The famed Indian batting line up !!

[Sudeep]

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]

For ODIs, I'd rate Bevan higher than all of them, yes all of them!

ok thats u r opinion and the one u quoted above is mine

 

[Sudeep]

ok thats u r opinion and the one u quoted above is mine

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]

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...

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]

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!

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]

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

 

[Sudeep]

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

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]

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.

a valid point !

but the one another thing is that his inngs count also would have increased from the current one

 

[tooextracool]

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!

thats a ridiculous comment to make considering that when he batted at 4, his average got better and went upto 59.

 

[Sudeep]

a valid point !

but the one another thing is that his inngs count also would have increased from the current one

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.

 

[honestbharani]

Does anyone have Bevan's record batting at no.4? That should prove if he really is a legend or not?

 

[SJS]

Does anyone have Bevan's record batting at no.4? That should prove if he really is a legend or not?

Michael G Bevan (Australia) - ODI Cricket
Performance Analysis by Batting Position

Position--Inns--NO--50s--100s--HS--Runs--Avg
Opening-----1---1---0------0---*40--40-----
No. 3--------3---1---1------0---*77--94--47.00
No. 4-------53--15--17-----3--*108-2265--59.61
No. 5-------33---5---5-----2----103-1165--41.61
No. 6-------87--34--23-----1---*102-3006--56.72
No. 7-------18--11----0----0----*42---339--48.43
No. 8--------1---0----0----0------3----3----3.00

Overall 196 67 46 6 *108 6912 53.58

 

[SJS]

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 !!

 

[username]

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.

 

[SJS]

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.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Tendulkar a legend, I though he was over rated How can an FTB so over rated be a legend ??

given that ODIs is a game made for FTBs, i dont see how thats applicable.

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.

and look at viv and bevans awesome record too, both of them averaging a lot better than ganguly.

 

[tooextracool]

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 !!

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.
IMO that is the perfect way to play ODI cricket, it doesnt require too much risks, it frustrates the opposition when you continually hit 1s and 2s and put pressure on the fielders and it ensures that a quality player ends up batting till the end of the innings.
i still believe that he was wasted to a large extent when he was made to bat at 6 for most his career. if anyone was made to bat during the middle overs it was michael bevan.

 

[Dydl]

It is a real pity that he was dropped from the ODI team, he has produced and still does match winning efforts.

 

[Deja moo]

thats a ridiculous comment to make considering that when he batted at 4, his average got better and went upto 59.

Yeah, and when he batted at 5, his average went down to 41. 4 isnt very far from 5.

Statististical quirks.

 

[amolvaidya79]

I feel Ajit Agarkar shoule be dropped from the Team. He is just blocking place for youngster. He has been so lucky to be in team. I dont feel he is competent enough to be taken in playing 11.