Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?

[stephen]

In fact, Bevan would probably be terrible in the modern game, playing innings like this:
10th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Melbourne, Jan 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[stephen]

Bevan batting at 4 was not an option.

#YouCannotHaveBoth

I'd still pick Bevan at 6 over Maxwell. Especially if there are other hitters further down the order.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I thought of exactly that innings earlier when guys were talking about how his SR was 70s and he couldn't bat as well these days

What an innings that was. No way Aus should have won that game. (Only game they beat NZ in that series too, Bond was freakish)

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

So Bevan is worse at being Glenn Maxwell than Glenn Maxwell. What a shock!

Grumpy, answer me this. Did George Bailey play a bad innings and score too slowly there?

Really? Good and bad. Bit absolute don't you think?

He played a good knock till the end of the 27 over to be 46* off 59 balls with Maxwell 81* off 58 balls and team score 158/3. Australia had been 30/3.

Then Bailey scored 29 further runs off 49 balls to see Australia to 210/4 after 40 overs. He is then dismissed two balls later without adding runs to his score.

Do I think he should have kept his scoring rate up after Maxwell was dismissed? Yes. 29 runs off 49 balls was weak for the position the team was in post Maxwell's innings.

Who played better than Bailey? Maxwell. Wade and I thought Hastings was excellent to see the 299 score realised which Bailey seemed to give up on after Maxwell was dismissed.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

In fact, Bevan would probably be terrible in the modern game, playing innings like this:
10th Match: Australia v New Zealand at Melbourne, Jan 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Wait until Maxwell's played 232 matches. I bet he has his fair share of incredible innings. More than Bevan.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This is probably correct. Which only goes to show how valuable he was to sides that had Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Gilchrist and Ponting in them.

Bahahhaha.

You're doing it again. Almost all top order batsmen average less in losses than in wins.

 

[stephen]

Wait until Maxwell's played 232 matches. I bet he has his fair share of incredible innings. More than Bevan.

I'm perfectly fine with Maxwell playing incredible innings. I hope that he does. I rate him quite highly in ODIs. I just wouldn't ever pick him over Bevan for my side unless he got better than he is now.

Bevan brought so much to the team. Was probably the most intelligent batsman I ever saw play ODIs.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

There is a probability factor when you go all out slogging aiming for 300 from 30/3 or so. Maxwell played well and he deserves credit but this does not take away the fact that team will be bowled out for lower scores more often when going all out attack from that stage.

 

[stephen]

Bahahhaha.

You're doing it again. Almost all top order batsmen average less in losses than in wins.

When was Bevan a top order batsman? He literally batted above 4 4 times in his career. He spent roughly half at 6 and the other half at 4/5.

EDIT: And I wasn't just arguing about his average. There were accusations that he was a red-ink hunter and that it had boosted his average in a way that didn't help his team win. I was addressing that point. Yes, it did improve his average, but it also won games for Australia. Bevan not out at the end of the innings (first or second) meant that Australia were statistically more likely to win. Bevan getting out was a significant factor in Australia's losses.

What may people don't realise/remember about the 90s was that the standard of bowling was so much higher on average than it is now that you didn't want to expose your tail because they likely wouldn't get the ball off the square.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There is a probability factor when you go all out slogging aiming for 300 from 30/3 or so. Maxwell played well and he deserves credit but this does not take away the fact that team will be bowled out for lower scores more often when going all out attack from that stage.

Agreed. That is the fear that prevented prior teams from taking the slogging approach. The question is, is it a rational fear?

Crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time, is not better than scoring 300 50% of the time and winning, and scoring 150 50% of the time and losing.

This is the conventional wisdom that will be inevitably be tested with all this middle icing in teams.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

When was Bevan a top order batsman? He literally batted above 4 4 times in his career. He spent roughly half at 6 and the other half at 4/5.

Fine, almost all batsman 1-6 average less in losses than in wins.

Nit picking and hair splitting will not improve fallacial reasoning.

 

[Dan]

Really? Good and bad. Bit absolute don't you think?

He played a good knock till the end of the 27 over to be 46* off 59 balls with Maxwell 81* off 58 balls and team score 158/3. Australia had been 30/3.

Then Bailey scored 29 further runs off 49 balls to see Australia to 210/4 after 40 overs. He is then dismissed two balls later without adding runs to his score.

Do I think he should have kept his scoring rate up after Maxwell was dismissed? Yes. 29 runs off 49 balls was weak for the position the team was in post Maxwell's innings.

Who played better than Bailey? Maxwell. Wade and I thought Hastings was excellent to see the 299 score realised which Bailey seemed to give up on after Maxwell was dismissed.

Was directly referring to your branding of that Ross Taylor ton as a 'bad innings'.

So you'd agree Bailey playing somewhat within himself, at an SR of 75-80, was an important role? Obviously we agree his slowing down at the back end wasn't helpful, but the role he played certainly was.

Now think about who was awesome at playing that role -- one MG Bevan.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

When was Bevan a top order batsman? He literally batted above 4 4 times in his career. He spent roughly half at 6 and the other half at 4/5.

EDIT: And I wasn't just arguing about his average. There were accusations that he was a red-ink hunter and that it had boosted his average in a way that didn't help his team win. I was addressing that point. Yes, it did improve his average, but it also won games for Australia. Bevan not out at the end of the innings (first or second) meant that Australia were statistically more likely to win. Bevan getting out was a significant factor in Australia's losses.

What may people don't realise/remember about the 90s was that the standard of bowling was so much higher on average than it is now that you didn't want to expose your tail because they likely wouldn't get the ball off the square.

Stephen, please read earlier pages. Pages 6 and 8 of this thread are essential. You're going round in circles.

And please remember that not all correlations and directly causative.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Was directly referring to your branding of that Ross Taylor ton as a 'bad innings'.

So you'd agree Bailey playing somewhat within himself, at an SR of 75-80, was an important role? Obviously we agree his slowing down at the back end wasn't helpful, but the role he played certainly was.

Now think about who was awesome at playing that role -- one MG Bevan.

With all due respect, you need to clarify and communicate your post better here. I am referring to everything after Ross Taylor's 100. You go to cross examining me as a witness with a double loaded question, and then start attempting to put words in my mouth. Please re-express what and where this post is going.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Agreed. That is the fear that prevented prior teams from taking the slogging approach. The question is, is it a rational fear?

Crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time, is not better than scoring 300 50% of the time and winning, and scoring 150 50% of the time and losing.

This is the conventional wisdom that will be inevitably be tested with all this middle icing in teams.

I need sources for these percentages

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I need sources for these percentages

CaptainGrumpy, http://cricketweb.net/forum forum/cricket-chat/68609-who-would-you-rather-have-come-no-6-your-team-15-overs-go-12.html#post3541551 11 September 2015.

Seriously, do you think that crawling to 200 and losing 99% of the time, is better than scoring 300 50% of the time and winning, and scoring 150 50% of the time and losing? You'd be wrong.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hmm yes, these are the only three possible outcomes.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Hmm yes, these are the only three possible outcomes.

Of course they are. I only gave three possible outcomes and excluded all others.

 

[stephen]

Fine, almost all batsman 1-6 average less in losses than in wins.

Nit picking and hair splitting will not improve fallacial reasoning.

There are two arguments against Bevan in this thread. The first is that Bevan's average was boosted by all of his not outs and therefore it's better to pick Maxwell who will score just as many runs per innings as Bevan did. The second argument is that Bevan's strike rate was not high enough for the modern game. The implication being that he chewed up too many balls for the runs he scored.

I've looked at both of those and found them both to be fallacious. At least in terms of whether it helped his team win or lose.

You're the one harping on about averages. I was examining whether Bevan's not outs hurt or helped his team and whether he batted selfishly. The fact is that he was very rarely not out in losing matches. The lowest percentage of his not outs came from losing chases. The highest percentage came from winning chases. The other part of the strike rate argument, which was that the more balls Bevan chewed up the more likely his team was to lose was also disproven by looking at the average number of balls that Bevan faced in wins (50) vs losses (45). This conclusively shows that Bevan's strike rate being low by modern standards was not an issue whatsoever in helping his team to win.

Yes, you are correct that batsmen will average more in wins than in losses, that is self evident. What I was examining was whether the criticisms of Bevan were well founded. They were not. His high percentage of not outs helped his team. His "low" strike rate didn't hurt his team.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There are two arguments against Bevan in this thread. The first is that Bevan's average was boosted by all of his not outs and therefore it's better to pick Maxwell who will score just as many runs per innings as Bevan did. The second argument is that Bevan's strike rate was not high enough for the modern game. The implication being that he chewed up too many balls for the runs he scored.

I've looked at both of those and found them both to be fallacious. At least in terms of whether it helped his team win or lose.

You're the one harping on about averages. I was examining whether Bevan's not outs hurt or helped his team and whether he batted selfishly. The fact is that he was very rarely not out in losing matches. The lowest percentage of his not outs came from losing chases. The highest percentage came from winning chases. The other part of the strike rate argument, which was that the more balls Bevan chewed up the more likely his team was to lose was also disproven by looking at the average number of balls that Bevan faced in wins (50) vs losses (45). This conclusively shows that Bevan's strike rate being low by modern standards was not an issue whatsoever in helping his team to win.

Yes, you are correct that batsmen will average more in wins than in losses, that is self evident. What I was examining was whether the criticisms of Bevan were well founded. They were not. His high percentage of not outs helped his team. His "low" strike rate didn't hurt his team.

Stephen, you do not get it. You're stuck is some relativist comparison of Bevan to his peers. Please read pages 6 and 8 and you may understand.