• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread (white ball edition)

stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
h_hurricane said:
If you give equal weightage to batting average and strike rate and use a measure (batting average*SR), difference between Tendulkar and Waugh is 8.40. Likewise, the difference between Bevan and Dippenaar is 11.11. Among this quartet, Bevan has the least runs per innings and the third best SR.
Click to expand...
Again, apples to oranges. Openers across history have had higher averages than the rest of the top order. Hayden for example (a contemporary of Dippenaar) averaged 44 but struck at 79, substantially ahead of Dippenaar's 67 strike rate. Bevan was a lot better than Hayden.

Tendulkar was a step up from Mark Waugh, Bevan was two or three steps up from Dippenaar.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You can't compare Bevan to Hayden. Completely different roles.

You can rate Bevan higher because he had fewer peers who were as good/nearly as good at his role than Hayden did, but that's not quite the same as just saying that he was "a lot better".
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
jimmy101 said:
How so? They were two different types of batsmen which had two vastly different roles.

I'm also a Bevan fan ftr.
Click to expand...
Well he was a lot more valuable to his team - much harder to replace a middle order batsman with Bevan's ability than an opener with Hayden's ability. And that's before you even consider era differences.

Bevan was to the 90s what Kohli is to the 10s. And Kohli is a step up from Shikar Dhawan.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But yes, it's very hard to compare ODI openers to middle order batsmen. The different roles mean that raw stats don't mean as much.
 
jimmy101

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
stephen said:
Well he was a lot more valuable to his team - much harder to replace a middle order batsman with Bevan's ability than an opener with Hayden's ability. And that's before you even consider era differences.

Bevan was to the 90s what Kohli is to the 10s. And Kohli is a step up from Shikar Dhawan.
Click to expand...
Agree that Bevan is close to irreplaceable. But back in Hayden's day there were very few opening batsmen that could match his aggression, he was still incredibly valuable.

I don't really think Bevan & Kohli are analogous in terms of batsmanship either. Again, they're two different types of players. Bevan could be more compared more closely to MS Dhoni imo (again they were different in their approaches, but both played the role of the "finisher").
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
jimmy101 said:
Agree that Bevan is close to irreplaceable. But back in Hayden's day there were very few opening batsmen that could match his aggression, he was still incredibly valuable.
Click to expand...
For a lot of his career Hayden was struggling to even make the team tbf. Took him a few years since returning to the Test team to get past Mark Waugh, and then even got dropped for Simon Katich of all people for a bit. Then Shane Watson came in and did Hayden's job just as well.

jimmy101 said:
I don't really think Bevan & Kohli are analogous in terms of batsmanship either. Again, they're two different types of players. Bevan could be more compared more closely to MS Dhoni imo (again they were different in their approaches, but both played the role of the "finisher").
Click to expand...
I think stephen means that Bevan and Kohli are similar in that they were a step above all other players of their time
 
jimmy101

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
TheJediBrah said:
For a lot of his career Hayden was struggling to even make the team tbf. Took him a few years since returning to the Test team to get past Mark Waugh, and then even got dropped for Simon Katich of all people for a bit. Then Shane Watson came in and did Hayden's job just as well.
Click to expand...
The depth the Australian side had during the late 90's/early-to-mid 2000's was insane so it can't really be held against Hayden that, no matter how effective he was, there was always going to be some form of competition for his spot. The fact that he forced his way into the side when Gilly & Mark Waugh were firing on all cylinders says quite a bit. Let's also not forget that Hayden won the AB medal for ODI player of the year in 2008 in the twilight of his career.

If you compare the fortunes/structure of the Australian side from then to now, Hayden would be pretty much an automatic lock for the team. Warner/Hayden would be unmoveable, with Finch, Carey & Uzzy most likely getting pushed down the order to accommodate him. If we rewind the clock, again Hayden would be a shoe-in, most likely leapfrogging ahead of players such as Taylor, Marsh & Boon in the pecking order.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
h_hurricane said:
He is clearly wrong then. There is no way Bevan was a step above Tendulkar ,Lara or Ponting in ODIs.
Click to expand...
He absolutely was in the 90s. An argument could be made for Tendulkar but Bevan was definitely ahead of the other two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top