-
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.
Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?
- Thread starter kiwiviktor81
- Start date
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In losing chases, Bevan averaged just shy of 40. He was only not out 5 times in 34 innings (15% n/o)
In losing batting first, Bevan averaged just under 42. He was only not out 9 times in 36 innings (25% n/o)
In winning causes, batting first, Bevan averaged 57@82. He was not out 28 times in 77 innings (36% n/o)
In winning causes, batting second, Bevan averaged 86@66. He was not out 25 times in 45 innings (56% n/o)
That suggests that Bevan being not out was far more important to his team's chances of winning than his strike rate (which incidentally was much higher in wins than in losses).
It also suggests that he was better at chasing.
It also suggests that he adapted his game based on the situation that he faced.
It also suggests that he could bat at a reasonable clip (his first innings strike rate in wins is good enough for a modern batsman).
I answered player B in the poll, because in the current game, presented with those options, I would always choose player B in the situation given. But I would always pick Bevan before Maxwell in my team. Because Bevan often came in well before the 35th over, adapted his game perfectly to the situation and was the best ODI batsman I've seen in my lifetime.
Incidentally, I had no idea about that Bevan vs Asia game. Incredible batting and one feels that Caddick should have made that run.
Bevan was a freakishly amazing player. He played against ridiculously good bowling attacks in a bowler dominated era and had ridiculously good averages against all of them. He was a chasing specialist who had ice in his veins. People who wouldn't put him in an all time XI really don't have a clue about the game.
In losing batting first, Bevan averaged just under 42. He was only not out 9 times in 36 innings (25% n/o)
In winning causes, batting first, Bevan averaged 57@82. He was not out 28 times in 77 innings (36% n/o)
In winning causes, batting second, Bevan averaged 86@66. He was not out 25 times in 45 innings (56% n/o)
That suggests that Bevan being not out was far more important to his team's chances of winning than his strike rate (which incidentally was much higher in wins than in losses).
It also suggests that he was better at chasing.
It also suggests that he adapted his game based on the situation that he faced.
It also suggests that he could bat at a reasonable clip (his first innings strike rate in wins is good enough for a modern batsman).
I answered player B in the poll, because in the current game, presented with those options, I would always choose player B in the situation given. But I would always pick Bevan before Maxwell in my team. Because Bevan often came in well before the 35th over, adapted his game perfectly to the situation and was the best ODI batsman I've seen in my lifetime.
Incidentally, I had no idea about that Bevan vs Asia game. Incredible batting and one feels that Caddick should have made that run.
Bevan was a freakishly amazing player. He played against ridiculously good bowling attacks in a bowler dominated era and had ridiculously good averages against all of them. He was a chasing specialist who had ice in his veins. People who wouldn't put him in an all time XI really don't have a clue about the game.
Last edited:
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
31/3 after 9 overs. Slog to 299. Beats 200 or 220 any day of the week.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
You do realise that "Pre-Bevan" is a mutually exclusive point in time to Bevan being there, don't you?
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Bahahhahahah.
Last edited:
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Interesting match right now. Maxwell comes in at 30/3, nek minnit Aussie's on 299. If that was Bevan at 5 Aussie would have finished up 230/4.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
More like 230/7 or 8 with Bevan not out on 80-90 odd.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thing is, at 100/5, when you choose between attack to 300 (or fail to 150) or build to 200-220
If you choose attack, you'll probably get bowled out for **** all 8-9 times out of 10.
You gotta play the percentages. Better to have some chance to win the no chance to win because you went for 300 and got bowled out for 150 on a pitch where 210 would be a good score.
If you have a Maxwell in the team it doesn't matter though cause he'll do whatever the **** he wants anyway
If you choose attack, you'll probably get bowled out for **** all 8-9 times out of 10.
You gotta play the percentages. Better to have some chance to win the no chance to win because you went for 300 and got bowled out for 150 on a pitch where 210 would be a good score.
If you have a Maxwell in the team it doesn't matter though cause he'll do whatever the **** he wants anyway
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What's funny about this?
Statistically, he was not out 20% of the time in losses and 41% of the time in wins. This suggests that Australia was far more likely to win if Bevan was not out at the end of their innings.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
It also suggests that when Bevan had the time to play a completed innings Aussie tended to lose more.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
or they lost because he got out
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Or they lost because the more balls Bevan faces the more likely Aussie is to lose.
Notice that, alongside Maxwell going nuts, Bailey made 75 (110) -- basically a 'Bevan role' of rebuilding, only slower?
#GiveMeBoth
Yeah, it's very much about adapting to game situation and reading what a par score is. 3/30 because your top order are idiots? Doesn't affect the par score, odds of doing something like today are higher. 3/30 because its a minefield against a good attack? Grind out the 220 rather than falling in a heap trying to #intent it up and back your bowlers to defend it.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
I laughed because there were just so many fallacies. Vik and Jedi Brah are elucidating some of them above. But there's more. It appeared logical to you but was just so wrong.
Last edited:
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Which is why he averaged facing 50 balls in wins and 45 in losses...
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would actually be pretty interesting seeing a balls faced-result correlation stat for players. Get on it nerds.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bevan faced more deliveries on average in wins (50) than he did in losses (45). If anything, this shows that Australia is more likely to win when Bevan faced more balls than when he faced less.
This is probably correct. Which only goes to show how valuable he was to sides that had Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Gilchrist and Ponting in them.