Clash of the titans, Dhoni vs Bevan

[Ikki]

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

The fact that we won is a credit to us, but let's be clear; from 94-00 Australia were not clear favourites, if favourites at all. S.Africa and Pakistan were as good if not better. WI were up there as well.

 

[Senile Sentry]

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.

This unfortunately has been the standard reaction to any of my post where I highlighted Bevan going at a SR lower than that of his team in this thread.

He came in when Aus were 170-5 after 35 overs, looking at a score well in excess of 260. His slow batting sucked the momentum out of the Aussie innings, and in the next 7 overs just 23 runs resulted. Bevan didn't hit a single boundary till the 49th over. If scoring 71 runs at loss of 2 wickets in the last 15 overs is the idea of a good finish to a first innings, then Bevan is indeed a good finisher.

 

[Top_Cat]

Read: didn't see a ball of the innings.

This unfortunately has been the standard reaction to any of my post where I highlighted Bevan going at a SR lower than that of his team in this thread.

That's because it's wrong-headed. You can't read a game correctly you didn't even see based on the scorecard. You're missing gigantic chunks of the picture, not to mention giving absolutely no credit to how well the SL bowlers did their job.

Honestly, I could describe the circumstances and was about to but I don't believe it'll make the slightest difference.

 

[Sanz]

The fact that we won is a credit to us, but let's be clear; from 94-00 Australia were not clear favourites, if favourites at all. S.Africa and Pakistan were as good if not better. WI were up there as well.

Yeah, How many world finals did SA/Pakistan win or make to between 1994-2004 since Wold Cups are the only criteria to measure because " the pinnacle of ODIs is the World Cup".

Let me guess a combind total of 1 Final between 1994-2004 and do I need to tell you about how one sided that one final was between Australia and the other team that was supposed to be as good as them ? On the other hand Australia made all 3, Infact they were so strong as a team that even Bevan's retirement didn't affect their performance, they won another final in 2007 and in 2011 lost to the winners India in the Knock Out Round.

Please do not manufacture contexts to suit your arguments.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, (in reference to the mid-90s) I think there was a stage where SA were ranked above Australia in ODI cricket during the period, and probably had a better record against other sides. But, in combination with their head-to-head record with South Africa, as an Australian fan I always felt that we were the best side in the world across most conditions in the format.

Not to say that SL didn't deserve the World Cup at all, they were a great side, but they didn't maintain the excellence that Australia did over as extended a period or the variety of conditions.

 

[Sanz]

Read: didn't see a ball of the innings.



That's because it's wrong-headed. You can't read a game correctly you didn't even see based on the scorecard. You're missing gigantic chunks of the picture, not to mention giving absolutely no credit to how well the SL bowlers did their job.

Well the argument made in this thread by some folks is that "If Bevan wanted he could lift the SR if needed" and the point being made is he didn't/couldn't during 1996 WC Final. Ofcourse the credit has to Go to Arjuna.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Read: didn't see a ball of the innings.



That's because it's wrong-headed. You can't read a game correctly you didn't even see based on the scorecard. You're missing gigantic chunks of the picture, not to mention giving absolutely no credit to how well the SL bowlers did their job.

Honestly, I could describe the circumstances and was about to but I don't believe it'll make the slightest difference.

I saw the match live. SL bowlers were excellent but that still doesn't explain a haul of 71 runs in the last 15 for the loss of just 2 wickets. Any reasonable batsman can hide behind excuses of 'bowlers being good', 'conditions unsuitable' etc but then we are talking about supposedly the greatest finishers in the game here. No way in the world Bevan's innings qualified as a good finish, except that it helped boost his average.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, (in reference to the mid-90s) I think there was a stage where SA were ranked above Australia in ODI cricket during the period, and probably had a better record against other sides. But, in combination with their head-to-head record with South Africa, as an Australian fan I always felt that we were the best side in the world across most conditions in the format.

Not to say that SL didn't deserve the World Cup at all, they were a great side, but they didn't maintain the excellence that Australia did over as extended a period or the variety of conditions.

Not to mention, the OZ side were well-known for using certain series, even against top sides, to try stuff out (e.g. like batting Slater at 6 in a series South Africa played in and might have won) or blood new guys in anticipation of the WC. Remember a few times where they played series and didn't win a game but it was looked at as a masterstroke in planning when it came off at the next WC. Lost a few games and series doing that.

 

[Spark]

I'm still not convinced you have actually seen the innings in question tbh, given that you say you do... and then proceed to completely take every innings out of context anyway, playing the classic scoreboard merchant card.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, How many world finals did SA/Pakistan win or make to between 1994-2004 since Wold Cups are the only criteria to measure because " the pinnacle of ODIs is the World Cup".

Let me guess a combind total of 1 Final between 1994-2004 and do I need to tell you about how one sided that one final was between Australia and the other team that was supposed to be as good as them ? On the other hand Australia made all 3, Infact they were so strong as a team that even Bevan's retirement didn't affect their performance, they won another final in 2007 and in 2011 lost to the winners India in the Knock Out Round.

Please do not manufacture contexts to suit your arguments.

Christ, I almost forgot how tedious you were.

Australia was the best team of the era, with hindsight it's easy to agree. Australia were not far and away the best and at many times were matched. SA were as good as us and basically choked a WC away. Pakistan did get to a finals. Even though we won, and were successful, many times the difference was absolutely minuscule - which also made the matches great to watch.

I'd say until the turn of the millenium ODIs were very competitive between the top sides - more competitive than from that point until 07, at least, where Australia were far and away the best team. I think the edge we had in the 90s was more a mental/belief thing than actual ability.

 

[smash84]

I'd say until the turn of the millenium ODIs were very competitive between the top sides - more competitive than from that point until 07, at least, where Australia were far and away the best team. I think the edge we had in the 90s was more a mental/belief thing than actual ability.

Yeah, pretty much agree with this. Until the 99 WC Aus weren't really rated as the clear best side in the world. It was only after that WC that they shot up. I remember that before the 99 WC final many were calling Pakistan as the favorites going into the final. We all know what happened next but that is the benefit of hing sight

 

[Sanz]

Australia was the best team of the era, with hindsight it's easy to agree. Australia were not far and away the best and at many times were matched. SA were as good as us and basically choked a WC away. Pakistan did get to a finals. Even though we won, and were successful, many times the difference was absolutely minuscule - which also made the matches great to watch.

The Difference was gigantic, World Cup finals records (The only one that matters to you) would suggest that.

I'd say until the turn of the millenium ODIs were very competitive between the top sides - more competitive than from that point until 07, at least, where Australia were far and away the best team. I think the edge we had in the 90s was more a mental/belief thing than actual ability.

And it is well established fact that Cricket is as much a mental game as it is a physical game. It is funny to see you downplay the Aussie dominance, by your own criteria and rules (World Cup finals ) in ODIs to win an argument.

 

[Ikki]

The Difference was gigantic, World Cup finals records (The only one that matters to you) would suggest that.

And it is well established fact that Cricket is as much a mental game as it is a physical game. It is funny to see you downplay the Aussie dominance, by your own criteria and rules (World Cup finals ) in ODIs to win an argument.

You seem to miss the point. Australia won titles, and is the best team from that era - and possibly of all time - but it doesn't mean our rivals weren't close to us (especially in the period I am referring to). Heck, in those championships, a run here or there and we could end up not winning any titles. That we won, even by the smallest margins, is of credit to us; but it doesn't mean we were dominating sides.

 

[ankitj]

This excessive emphasis on world cup matches really grinds my gears.

I mean if my street's team plays against the neighbouring street in a world cup match, someone is still going to "rise to the occasion" because it is not mathematically possible for ALL batsmen and ALL bowlers to suck at the same time. Why don't people get it?

 

[Sanz]

This excessive emphasis on world cup matches really grinds my gears.

I mean if my street's team plays against the neighbouring street in a world cup match, someone is still going to "rise to the occasion" because it is not mathematically possible for ALL batsmen and ALL bowlers to suck at the same time. Why don't people get it?

IKKI creates his criteria/contexts to suit an argument he likes - " Pinnacle of ODIs is the WC". In the past he used only WC finals as the criteria because it worked in his favor (Ponting/Gilly Vs. Tendu in ODIs ), in this thread the WC finals doesn't work in his favor so he is just not giving importance to finals..now he wants the whole WC performance to be considered.

 

[Ikki]

I've never used WC finals as the only criteria. In past discussions I said I consider in comparisons with players of similar records, the ones with the better WC records as superior, generally. Ironically, I consider both Ponting and Gilchrist inferior to Tendulkar.

You're a troll.

 

[Migara]

Still, Bevan didn't prove that he could chase at Dhoni's rate.

 

[Ikki]

Pretty sure he has. Look at the innings I listed; there is an innings where Bevan has scored a century, chasing, at a run a ball, and in a very dire situation.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65624.html

 

[Senile Sentry]

Pretty sure he has. Look at the innings I listed; there is an innings where Bevan has scored a century, chasing, at a run a ball, and in a very dire situation.

10th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Melbourne, Jan 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Only noteworthy performance in 18 innings of Bevans in a tight chase

 

[hang on]

I've never used WC finals as the only criteria. In past discussions I said I consider in comparisons with players of similar records, the ones with the better WC records as superior, generally. Ironically, I consider both Ponting and Gilchrist inferior to Tendulkar.
You're a troll.

why is it ironic? given that their records in general, as well as in the wc, are inferior to tendulkar's?