Yeah it's worth a thread on it's own, the variability of successful types. I mean for every Ponting or Sachin who were guns from the get-go, there are blokes like Hayden who was never invited to the academy, was rated as below par even whilst plundering attacks on tough Gabba decks for most of the 90's yet ended up being one of Aus's best ever openers. Conversely, there are guys like Bev and Lehmann who were rated as being in Ponting's league but didn't really go anywhere in Tests or Siddons who didn't get a go at all (ironically, was probably for the same reasons as Bevan, considered weak against the short-ball although there was probably something to it).
What I reckon a lot of people miss in rating players is that blokes have to constantly refine or reinvent their game and sometimes the decisions they make don't pay off. Happens to all players. How (and how quickly) you claw back from a bad season(s) where you tried a slightly different grip or decided to go after balls you'd normally leave is a big test. This is aside from all the other pressures a bat can face. When Lehmann was picked against England in the 90's, he was in ridiculous form for SA but failed in Tests. Word on the street was he was stung by people who thought he didn't play enough shots so started throwing his hands at anything even vaguely outside off-stump. A series of nick outs later and he was out on his arse for being flaky in pressure situations.
Personally, a big correlate of successful players is those who, once they find something that works, either stick with it through good and bad trots and/or listen to what they're own brain is telling them rather than taking the advice of experts holus bolus. Guys who are constantly chasing their tails trying to keep everyone happy ("Bah, he's good but he doesn't have an out-swinger!" "Pshaw, he's accurate but no wrong'un?" "Can't be successful in Tests unless you can hook!") are the ones who struggle when they get found-out and have to change stuff.
Look at a guy like Sachin; Warne was busy decimating everyone who faced him before they played the 1998 series and conventional wisdom suggested once Warne came around the wicket, you'd be best kicking him away because trying to smash them was just too risky. Sachin, formerly an impeccably orthodox player, instead took a leaf out of Cronje's book, trusted his eye, practiced against a leggie before the series (Laxman was it?) and then regularly slammed Warne into the stands around wide mid-on. No-one saw it coming and had people found out beforehand, would have questioned his sanity but in doing that and being smart enough to pick only the balls in exactly the right spot, turned a big money-ball from Warne into a psychological weapon because the rest of his game suffered for a while after that I reckon.
test average. We know Bevan didn't have a good Test career. That is kind of the point of the discussion we're having.
