Clash of the titans, Dhoni vs Bevan

[Top_Cat]

What were the opposition bowling attacks like during their careers? 94-04 had some pretty awesome bowlers.

Yeah it's a fair point and part of why people were so bummed about Bev not being able to make a real go of it as a Test bat. His first series was in Pakistan and he got a couple of good scores against the W's when they were really bowling well. Truth is, Bev didn't have trouble with the short ones, was the archtypical 'tuck him up with a couple then throw the wide one' sort. Couldn't help himself.

 

[ganeshran]

That's not quite true. When Bevan had no choice he could reach the boundary with monotonous regularity. His 185 runs (chasing 320) against an 'Asia XI' featuring Kumble and a young Razzaq has to be seen to be believed;

Michael Bevan 185* vs ASIA XI - 2000 Dhaka - YouTube

Incidently, Andrew Caddick should be prosicuted by the police and sent to gaol IMO.

(Thanks 'Ikki' for the video!)

Come on, that was an exhibition game, records there are not to be taken with a pinch of salt. I think its beyond doubt that Dhoni is the bigger hitter out of the two, even though Bevan was more than adept at maintaining a decent strike rate in ones and twos. There are a lot of variables while comparing the two. The quality of bowling attacks they played with, the general nature of ODI scoring patterns in Bevan's time etc.

IMO If Dhoni continues the same way he has been doing for the last 1-2 years for the rest of his career, he will end up being rated higher than Bevan.

 

[smash84]

Well Dhoni's test record > Bevan's. So...

 

[Prince EWS]

Well Dhoni's test record > Bevan's. So...

Yeah but it should be pretty clear to all who the better cricket batsman was though.

 

[ankitj]

Bevan, and I don't think it's as close as some others do

Yeah right. Bevan used to drink some magic potion.

Bevan made Disney-movie like finishes to games where if you hadn't seen it yourself you'd think it was a made up story for kids.

Applies equally to Dhoni, if you care to notice. Obviously you won't feel same sense of nervousness when Dhoni is doing his rescue job.

 

[benchmark00]

lol so hard at the ignorance of people who use strike rate as a reason why finisher x is better than finisher y.

The goal of a finisher is not to score the runs as fast as they can, it's to score the runs. How many times did Bevans 'slower strike rate' cost his team the game? Strike rates don't win games of cricket, making the runs do.

 

[Dan]

lol so hard at the ignorance of people who use strike rate as a reason why finisher x is better than finisher y.

The goal of a finisher is not to score the runs as fast as they can, it's to score the runs. How many times did Bevans 'slower strike rate' cost his team the game? Strike rates don't win games of cricket, making the runs do.

I think we've narrowed it down to two, and even those are debatable.

I completely agree, FTR.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I think Bevan's second innings strike rate at least is almost inconsequential. Australia's bowlers were very good, which meant Australia often weren't chasing very much. Bevan's role was to make sure Australia got the runs they were chasing; not pad up his own strike rate and further risk losing the game. They were often only chasing 180-220 so striking at closer to 60 than 80 minimised his chance of getting out and maximised his team's chance of winning.

First innings is a bit of a different story but again, Australia were in a position where they knew they could defend a par total, so if they lost early wickets and Bevan was in pretty early, there was no sense in risking getting bundled out for 100 when 235 was probably going to be a winning score. In the first innings Bevan struck at 80, which was actually excellent for the era he batted in, and he averaged 52 while he did it.

 

[Debris]

Bevan easily once I think about the bowlers he had to face and that he had no batting powerplay to help him.

 

[Ikki]

Good point. For much of Bevan's career it was debatable (often not so much) that Australia was even the best team in the world. There were other great teams with great attacks.

 

[doesitmatter]

My pick is Bevan... just a case of nostalgia for being the first great finisher(sorry Javed) ..otherwise not much to choose between both..the argument that Bevan faced better attacks is true but i don't agree that this should be held against Dhoni ..one because Bevan could take his time to score his runs as he had a better attack behind him to defend the score. two because Dhoni might have faced a lesser attack but the attack he has behind him ..fuggadaboutit..so he has to attack more, take more risk.. when they bat first that is..when batting second i always thought Dhoni chased bigger scores(because of pie-chuckers) so attack more,take more risk and Bevan faced better attacks but smaller scores(because of Aussie bowling) so take singles,2s,less risk..so it is nullified

Both have done in different countries i think..so nothing there..
Kinda matches they helped the team to pull thru..Bevan is right up there..Dhoni is no slouch either against pak in pak and WC 2011 etc
I think Dhoni's achievement kinda gets diluted in the deluge of ODI's Asian countries play..

Still Bevan though ..was in awe of him

 

[Migara]

lol so hard at the ignorance of people who use strike rate as a reason why finisher x is better than finisher y.

The goal of a finisher is not to score the runs as fast as they can, it's to score the runs. How many times did Bevans 'slower strike rate' cost his team the game? Strike rates don't win games of cricket, making the runs do.

Nah, it matters. What Dhoni has proven is that he can do it in swashbucking style too. Put Bevan in Indina team and Dhoni in Bevan's team and who'd you think to be more successful? Bevan got away finishing with slow strike rates because he had a damn brilliant bowling side. Dhoni doesn't have that luxury, still finishes games well.

 

[benchmark00]

Nah, it matters. What Dhoni has proven is that he can do it in swashbucking style too. Put Bevan in Indina team and Dhoni in Bevan's team and who'd you think to be more successful? Bevan got away finishing with slow strike rates because he had a damn brilliant bowling side. Dhoni doesn't have that luxury, still finishes games well.

So you're saying Bevan played appropriately considering the situation he found himself in?

Yep, definitely sounds like a high strike rate is relevant.

 

[Migara]

What were the opposition bowling attacks like during their careers? 94-04 had some pretty awesome bowlers.

But they were not allowed the short ball, Bevan's achilles.

 

[Migara]

So you're saying Bevan played appropriately considering the situation he found himself in?

Yep, definitely sounds like a high strike rate is relevant.

Definitely, and that's why he is an ATG. But Dhoni have proved in situations additional to what Bevan has done well. That is going beserk and winning.

 

[Prince EWS]

You can always tell people are just regurgitating stereotypes without having actually watched the cricket in question when the Bevan/short ball thing comes up.

It should definitely be noted that in a Bevan v Dhoni thread, the short ball is not something Bevan detractors should be that keen to use a yardstick...

 

[Migara]

You can always tell people are just regurgitating stereotypes without having actually watched the cricket in question when the Bevan/short ball thing comes up.

It should definitely be noted that in a Bevan v Dhoni thread, the short ball is not something Bevan detractors should be that keen to use a yardstick...

Yeah, Adam Hollioke producing chin music against Bevan must have occur ed in the outer-space. Both are weak against short ball, but Dhoni is being tested by it, while Bevan was not. And whenever he was tested in international cricket, Bevan came second best of the bowler.

 

[ankitj]

It will be plain wrong to assume that Dhoni has same sort of troubles with short ball that Raina has. Dhoni is much better against the short stuff.

 

[Prince EWS]

It will be plain wrong to assume that Dhoni has same sort of troubles with short ball that Raina has. Dhoni is much better against the short stuff.

Dhoni is much better at playing short-pitched bowling than Raina, agreed. It certainly gives him a leg up in the Dhoni v Raina thread.

 

[ankitj]

Watch this for a laugh...

Dhoni Six, Doesnt bother looking, with commentary!!!! - YouTube