Clash of the titans, Dhoni vs Bevan

[Trichromatic]

Well this was a pretty ordinary performance considering the whole 50 overs was batted. 234 is hardly a good score in today's era.

3rd ODI: England v India at The Oval, Sep 9, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Very few people would say that batting line-up looked like pathetic whole lot even in that match.

 

[Spark]

IIRC there was a lot of cloud around that day. You have to treat English ODIs in particular in context, they're rarely the smash-bang fests of many modern ODIs.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Bevan has had Ponting, Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hayden, Lehmann, and Symonds in his team. At best I would say they are equal even ignoring the fact that the same Indian batting has managed to look just pathetic a whole lot when they have toured South Africa, England, and Australia in recent times.

So show me Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj and Sehwag in the scoreboard you just posted, again, please?

 

[Ikki]

his SR was 80 only, which suggests he couldn't really up the accelerator. Such slow-go indeed helped boost his career average though. He stayed not out 22 times out of 58 innings at no.6.

80 only? 80 at the time was a very fine SR. Might have had to do with Bevan facing better bowlers in his era than just being a 'slow-goer'.

 

[Trichromatic]

80 only? 80 at the time was a very fine SR. Might have had to do with Bevan facing better bowlers in his era than just being a 'slow-goer'.

80 was not less by any means in 90s. Many so called attacking batsmen had lower SR during that decade.

 

[ankitj]

I don't think anybody is saying that Bevan was some kind of robot that could just go from Dravid mode to Gilchirst at a moments notice.

You are not saying that, but some people all but imply that their favourite cricketers (Bevan in reference to this thread) possess some super natural powers.

 

[ankitj]

Isn't SR of 80 the SR when Bevan bats first? 80 is fine, but not when that is the higher of the two category of SRs, if you know what I am saying.

EDIT: And that just reminds one of SR that Viv Richards maintained a decade earlier. That's just mind boggling.

 

[Ikki]

That's the point though: Bevan averaged 52 @ 80 in the first innings. That's incredible considering the era - especially WRT bowlers. That's not slow by any stretch.

Yeh, Viv's SR is ridiculous for his time.

It's also interesting to note that Dhoni's SR seems to be dropping over time.

 

[Senile Sentry]

80 only? 80 at the time was a very fine SR. Might have had to do with Bevan facing better bowlers in his era than just being a 'slow-goer'.

Batting at 5-7, almost always meant he came in at the last quarter of the innings or at the death. Not sure a rpo of 4.8 would've made many batting teams happy in such circumstances.

I don't know about the quality of bowlers faced back then, but I know this, his own team mates did much better than him in terms of SR

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...nvolve=2167;team=2;template=results;type=team

Australian 1-7 managed an RPO of 5.12 (SR 86) as against Bevan's own 80 batting first, in the matches Bevan featured in. This means the remaining 6 Aussie batsmen combined went at a SR of 86.2 as compared to Bevan's 80.

Contrast that with Dhoni's. Dhoni had a SR of 94 (RPO 5.64) which is slightly better than India's own top order's batting first in the same period (5.61).

A set of raw numbers for both batting first,

Raw runs per innings (without considering not outs)

Bevan - 35
Dhoni - 40

SR (RPOs) -

Bevan - 80 (4.8)
Dhoni - 94 (5.64)

SR (RPOs of other top 6 in the team combined)

Bevan - 86.2 (5.18)
Dhoni - 94 (5.60)


In a nutshell, Dhoni scored 5 more runs per match at a much better SR (about 14 points higher) and outscored his peers both in terms of run making as well as SR.

 

[ankitj]

Dhoni isn't playing the kind care free knocks he was playing earlier. Becoming more and more like Bevan in that regard, improving his average in the process.

 

[Ikki]

With the tactics Australia employed in the top order - especially WRT Gilchrist - that's not surprising that they'd have a higher SR than Bevan. Having said that, so what? Bevan averaged remarkably more than them. Bevan also played half his career at 4-5 himself. Not knowing the era he bowled to is frankly the crux of the matter. At the time there were 3 genuine ATG ODI attacks on show, not including Aus - SA, Pak and WI - with SL and NZ being very strong as well. I don't think there is one attack right now that is as good as any of those great ones.

The game has changed a lot, straight average/SR comparisons are skewed. Tendulkar, for example, during Bevan's time had an SR of 85 in the first innings - and he was considered a very fast scorer.

Also, one thing that isn't being mentioned is that many times Bevan did have to score slowly in the first innings. 4-5 batsmen would be rattled off and he'd have to slow down and play a sort of finisher's role just so we could get a good total. As I mentioned elsewhere, Australia were strong but were not outright favourites for much of Bevan's tenure.

 

[ankitj]

Also, one thing that isn't being mentioned is that many times Bevan did have to score slowly in the first innings. 4-5 batsmen would be rattled off and he'd have to slow down and play a sort of finisher's role just so we could get a good total.

That isn't any different for anyone who plays in the lower order.

 

[Senile Sentry]

With the tactics Australia employed in the top order - especially WRT Gilchrist - that's not surprising that they'd have a higher SR than Bevan. Having said that, so what? Bevan averaged remarkably more than them. Bevan also played half his career at 4-5 himself. Not knowing the era he bowled to is frankly the crux of the matter. At the time there were 3 genuine ATG ODI attacks on show, not including Aus - SA, Pak and WI - with SL and NZ being very strong as well. I don't think there is one attack right now that is as good as any of those great ones.

The game has changed a lot, straight average/SR comparisons are skewed. Tendulkar, for example, during Bevan's time had an SR of 85 in the first innings - and he was considered a very fast scorer.

Also, one thing that isn't being mentioned is that many times Bevan did have to score slowly in the first innings. 4-5 batsmen would be rattled off and he'd have to slow down and play a sort of finisher's role just so we could get a good total. As I mentioned elsewhere, Australia were strong but were not outright favourites for much of Bevan's tenure.

That isn't any different for anyone who plays in the lower order.

Yeah this. Not how such a situation is Bevan -specific.

As to fast scorers at the top, India had Tendulkar, Sehwag, Kohli, Yuvraj etc who were all very aggressive batsmen. If anything, it probably made Dhoni's case only tougher.

I am talking raw stats here. People tend to perceive a SR of 80 was superb batting first during the Bevan era. I showed using statistics that it wasn't, he trailed his team mates by a good 6+ points during the exact period.

It's a bit of circular argument to say his average was better than that of his peers, well, his batting avg is better because he managed to stay not out so many times. And whether such not outs could be excused as to him batting at the end, his SR shouldve compensated for that. It doesn't.

In pure runs per innings regards, I showed how Dhoni has performed far better than Bevan. So there goes down the theory of having to bat out an innings.

 

[Ikki]

That isn't any different for anyone who plays in the lower order.

I didn't mean that is of consequence with regard to the order but with regard to batting in the first innings.

 

[Ikki]

I am talking raw stats here. People tend to perceive a SR of 80 was superb batting first during the Bevan era. I showed using statistics that it wasn't, he trailed his team mates by a good 6+ points during the exact period.

How does that prove the opposite? When you're comparing to the average ODI cricketer, to then compare him to ATG greats batting above him is kinda irrelevant. By the same token, they didn't score faster then him while maintaining a better average - not even close. If the rest of the top order averaged 40 @ 86 but Bevan averaged 52 @ 80, which one is better? You seem to think Australia were upset about him scoring at that rate.

It's a bit of circular argument to say his average was better than that of his peers, well, his batting avg is better because he managed to stay not out so many times. And whether such not outs could be excused as to him batting at the end, his SR shouldve compensated for that. It doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Staying not out and scoring runs compensates for his time out there, which he clearly did, at a very good rate.

In pure runs per innings regards, I showed how Dhoni has performed far better than Bevan. So there goes down the theory of having to bat out an innings.

You've compared different eras, where different amount of runs were scored, at a difference pace, featuring different bowlers, on different pitches, with different rules, but haven't taken that into account.

 

[Senile Sentry]

How does that prove the opposite? When you're comparing to the average ODI cricketer, to then compare him to ATG greats batting above him is kinda irrelevant. By the same token, they didn't score faster then him while maintaining a better average - not even close. If the rest of the top order averaged 40 @ 86 but Bevan averaged 52 @ 80, which one is better? You seem to think Australia were upset about him scoring at that rate.

No, it doesn't. Staying not out and scoring runs compensates for his time out there, which he clearly did, at a very good rate.

His average was a product of staying not out at the end. He managed to stay not out because he did not go all out for runs. This reflected in a sub-par SR of 80 batting first, which was less than average of his peers. He "protected" his average at the cost of additional runs for his team.

I am tired of saying this again and again, but have a look at the runs/innings for Bevan and Dhoni. For Dhoni it is 40, wheras for Bevan it is 35. In other words, in a typical ODI batting scenario, Bevan comes and scores 35 off 44 balls. Dhoni comes and blasts 40 off 43 balls. That Bevan managed to stay not out means nothing to the team.

And it is not as if Australia relied on Bevan for its runs either in the first dig. Bevan contributed about 13% of the total runs Australia scored batting first, whereas in Dhoni's case it is 15%.

You've compared different eras, where different amount of runs were scored, at a difference pace, featuring different bowlers also, but haven't taken that into account.

Unsubstantiated argument still. It isn't as if Bevan played in the 70s or 80s. SRs haven't jumped leaps and bounds from the 90s to the 00s. Also a mere comparison with the SRs of their peers showed Bevan's SR was below average for even his "era'

 

[Spark]

I really can't help but think that people trying to analyse tight chasing situations by dissecting into statistical minutae are missing something pretty fundamental about how these kind of chases work.

 

[ankitj]

I am tired of saying this again and again, but have a look at the runs/innings for Bevan and Dhoni. For Dhoni it is 40, wheras for Bevan it is 35. In other words, in a typical ODI batting scenario, Bevan comes and scores 35 off 44 balls. Dhoni comes and blasts 40 off 43 balls. That Bevan managed to stay not out means nothing to the team.

Have to disagree with the bolded part. That he stays not out is relevant because that allows him to play 44 balls in the first place. He can't possibly plan to get out on the last ball of the innings.

 

[uvelocity]

I really can't help but think that people trying to analyse tight chasing situations by dissecting into statistical minutae are missing something pretty fundamental about how these kind of chases work.

I just skip over all the posts at this point

I don't know why people want to try to convince others that are never going to change their opinion about something, and how it can possibly be interesting to do that.

 

[Spark]

That Bevan managed to stay not out means nothing to the team.

This is just so wrong it isn't funny.