AB de Villers vs Michael Bevan vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Red]

Gilchrist
Watson
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
M.Waugh
Hussey
Starc
Warne
Lee
McGrath

Is how I like it. Waugh is out of position and could change with Watto but I want him for his fielding as well as his batting, and also potentially for a few things overs. Watto would be better opening most of the time.

Hussey is the perfect finisher.

 

[honestbharani]

Gilchrist
Watson
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
M.Waugh
Hussey
Starc
Warne
Lee
McGrath

Is how I like it. Waugh is out of position and could change with Watto but I want him for his fielding as well as his batting, and also potentially for a few things overs. Watto would be better opening most of the time.

Hussey is the perfect finisher.

M Waugh over Bevan at 6... Come on man... You are like @Himannv with Sanga in your hatred of Bevan.

 

[Red]

M Waugh over Bevan at 6... Come on man... You are like @Himannv with Sanga in your hatred of Bevan.

I don't hate Bevan. He was pretty good. I just think there's a big myth surrounding him. And I'd definitely prefer MWaugh over him in a team. I think Watson is better as an opener rather than Waugh, who was more adaptable in the middle order, so I am happy to slide Waugh down the order. But if it makes you feel better I can go:

Gilchrist
M.Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
Hussey
Watson
Starc
Warne
Lee
McGrath

 

[TheJediBrah]

Red's team is fine tbh. Sure, Bevan should probably be one of the first picked but it's not like any of the other guys in his team make it significantly worse.

Waugh's fielding is a big factor, and that is an incredible fielding side all-round. Bevan probably a worse fielder than all in that team except Warne

 

[h_hurricane]

Red wants Mark Waugh to pluck those catches when Symonds the fifth bowler is bowling. Not for Bevan to drop them. It is obvious.

 

[Jayro]

Gilchrist,
Mark waugh,
Ricky ponting,
Dean Jones,
Hussey,
Symonds,
Bevan,
Warne,
Lee,
Starc,
Mcgrath

 

[Red]

Red's team is fine tbh. Sure, Bevan should probably be one of the first picked but it's not like any of the other guys in his team make it significantly worse.

Waugh's fielding is a big factor, and that is an incredible fielding side all-round. Bevan probably a worse fielder than all in that team except Warne

I think Hussey brings everything to a team that Bevan would batting somewhere between 5-7, but that he'd do it a bit better. Better hitter than Bevan. Also a significatly better fieldsman.

 

[Red]

Red wants Mark Waugh to pluck those catches when Symonds the fifth bowler is bowling. Not for Bevan to drop them. It is obvious.

Post might have been made in jest, not sure, but you're actually spot on.

Ponting, Waugh, Symonds and Hussey in the inner ring, with Starc, Lee, McGrath and Deano on the boundary is a hell of a fielding combo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think Hussey brings everything to a team that Bevan would batting somewhere between 5-7, but that he'd do it a bit better. Better hitter than Bevan. Also a significatly better fieldsman.

A lot of this is down to the eras they played. The end of Bevan and start of Hussey coincided almost perfectly with the big shift in the style of ODI cricket due to conditions/bats/boundaries etc. It's very likely that if you switched these guys' careers around you would see the opposite, that Bevan was a "better hitter" and Hussey more of an accumulator.

 

[Red]

A lot of this is down to the eras they played. The end of Bevan and start of Hussey coincided almost perfectly with the big shift in the style of ODI cricket due to conditions/bats/boundaries etc. It's very likely that if you switched these guys' careers around you would see the opposite, that Bevan was a "better hitter" and Hussey more of an accumulator.

Possibly. But Hussey was always such a clean striker of the ball, while Bevan was more of a nurdler and accumulator. Bevan was very good at picking gaps and pushing twos similarly to Deano. Hussey was just a clean striker and far more technically correct. I’d back Hussey to perform more often and be more effective against quality opponents.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Possibly. But Hussey was always such a clean striker of the ball, while Bevan was more of a nurdler and accumulator. Bevan was very good at picking gaps and pushing twos similarly to Deano. Hussey was just a clean striker and far more technically correct. I’d back Hussey to perform more often and be more effective against quality opponents.

All true. However, I would point out that Hussey the clean-striker only really started happening after 2004/2005. Prior to that in domestic cricket for WA he was exactly the type of player Bevan was known for being in international cricket. He was the "nurdler" who batted in the middle-order for WA in 50 over cricket (and opened in the Shield). It was a bit of a revelation in 2004-05 when he came into the Aus team and transformed into a no. 7 batting finisher with his graphite-backed bat hitting 6s for fun.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Hussey brings everything to a team that Bevan would batting somewhere between 5-7, but that he'd do it a bit better. Better hitter than Bevan. Also a significatly better fieldsman.

I dont disagree with you but I just think you underrate Bevan the ODI batter. And his wrist spin was more than useful too.

 

[subshakerz]

Bevan's MO is to restore the batting lineup after the top and middle order are gone, not to smash towards the end.. He should be no.5 and then followed by Hussey and Symonds.

 

[Truth360]

Oh, that means Tendulkar's Avg and SR should get adjusted up more.

Tendulkar benefited in 90s because of 15 overs PP

Big reason why middle order Batsmen of 90s had lower SR compared to openers

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tendulkar benefited in 90s because of 15 overs PP

Big reason why middle order Batsmen of 90s had lower SR compared to openers

Also the old ball got softer, darker and harder to hit, which isn't the case anymore.

However the 90s had some proper good opening bowlers going around which you had to face with the new ball, which evened it up. These days it's mostly 2nd string hacks that are just there to get clobbered.

 

[h_hurricane]

To add to it, there were several nightmarish pitches like the below video and/or overcast conditions (eg; most of england odis, SA odis, Sahara Cup in Canada, 99 WC). There was no homogeneity in 90s pitches. Of course Sachin played some flat pitches where opening the batting was an advantage, but also those where it was a clear disadvantage.

 

[ankitj]

To add to it, there were several nightmarish pitches like the below video and/or overcast conditions (eg; most of england odis, SA odis, Sahara Cup in Canada, 99 WC). There was no homogeneity in 90s pitches. Of course Sachin played some flat pitches where opening the batting was an advantage, but also those where it was a clear disadvantage.

Single handedly turned a venomous pitch into a high scoring one (almost run-a-ball). Wish they had DRS Recall watching this match live (no, I didn't switch on just before he got out)

 

[honestbharani]

To add to it, there were several nightmarish pitches like the below video and/or overcast conditions (eg; most of england odis, SA odis, Sahara Cup in Canada, 99 WC). There was no homogeneity in 90s pitches. Of course Sachin played some flat pitches where opening the batting was an advantage, but also those where it was a clear disadvantage.

The problem is to consider 90s as a single era. I think upto 1995 at least, there was more variation in pitches and conditions but post 96 WC, I think ODIs become pretty monotonous esp. in the SC. The odd Sahara Cup aside, even conditions in England and Australia started to become more batsmen friendly. And by 2000s we were well into the CEO era of pitches and in 2005 we got the supersub and those ridiculous rules. ODIs should really be looked at as 5 year chunks IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The problem is to consider 90s as a single era. I think upto 1995 at least, there was more variation in pitches and conditions but post 96 WC, I think ODIs become pretty monotonous esp. in the SC. The odd Sahara Cup aside, even conditions in England and Australia started to become more batsmen friendly. And by 2000s we were well into the CEO era of pitches and in 2005 we got the supersub and those ridiculous rules. ODIs should really be looked at as 5 year chunks IMO.

Post 1995 roads were the norm and opening the batting was almost always the best place to bat. No coincidence that a lot of players like Sanath, Gilchrist, Waugh, Ganguly etc moved up to open

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Post 1995 roads were the norm and opening the batting was almost always the best place to bat. No coincidence that a lot of players like Sanath, Gilchrist, Waugh, Ganguly etc moved up to open

Still Ganguly maintained diginity of strike rates ?