Michael Bevan Retires - and Tribute Thread.

[Richard]

For chrissakes, Richard, you can belligerently miss the point at times (and then drive home the fact that you missed the point, again and again).

I said, in the context of ODIs "coming in down the order doesn't preclude playing big shots". To back up that comment, I brought up players who come in down the order and (obviously) play big shots. Including Hussey. Bevan failed to do this, which is what I pointed out. Is it really that hard to understand? I am not comparing Bevan in ODIs down the order to Bevan in domestics up the order (it's really besides the point) - I am comparing Bevan to other players in that position in ODIs. When you say "In Bevan's case it clearly did preclude him", that is a shortcoming he had in comparison to Hussey. Perhaps it would be clearer to you if I said "shouldn't preclude" rather than "doesn't preclude", but I thought the point I was making wasn't that hard to grasp.

So other players play(ed) big shots down the order with the field back - they have advantages Bevan didn't, for the most part, enjoy (the main one being shorter boundaries, especially in Australia).

IMO it doesn't say too much. I'm sure Bevan could have slogged it all over the place if he really wanted to, but I'd guess he didn't think it was the percentage game to do so.

 

[Richard]

The point is that being down the order doesn't mean you can't play big shots. Hussey is one of the most aggressive late over batsmen in the world and has a terrific scoring rate and still gets many not outs. One of the main criticisms of Bevan when he played (and I say this as someone who rates him in the top 2 ODI batsmen of all time) was that he was sometimes unwilling to play big shots when the opportunity was there. Presumably with the desire to defend his own wicket, even when it wouldn't have made any difference to the team if he'd got out, like in the last couple of overs. You certainly can't say that about Hussey.

Who was he batting with in those last couple of overs?

If someone who had more striking power than him (and there were, after all, more than a few of them) then IMO it makes perfect sense to not look to slog every ball yourself - in fact I'd go so far as to say it defies logic to try.

You've also got to remember that death-bowling in Bevan's day was by-and-large of a higher quality than the current time.

 

[Smudge]

Really? Coulda fooled the rest of us.

Who could have fooled the rest of us? Oh, you mean . What's his name anyway?

 

[Richard]

Matt. He likes to use the name "Voltman".

 

[Smudge]

I've told you before not to use my name.

 

[Richard]

And I've told you that if you don't like it:
a) you shouldn't have mentioned it ITFP
b) if you don't like it, put me on your ignore-list. Will do the both of us a World of good.

 

[Smudge]

It's a request for you to stop using it. Anyone with any remote semblance of decency would have complied with the request. I put you on ignore a while back but because of your blanket posting style, it's impossible not to follow a thread without reading the dross masquerading as your 21,000+ posts.

 

[Richard]

It's a request for you to stop using it. Anyone with any remote semblance of decency would have complied with the request.

Maybe if you had displayed the remotest amount of decency in my direction I might have considered it.

I put you on ignore a while back but because of your blanket posting style, it's impossible not to follow a thread without reading the dross masquerading as your 21,000+ posts.

Exactly, so if it's so impossible not to why the blazes don't you go back to doing it?

 

[Smudge]

What would your first-chance life expectancy be if I happened to push you in front of a truck? Almost worth travelling to the UK for me to find out...

 

[TT Boy]

What would your first-chance life expectancy be if I happened to push you in front of a truck? Almost worth travelling to the UK for me to find out...

 

[Richard]

What would your first-chance life expectancy be if I happened to push you in front of a truck? Almost worth travelling to the UK for me to find out...

Why don't you try it, then... I'll try my hand at shooting down your plane or sinking your boat while you're at it...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Alright, that's enough from both parties here.

Any more and the thread will be closed.

Richard, it'd be preferable if you referred to him how he wishes. Generally, he's one of the members who is still referred to around the rest of the forums as Voltman (or nicknames derived from it) rather than a person regularly referred to by his first name, so it'd be easier for all parties if you just obliged rather than deliberately try to annoy him.

 

[Richard]

Maybe if he didn't deliberately try to annoy me, without fail, I might.

As I mentioned.

As I said - the best course of action would be for him to put me on his ignore-list, which he has done before, because I see no reason whatsoever why he should be able to make snide comments repeatedly towards me and I should not be able to respond in kind.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Two wrongs...

 

[Richard]

Which is the biggest load of bull**** in history, from a certain point of view.

If someone is wronged, they have the right of reply. No, they don't make a right, but nor do they need to. Once there is a wrong, the wronged person cannot make a right. Turn the other cheek? That just invites a second wrong - only difference is the direction.

 

[Dasa]

Which is the biggest load of bull**** in history, from a certain point of view.

If someone is wronged, they have the right of reply. No, they don't make a right, but nor do they need to. Once there is a wrong, the wronged person cannot make a right. Turn the other cheek? That just invites a second wrong - only difference is the direction.

That's wrong.

 

[Johnners]

That's wrong.

no doubt you'll be told in some load of twisted crap how it wasn't wrong though

 

[Richard]

That's wrong.

How, exactly?

No two wrongs make a right - nor does one wrong, for that matter, make a right.