Best Ever ODI XI

[tooextracool]

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?

depends on the situation....you're assuming that australia are chasing and in need of quick runs from the start. i find it hard to understand the point of bevan batting at no 7 when australia are batting first and are 260/5 in 45 overs.

 

[Craig]

Stop putting words into my mouth.

The question of a batsman having an average of 14 never came up. You selected that number just to make Bevan look good. If that batsman has an average of 35 and SR of 90+ opening , like Sehwag, yes, I prefer him to Bevan who has an average of 56 ( plenty of not-outs ) and a SR of 71.

Ok what if the batsman avering 14, s/r over 100 yet bats at 6?

 

[chicane]

australia wont realise how important bevan was in their side until they are 120/5 chasing 230 against NZ.

Exactly. Now you've said it yourself. Bevan is best at no.7

 

[tooextracool]

Exactly. Now you've said it yourself. Bevan is best at no.7

not really, unfortunately thats where they made him bat so he usually came in when the score was 120/5. btw he doesnt need to come in at 7 for the score to be 120/5,he could have come in at 5 and seen 2 wickets fall at the other end

 

[chicane]

not really, unfortunately thats where they made him bat so he usually came in when the score was 120/5. btw he doesnt need to come in at 7 for the score to be 120/5,he could have come in at 5 and seen 2 wickets fall at the other end

Australia have always had aggressive players to fill the 3,4,5 slots. Bevan was perfectly placed at no.7. When the top order failed, he bailed them out. On poor surfaces, he could play spinners well and easily picked up 1s and 2s. But mostly someone in the aussie top order has always scored.

depends on the situation....you're assuming that australia are chasing and in need of quick runs from the start. i find it hard to understand the point of bevan batting at no 7 when australia are batting first and are 260/5 in 45 overs.

Since Bevan at no.7 was so vital he usually always remained there. If at all such a situation came about he wasn't all that bad at hitting sixes. You can't have Bevan batting at 4 when Aus bats 1st and at 7 when they chase! There has to be some stability in the order.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

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?

Thats why you have the likes of Adam Gilchrist opening

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

You can't have Bevan batting at 4 when Aus bats 1st and at 7 when they chase! There has to be some stability in the order.

Thats why he should of been batting at 5 or at least 6.

 

[marc71178]

the reason for not including beavan was his lowish strike rate of 71. in one-dayers, it is strike rate which matters more than an average.

Straw poll - would you prefer Bevan or Afridi in your team?

 

[marc71178]

But Dravid can keep.

Barely, and certainly not to the level of the best ODI XI of all time

 

[marc71178]

If that batsman has an average of 35 and SR of 90+ opening , like Sehwag, yes, I prefer him to Bevan who has an average of 56 ( plenty of not-outs ) and a SR of 71.

Despite Bevan's role being completely different to that of Sehwag and any other opener?

 

[marc71178]

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.

Yet none of that talent comes even close to Bevan's

 

[marc71178]

You can't have Bevan batting at 4 when Aus bats 1st and at 7 when they chase! There has to be some stability in the order.

Oh really?

I would have thought the best ODI sides are the ones that react to situations and change accordingly!

 

[chicane]

Oh really?

I would have thought the best ODI sides are the ones that react to situations and change accordingly!

If the changes are not erratic and continuos. A batsman has to settle down.

 

[chicane]

Yet none of that talent comes even close to Bevan's

Bevan's talent is not for the no.4 and 5 positions.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Australia have always had aggressive players to fill the 3,4,5 slots.

Ok if we go on the Australian side that won the 2003 World Cup, here are the Australian players career ODI batting strike rates (in batting order).

Gilchrist: 94.04
Hayden: 77.77
Ponting: 77.60
Martyn: 79.16
Lehmann: 81.96
Symonds: 89.21
Bevan: 74.16

Now with a player as good as Bevan is, why would you have him batting at seven.

Bevan would of provided the stability if he was at least batting at 6, IMO he really should of been playing at 5. A person at seven like Symonds would be great as he would be able to get quick runs and sometimes he could get a big score.

You have a very very agressive opener in Gilchrist, plus Hayden is also agressive and they would both provide the perfect flying start to an innings. Pointing & Martyn would be able to keep the scoring rate up and also both can provide stability in the innings. So IMO Bevan would be best suited at 5 as his batting (being able to score always 1, 2's and the odd boundary, being able to pace through an innings etc.) is perfect for that position in the order.

 

[marc71178]

Bevan's talent is not for the no.4 and 5 positions.

That's open to debate (especially when you view his stats in those positions)

 

[marc71178]

If the changes are not erratic and continuos. A batsman has to settle down.

Why?

The match situation is rarely the same, so batsmen must be able to adapt - methinks that Bevan was a master at that?

 

[chicane]

Why?

The match situation is rarely the same, so batsmen must be able to adapt - methinks that Bevan was a master at that?

Batsmen should adapt and be prepared for occasional promotions when the match situation demands it. But I'm for a stable batting order where every player knows his role exactly.

 

[chicane]

That's open to debate (especially when you view his stats in those positions)

Bevan may have done very well batting in those positions but taking the team situation in view, he's better off at 6 or 7.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Here are just some of the match winning innings that Bevan has played in where Australia seemed like loosing:

Benson & Hedges World Series, 1995/96, 5th Match
Carlton & United Series, 1996/97, 12th Match
VB Series, 2001/02, 10th Match
ICC World Cup, 2002/03, 37th Match

In these innings, he had managed to play each match by his own terms as he changed the way he approached his batting according to the situation of the match.