morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
WTF? He was one of our best OD batsman ever.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
cricketers that had potential
- Thread starter slippy
- Start date
jondavluc
State Regular
He means tests mate.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Reckon he was wasted in tests by Australia not picking him properly/us having heaps of gun bats. Still, it's hard to call him a wasted talent.He means tests mate.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
He was one of the best Shield batsmen of all time and average under 30 in Tests. I reckon he'd have traded his ODI career to average 40 in Tests which still would have been significantly below what he was capable of. Massively under-achieved in proper cricket.
Last edited:
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It says at the top level, to many people Test Cricket is the top level. So yeah arguably you could call him a wasted talent at the top level.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yeah I'd definitely agree with this.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I don't think so somehow. If he averaged 40 he'd go down in history with the likes of Ian Bell.
Now he makes or gets close to all time ODI XI's which is significantly better IMO.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
It's well known that he had a major problem with the short ball and was found out as his test career progressed.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was found out but more his play outside off-stump; bottle him up on the leg, throw the wide one, big nick. Was only out to the short ones a couple of times but they did not look good! Ask a couple of generations of FC bowlers with bruised egos whether he was weak against the short ball.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
He's probably at the stage of his career now for it to be safe to say him - Shaun Tait.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I disagree. I reckon blokes like Slater & Langer who had negligible ODI careers but were crucial parts of one of the best test teams ever would be far happier with their international careers than Bevan would be with his. Would call either quite a great, but were certainly very good test players.
Doubt either would trade with Bev.
Anyway, English cricket is littered with unfulfilled promise: Chris Lewis, Graeme Hick & Mark Ramprakash are three of the more obvious and egregious examples.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
As mentioned by Brumby in another thread. I think Alex Tudor is well worth a mention. Had all the ingredients to make himself a really good bowler if you ask me, shame that he was dragged back by injuries and reported attitude problems. Still remains one of my favourite players to this day mind you.
WAG.
WAG.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Unless you suggest he should have played less than he did, it's hard to say he wasn't picked properly. He was given two opportunities as a front-line batsman, started superbly in both, then was punched to the ground by decent but hardly phenomenal England attacks. Bevan was indeed extremely unfortunate that he was around at the same time as the Waughs, Blewett, Ponting, Langer, Martyn, Lehmann, Katich etc. but he could hardly expect to be given umpteen chances while most of the above (the formermost two were established before him) were given zero.
Bevan was unable to produce that much in relatively short stints. And in amongst such a galaxy of batting talent, that is quite possibly all you're going to get. Bevan was a victim of conspiracy of circumstance more than anything else.
Mind, if you offered me the title best ODI batsman in history - which Bevan certainly has an extremely strong claim to - I'd certainly think long and hard about whether I wanted it regardless of what'd happen in Tests. Yes, even I would do so.
Last edited:
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
For a lot of his chances he was picked as a batting all-rounder, whereas he batted at 3 or 4 in FC cricket...
Migara
International Coach
And bouncer was not legal in ODIs during his time.
Well, there are about a thousand examples. I'll list a few:
- Greg Blewett - had an obvious technical flaw + was weak against spin, but should've averaged more than 34, given the number of Tests that he played
- Matthew Elliott - technically gifted but temperamentally flawed and injury prone
- Brett Lee - I know that this is drawing a very long bow, especially since he has taken 300 Test and ODI wickets, but he had enough talent to average 25 or so in Test cricket, only to waste much of his career by bowling like a moron
- Carl Hooper/Mark Waugh - Stylish and gifted, but both were prone to daft dismissals
- Mark Ramprakash/Graeme Hick - Both gifted, with a weakness against the short ball in Hick's case, but both underachieved - badly
- Mohammad Sami - Okay, so his accuracy and discipline were prone to going awry, but he could generate the pace and movement to trouble good batsmen. Only problem is, he rarely did.
- Salman Butt - He batted pretty well against Australia, with some debonair strokeplay - why hasn't he done well since?
- Mushtaq Ahmed - At his best, not far behind Warne, but inexplicably underachieved for most of his career
Those are the foremost examples in my mind right now. There are others, like Gavin Robertson, who also did poorly but they weren't particularly talented to begin with.
- Greg Blewett - had an obvious technical flaw + was weak against spin, but should've averaged more than 34, given the number of Tests that he played
- Matthew Elliott - technically gifted but temperamentally flawed and injury prone
- Brett Lee - I know that this is drawing a very long bow, especially since he has taken 300 Test and ODI wickets, but he had enough talent to average 25 or so in Test cricket, only to waste much of his career by bowling like a moron
- Carl Hooper/Mark Waugh - Stylish and gifted, but both were prone to daft dismissals
- Mark Ramprakash/Graeme Hick - Both gifted, with a weakness against the short ball in Hick's case, but both underachieved - badly
- Mohammad Sami - Okay, so his accuracy and discipline were prone to going awry, but he could generate the pace and movement to trouble good batsmen. Only problem is, he rarely did.
- Salman Butt - He batted pretty well against Australia, with some debonair strokeplay - why hasn't he done well since?
- Mushtaq Ahmed - At his best, not far behind Warne, but inexplicably underachieved for most of his career
Those are the foremost examples in my mind right now. There are others, like Gavin Robertson, who also did poorly but they weren't particularly talented to begin with.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Wayne Daniel. Although the only reason he went unfulfilled was the fact that Clive Lloyd had a grudge against him.