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

[kiwiviktor81]

So you do agree that :

a) Even ATG lineups can collapse quite often

and

b) The better way to perform a rescue job after a collapse is to do what Bevan did, instead of slogging like Maxwell?

a) No, they wouldn't be ATG sides if they collapsed relatively often, would they?

b) The best way to perform a rescue job is to maximise the runs you score in the balls you have left without getting bowled out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're evidently wrong, because the Australia team which Bevan played in was as good as any ATG lineup you can put together. And you said it yourself. That Australian team did collapse numerous times. And needed Bevan to save their asses.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

kiwivictor,

Do you consider Bevan's SR of 80+ at an average of 52 in the first innings in a vaccum to be worthy of a spot in a NZ first innings batting lineup?

Yes, easily. That would be a similar SR to Elliott at 5 with a 16 run higher average.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, easily. That would be a similar SR to Elliott at 5 with a 16 run higher average.

Those are Bevan's actual first innings stats ffs

 

[kiwiviktor81]

So I'm guessing his second innings SR is in the vicinity of 68 or so. I wouldn't pick that over Elliott even if he averaged 80.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You might want to check Grant Elliott's second innings strike rate. Hint: It's barely higher than Bevan despite him batting in an era renowned for Strike rates going through the roof.

Chasers bat as quick as needed. That is all.

 

[cnerd123]

So I'm guessing his second innings SR is in the vicinity of 68 or so. I wouldn't pick that over Elliott even if he averaged 80.

jesus christ how are you not getting this yet.

Put down the weed man.

 

[Teja.]

kiwivictor,

Those are Bevan's actual first innings stats. He has a lower SR in the second innings with a higher average. (58 average with 68 SR) There are two possible conclusions.

A. Due to some superstitious reason, Bevan was a markedly worse batsman in the second innings to the point of not making the current NZ side despite having the ability to dominate to the extent he did in the first innings.

B. His SR in the second innings was a function of the runs he needed to score and he scored at a rate which maximized his chances of survival in order to keep the chase alive and he succeeded at a rate better than anyone who has ever played the game apart from arguably Dhoni.

This balance between SR/average in the second innings would change if the target was higher. You don't need to speculate for this because the proof of how drastically his average would be affected by his SR increasing dramatically is present in his first innings stats. He has 4000+ runs @ an average of 52 and a SR of 80. Your adaptation model is right in front of you. Do you accept it for the NZ ODI side?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Alastair Cook can't make the England ODI side as an opener because he scores too slowly.

Cook scored faster than Bevan and hit more sixes than him.

If Cook can't make a mediocre side in a position where strike rate barely matters, why should I assume that an even slower batsman could make an ATG side in a hitter's position? It's madness.

I notice that posters are making dozens of assumptions that make Bevan look better, but none of them have considered that his Test average of less than 30 suggests that his ODI average of 53 was severely bloated for some reason (not outs being the obvious one).

If you're going to adjust Bevan's SR up because he was often cruising home or because of the other reasons given in this thread, you need to adjust his average down as well. Otherwise you're not being balanced and objective.

 

[Flem274*]

i was going to say nearly 400 posts about whether an ATG is secretly rubbish or not is new for cw but then i remembered it's just another monday.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

5th ODI: Sri Lanka v Australia at Colombo (SSC), Feb 29, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Here's an example of what I'm talking about - this is Bevan's last match. Bevan at 6 scores 14 (33), Aussie scores 198 runs before they run out of balls at 50 overs. Sri Lanka chase it down with 13 balls remaining.

Replace Bevan with Maxwell or just about anyone else and that match is a win for Aussie.

Everyone seems to remember the matches in which Bevan was not out at the end, but no-one seems to remember matches like the one linked above (the first one I looked at) in which a poor strike rate from a batsman who is supposed to be hitting loses a team the match.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

"Bevo never even hit a DLF Maximum, so what does he know about things?"

~ Danny Morrison, 2014

 

[OverratedSanity]

A batsman who comes in 86/4 with 30 overs to go is 'supposed to be hitting'?

 

[Teja.]

kiwivictor,

God bless your soul.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

A batsman who comes in 86/4 with 30 overs to go is 'supposed to be hitting'?

Yes. Would you rather he score 14 (33) so that your team crawls to 198 off 50 overs?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes. Would you rather he score 14 (33) so that your team crawls to 198 off 50 overs?

I'd rather he scored 80 (92) taking the team to a much better total. Which is what Bevan did wayyyyy more often than he failed. You obviously have no idea how ODI innings work if you're using the SR of an innings which was cut short as evidence of Bevan lacking a gear. He got out in this case before he could accelerate, so obviously the SR is ever worse.

I'll just give you a simple current day example:

Virat Kohli has sucked balls in ODIs in 2015. He averages just 30 with a SR of 76. This relatively low SR seems at first glance indicative of his struggle. But in the end, it's just a product of Kohli just sucking early in his innings and just getting out before he hits 2nd or 3rd gear. Resulting in innings like 19 (32) or 5(13). The SR wouldn't be a problem at all if he had carried on and converted it into a decent score, with the natural increase of SR that happens through the course of a batsman's ODI innings. 9 times out of 10, Bevan carried on and made it count. You can't pick the few times he failed and point to that as something indicative of him being a worse ODI batsman.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'd rather he scored 80 (92) taking the team to a much better total. Which is what Bevan did wayyyyy more often than he failed. You obviously have no idea how ODI innings work if you're using the SR of an innings which was cut short as evidence of Bevan lacking a gear. He got out in this case before he could accelerate, so obviously the SR is ever worse.

I'll just give you a simple current day example:

Virat Kohli has sucked balls in ODIs in 2015. He averages just 30 with a SR of 76. This relatively low SR seems at first glance indicative of his struggle. But in the end, it's just a product of Kohli just sucking early in his innings and just getting out before he hits 2nd or 3rd gear. Resulting in innings like 19 (32) or 5(13). The SR wouldn't be a problem at all if he had carried on and converted it into a decent score, with the natural increase of SR that happens through the course of a batsman's ODI innings. 9 times out of 10, Bevan carried on and made it count. You can't pick the few times he failed and point to that as something indicative of him being a worse ODI batsman.

I agree with all that, especially with the observation that a short innings generally has a lower strike rate than a long one. You'd have to conclude from Bevan's average of 53 that he played a lot of long innings. This makes his overall SR of 72 look even worse then. You can't have it both ways.

To give some context, after an average 33 ball innings Maxwell has scored 42 runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hmm. So when a batsman comes in at 4/60 chasing 190 with a required run rate of 4, they should slog and make 15 (15) rather than make 65* (80) because that will win more games?

excellent logic

 

[OverratedSanity]

But 72 was evidently fast enough because he won them a ****load of games.

Eh whatever I give up

 

[harsh.ag]

That 185 knock against the ROW side though. Incredible chase.