**Official** New Zealand in Australia 2015

[TheJediBrah]

yeah, but he didn't get picked and performed averagely in the games he did play. It's entirely your opinion that he could've done better because all we have to go by is what he actually did.

it's not even my opinion at all that he would have, it's a complete guess. There's no way to know for sure, obviously. Just saying that he doesn't really fit the original criteria.

He's a bit of a unique case in that he was so good yet couldn't break into the side because it was so strong/settled for over a decade.

 

[mr_mister]

I remember thinking Watson was headed for the level of ATG during the 09/10 summer. He had such a good series against Pak

 

[Black_Warrior]

I remember thinking Watson was headed for the level of ATG during the 09/10 summer. He had such a good series against Pak

Yepp me too. And the 2010 India series too where he was the only Aus batsman to get a hundred if I'm not wrong

 

[Zinzan]

Can't believe we forgot about Shane Watson.

ATG ODI player. Pretty decent but nothing special test player.

*** me, if Guptill could average mid-30s even if he conversion was *** like Watto, we'd keep him in the openers spot. That's saying nothing of Watto's 75 wickets at 33.

 

[Zinzan]

can you kiwis englighten on me on why Twose was a legend in one form and sucky in another

Classic FTB, Not much in the way of foot-work, but found a technique that worked for him in the short-form. Pretty much lunge forward and swing through the line. Guessing he'd have been a more than handy T20 bat too had he be played a decade later.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm, discussion was about players who were very good at ODI cricket and not good at Test cricket though, not about players who were very good at ODI cricket and had limited opportunity in Test cricket early in their career and as a result have ordinary statistics. Shouldn't have to explain that tbh.

Bevan was given enough opportunities in, given, a strong era. That a bloke like Watson was given a ridiculous, basically unprecedented number of opportunities to prove he wasn't going to even get above an average of 40 doesn't change that Bevan was given a reasonably fair shake too so he, personally, fits the criteria. Saying he'd average 50+ is a stretch for a guy who nicked out as regularly as he did.

He's more analogous to Watson than we think, really. When he first played for SA, was going to be a world beater, genius, etc. But he wasn't and even after moving back to NSW, still took several years to get a go. The performance never matched the hype.

 

[_Ed_]

Classic FTB, Not much in the way of foot-work, but found a technique that worked for him in the short-form. Pretty much lunge forward and swing through the line. Guessing he'd have been a more than handy T20 bat too had he be played a decade later.

For sure. I remember him playing some dominant knocks in Cricket Max - 30-plus off an over at one point IIRC.

 

[NZTailender]

Bevan was given enough opportunities in, given, a strong era. That a bloke like Watson was given a ridiculous, basically unprecedented number of opportunities to prove he wasn't going to even get above an average of 40 doesn't change that Bevan was given a reasonably fair shake too so he, personally, fits the criteria. Saying he'd average 50+ is a stretch for a guy who nicked out as regularly as he did.

He's more analogous to Watson than we think, really. When he first played for SA, was going to be a world beater, genius, etc. But he wasn't and even after moving back to NSW, still took several years to get a go. The performance never matched the hype.

The guy played his last Test at age 28 and averaged a shade under 58 in first class cricket. He was deserving of more of a go, and from all accounts worked on the things that caused him to struggle at Test level but didn't get another chance to prove it - which is fair enough when you consider he already had 18 goes and you had people like Lehmann, Hayden, Langer et al waiting in the wings.

 

[morgieb]

The guy played his last Test at age 28 and averaged a shade under 58 in first class cricket. He was deserving of more of a go, and from all accounts worked on the things that caused him to struggle at Test level but didn't get another chance to prove it - which is fair enough when you consider he already had 18 goes and you had people like Lehmann, Hayden, Langer et al waiting in the wings.

Interesting fact about Bevan's domestic exploits - he is only one of two living Australian batsmen to average over 60 in Shield cricket.

 

[Dan]

To be fair, Bevan did play a few of those Tests as a bowling all-rounder.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bevan was given enough opportunities in, given, a strong era. That a bloke like Watson was given a ridiculous, basically unprecedented number of opportunities to prove he wasn't going to even get above an average of 40 doesn't change that Bevan was given a reasonably fair shake too so he, personally, fits the criteria. Saying he'd average 50+ is a stretch for a guy who nicked out as regularly as he did.

He's more analogous to Watson than we think, really. When he first played for SA, was going to be a world beater, genius, etc. But he wasn't and even after moving back to NSW, still took several years to get a go. The performance never matched the hype.

most of that is just completely false

Bevan dominated Shield cricket for over a decade, had 1000 run seasons and averaged 70-80 in his better years. And this was when Shield cricket was at times almost as challenging as Test cricket in terms of standard.

 

[NZTailender]

So the ICC admitted the Llong decision was wrong (Nigel Wwrong). Given that Lyon scored 34, had he been out for a duck and Starc still scored 24, Australia would've been chasing 221 in the 4th innings.

• They lost a wicket every 43.714 deliveries in that innings
• They were going at 3.66 runs per over.
• To get the extra 34 they would've needed 9 overs, or 54 deliveries.
• In which time they would've lost 1 more wicket at the rate they had been.
• They chase it down 2 wickets in hand
• 

 

[GotSpin]

Bat better NZ

 

[vandem]

So the ICC admitted the Llong decision was wrong (Nigel Wwrong). Given that Lyon scored 34, had he been out for a duck and Starc still scored 24, Australia would've been chasing 221 in the 4th innings.

• They lost a wicket every 43.714 deliveries in that innings
• They were going at 3.66 runs per over.
• To get the extra 34 they would've needed 9 overs, or 54 deliveries.
• In which time they would've lost 1 more wicket at the rate they had been.
• They chase it down 2 wickets in hand
• 

So the ICC admitted the Llong decision was wrong. Given that Lyon and Nevill scored 74 runs in their partnership that should have ended with 2 runs ...

Yup, Aussie had a leg-up from the umpiring mistake. All else being equal there would have been a 1-1 series result.

But it's in the scorebook now. Ask Danny Morrison, you don't get a 2nd chance against the Aussies.

 

[Top_Cat]

most of that is just completely false

Bevan dominated Shield cricket for over a decade, had 1000 run seasons and averaged 70-80 in his better years. And this was when Shield cricket was at times almost as challenging as Test cricket in terms of standard.

And yet poor Bev kept missing out despite world-beating genius. Wonder why.

 

[Top_Cat]

To be fair, Bevan did play a few of those Tests as a bowling all-rounder.

......because he wasn't perceived as being good enough to displace the batsmen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And yet poor Bev kept missing out despite world-beating genius. Wonder why.

More to do with how Australia's quiver of great batsmen was practically overflowing. Poor bloke.

 

[NZTailender]

So the ICC admitted the Llong decision was wrong. Given that Lyon and Nevill scored 74 runs in their partnership that should have ended with 2 runs ...

Yup, Aussie had a leg-up from the umpiring mistake. All else being equal there would have been a 1-1 series result.

But it's in the scorebook now. Ask Danny Morrison, you don't get a 2nd chance against the Aussies.

Actually good point about that partnership runs. I'll do a recalculation

 

[NZTailender]

So the ICC admitted the Llong decision was wrong (Nigel Wwrong). Given that Lyon scored 34, had he been out for a duck and Starc still scored 24, Australia would've been chasing 221 in the 4th innings.

• They lost a wicket every 43.714 deliveries in that innings
• They were going at 3.66 runs per over.
• To get the extra 34 they would've needed 9 overs, or 54 deliveries.
• In which time they would've lost 1 more wicket at the rate they had been.
• They chase it down 2 wickets in hand
• 

Chased down with 1 wicket in hand - a limping Starc perhaps.

 

[Spikey]

a cool michael bevan fact is that in FC cricket he averaged 79 at the SCG, from over 50 matches. Which must be close to a non Bradman record at one ground.