Sudeep
International Captain
For ODIs, I'd rate Bevan higher than all of them, yes all of them!biased indian said:so will be M Waugh,Lara,desilva,rhodes,jaysuriya,inzamam,s.anwar,ganguly etc
For ODIs, I'd rate Bevan higher than all of them, yes all of them!biased indian said:so will be M Waugh,Lara,desilva,rhodes,jaysuriya,inzamam,s.anwar,ganguly etc
ok thats u r opinion and the one u quoted above is mineSudeep said:For ODIs, I'd rate Bevan higher than all of them, yes all of them!
I believe if he had got more chances at #4, he'd have ended up with about 10,000 ODI runs, but that's probably just me...biased indian said:ok thats u r opinion and the one u quoted above is mine
Another thing thatcould have happend if he batted at 4 was thathe would have got out a lot of times and thus reducing his wonderful avg to the levels of others!Sudeep said:I believe if he had got more chances at #4, he'd have ended up with about 10,000 ODI runs, but that's probably just me...
Still it'd have been around 50. He did get out a lot of times during the last part of his career (he isn't retired BTW) and still it's about 55. So, he'd probably have ended up with 45-50 if he'd batted at #4 all his career, which is top notch, and deserving of being called a legend.biased indian said:Another thing thatcould have happend if he batted at 4 was thathe would have got out a lot of times and thus reducing his wonderful avg to the levels of others!
Considering he'd have batted at #4, yes he'd have got less number of not outs, but more runs, which might have prevented his average from dropping to as less as 42.biased indian said:if a am correct his avg is 53. some thing
the fact is that he is considerd a great in ODI is for two reasons
1->>one he has helped aus win some tight matches(around 8 to 12) which a lot of others might have done some(4 to 8 times)
2->>and his phenominal Avg
if we consider that if he had batted at 4 and been dimissed in half of the 67 notout he has
his Avg would come down to 42 some thing which will be a simillar one to of lara and ganguly
a valid point !Sudeep said:Considering he'd have batted at #4, yes he'd have got less number of not outs, but more runs, which might have prevented his average from dropping to as less as 42.
thats a ridiculous comment to make considering that when he batted at 4, his average got better and went upto 59.biased indian said:Another thing thatcould have happend if he batted at 4 was thathe would have got out a lot of times and thus reducing his wonderful avg to the levels of others!
More number of innings, more opportunities to score big ones. With his temperament, he'd have been bound to get huge scores consistently while batting at #4.biased indian said:a valid point !
but the one another thing is that his inngs count also would have increased from the current one
Michael G Bevan (Australia) - ODI Crickethonestbharani said:Does anyone have Bevan's record batting at no.4? That should prove if he really is a legend or not?
I fully agree. I think the biggest tragedy is that his beautiful methodology of how to score fast and yet with certainity has not been embibed by anyone in the same immaculate manner yet. This is what makes one feel that his legacy is not fully appreciated. When people copy you they pay you the ultimate com[pliment.username said:Bevan turned more would be poor totals into decent totals, more decent totals into good totals and was responsible for more difficult winning run chases than any other ODI bastmen ever. He made his runs when they counted most.
Example, 2003 in India, Tendulkar bashes out 400 runs, most of which came on great batting wickets against nz, does nothing in the one that counts, yet he picks up man of the series, Tendulkar scores in India, no brainer. Meanwhile Bevan was the difference between a win and a loss in 3 matches, his runs made under far more difficult circumstances, yet because there were no last ball finishes no-one remembers.
His greatest downfall was that he was a saviour in a team which came to posess an attacking line up which required no saving.
given that ODIs is a game made for FTBs, i dont see how thats applicable.Sanz said:Tendulkar a legend, I though he was over rated How can an FTB so over rated be a legend ??
and look at viv and bevans awesome record too, both of them averaging a lot better than ganguly.Sanz said:If ODIs is the criteria then I can tell you that Ganguly is as good as anyone in your list if not better. Look at his awesome record in ODIs.
agreed. too many people believe that the right way to play ODI cricket is to blast 6s and 4s. bevan proved everyone wrong in that he could score at a run a ball when required just by taking 1s and 2s with the odd boundary. his running between the wicket was exceptional and he often ended up converting 1s into 2s and 2s into 3s. the number of times bevan has batted till the end of the innings(and still played a relatively long innings) is amazing, certainly he had the best presence of mind to know when to go for the big shot we've ever seen.SJS said:Bevan is a great one day player no doubt but he was so different from what one has come to define as THE great limited over player, the big shot playing aggressive stroke player in the Viv Richards and Tendulkar mode. These players had very high strike rates thanks to the large number of boundaries and sixes in their totals. Bevan had a highly impressive strike rate of 74.16 but with a much smaller percentage of boundary hits.
He ran a much larger number of his runs. He surely had a much smaller number of dot balls than any other one day great and the difference will be very striking I am sure. It is this differnce which difrentiated Bevan from the other greats AND it also accounted for his larger number of not outs. His game was relatively risk free but still very brisk !!
tooextracool said:thats a ridiculous comment to make considering that when he batted at 4, his average got better and went upto 59.