Best Ever ODI XI

[Deja moo]

what are you talking about?i think you've mistaken me for swervy.
1) richards is a better player than gavaskar not because he played memorable innings but because he completely demoralised some of the best bowlers in the world and made them look like novices. and as i proved earlier, richards in his prime had a much better average than gavaskar in his prime.
2) the gavaskar vs viv comparison was used only in tests, if you think that ODI cricket is all about playing the big shots then you're clearly mistaken.

I apologise if it wasnt you who had put forth that argument.

Seriously , you really think Bevan matches upto Viv ?

 

[chicane]

if you think that ODI cricket is all about playing the big shots then you're clearly mistaken.

But when someone can play the big shots as well and as destructively as Viv or SRT, Lara, Gilchrist etc...That's what wins LOI games.

 

[Deja moo]

But when someone can play the big shots as well and as destructively as Viv or SRT, Lara, Gilchrist etc...That's what wins LOI games.

SSshhhhh....

Or else someone might once again senselessly bring Afridi into the equation.

 

[tooextracool]

Where in that post have I said anything like Bevan is useless and doesn't deserve that average? Don't twist what I say to suit what you want to say.

[/QUOTE]So what does the not outs have to do with anything?.[/QUOTE]

His 50+ Average..

certainly seems to me like you are trying to say that his average is over inflated only because of the fact that he bats so low and is not out most of the time

Quite simply that's his choice. And after getting Bevan in for Saeed, will you open with him? Or will you have a huge middle order full of similar style players? And you seriously think Bevan can do what Viv can?

im quite sure that both brian lara and ricky ponting are capable enough of opening the batting in ODIs instead of anwar.
no bevan cant do what viv could but viv cant do what bevan could either. thats why i dont rate either of them better than the other. they were both different players but i think that viv was the best player to smash the ball all over the park while bevan was the best player to nudge the singles around and bat through the innings. you wont ever see 2 players better complimented than that.

 

[tooextracool]

I apologise if it wasnt you who had put forth that argument.

Seriously , you really think Bevan matches upto Viv ?

np, in ODIs yes, in test matches no

 

[tooextracool]

But when someone can play the big shots as well and as destructively as Viv or SRT, Lara, Gilchrist etc...That's what wins LOI games.

theres more to players like viv sachin,lara etc than just playing the big shots....but you are mistaken that big shots wins LOI games. i think bevan has successfully demonstrated that on many occasions.

 

[tooextracool]

SSshhhhh....

Or else someone might once again senselessly bring Afridi into the equation.

i was referring to the wise guy who said that strike rate was more important than averages.

 

[chicane]

certainly seems to me like you are trying to say that his average is over inflated only because of the fact that he bats so low and is not out most of the time

Isn't that partly true? And how does that take away his credibility as a batsman. Batting at no.7 is not easy and many of his best innings have come when Aus were in trouble. How many number 7's even average over 40? Look at Mohammad Kaif who has bailed India out of trouble a few times.

im quite sure that both brian lara and ricky ponting are capable enough of opening the batting in ODIs instead of anwar.
no bevan cant do what viv could but viv cant do what bevan could either. thats why i dont rate either of them better than the other. they were both different players but i think that viv was the best player to smash the ball all over the park while bevan was the best player to nudge the singles around and bat through the innings. you wont ever see 2 players better complimented than that.

Look, Bevan is a superb player but putting him on par with the likes of Viv is asinine.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Bevan has a ODI batting Strike rate of more than 71.

Bevan's ODI Batting Stats
232 Matches, 6912 runs@ 53.58, SR: 74.16

Michael Bevan is an ODI legend and he was my first choice in my best ever ODI XI.

Whats this about his not outs, he acheived those not outs because he was so good that bowlers couldn't dismiss him, that shows how good an ODI batsman Bevan is.

Some stats here; Bevan has had 67 not outs in his ODI career. 21 of those have been when he has scored 50 runs or more (31.34%). 25 of those when he has scored between 30-49 runs (37.31%).

 

[Deja moo]

i was referring to the wise guy who said that strike rate was more important than averages.

Whoever said that didnt mean SR in isolation.

What he probably meant was that an excellent SR in cobination with a decent average is preferable to Bevans stats.

 

[chicane]

theres more to players like viv sachin,lara etc than just playing the big shots....but you are mistaken that big shots wins LOI games. i think bevan has successfully demonstrated that on many occasions.

Are you telling me you would rather have a Bevan type innings than a Gilchrist type one? Bevan does what he does when the others fail. Sure 1s and 2s keep the RR ticking along at a run-a-ball and makes it tough for the opposition, but smashing 2-3 boundries every over and some sixes like these players do shoots the RR to 8 or 9 RPO and takes tha game away. And in your own words, such batting has a demoralising impact on the opposition which gives them the upper hand. Sure different situatuons demand different types of innings, but then, all these guys can do what bevan does, albiet not as well. Bevan is a specialist for such things.

 

[tooextracool]

Isn't that partly true? And how does that take away his credibility as a batsman. Batting at no.7 is not easy and many of his best innings have come when Aus were in trouble. How many number 7's even average over 40? Look at Mohammad Kaif who has bailed India out of trouble a few times.

No. 3 47.00 3 innings
No. 4 59.61 53 innings
No. 5 41.61 33 innings
No. 6 56.72 87 innings
No. 7 48.43 18 innings
*
i think those averages say a lot.one that he was misused by the australians and made to bat at 6 even though his average was alot higher batting at 4.
and 2 that his average is not inflated just because he batted at 6 and 7, hes maintained that average in other positions as well.

Look, Bevan is a superb player but putting him on par with the likes of Viv is asinine.

it is deceiving because when you look at old highlights of matches from around 97-98 you wouldnt see much of bevan batting. yet hed be 50* of 55 balls. whereas if you looked at highlights of richards innings it would be smothered with boundaries and sixes.

 

[tooextracool]

Are you telling me you would rather have a Bevan type innings than a Gilchrist type one? Bevan does what he does when the others fail. Sure 1s and 2s keep the RR ticking along at a run-a-ball and makes it tough for the opposition, but smashing 2-3 boundries every over and some sixes like these players do shoots the RR to 8 or 9 RPO and takes tha game away. And in your own words, such batting has a demoralising impact on the opposition which gives them the upper hand. Sure different situatuons demand different types of innings, but then, all these guys can do what bevan does, albiet not as well. Bevan is a specialist for such things.

look the gilchrist type innings will come when you play in joberg or in antigua. it wont come too often when you play on wickets where 220-240 is the par total. the gilchrist type innings is scoring a quickfire 50 odd and getting out. the bevan type innings is batting till the end. the gilchrist type innings includes inconsistency,the bevan type innings doesnt. if gilchrist could score those quickfire runs averaging at 50 and manage to win games for his country then sure id settle for gilly but i doubt we'll see that from him.
you're right when you say that different situations require different innings. but i think you've got the notion about bevan all wrong. bevan is more than capable of coming at no 6 in the last 10 overs and smashing 7 runs an over if required(not as good as gilchrist but still decent). but can gilchrist(assuming he doesnt open) come in when the side is 120/5 chasing 220 on a slow wicket against good bowlers and nudge 1s ands 2s and bat till the end?
i would rather have a finisher than a player who just gets the side of to a flyer once in a while

 

[chicane]

No. 3 47.00 3 innings
No. 4 59.61 53 innings
No. 5 41.61 33 innings
No. 6 56.72 87 innings
No. 7 48.43 18 innings
*
i think those averages say a lot.one that he was misused by the australians and made to bat at 6 even though his average was alot higher batting at 4.
and 2 that his average is not inflated just because he batted at 6 and 7, hes maintained that average in other positions as well.

But where would you put him then? No-one can move Ponting from no.3. No.4 was occupied by Stuart Law, then Steve Waugh and now Damien Martyn, who were perfect for it as they could smash fours and sixes. No.5 also needs a slogger so players like Symonds come in here. That's why he played at no.7 and no.8 and was perfect for this role. Hardly misused IMO considering the other talent in the team.

it is deceiving because when you look at old highlights of matches from around 97-98 you wouldnt see much of bevan batting. yet hed be 50* of 55 balls. whereas if you looked at highlights of richards innings it would be smothered with boundaries and sixes.

So how does that make him better than Viv? And aren't you the one who dismisses stats and averages as indicators of ability?

 

[chicane]

look the gilchrist type innings will come when you play in joberg or in antigua. it wont come too often when you play on wickets where 220-240 is the par total. the gilchrist type innings is scoring a quickfire 50 odd and getting out. the bevan type innings is batting till the end. the gilchrist type innings includes inconsistency,the bevan type innings doesnt. if gilchrist could score those quickfire runs averaging at 50 and manage to win games for his country then sure id settle for gilly but i doubt we'll see that from him.
you're right when you say that different situations require different innings. but i think you've got the notion about bevan all wrong. bevan is more than capable of coming at no 6 in the last 10 overs and smashing 7 runs an over if required(not as good as gilchrist but still decent). but can gilchrist(assuming he doesnt open) come in when the side is 120/5 chasing 220 on a slow wicket against good bowlers and nudge 1s ands 2s and bat till the end?
i would rather have a finisher than a player who just gets the side of to a flyer once in a while

Ok just forget about Gilchrist. Can't Viv, SRT, and Lara do all that you have mentioned. They are far better than Bevan at butchering the bowling for 9-10 RPO and are not far from him at playing presure knocks, albiet a little differently. Overall, Bevan is nowhere near their league.

 

[tooextracool]

No.4 was occupied by Stuart Law,

because stuart law is a better no 4 than bevan?

then Steve Waugh

batted at 5 more often

and now Damien Martyn who were perfect for it as they could smash fours and sixes.

since when does a number 4 need to smash 4s and 6s?bevan was capable of going at 5 or even 6 runs an over without taking any risks if required....

No.5 also needs a slogger so players like Symonds come in here. That's why he played at no.7 and no.8 and was perfect for this role. Hardly misused IMO considering the other talent in the team.:

no 5 needs a slogger while no 7 and 8 dont? IMO he was perfect to bat in the middle overs(20-40) simply because thats when runs are hard to come by,and thats when bevan's 1s and 2s come in handy

So how does that make him better than Viv? And aren't you the one who dismisses stats and averages as indicators of ability?

please show me where i have said that bevan is better than viv?

 

[chicane]

no 5 needs a slogger while no 7 and 8 dont? IMO he was perfect to bat in the middle overs(20-40) simply because thats when runs are hard to come by,and thats when bevan's 1s and 2s come in handy

But in a team like Australia where there are players like Ponting, Martyn, Clarke etc..who play more aggressively and score at a good pace even when the runs are hard to come by why should Bevan come in? On a poor surface a couple of fours and sixes are invaluable. He's been unlucky but it was vital for the team for him to stay at no.7
Just look at the composition of teams today. Eg - India. Yuvraj Comes in at 5 or 6 and Mohammad Kaif comes in at 7. If slogging is needed then Yuvraj gets promoted up the order.

please show me where i have said that bevan is better than viv?

oh ok so you said Bevan is on par with Viv.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

No.5 also needs a slogger so players like Symonds come in here.

No way.

I would have Bevan at No.5 and have Symonds in at No.6.

 

[chicane]

No way.

I would have Bevan at No.5 and have Symonds in at No.6.

Isn't it better to send in aggressive players to try and score quickly and then if they get out you have Mr.Dependable to get them home?

 

[tooextracool]

But in a team like Australia where there are players like Ponting, Martyn, Clarke etc..who play more aggressively and score at a good pace even when the runs are hard to come by why should Bevan come in? On a poor surface a couple of fours and sixes are invaluable. He's been unlucky but it was vital for the team for him to stay at no.7
Just look at the composition of teams today. Eg - India. Yuvraj Comes in at 5 or 6 and Mohammad Kaif comes in at 7. If slogging is needed then Yuvraj gets promoted up the order.

i dont think that any of the australians have been able to play aggressively and get away with it on wickets where runs havent been easy to come by(if some of the wc matches were an indication), let alone batting through the innings and ensuring that australia go home safely. i said this in one of the is bevan finished threads, australia wont realise how important bevan was in their side until they are 120/5 chasing 230 against NZ. bevans only just gone so we'll see how much they miss him in the future.
i was saying that bevan should bat at 4. dravid bats at 4 for india and he isnt the most aggressive player.6 and 7 is where the sloggers come in, 5 is where a player should be capable of doing both and im quite certain that bevan would be a decent no 5 too.