Richard said:
Yes, fair enough, a good domestic average is not worth anything without a good international one, but if someone has failed for a few ODIs and they have a good domestic-List-A average it suggests they're worth persevering with for a few more games. How long had Dravid been playing ODIs for before this New Zealand series?
For me, until Vaughan gets his one-day averages up, he's an average player. You can't judge on anything unless it's happened, as far as I'm concerned. The game is a better judge than any person.
He had been playing for some time before the NZ series, he was not persevered with because he had a good domestic one-day average, but because of the following reasons: India didn't have that different a team for tests and one dayers in those days, he was considered as a requirement by some to play the role of an anchor in a side where batting collapses were always just around the corner, he was considered as a class player by the selectors and most of his teammates and was expected to come good sooner or later....still he was not a permanent member(by that I mean his place was still not assured...) and alternatives were being consdered in several quarters...I remember that Sachin(I think he was the captain at that time) himself commented that Dravid is the only batsman in the Indian team who didn't play his strokes often enough in a one day situation.
Vaughan has proved himself to be a class player in tests....till now he has been average in one dayers, but given his talent, there is no reason to not believe that he could have a Dravid-like success story in one dayers too. If you remember, Lara had a horror phase in tests and one dayers where mentally, he was just not there. People who were comparing him favourably to Sachin began putting him down and doubting his class and staying power. Hasn't he answered all his critics in the most emphatic manner with his second coming? Ofcourse, Lara is a much greater player than Vaughan probably ever will be, but the point is not to write-off a player who has the game to succeed and a few more years in the game at the highest level.
You confused me by saying "Tests and one-day games". One is international-only, one is internationals and domestic games.
Anyway, the only difference between Tests and ODIs and domestic cricket of both forms is the standard of play. I always think it's safer to talk about domestic rather than international, but if you want to relate it specifically to World-class then just read "Tests" for "First-Class" and "ODI" for "one-day".
First of all, let's get all the talk about domestic cricket out of the way. I thought I made it clear in my last post that I wasn't talking about it at all...anyway, world class for me is to do well on the world stage, in this case, in tests and ODIs. I hope that it is clear now.
For me, stats are, while not everything, the only way to judge a player. You can't say someone is good if he hasn't done, through his own skill, what he's in the side to do, ie in a batsman's case score runs without getting out. Statistics (both scorebook averages and first-chance ones) show, beyond all question, that Bevan has done this far better than anyone in the history of the one-day game, for far longer than his few peers.
I don't see how anyone can form an opinion that is in direct contravention to what I consider a fairly fundamental fact. And to say that there are better one-day players than Bevan contravents the fact that he has scored far more runs for far fewer dimsissals than anyone else. For me, this is easily the most important factor to be taken into account when considering ability.
Stat is one aspect of judging a player's ability, but it's not the only thing. Playing conditions(pitch, ground conditions, weather....), team composition, quality of opposition, the pressure factor, impact on the ultimate result, how much of a team player he is...etc...are just as important while judging a player or a particular performance.
You have very simplistically said that a batsman's job is to score runs and not to get out. I disagree, it's just not as simple as that. A batsman's job is to score runs, true...but also to spend as much time as possible in the middle....contribute as much as possible to the team effort. If he has done that, he has done his job well....if he doesn't get out, great...but that's not as significant in the scheme of things as what you do out there in the middle. Some examples to illustrate my point...a batsman scores 100 and gets out, another scores 30 odd and stays not out, the team wins...would you say that the contribution of the centurion is insignificant in the final analysis because he was dismissed, or maybe because he offered a couple of chances which went abegging during his innings....of course it's not...another scenario, a player makes a quick-fire 80 and another provides a steady anchor-style unbeaten hundred, do you think the 80 or that player is not good enough or didn't do his job well enough? His job was to up the scoring tempo, soften up the bowling while the other batsman ensured that wickets didn't fall at the other end while contributing runs quietly to the team's cause. Get the message?
It's a team game and each person's contribution has its own significance....all the players I have mentioned in that list have made tons of runs, a lot of them have made a hell of a lot more runs than Bevan, been tried and tested in all kinds of cricketing conditions and have been/are proven match winners and have healthy averages to boot. In fact, if you look at the MOM and MOS awards of many of these players, it's much, much more than Bevan ever got or is likely to get. Let me reiterate here that I am talking right now, exclusively about ODIs in case you get confused again. The only area where Bevan comes out ahead is in the not-outs, he is the member of a team the like of which players from other countries can only dream of being in, he has got 4-5 classy(IMO, atleast 4 of them are far better batsmen than him...) batsmen coming ahead of him and Australia has a tail which almost always wags significantly plus the best bowling attack and the most consistently brilliant fielding side in the world. These are significant contributing factors to Bevan's one day performances. Of course, being in a super team shouldn't be held against him and I repeat, Bevan has proved himself to be a very good one day player and has been a crucial member of Australia's one day team, just don't puff him up to be the legend he is not, based on a clutch of notouts and a few match winning performances here and there. My opinion is not in contravention of any fact(to elaborate, what I have tried to explain is that the "fact" is not as simple as you make it look), I am not denigrating his achievements, I am just trying to put it in what I believe, is proper perspective.
