Chris Gayle Vs Michael Bevan - Who would you prefer ?

[Prince EWS]

I'd pretty controversially take Bevan in a Test as well. Gayle was obviously a better Test batsman in that he had a far better Test career than Bevan but I'm a firm believer in the theory that Bevan's lack of a significant Test career was due to unfortunate circumstances after a poor start more than anything else. The strength of Australia's batting throughout Bevan's career meant that there was absolutely no reason to risk recalling a tried and failed player who was 30 odd already but if they had I'm confident he would succeeded. You don't average 60 odd in the Sheffield Shield during the era he played without being a class bat.

Bevan's retired and Gayle's probably played his last Test too so they what they were capable of is pretty much irrelevant now, so Gayle will rightly go down as the better Test player by a huge margin, but if you offered me both as 22 years olds or whatever right now I'd take Bevan and be confident he'll pull off the better Test career after 'starting over' as such.

 

[Nate]

Bevvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

[burr]

Are we talking ODIs only? I'd take Gayle but I'd probably lose.

 

[_Ed_]

Sure Bevan was the ultimate finisher but if I had to pick I would take Gayle, you need runs at the top before you can finish

Bevan wasn't too bad at scoring runs at the top when he got the chance...

Asia XI v Rest of the World XI at Dhaka, 8 April 2000

Still rate that one of the top 2-3 one-day innings I've ever seen.

And a lot of Bevan's best knocks down the order came when the guys at the top did almost nothing.

 

[Jono]

That was a fun match.

 

[Spark]

ODIs, Bevan regardless of position.