Clash of the titans, Dhoni vs Bevan

[Ikki]

Actually it wasn't.

His SR was on par with the global SR for batsmen 1-7 batting first. That included the likes of Kenya, Bangladesh, etc as well remember.

A lot of batsman at the time had SRs in that region (70s) - take a look at many that I named that were ATGs. It was fine. Moreover, Bevan was a finisher, and in many ways took extra care with his striking that many finishers even then didn't do. This would pull down his overall SR and hide his efficacy if judged purely at face value.

During Bevan's era an SR of 73 was the average for 1st innings, Bevan's SR was 80. For the second innings it was 72, Bevan's was 68. And therein lays the difference.

In reality, that's what makes him appear slower than he was overall - it was the fact that Bevan was extremely cautious on chases (and that was part of his beauty). There was rarely - maybe 1-2 instances - where this harmed his team. And in the first innings, an SR of 80 is more than well done, especially considering the average.

I feel you're not appreciating the contextual nuances. Stats without context are meaningless. Especially in ODIs where a change in batting order means it is pretty difficult to compare batsmen. As an aside, you expressed you didn't know about the bowling Bevan faced...did you actually ever watch him bat?

 

[Senile Sentry]

A lot of batsman at the time had SRs in that region (70s) - take a look at many that I named that were ATGs. It was fine. Moreover, Bevan was a finisher, and in many ways took extra care with his striking that many finishers even then didn't do. This would pull down his overall SR and hide his efficacy if judged purely at face value.

During Bevan's era an SR of 73 was the average for 1st innings, Bevan's SR was 80. For the second innings it was 72, Bevan's was 68. And therein lays the difference.

In reality, that's what makes him appear slower than he was overall - it was the fact that Bevan was extremely cautious on chases (and that was part of his beauty). There was rarely - maybe 1-2 instances - where this harmed his team. And in the first innings, an SR of 80 is more than well done, especially considering the average.

I feel you're not appreciating the contextual nuances. Stats without context are meaningless. Especially in ODIs where a change in batting order means it is pretty difficult to compare batsmen. As an aside, you expressed you didn't know about the bowling Bevan faced...did you actually ever watch him bat?

Excuses.

Bevan averaged 80 batting first in an era where 240 was the average first innings score = exactly same SR as on par.

Dhoni averages 94 in an age where 85 is par. (252)

Bevan should be averaging more considering he batted mostly down the order, which is clearly evident his number of not outs, and yet couldn't. He was more interested in preserving his average than adding a few runs at the bottom by batting aggressively. He was distinctly average batting first and was never a finisher he was proclaimed to be.

I am willing to give him credit for being a reasonably good chaser, but again pales in comparison to Dhoni's achievements.

 

[Spark]

The last question is a fair one tbh. Did you watch Bevan bat?

 

[Senile Sentry]

The last question is a fair one tbh. Did you watch Bevan bat?

Yes and pretty much unremarkable were most of his innings.

 

[Ikki]

Yeh, it sounds like you've watched him a lot. Got him down to a T.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dhoni's a dead set genius, love the guy. The best current parallel I can think of is Graeme Smith in Test cricket, they are just behemoths for their team, they take responsibility and when they make runs, their team nearly inevitably wins. It's amazing how Dhoni can do it in ODIs no matter how badly he's travelling in Tests as well.

One thing that helped Bevan's legacy, and he still deserves massive credit for it, was the strength of the Australian tail/lower order, and this led into how he batted with them. Bichel, Reiffel, Warne would often chip in with a 20-30 which would allow Bevan to take the game down to the wire.

It's gotten to the stage now where I think that I'd take Dhoni, ask me tomorrow and it might be a different answer. The fact that he's a very strong captaincy candidate when talking about World XIs also helps, although if I were Chairman of Selectors I don't think I'd have the balls to tell Viv he ain't captain.

 

[Migara]

Ridiculous. No one was saying Bevan scores as fast as Dhoni, the point was that comparing it to SRs these days is unfair. Bevan's SR was perfectly fine for his time, and in the first innings was actually pretty fast.

Touche. If there were any, let them wear the hat. Why are you so worried?

Bevan has a SR of 72 because he was not needed to score quicker than that, which means that he has been never tested enough on larger targets as Dhoni. Untested entity vs a tested entity, I'll take the tested one every time.

 

[Migara]

Dhoni's a dead set genius, love the guy. The best current parallel I can think of is Graeme Smith in Test cricket, they are just behemoths for their team, they take responsibility and when they make runs, their team nearly inevitably wins. It's amazing how Dhoni can do it in ODIs no matter how badly he's travelling in Tests as well.

One thing that helped Bevan's legacy, and he still deserves massive credit for it, was the strength of the Australian tail/lower order, and this led into how he batted with them. Bichel, Reiffel, Warne would often chip in with a 20-30 which would allow Bevan to take the game down to the wire.

It's gotten to the stage now where I think that I'd take Dhoni, ask me tomorrow and it might be a different answer. The fact that he's a very strong captaincy candidate when talking about World XIs also helps, although if I were Chairman of Selectors I don't think I'd have the balls to tell Viv he ain't captain.

Give that to Ranatunga or Ganguly. They'll just utter it with no problems.

 

[ankitj]

Dhoni's a dead set genius, love the guy. The best current parallel I can think of is Graeme Smith in Test cricket, they are just behemoths for their team, they take responsibility and when they make runs, their team nearly inevitably wins. It's amazing how Dhoni can do it in ODIs no matter how badly he's travelling in Tests as well.

One thing that helped Bevan's legacy, and he still deserves massive credit for it, was the strength of the Australian tail/lower order, and this led into how he batted with them. Bichel, Reiffel, Warne would often chip in with a 20-30 which would allow Bevan to take the game down to the wire.

It's gotten to the stage now where I think that I'd take Dhoni, ask me tomorrow and it might be a different answer. The fact that he's a very strong captaincy candidate when talking about World XIs also helps, although if I were Chairman of Selectors I don't think I'd have the balls to tell Viv he ain't captain.

 

[Ikki]

Touche. If there were any, let them wear the hat. Why are you so worried?

Bevan has a SR of 72 because he was not needed to score quicker than that, which means that he has been never tested enough on larger targets as Dhoni. Untested entity vs a tested entity, I'll take the tested one every time.

It's not a matter of that for me. If Bevan wanted to I feel he could lift his SR if need be; of course it may hinder his average but I don't think the reason that made Bevan such a great finisher - his ability to withstand pressure - changes.

As overall bats they're pretty close; as finishers they really aren't for me. Dhoni has one notable innings in a WC final after being carried there by his teammates whereas Bevan has several notable WC innings under pressure. In fact, Dhoni's second highest score is 34. Moreover, Bevan did it against far better attacks than Dhoni has faced. I'm surprised how this point hasn't been underlined enough. In Tests people bring up flat tracks and worse attacks all the time, yet it hasn't got mentioned much here.

 

[Shri]

It's not a matter of that for me. If Bevan wanted to I feel he could lift his SR if need be; of course it may hinder his average but I don't think the reason that made Bevan such a great finisher - his ability to withstand pressure - changes.

As overall bats they're pretty close; as finishers they really aren't for me. Dhoni has one notable innings in a WC final after being carried there by his teammates whereas Bevan has several notable WC innings under pressure. In fact, Dhoni's second highest score is 34. Moreover, Bevan did it against far better attacks than Dhoni has faced. I'm surprised how this point hasn't been underlined enough. In Tests people bring up flat tracks and worse attacks all the time, yet it hasn't got mentioned much here.

Actually, his second highest score is 148*.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, his second highest score is 148*.

At the WC it's 34 .

Was looking at some innings where Bevan stepped up the scoring rate when needed:

10th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Melbourne, Jan 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
6th ODI: South Africa v Australia at Centurion, Apr 10, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
6th Match: Australia v India at Sharjah, Apr 22, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
5th Match: Australia v West Indies at Sydney, Jan 1, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
7th ODI: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town, Apr 9, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st ODI: Pakistan v Australia at Karachi, Nov 6, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st Final: Australia v England at Sydney, Feb 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
9th Match: Australia v Zimbabwe at Sydney, Jan 28, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Migara]

It's not a matter of that for me. If Bevan wanted to I feel he could lift his SR if need be; of course it may hinder his average but I don't think the reason that made Bevan such a great finisher - his ability to withstand pressure - changes.

As overall bats they're pretty close; as finishers they really aren't for me. Dhoni has one notable innings in a WC final after being carried there by his teammates whereas Bevan has several notable WC innings under pressure. In fact, Dhoni's second highest score is 34. Moreover, Bevan did it against far better attacks than Dhoni has faced. I'm surprised how this point hasn't been underlined enough. In Tests people bring up flat tracks and worse attacks all the time, yet it hasn't got mentioned much here.

Bolded part, wishful thinking. The beauty about Dhoni is that he has ALREADY done it, so no place for apologetics or wishful thinkers.

And BTW, Dhoni never failed in a WC final. But Bevan did.in '96.

 

[Migara]

At the WC it's 34 .

Was looking at some innings where Bevan stepped up the scoring rate when needed:

10th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Melbourne, Jan 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
6th ODI: South Africa v Australia at Centurion, Apr 10, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
6th Match: Australia v India at Sharjah, Apr 22, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
5th Match: Australia v West Indies at Sydney, Jan 1, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
7th ODI: South Africa v Australia at Cape Town, Apr 9, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st ODI: Pakistan v Australia at Karachi, Nov 6, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st Final: Australia v England at Sydney, Feb 10, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
9th Match: Australia v Zimbabwe at Sydney, Jan 28, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

With Dhoni, it will be the ones that he has failed to do so, put under the microscope.

 

[Top_Cat]

And BTW, Dhoni never failed in a WC final. But Bevan did.in '96.

Which one? Don't recall any failures by Bev in the '96 finals.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dhoni's a dead set genius, love the guy. The best current parallel I can think of is Graeme Smith in Test cricket, they are just behemoths for their team, they take responsibility and when they make runs, their team nearly inevitably wins. It's amazing how Dhoni can do it in ODIs no matter how badly he's travelling in Tests as well.

One thing that helped Bevan's legacy, and he still deserves massive credit for it, was the strength of the Australian tail/lower order, and this led into how he batted with them. Bichel, Reiffel, Warne would often chip in with a 20-30 which would allow Bevan to take the game down to the wire.

It's gotten to the stage now where I think that I'd take Dhoni, ask me tomorrow and it might be a different answer. The fact that he's a very strong captaincy candidate when talking about World XIs also helps, although if I were Chairman of Selectors I don't think I'd have the balls to tell Viv he ain't captain.

Yeah, agree with all this. I'd still take Bev but, like I said earlier in the thread, it's very close and, like you, I'd probably vacilate between the two sometimes.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Which one? Don't recall any failures by Bev in the '96 finals.

36* (49) at a SR of 73 when Australia needed quick runs. Australia still ended up on 241 (r.p.o of 4.82) which was better than Bevan's own 4.4.

 

[Sanz]

Bevan if my life is on the line

Dhoni, If I had to catch a train/flight.

 

[Sanz]

Good point. For much of Bevan's career it was debatable (often not so much) that Australia was even the best team in the world. There were other great teams with great attacks.

Yeah Right very debatable when Australia won 2 World Cup Finals in a row and played in the 3rd Final.

 

[Top_Cat]

36* (49) at a SR of 73 when Australia needed quick runs. Australia still ended up on 241 (r.p.o of 4.82) which was better than Bevan's own 4.4.

Well, I'm going to assume you didn't see the knock because there's no way known it should be characterised as a failure.