So much revisionism in this thread. Bevan had enough chances and wasn't even dropped right after the Gough dismissal everyone still brings up. When he was picked against the West Indies, that was him being given the gig. He fumbled and fussed his way to ****-all runs against a team who didn't turn up for 3 Tests yet the selectors did all they could to keep him in the side when others were knocking, even giving him the all-rounder spot for Adelaide which, personally, was a mistake for the team and him. He responded with an abysmal 80-odd, was bowled off a no-ball, dropped a couple of times and despite the WI basically giving up, still couldn't put away the ton but took wickets, of course. The Perth 80-odd was a really great knock and more like proper Bevan so that got him on the winter tours to SA and England where, against guys who cared whether they won or not, he so regularly pushed the ball to 2nd/3rd it became comical. No one who watched him bat in the first few Tests in England could hand-on-heart say he should have kept Ponting out any longer. Ponting, of course, came on board, smashed a ton and did okay from there, I think we can all agree.
And to those who say oh he figured it out and had he been given another chance, etc. you don't keep picking a bloke who's not doing anything to warrant selection and hope he comes good unless there are no other better options. And, of course, at that time there were plenty. I understand the compulsion to pick them anywhere, somewhere. Bev was the Watson of the 90s, had that spark of genius about him, certainly was rated highly from the time he bashed an early ton for SA. But, at some point, you're shuffling the team around his potential more than the pay-off and need to move on.
