Michael Bevan's best innings.

[Deja moo]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081326802315.html

Surely ,the writer isnt serious abouyt this being the best innings ever !

there are surely better inningss thaan this one.

 

[luckyeddie]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081326802315.html

Surely ,the writer isnt serious abouyt this being the best innings ever !

there are surely better inningss thaan this one.

It reads like a competition piece someone has put together. The match was reduced to 43 overs a side, yet the author writes about the 50th over. Strange - a mistake he would surely never have made if he had been at the game.

One more moan. Why the hell is every sentence in the article a new paragraph?

 

[SquidAU]

I would think that Bevan's best innings was the one against NZ in the 2001/02 season. I rate that one higher than the West Indies match and the England match in the World Cup.

 

[Slow Love™]

It WAS one of his best - partly because of the sheer excitement when he hit that last ball straight over Harper's head for four to win the game. It was also pretty much (to my memory) the first time Bevan pulled Australia so dramatically from the jaws of defeat. As he was to do this a number of times subsequently, to a degree it became almost expected of him, which is one of the reasons his career has ended so abruptly. The '96 innings was such a surprise, and we didn't know yet to say "seeing as Bevan's there, we're still a chance to win", as we did in later years, so the game looked more unwinnable.

I remember that his innings against NZ in 2002 kept us in contention for a spot in the finals (which we didn't make because Fleming kept us out deliberately in a game against South Africa in which a bonus point could have made all the difference), but curiously I don't remember the game as well as the '96 game. Which proves the common adage that your best-executed innings is not always your most memorable. The World Cup knocks with Bichel were great, too.

 

[hellnback]

Bevan always made a real good 0.

 

[Bouncer]

Its not an internationl innings, but he scored 185 0dd runs at Dhaka against the Best of Asia eleven a few yars ago....ROW, looked in horrible conditions when chris Cairns and Lance Klusner fell fell to Muralitharan, but then Bevan added 100 odd runs with Andrew caddick to take ROW closer t victory and the only lost by one runs....as six were required at last ball and he could only manage a four off Razaaq.

 

[Swervy]

Its not an internationl innings, but he scored 185 0dd runs at Dhaka against the Best of Asia eleven a few yars ago....ROW, looked in horrible conditions when chris Cairns and Lance Klusner fell fell to Muralitharan, but then Bevan added 100 odd runs with Andrew caddick to take ROW closer t victory and the only lost by one runs....as six were required at last ball and he could only manage a four off Razaaq.

yeah that was outstanding

 

[deeps]

i think it's more so his most memorable innings?

 

[nibbs]

the one against NZ had to be it...

Also I find it hilarious to see how Aussies still blame Flemings awesome tactics, bringing all the bonus points into play as the reason for them not making the final. hhahaha

 

[Slow Love™]

the one against NZ had to be it...

Also I find it hilarious to see how Aussies still blame Flemings awesome tactics, bringing all the bonus points into play as the reason for them not making the final. hhahaha

Hey, I'm not "blaming" - I'm giving credit where credit was due. I know a lot of Aussie supporters were angry about it, but I don't think Steve Waugh would have done any different in his position, and it's as valid a tactic as any. I never want to see teams losing deliberately in order to keep another team out of a final, but to my mind there's nothing wrong with forfeiting a bonus point with that goal in mind.

The only problem I saw with it was that, ironically, they might have had a better chance to win the tournament playing the Aussies than they did playing the South Africans, who were a bit of a bogey side. Still, I'm sure it was worth it to see the expressions on the Australian players' faces afterward...

 

[nibbs]

hahaah yeh. I guess so. But there was no rule against it, so why not imply it. They only started blocking everything when it was realised that the game was up. I can still remember Parore blocking away, smiling as he did it. Classic...

 

[nibbs]

but I don't think Steve Waugh would have done any different in his position, and it's as valid a tactic as any

I think that its well worth noting that at the 1999 world cup after New Zealand beat Australia, when playing the West Indies Australia deliberately took 40 odd overs to chase a score between 100-150. Was Waugh the captain then I can't remember? But the way they played, was so that in the latter part of the tournament things would work in their favour; hence what New Zealand did.

 

[_Ed_]

Steve Waugh was the captain, and I remember him saying afterwards "We wanted to make it as difficult as possible for New Zealand to get through".

 

[Eclipse]

New Zealand would have been smart to actualy let Australia get through.

New Zealand had been beating Australia in almost all of there matches and South Africa had been beating New Zealand in all there matches.

 

[tooextracool]

and South Africa had been beating New Zealand in all there matches.

except one when cairns scored that brilliant match winning century against SA.