and one's a batsman who can bowl and the other's a bowler who can bat.Bevan ATG in ODIs middling in tests
Marshall ATG in tests middling in ODIs
simple.
I disagree. Marshall in ODIs was much better than Bevan in Tests and, as PEWS has explained, Marshall's ODI stats being "middling" is almost entirely a result of a poor final stretch when he was either past it, or likely was used in a different role. And regardless Marshall's economy rate is still one of the best of all time.Bevan ATG in ODIs middling in tests
Marshall ATG in tests middling in ODIs
simple.
Nope.He's kind of like the inverse Bevan
Wait...Since we're probably heading anyway there can I just say Symonds does not belong in an ATG ODI XI
MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.Nope.
Marshall was technically adept for any form of game. Bevan was not. Not even a comparison.
Yeah Bevan would eventually have come good in tests. His weakness to the short ball was a myth. In any other era he'd have played 100 tests. But such was the strength of 90s Australia, Bevan, Lehmann, Law and Love got way less tests than players of the ability deserved.MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.
Bevan's Test averages (both batting and bowling) are not even close to representative of his ability, or how he would have done if given another, longer chance post 1999. And the "technical issues" excuse (eg. "can't play the short ball") has always been rubbish.
Let me hear you saying "It is performance in number that matters" sort of crap in the future.MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.
Bevan's Test averages (both batting and bowling) are not even close to representative of his ability, or how he would have done if given another, longer chance post 1999. And the "technical issues" excuse (eg. "can't play the short ball") has always been rubbish.