it a distinct role.

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.

 

[Noble One]

One of Bevan's finer shots was the fine hook shot. Had a great ability to get inside the short delivery and guide it wide of fine leg.

Such a poor excuse used by those who never seen Bevan play to blame his failings on inability to play the short ball. I can recall maybe one or two dismisals in Test cricket to the bouncer.

 

[slippyslip]

Hussey is a fantastic one day batsman. But he had never been required to churn out matchwinning performances as regularly Dhoni has been. For example, Dhoni has three times more runs scored in successful chases than hussey.

Of course not. Ponting, and Australian cricket, is absolutely obsessed with batting first to the point that they're stupid about it. Perfect example of the ridiculous and stubbornness of Ponting was the ODI series against S. Af in Aus last season.

Especially during Bevan's early years Australia was much more happy to bat 2nd and chase down scores. Its probably one of the reasons Bevan declined so quickly under Ponting compared to under Taylor and Waugh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its definitely a vote for Bevan from me. I think some of the statistics can be a little bit twisted when comparing the three players. With 300-350+ scored so much more regularly in the last few years (i.e. over Dhoni and Hussey's career sample) the need for their style of player to finish off a game as well as increase the run rate in the death overs is more important than a player of Bevan's era when scores of 280-300 were considered a highly competitive total. I rate Bevan the best finisher in the game chasing a target though if my side was four wickets down at the 40th over batting first on a flat pitch I'd probably go with the more aggressive Dhoni. Overall I can't go past Bevan, hes a true great of the limited overs format.

While this is definitely true to an extent, and I've made that point several times in other threads about ODI batting, Hussey and Dhoni still definitely have Bevan covered for strike rate even if you take the mean scoring during their careers into account. It's a little out of date now given we're talking about two current players, but as of July 2008 Bevan's standardised strike rate, taking into account the era in which he played, was 75.7 (up from his actual SR of 73.6) while Hussey's was 81.4 (down from 85.6) and Dhoni's was 85.8 (down from 90.1). That basically just means that the different standard in scoring rate during Bevan's time doesn't go close to completely counting for the strike rate difference.

That said, I'm still going to vote for Bevan. He has both batsmen comfortably covered in average, did it over a longer period of time, did it during the World Cup and almost single-handedly took down some seriously unlikely chases in his time. I'd be surprised if I didn't rate Dhoni ahead of him by the time Dhoni retires though.

 

[Ikki]

PEWS has a point, even in terms of era Dhoni and Hussey have Bevan's SR covered - true. However, because of the way Bevan played, I don't think it detracts from him much. In essence, he still scored fast enough to win - he was such a tremendous finisher that the lack of speed isn't as much of a factor as the fact that he helped win so many matches regardless. I don't recall Australia ever losing because Bevan took too long and was left without enough time.

 

[Top_Cat]

PEWS has a point, even in terms of era Dhoni and Hussey have Bevan's SR covered - true. However, because of the way Bevan played, I don't think it detracts from him much. In essence, he still scored fast enough to win - he was such a tremendous finisher that the lack of speed isn't as much of a factor as the fact that he helped win so many matches regardless. I don't recall Australia ever losing because Bevan took too long and was left without enough time.

TBH, distinctly remember a few times screaming at the TV when Bevan refused to hit out. Just had a quick look and I definitely remember some stuff being thrown after these matches, remember thinking at the time he cost OZ a fair bit here;

1st Match: Australia v England at Brisbane, Jan 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
5th Match: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 17, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

His batting in the '96 WC final was almost as infuriating (in fairness the men above him didn't help matters). Stuff like that didn't help his rep as a bloke looking for red inks above the W.

Still, he contributed to so many wins, it's hard to hold those against him.......now, anyways.

 

[Uppercut]

TBH, distinctly remember a few times screaming at the TV when Bevan refused to hit out. Just had a quick look and I definitely remember some stuff being thrown after these matches, remember thinking at the time he cost OZ a fair bit here;

1st Match: Australia v England at Brisbane, Jan 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
5th Match: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 17, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

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.

 

[Top_Cat]

They're not the only ones, just the ones I remember throwing stuff. But yeah, as I said, so many other match-winning knocks.

 

[Ikki]

TBH, distinctly remember a few times screaming at the TV when Bevan refused to hit out. Just had a quick look and I definitely remember some stuff being thrown after these matches, remember thinking at the time he cost OZ a fair bit here;

1st Match: Australia v England at Brisbane, Jan 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
5th Match: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 17, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

His batting in the '96 WC final was almost as infuriating (in fairness the men above him didn't help matters). Stuff like that didn't help his rep as a bloke looking for red inks above the W.

Still, he contributed to so many wins, it's hard to hold those against him.......now, anyways.

The first match you linked doesn't really suggest he was batting too slow. In fact, Australia were making runs faster than England were. He simply ran out of partners. There were still 14 overs left to go. He was faster than every one of the opposition bar Gough.

The second one does however show that his speed cost them in that game. Still, one may argue that for this one, there were plenty he did win because of his approach.

You can even argue a batsman who hit out more probably may have cost his team if he got out early because of it.

 

[Uppercut]

The sheer thought of a batsman in today's game finishing 45* off 59 balls, 7 runs short with only six wickets down, is just absurd. He'd never get out of the stadium alive. Amazing how different the game was only ten years ago.

 

[Athlai]

The first match you linked doesn't really suggest he was batting too slow. In fact, Australia were making runs faster than England were. He simply ran out of partners. There were still 14 overs left to go. He was faster than every one of the opposition bar Gough.

The second one does however show that his speed cost them in that game. Still, one may argue that for this one, there were plenty he did win because of his approach.

You can even argue a batsman who hit out more probably may have cost his team if he got out early because of it.

There weren't 14 overs to go, it was reduced to 36 overs.

 

[Ikki]

There weren't 14 overs to go, it was reduced to 36 overs.

Ah, you're right. My bad.

The sheer thought of a batsman in today's game finishing 45* off 59 balls, 7 runs short with only six wickets down, is just absurd. He'd never get out of the stadium alive. Amazing how different the game was only ten years ago.

I think that's because it wasn't necessarily slow. It was actually pretty decent. Just not fast enough.

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

Who said finishing is about singles? Quite an idiotic post overall. I don't have ranatunga's strike rates. But Bevan and Inzy have almost exactly the same strike rates. Inzy has won more matches (ostensibly due to him playing more games) than Bevan as well. It doesn't matter how they get runs as long as they get it risk free.

 

[Top_Cat]

The first match you linked doesn't really suggest he was batting too slow. In fact, Australia were making runs faster than England were. He simply ran out of partners. There were still 14 overs left to go. He was faster than every one of the opposition bar Gough.

Haha, I'm going to assume you didn't watch it. Especially since the Aussies used their full complement of overs (rain-reduced game). Given, Mullally bowled a great spell and there was a bit of movement in the air but once he bowled out, there were easy pickings. The bottom 4 all got out on the tonk while Bevo sat on his handle and scored a single every 4 balls.

You can even argue a batsman who hit out more probably may have cost his team if he got out early because of it.

And you'd be wrong on these occasions. A little more acceleration wasn't too much to ask? I mean he wasn't in the greatest nick but he didn't even seem all that interested in trying.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think that's because it wasn't necessarily slow. It was actually pretty decent. Just not fast enough.

Did you actually watch the game? It was **** batting. Mate when Blewwy is purring along at almost 100, you know there's no excuse for going at 70-odd especially with the arse Giles served up that night.

 

[Ikki]

Since I hadn't seen that much I am looking at the stats/Almanack report and while Bevan maybe could have gone faster to save the match; he came in at an incredibly dire situation.

Wisden - Australia v England

At Brisbane, January 10 (day/night). England won by seven runs, Australia's target having been revised to 152 from 36 overs. Toss: England. International debuts: M. W. Alleyne, V. J. Wells.

Mullally, one of England's few success stories of the tour, took a career-best four for 18 to give them a winning start to this series. He snared his top-quality victims in 27 balls. Australia, whose openers had set off at more than a run a ball, toppled from 46 for one to 48 for five. Bevan almost raised the sinking ship, batting to the end of a rain-shortened innings for an unbeaten fifty, but could not quite manage ten from the last three balls. Australia bowled well on a helpful pitch, Dale trapping Stewart first ball. Left-handers Knight and Fairbrother managed to build a total just big enough to defend.

He was essentially asked to win the match at 5/48. If he loses his wicket it's goodnight-time for Australia. That he came within 10 runs from 3 balls is actually pretty impressive IMO.

Of course, T_C would know better having watched the match whether it was as difficult as I am making it sound or surmountable - enough so to be angry with Bevan.

 

[Ikki]

Did you actually watch the game? It was **** batting. Mate when Blewwy is purring along at almost 100, you know there's no excuse for going at 70-odd.

Sorry, I was talking about the 2nd match. Got confused there. Uppercut is talking about the 1st, my bad.

And you'd be wrong on these occasions. A little more acceleration wasn't too much to ask? I mean he wasn't in the greatest nick but he didn't even seem all that interested in trying.

I am not talking about in the same exact situation, but in general. If you score at a higher clip you're bound to be a bit more inconsistent. If that causes you to fail getting to that score because you're going faster than you may need to, I see little difference in failing to get to that score because of a lack of speed.

 

[silentstriker]

Apples and oranges. Gilchrist never played that saving role and played to give Australia runs + time. The players mentioned here are often in the position where their role is to save a game and their innings occur in more pivotal positions in the match.

Did you watch any Test matches in the past 10 years?

 

[Ikki]

Did you watch any Test matches in the past 10 years?

We're talking about ODIs. Gilchrist was an opener in ODIs.