marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
For once just try watching a game of cricket.
-
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.
***Official*** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2015
- Thread starter Kippax
- Start date
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Afridi. Who do you want coming in with 25 overs to go? The guy who'll last 47 deliveries on average or the guy who will last 18?
This is where you're missing the point completely, vik. The number 6 isn't always going to come in with 5 overs to go. Bevan often came in a lot earlier and had to rescue an innings or time a chase. Ideally you have Bevan 5 or 6 with an Afridi type one rung below. You can't have a team full of Afridi's because, and here's the rub, they're not going to construct a big innings or hit exactly 23 runs off 18 from 1-11. Nor can you have a team full of Bevans - even though Bevan's SR for the time he played was the standard.
Pointing out 5 of Bevan's seemingly poor innings doesn't mean he doesn't 'qualify' for ATG status which you backup by pulling statistics out of your butt. He qualifies as an ATG because he played match winning knocks and was a ODI genius. There's this thing called match situation which varies from game to game and outputs it's own statistics that when isolated out of context may seem bad, but in reality it's not. Try watching a game. Even better, hunt down some of Bevan's innings on youtube and learn something.
Last edited:
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Look, I saw heaps of Michael Bevan. More than I wanted to see of him. I accept most of what people are saying about Bevan, in particular how good he was for his time and place (which is unquestionably one of the best).
My point is that being a matchwinning player at 4 and 5 for the Australia team of the 1990s doesn't mean that he'd fit the team balance at No. 6 in an ATG Oceania side.
25 overs to go? If I was 9 wickets down I'd want Bevan at the crease. If I had wickets in hand (likely with an ATG batting lineup) I'd be prepared to lose a few more wickets for the sake of the run rate. This means hitters over nurdlers. A typical Bevan innings is something like 29 (47). I'd rather have three batsmen who all scored 20 and be 290/8 at the end of 50 instead of 260/6.
Out of respect for Flem274 (and probably some others) this is the last I'll write about Bevan in this thread.
My point is that being a matchwinning player at 4 and 5 for the Australia team of the 1990s doesn't mean that he'd fit the team balance at No. 6 in an ATG Oceania side.
25 overs to go? If I was 9 wickets down I'd want Bevan at the crease. If I had wickets in hand (likely with an ATG batting lineup) I'd be prepared to lose a few more wickets for the sake of the run rate. This means hitters over nurdlers. A typical Bevan innings is something like 29 (47). I'd rather have three batsmen who all scored 20 and be 290/8 at the end of 50 instead of 260/6.
Out of respect for Flem274 (and probably some others) this is the last I'll write about Bevan in this thread.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Australian team Bevan played for throughout his career pretty much WAS an ATG team. It was virtually as good as any ATG XI you can assemble. If that team found value in having Bevan in the team and had him to thank for rescuing them dozens of times, then why wouldn't he do the same in an ATG team? Your arguments make my piss boil.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
cnerd123
likes this
This is amazing
indiaholic
International Captain
*****, are you revising your 'all teams are home track bullies' hypothesis?
cnerd123
likes this
On the basis of this series? Lol no, ofcourse not. It just proves me right.
You probably have the wrong thread...
indiaholic
International Captain
Haha yeah. Browsing on the desktop site while using my phone results in gaffes like these.On the basis of this series? Lol no, ofcourse not. It just proves me right.
You probably have the wrong thread...
I don't agree with it, would have Bevan at 6 but this is a fair argument and posters are playing the man and not the ball when addressing it IMO.
indiaholic
International Captain
All everybody is saying is that it is wrong to judge Bevan for not doing things which he was not required to do. Would he have failed as a finisher today? Maybe. Would he have been the best finisher playing today? Maybe. Thing is that he was given a particular role in a team. He fulfilled that as well as you can hope for. You can't judge people for not doing things they were not required to do.
indiaholic
International Captain
Double post.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
When you saw Brett Lee bowling with the new ball in ODIs when in form . . . ****ing scary. 155kph big outswingers. The guy was basically unplayable.
Bowled some **** at the end of the innings though. But that's just ordinary captaincy.
no, it's really not. Assuming that he would play the same way he did now as he did in the 90s when 230 was a good score and half the time he was chasing 200ish is idiotic.
Then when you consider the bat sizes, bowling quality, boundary sizes, fielding restrictions (no powerplays in the 90s mate) etc. that separate the two eras it's just full blown I Am Sam.
Last edited:
Gob
International Coach
pretty sure Bevan could've adjusted to modern needs as he showed in this innings. Hussey was a good example for a player who played in both eras as he went from a nudger to a proper power hitter later on in his career. Bevan was legitimately great and the only bloke that i'd prefer over Bevan as a finisher is Dhoni (lol Ross Taylor)
