How good was Michael Bevan in ODIs?

[Ted123]

He is regarded as the greatest finisher of all-time.And was part of Australia winning the WC in 1999 and 2003.

Where do you rank him among the greatest ODI batsmen of all-time and among Australian batters?

 

[Ab Fan]

ATG finisher. Arguably the greatest finisher of all-time. I will put him ahead of Dhoni as a finisher because of his all-conditions finishing skills. MSD didnt do much outside Asia. However, Dhoni is a superior cricketer. ATG captain and ATG wkt-keeper as well.

Among the Australian batsmen, I put him behind only Ponting.

Among all-time, he is right up there as well.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Always bailed Australia out of trouble when their top order failed. You remove the Waughs, Gilchrists and Pontings and this guy would still get them to a respectable total. And just after his time was up, Australia found another insane finisher in Hussey.

 

[hadi123]

I've heard he was an amazing finisher but never saw him bat obviously as I am too young.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

Played 2018 cricket in 1998. Was easily a decade ahead of other players in terms of chasing and as a finisher. I've not seen anyone constantly accumulating runs with zero-risk, during the riskiest part of the innings. He also made batting with the tail into an art form. The fact that Dhoni took that recipe and added the ability to hit percentage big-shots is what makes him the ATG finisher.

 

[Tusker]

Played 2018 cricket in 1998. Was easily a decade ahead of other players in terms of chasing and as a finisher.

Take a look at his strike rate ... it's closer to Rahul Dravids sr than MSD.... sorry but that wouldn't cut it in 2018.

 

[shane]

I remember him playing an extraordinary innings for the World XI against an Asian XI. He played many amazing innings, of course.

Bevan was, and is, the best ODI batsman ever.

 

[Ted123]

Always bailed Australia out of trouble when their top order failed. You remove the Waughs, Gilchrists and Pontings and this guy would still get them to a respectable total. And just after his time was up, Australia found another insane finisher in Hussey.

Where you put him among Australian batsmen?

 

[Ted123]

ATG finisher. Arguably the greatest finisher of all-time. I will put him ahead of Dhoni as a finisher because of his all-conditions finishing skills. MSD didnt do much outside Asia. However, Dhoni is a superior cricketer. ATG captain and ATG wkt-keeper as well.

Among the Australian batsmen, I put him behind only Ponting.

Among all-time, he is right up there as well.

In top5 of all-time?

 

[The_Odd_One]

3rd greatest ODI batsman of all time, behind only Richards and Kohli.

When the chips were down, Bevan would always perform.

 

[Proactive_]

Top 5 ATG batsman.

 

[Tusker]

He is regarded as the greatest finisher of all-time.And was part of Australia winning the WC in 1999 and 2003.

Where do you rank him among the greatest ODI batsmen of all-time and among Australian batters?

In your opinion ... how many big chases ( totals above 275 ) did Bevan help Aus chase successfully ?

 

[Ab Fan]

In top5 of all-time?

I would say behind Viv, SRT, Ponting, Kohli, de Villiers and Dhoni.

So, probably no.7 which is still brilliant. I felt those names had more responsibilities and burden alongside batting and they produced equally good output.

Bevan's job was just to finish off chases after the platform was laid which he did in all conditions and against all attacks because of having clutch genes. He didnt had to deal much with other aspects of the batting unlike others.

 

[ManFan]

Would make it into my ODI XI:

1) Gilly (vc)
2) SRT
3) Ponting
4) Viv Richards
5) AB
6) Sanga
7) Bevan
8) Akram
9) Warne (c)
10) Bond
11) McGrath

 

[hk031992]

In your opinion ... how many big chases ( totals above 275 ) did Bevan help Aus chase successfully ?

I know the question isn't directed towards me, but its a tough one to answer. Aus had a very good attack and even when they did concede more than 275, they had strong batters at the top who could score a lot of those runs.

 

[Itachi]

Take a look at his strike rate ... it's closer to Rahul Dravids sr than MSD.... sorry but that wouldn't cut it in 2018.

2018 cricket isn't about sr. It's about calculation towards the target.

The mindset was same. He was ahead by a decade.

 

[hk031992]

I rank Bevan as one of the top 10 greatest ODI players of all time quite easily. A case can be made for top 5. Wonderful player, they used to show repeats of his heriocs vs the West Indies in that low scoring game when he hit a boundary of the last ball, and vs NZ in 01/02. One of the greatest finishers ever

 

[Ab Fan]

Would make it into my ODI XI:

1) Gilly (vc)
2) SRT
3) Ponting
4) Viv Richards
5) AB
6) Sanga
7) Bevan
8) Akram
9) Warne (c)
10) Bond
11) McGrath

Great pick but you should have an all-rounder at 6. Even if you want to keep Sanga, he is pretty much a waste at 6 in odi lineup. You should go for Klusenar or even a Flintoff at 7 and hence Bevan will come at 6. He was excellent in odis, better than tests.

Kohli can come at 3 as well.

 

[Ab Fan]

^ He refers to Flintoff.

 

[Tusker]

2018 cricket isn't about sr. It's about calculation towards the target.

The mindset was same. He was ahead by a decade.

When the target we are talking about is significantly larger than what it used to be in the 90s a fantastic mix of power play , ability to counter attack, running between the wkts , strike rotation and the ability to bat in exceptional pressure situations is paramount. This is how todays ODI games are played and why 300 is never a guaranteed winning score like it used to be in the 90s. Its a Completely different ball game and Bevan would simply not be able to raise his game to that level. The stats just dont support it. His one and only skill was to milk the bowling and hit the odd boundary .. knowing very well that thats all was pretty much required to be in the game. This just wont work today in big chases. Eg: Kohli chasing 329 vs SL in Aus

 

[ManFan]

Great pick but you should have an all-rounder at 6. Even if you want to keep Sanga, he is pretty much a waste at 6 in odi lineup. You should go for Klusenar or even a Flintoff at 7 and hence Bevan will come at 6. He was excellent in odis, better than tests.

Kohli can come at 3 as well.

Kohli is a great #3 but has to prove himself on the big stage.

Klusner can take over Sanga so Bevan can be pushed up to #6.

So many great cricketers with flair and charisma.

Nowadays, ODI cricket has become mundane.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Where you put him among Australian batsmen?

Hard to say. He's the probably the best they had at his position in ODIs. Hussey was a better all round batsman though .

 

[Srtfan]

Atg batsman but too slow,I remembered 1 of him inning 70 ball 40 not out in final against India.he couldn't hit in last over also.

 

[Mamoon]

His 189* in the World XI vs Asia XI is the second greatest ODI innings I have ever seen.

 

[ManFan]

His 189* in the World XI vs Asia XI is the second greatest ODI innings I have ever seen.

What’s the first?

 

[Mamoon]

What’s the first?

Gibbs' 175 vs Australia.

 

[ManFan]

There’s an article that covers his 12 best innings by Ross V. Slater.

Some of these include...

1) Took AUS Academy XI from 5-77 chasing 277 to tie the match with a 130.

2) Helped chase down 284 with a 103 after AUS were 3-58 against SA.

3) Chased down 262 after AUS were 6-82 with a 102 against NZ.

And these are only chases.

Batting first in the 96’ SF, 99’ SF, 2001 GOA 5th Match, are all other classics.

 

[ManFan]

Gibbs' 175 vs Australia.

That was great but it was a pitch where 800+ runs were scored in a single day.

 

[Kroll]

That was great but it was a pitch where 800+ runs were scored in a single day.

Yes, but it was in an extremely tough chase.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

That was great but it was a pitch where 800+ runs were scored in a single day.

That innings broke and created a world record against the best ODI team in the world.

 

[ManFan]

That innings broke and created a world record against the best ODI team in the world.

Was also the decider.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

When the target we are talking about is significantly larger than what it used to be in the 90s a fantastic mix of power play , ability to counter attack, running between the wkts , strike rotation and the ability to bat in exceptional pressure situations is paramount. This is how todays ODI games are played and why 300 is never a guaranteed winning score like it used to be in the 90s. Its a Completely different ball game and Bevan would simply not be able to raise his game to that level. The stats just dont support it. His one and only skill was to milk the bowling and hit the odd boundary .. knowing very well that thats all was pretty much required to be in the game. This just wont work today in big chases. Eg: Kohli chasing 329 vs SL in Aus

So a guy who hit 189 not out against Asian Best XI would not be able to chase 300 scores?

Laughable really.

Yes, he played risk free cricket but that was because targets were smaller.

He had the ability to up the ante when required.

If you have seen him bat, you would not come out with such a statement.

 

[ArsenalFC]

Gibbs' 175 vs Australia.

Where does Fakhar Zaman's CT final knock stand in your top tons list? Top 20 for sure...

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

I think the best I have seen before the arrival of AB and Kohli.
Bevan against NZ was always fun to watch

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

I've heard he was an amazing finisher but never saw him bat obviously as I am too young.

Though highlights are never a substitute of live match, but still better than nothing..

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

I think one wont understand Bevan's class if you haven't seen him live.. The scores might look smaller now but at that time they were the par scores. Bowling including death bowling much superior with reverse swing playing a part etc

Chasing 250 that time is like chasing 325 now in many cases, and more often than not Bevan was the lone warrior.

 

[Mamoon]

Where does Fakhar Zaman's CT final knock stand in your top tons list? Top 20 for sure...

In terms of quality, it was nothing special. He was scratchy early, relied on too many ugly slogs and was caught off a no-ball as well- it was a lucky innings. However, in terms of significance, it was indeed a massive performance, and it will remain the highlight of his career.

I don't know where I would rank it in my top ODI hundreds list. Maybe top 10 due its importance.

 

[Mamoon]

That was great but it was a pitch where 800+ runs were scored in a single day.

True, but it was 2006, when 270-280 was match-winning, and 320+ was pretty much impossible. Australia broke the world record ODI score that day, and the highest second innings total at that time was Pakistan's 344 vs India at Karachi.

Australia scoring 434 was equivalent to a team scoring 500+ today. 400 was a barrier that was considered unreachable, and the only time a team came within touching distance was SL in the 1996 World Cup against some minnow team which I can't seem to recall (398).

Gibbs scored 175 in 111 deliveries inside 32 overs, and could easily have scored a 250. It was a shame that he was not able to break Saeed Anwar's record that day and score the first ODI double-hundred. No one deserved it more. Not to forget, it was a series decider.

It wasn't just a great innings, it was a miracle.

 

[Justcrazy]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Against Kenya Lanka that big score

 

[Tusker]

So a guy who hit 189 not out against Asian Best XI would not be able to chase 300 scores?

Laughable really.

Yes, he played risk free cricket but that was because targets were smaller.

He had the ability to up the ante when required.

If you have seen him bat, you would not come out with such a statement.

That 189 is not even considered as a LIST-A game let alone a proper ODI. It means nothing and is truly laughable if you believe he could do magical things based on that lol.

His highest ODI score is a 108*. By that logic Ganguly made a brutal 183 against SL in a important WC match. Do you think anyone will remotely use that to claim that Gangs had the ability to up the ante when needed.

Just look at Bevans Bouundary stats - 450 fours in 16 inngs = 2.29 / inngs sixess = 21/196 = 0.11
For Kohli it is : 893 in 200 = 4.46 / inngs - Thats nearly double that of Bevan and for sixes : 104/200 = 0.52 = more than 4 times Bevan.

MSD 770/272 = 2.83 and for sixes its 217 / 272 = 0.79 = 7 times Bevan

And BTW there is exactly ONE match where he chased down a total > 275 ad the total was 287

So yeah I stand by what I said. He ain't going to cut it in this ERA. Pretty sure MSD and Kohli will match Bevan in non-boundary stats too.

Nostalgia is a huge huge problem in Cricket. Even when the facts violently disagree with the tall claims. And before you jump up and down I did watch Bevan bat. He had a limited range of shots. Not someone who I would pay money to go watch.

 

[giri26]

Bevan was a brilliant ODI player. Anyone trying to discredit his performances based on his SR hasn't watched any cricket in the 90's. Bevan played according to the era. Most of the times when he had to play the rescue act, he would be batting with 8-11 players in the order. He would hit boundaries when necessary. He played for Australia and the scores in the 90's was on an average between 200-250. His SR was good enough to chase those. I am sure if he was playing in this era, he would bat according to it. Even though that 180 odd does not prove anything, it did give us a peek into what Bevan can do. He was a brilliant player and a unsung hero in the 99 WC as well as 2003 WC. Brilliant batter and fantastic finisher and chaser. Mentally extremely strong. I used to think if India only had a player like him in number 6 during the 90's.

 

[Tusker]

Bevan was a brilliant ODI player. Anyone trying to discredit his performances based on his SR hasn't watched any cricket in the 90's. Bevan played according to the era. Most of the times when he had to play the rescue act, he would be batting with 8-11 players in the order. He would hit boundaries when necessary. He played for Australia and the scores in the 90's was on an average between 200-250. His SR was good enough to chase those. I am sure if he was playing in this era, he would bat according to it. Even though that 180 odd does not prove anything, it did give us a peek into what Bevan can do. He was a brilliant player and a unsung hero in the 99 WC as well as 2003 WC. Brilliant batter and fantastic finisher and chaser. Mentally extremely strong. I used to think if India only had a player like him in number 6 during the 90's.

Just like that ehh ... no rhyme no logic no facts no stats just blind bindaas opinon ....

So here is the thing ... Iam even more sure that if he played today he wouldn't cut it and unlike you I provided proper facts. What is your facts based response to it ? Nostalgia and emotions arent considered as facts BTW.

 

[giri26]

Just like that ehh ... no rhyme no logic no facts no stats just blind bindaas opinon ....

So here is the thing ... Iam even more sure that if he played today he wouldn't cut it and unlike you I provided proper facts. What is your facts based response to it ? Nostalgia and emotions arent considered as facts BTW.

The fact is that people from different era play differently according to the situation. For a person needing to chase 180-230 at 4.5-5.0 runs per over, there is no necessity to go berserk and score at 100 SR. Even teams used to think about setting only 250 in the 90's which was a winning total 90% of the times. So why would Bevan be compared to current era? Except for Sachin, Lara, Anwar, Jayasuriya and few others, everyone in the 90's had a SR of 70-80. So should we discard everyone as not good? Stats only say half of the things, you need to actually watch the games and understand how cricket was played in the 90's before comparing 300 par score era SR to 200-250 era. There are few people who transcended eras like Sachin, Viv etc but Bevan did not need to. He was good enough to win the games for his team. He if born in this era would have been the product of this generation and batted like how current generation bats. A player does not have an average of 53 without being good. There was not a single player who had that average in the 90's.

 

[Tusker]

The fact is that people from different era play differently according to the situation. For a person needing to chase 180-230 at 4.5-5.0 runs per over, there is no necessity to go berserk and score at 100 SR. Even teams used to think about setting only 250 in the 90's which was a winning total 90% of the times. So why would Bevan be compared to current era? Except for Sachin, Lara, Anwar, Jayasuriya and few others, everyone in the 90's had a SR of 70-80. So should we discard everyone as not good? Stats only say half of the things, you need to actually watch the games and understand how cricket was played in the 90's before comparing 300 par score era SR to 200-250 era. There are few people who transcended eras like Sachin, Viv etc but Bevan did not need to. He was good enough to win the games for his team. He if born in this era would have been the product of this generation and batted like how current generation bats. A player does not have an average of 53 without being good. There was not a single player who had that average in the 90's.

How do you know this and what is the logical fact based thinking that goes behind it ?

And please stop the inane put downs such as "one has to have watched the player ". I can quite easily do the same to you ... here is an sample: One has to not only watch but understand the intensity of modern day ODI cricket"

And for the record I have watched Bevan bat.

 

[hk031992]

Just like that ehh ... no rhyme no logic no facts no stats just blind bindaas opinon ....

So here is the thing ... Iam even more sure that if he played today he wouldn't cut it and unlike you I provided proper facts. What is your facts based response to it ? Nostalgia and emotions arent considered as facts BTW.

do you honestly not think that Bevan would benefit from more fielding restrictions, bigger bats, flatter wickets, free hits etc? You cannot seriously compare stats like that across eras without taking into account the differences in rules and playing conditions.

And besides, we judge players based on how they did in their era. You cannot diminish someones greatness because you don't believe they wouldn't be able to adapt. At the end of the day, he is an unquestionable ODI ATG.

 

[Tusker]

do you honestly not think that Bevan would benefit from more fielding restrictions, bigger bats, flatter wickets, free hits etc? You cannot seriously compare stats like that across eras without taking into account the differences in rules and playing conditions.

Flatter wkts and fielding restrictions existed in Bevans time too. Pretty sure the bat technology was quite good by late 90s and early 00s.

And besides, we judge players based on how they did in their era. You cannot diminish someones greatness because you don't believe they wouldn't be able to adapt. At the end of the day, he is an unquestionable ODI ATG.

If he is such an un-questionable great why is it getting so hard for the fan bois to defend him based on actuals instead of nostalgia and hot air ?

 

[hk031992]

Flatter wkts and fielding restrictions existed in Bevans time too. Pretty sure the bat technology was quite good by late 90s and early 00s.




If he is such an un-questionable great why is it getting so hard for the fan bois to defend him based on actuals instead of nostalgia and hot air ?

The restrictions and flatter wickets did not exist to the degree they do now. Bats were smaller. ODI cricket has changed ALOT since the mid to late 2000s, after Bevan's end as an international player. Look at the number of 100's scored in the 90's compared to today in odi cricket. ODI cricket does not resemble the game it once was.

No one is nostalgic here. Bevan's job was to bat the overs in case of a collapse and help stabilize the innings, then score runs. Yes, his strike rate was lowish for today's era but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be great today. His performances were exceptionally good in odi's, its not a matter of debate.

 

[Tusker]

The restrictions and flatter wickets did not exist to the degree they do now. Bats were smaller. ODI cricket has changed ALOT since the mid to late 2000s, after Bevan's end as an international player. Look at the number of 100's scored in the 90's compared to today in odi cricket. ODI cricket does not resemble the game it once was.

Tendulkar made more than 11K runs at nearly 90 S/R and avg 48 with 37 hundreds in exactly the same time frame that Bevans career lasted. That is still very comparable record to todays Cricket and thats why we rate him as an ATG. To classify Bevan in the same category is laughable.

The point is people throw around this labels quite liberally when it comes to non-asian players. Just look at this thread ... someone used a bonafide exhibition match to justify Bevans capability of chasing big totals ... whereas on the other hand you see people pulling down Kohli by doing a rectal scan on his stats and going to idiotic extents to downplay his achievements.

Te truth is there is no way in hell that Bevan is going to play an innings like Kohli's 183 vs Pak or that inngs against SL where we chased down 330 in 39 overs.. Not happening with the limited amount of strokes he had in his game.

No one is nostalgic here. Bevan's job was to bat the overs in case of a collapse and help stabilize the innings, then score runs. Yes, his strike rate was lowish for today's era but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be great today. His performances were exceptionally good in odi's, its not a matter of debate.

Exactly and this style of play wont work today. There is no evidence at all that he could gun down a big total which requires extraordinary skills. This is the new dimension of ODI cicket that Old era fanatics try to water down by ridiculing it but get caught pants down when asked to substantiate. And immediately hide behind insults or nostalgia or the usual goody-goody Politically correct **.

 

[Cric1234]

Not sure how great he really is the only batsman to average more than Tendulkar in the 90s and the only one with 50 plus average until 8 players have achieved it recently which shows batting is easier than ever in ODIs.
His strike rate is the issue here in terms of power hitting smaller targets he was the master chaser best ever haven't seen enough to know how good he would've been on wickets as flat as they are nowadays.

 

[giri26]

How do you know this and what is the logical fact based thinking that goes behind it ?

And please stop the inane put downs such as "one has to have watched the player ". I can quite easily do the same to you ... here is an sample: One has to not only watch but understand the intensity of modern day ODI cricket"

And for the record I have watched Bevan bat.

The same way you are trying to prove that Bevan wouldn't have been good in this era based on the SR. ODI has changed a lot, I agree but again there is no proof that a good/great player would have been a failure in this era like you claim. Do you actually think that a player who struck in 70's in the previous era would not be able to up his SR into 90's in the present one? If you say you have watched Bevan bat you would have also seen that he was brilliant at upping his SR when needed and getting the important boundaries when needed to chase down a total. Most of the times he came in to bat when Australia were in trouble, such was the greatness of the Aussie batting line up. He would never come in when Australia was per say 250/4 with 10 overs in hand. It would mostly be 100/4 in 25 overs with responsibility on him to pull his side through.

Comparison of players across eras is not straightforward, you can never say how a player would respond in situations which are hypothetical. Going by your own theory, players of today bottle once the pitches are little tough to bat, so do you think players of this era would fail in the 90's and 80's, since there were more difficult pitches in ODI games during those decades?

 

[Tusker]

Not sure how great he really is the only batsman to average more than Tendulkar in the 90s and the only one with 50 plus average until 8 players have achieved it recently which shows batting is easier than ever in ODIs.
His strike rate is the issue here in terms of power hitting smaller targets he was the master chaser best ever haven't seen enough to know how good he would've been on wickets as flat as they are nowadays.

The avg is misleading because of huge number of not outs ... Tendulkar in the exact same time period as bevan made 4000 more runs than Bevan.

if you take runs/inngs its : 11231/256 = 43.8 vs 6912/196 = 35.2 . Thats a huge differnce especially when you factor in the strike rate.

Link:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[giri26]

The avg is misleading because of huge number of not outs ... Tendulkar in the exact same time period as bevan made 4000 more runs than Bevan.

if you take runs/inngs its : 11231/256 = 43.8 vs 6912/196 = 35.2 . Thats a huge differnce especially when you factor in the strike rate.

Link:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

That's absurd, why would you take out the not outs? Considering Bevan was a finisher and finished lots of games chasing for Australia remaining not out. If you do the same thing for Dhoni his average drops down to 36 as well.

 

[Tusker]

The same way you are trying to prove that Bevan wouldn't have been good in this era based on the SR. ODI has changed a lot, I agree but again there is no proof that a good/great player would have been a failure in this era like you claim. Do you actually think that a player who struck in 70's in the previous era would not be able to up his SR into 90's in the present one?

Yes I most certainly do ... Rahul Dravid is a great example who played along with Bevan but lasted much longer without significantly upping his Strike rate. Another example is Kallis. All similar type of players with limited shots and traditional risk free style of cricket who just batted in that one dimensional fashion throughout their careers.

The problem here is people have this insane ability to ridicule everything that is happening right in front of their eyes and call it super easy. They would rather believe in nostalgia and hype thantheir own eyes.

Zamana badal gaya hai.... aage badhoo bhai no need to downplay the current crop of players.

If you say you have watched Bevan bat you would have also seen that he was brilliant at upping his SR when needed and getting the important boundaries when needed to chase down a total. Most of the times he came in to bat when Australia were in trouble, such was the greatness of the Aussie batting line up. He would never come in when Australia was per say 250/4 with 10 overs in hand. It would mostly be 100/4 in 25 overs with responsibility on him to pull his side through.Comparison of players across eras is not straightforward, you can never say how a player would respond in situations which are hypothetical.

Show me one single game where he did anything remotely close to Kohli chasing 329 in under 40 overs. One single game. Heck I will settle for say last 100 run in under 12 overs. Just aint happening.

Why ? Because that is the limitation imposed by his style of play. It is not conducive at all to achieve such stiff targets. this is how one can access players across ERA's.

Going by your own theory, players of today bottle once the pitches are little tough to bat, so do you think players of this era would fail in the 90's and 80's, since there were more difficult pitches in ODI games during those decades?

please spare me the pitches were difficult in the 90s dog crap. There is no evidence to it. What has changed dramatically is the mindset of players. For example Today the new ball is there to be scored off. Back then players used to prostrate and treat the new ball with respect. Doesnt mean that the balls are manufactured differently today or there is difference in atmosphere.

Appreciate the skill levels on display and recognize the players instead of always running them down. Especially when you have nothing more than gut feeling to go by.

 

[Tusker]

That's absurd, why would you take out the not outs? Considering Bevan was a finisher and finished lots of games chasing for Australia remaining not out. If you do the same thing for Dhoni his average drops down to 36 as well.

Have you ever seen me quoting Dhoni's avg to highlight his greatness ? There is no stat that can do justice to his ability to finish a game no matter how tough the chase.

Simple logic suggests that more runs you score in an inngs the better are your teams chances especially when done at a faster rate.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Gibbs' 175 vs Australia.

There hasn't been a better innings than this.

On topic, Bevan was clutch. He could win the game from anywhere. Dare I say, if he played in today's era he could have been a better finisher than Dhoni.

 

[BreadPakoda]

True, but it was 2006, when 270-280 was match-winning, and 320+ was pretty much impossible. Australia broke the world record ODI score that day, and the highest second innings total at that time was Pakistan's 344 vs India at Karachi.

Australia scoring 434 was equivalent to a team scoring 500+ today. 400 was a barrier that was considered unreachable, and the only time a team came within touching distance was SL in the 1996 World Cup against some minnow team which I can't seem to recall (398).

Gibbs scored 175 in 111 deliveries inside 32 overs, and could easily have scored a 250. It was a shame that he was not able to break Saeed Anwar's record that day and score the first ODI double-hundred. No one deserved it more. Not to forget, it was a series decider.

It wasn't just a great innings, it was a miracle.

Saw that innings live and saw him get dismissed too. He put the team's interest over his own and sacrificed a 200/250/even 300. Kallis on the other hand, a choker and another epitome of selfishness, tried to protect his wicket and would have lost the game for SA if not for his timely dismissal. The tailenders took over from there and rest as we know is history....

 

[giri26]

Yes I most certainly do ... Rahul Dravid is a great example who played along with Bevan but lasted much longer without significantly upping his Strike rate. Another example is Kallis. All similar type of players with limited shots and traditional risk free style of cricket who just batted in that one dimensional fashion throughout their careers.

The problem here is people have this insane ability to ridicule everything that is happening right in front of their eyes and call it super easy. They would rather believe in nostalgia and hype thantheir own eyes.

Zamana badal gaya hai.... aage badhoo bhai no need to downplay the current crop of players.




Show me one single game where he did anything remotely close to Kohli chasing 329 in under 40 overs. One single game. Heck I will settle for say last 100 run in under 12 overs. Just aint happening.

Why ? Because that is the limitation imposed by his style of play. It is not conducive at all to achieve such stiff targets. this is how one can access players across ERA's.



please spare me the pitches were difficult in the 90s dog crap. There is no evidence to it. What has changed dramatically is the mindset of players. For example Today the new ball is there to be scored off. Back then players used to prostrate and treat the new ball with respect. Doesnt mean that the balls are manufactured differently today or there is difference in atmosphere.

Appreciate the skill levels on display and recognize the players instead of always running them down. Especially when you have nothing more than gut feeling to go by.

Bevan never had to chase 329 in 40 overs and he did not have to chase 100 in last 12 very often. Such was the superiority of the Aussie bowling attack. So we are comparing apples to oranges here. He did what he had to do. If that means that someone with spreadsheet after 15 years of his retirement decides discredit/downplay his achievements, so be it. The guy was part of 2 world cup wins, played amazingly well in the games he batted. Helped Australia to a respectable total against a great SA side in 1999. Played only one innings in 2003 and that too a winning 74 no dragging the Aussies from a dire situation.

He played in situations he was put into and was successful. If he had another gear or not is hypothetical as Aussies hardly were put into such situations during his time due to having superior bowling unit.

Since you asked below is an example: Aussies needed more than 100 in 13 overs with just 3 wickets in hand, look at the "cannot bat in the current era" Bevan and what he did.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-zealand-10th-match-aus-tri-series-cb-2001-02

 

[Tusker]

Bevan never had to chase 329 in 40 overs and he did not have to chase 100 in last 12 very often. Such was the superiority of the Aussie bowling attack. So we are comparing apples to oranges here.

So why are we crediting Bevan here for the job mostly done by Aussie bowlers ?

And no YOU are comparing nothing with apples. There exists no evidence that suggests that Bevan was capable of such feats. Do you seriously think he was capable of that ? With that batting style ? If you do then there is no honest discussion possible here. All I can say that there is a huge difference in our understanding of cricket.

And I see you side-stepped the Dravid and Kallis examples ?

He did what he had to do. If that means that someone with spreadsheet after 15 years of his retirement decides discredit/downplay his achievements, so be it. The guy was part of 2 world cup wins, played amazingly well in the games he batted. Helped Australia to a respectable total against a great SA side in 1999. Played only one innings in 2003 and that too a winning 74 no dragging the Aussies from a dire situation.

His WC and CT record is ordinary - Avg 38 at 64 S/R - pretty sure you will find excuses to discount that. But when it comes to Kohli that will be used to remorselessly against him.

And likewise when it comes to Kohli and MSD if some wiseass drunk in nostagia decides to ridicule modern ERA with red-herrings such as bats and powerplay then so be it. ( See how easy it is to hurl put downs ? )

He played in situations he was put into and was successful. If he had another gear or not is hypothetical as Aussies hardly were put into such situations during his time due to having superior bowling unit.

Since you asked below is an example: Aussies needed more than 100 in 13 overs with just 3 wickets in hand, look at the "cannot bat in the current era" Bevan and what he did.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-zealand-10th-match-aus-tri-series-cb-2001-02

Thats not 100 in 12 overs that I asked .... and notice the contributions from Bichel and BLee without them that match was a goner. I watched that match and it is not even remotely close to some of the magical chases undertaken by Kohli and Dhoni. Not even remotely close. How do you not see such a obvious thing ?

 

[giri26]

So why are we crediting Bevan here for the job mostly done by Aussie bowlers ?

And no YOU are comparing nothing with apples. There exists no evidence that suggests that Bevan was capable of such feats. Do you seriously think he was capable of that ? With that batting style ? If you do then there is no honest discussion possible here. All I can say that there is a huge difference in our understanding of cricket.

And I see you side-stepped the Dravid and Kallis examples ?




His WC and CT record is ordinary - Avg 38 at 64 S/R - pretty sure you will find excuses to discount that. But when it comes to Kohli that will be used to remorselessly against him.

And likewise when it comes to Kohli and MSD if some wiseass drunk in nostagia decides to ridicule modern ERA with red-herrings such as bats and powerplay then so be it. ( See how easy it is to hurl put downs ? )



Thats not 100 in 12 overs that I asked .... and notice the contributions from Bichel and BLee without them that match was a goner. I watched that match and it is not even remotely close to some of the magical chases undertaken by Kohli and Dhoni. Not even remotely close. How do you not see such a obvious thing ?

okay walking in at 53/4 and guiding his team to 248/8 against Shane Bond is not good enough? I don't think there is any point in arguing anymore. You don't make much sense. I don't know why you bring CT into everything. CT wasn't a huge thing until recently.

So you are saying Kohli and Dhoni won games without contributions from anyone? I have seen almost all Indian games over the last 25 years. Don't remember a game when a single player without anyone contributing chased 100 in 12 overs with the tail. When has Kohli done that? I remember he had a chance in 2014 in NZ but he chocked after getting to a hundred. Whenever Kohli has chased totals, there have been other contributions as well. You are talking as if Dhoni and Kohli are some superhuman. Bevan is a brilliant player and won countless matches when his side was 60/5, 100/7 scenarios chasing totals. I did not side step any thing, cricinfo is your friend, check how many ODI players in the 90's had a SR of 80+ and you will get the answer, only in the present T20 era we see inflated ODI averages and SR. In spite of all the greatness of Dhoni, he still only has a SR of 88 with an average of 51. Bevan was 53 with SR of 74. You know what Brian Lara's SR was? 79.5 at an average of 40. I am sure you will say that Lara was incapable of playing in this era. SR/Averages in isolation does not mean anything. Cricket is a sport where winning matters, Bevan did that in abundance for Australia. I never said anyone from present era is not good but at the same time I am not discrediting players from past eras as useless based on the stats alone from that era. It is pointless and does not reveal much.

Anyways, I am out. Not responding anymore.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Tendulkar made more than 11K runs at nearly 90 S/R and avg 48 with 37 hundreds in exactly the same time frame that Bevans career lasted. That is still very comparable record to todays Cricket and thats why we rate him as an ATG. To classify Bevan in the same category is laughable.

The point is people throw around this labels quite liberally when it comes to non-asian players. Just look at this thread ... someone used a bonafide exhibition match to justify Bevans capability of chasing big totals ... whereas on the other hand you see people pulling down Kohli by doing a rectal scan on his stats and going to idiotic extents to downplay his achievements.

Te truth is there is no way in hell that Bevan is going to play an innings like Kohli's 183 vs Pak or that inngs against SL where we chased down 330 in 39 overs.. Not happening with the limited amount of strokes he had in his game.



Exactly and this style of play wont work today. There is no evidence at all that he could gun down a big total which requires extraordinary skills. This is the new dimension of ODI cicket that Old era fanatics try to water down by ridiculing it but get caught pants down when asked to substantiate. And immediately hide behind insults or nostalgia or the usual goody-goody Politically correct **.

You are really either purposely discrediting anyone of the 90s or you really are dense.

Tendulkar opened the batting and had the freedom to strike at 90 S/R and set games up for India. The role Tendulkar had was completely different to the hand Bevan played for Australia.

How can a batsmen batting at 5 or 6 match Tendulkar in 100s?

Bevan had a role to play with the tail and save Australia from complete decimation incase the top order failed or pull of difficult chases with milking the tail. His S/R was LOW because he had a different role which he performed to the point that he was indeed considered an ODI ATG by many posters.

Comparing Kohli or Tendulkar whose job is to set up games is really intellectual dishonesty.

The only real comparison we have is with Dhoni who was more often performing the same role for India. However, their styles were vastly different.

Dhoni was more of a big hitter and depended on big hits to reach steep targets and he needed that style to be aN ODI ATG of the game. It can even be argued had Dhoni been playing in Bevan's era he would also have milked the bowling a lot more like Bevan instead of huge hits because the targets would be unlikely 300.

Bevan was more of an accumlator and depended on giving confidence to the tail and batting with them to pull Australia out of tough situations. He didnt hit those big sixes but he got the job done.

Personally I think it wouldnt be wrong to say Dhoni perfected that art and was better than Bevan because he could also hit bigger.

But asking Kohli and Tendulkar to play at 5 or 6 and bat with the tail and eke out victories and they would undoubtedly fail because that is not their skill or requirement.

You would be delusional to think Kohli can come down at 6 and bat with tail from 50 for 4 or 5 and pull off a 230 chase. Tendulkar even less likely.

 

[Tusker]

You are really either purposely discrediting anyone of the 90s or you really are dense.

Easy ... no need to get worked up and hurl insults.

Tendulkar opened the batting and had the freedom to strike at 90 S/R and set games up for India. The role Tendulkar had was completely different to the hand Bevan played for Australia.

How can a batsmen batting at 5 or 6 match Tendulkar in 100s?

Not comparing SRT to Bevan there ... the question asked was - compare 100s scored back in 90s to today . This was in context of how ODIs have changed.

But others are comparing Bevan's avg with Tendulkars and I dont see you complaining

BTW nobody else came close to Tendulkars achievements from that time frame - Gilly , Jayasuroya and Sehwag matched his S/R but none was anywhere remotely close to his Near 50 batting avg. So yeah its not easy to have a high S/R and Avg together.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Bevan had a role to play with the tail and save Australia from complete decimation incase the top order failed or pull of difficult chases with milking the tail. His S/R was LOW because he had a different role which he performed to the point that he was indeed considered an ODI ATG by many posters.

Like I said these titles are very easily bestowed on non-asian players ... if this was an Asian player anyone supporting him would by now be ridiculed away based on the ordinary WC and CT record that Bevan has. Bloody hell Kohli isnt consiered a great player because of his supposedly inferior WC record lol.

Comparing Kohli or Tendulkar whose job is to set up games is really intellectual dishonesty.

The only real comparison we have is with Dhoni who was more often performing the same role for India. However, their styles were vastly different.

Dhoni was more of a big hitter and depended on big hits to reach steep targets and he needed that style to be aN ODI ATG of the game. It can even be argued had Dhoni been playing in Bevan's era he would also have milked the bowling a lot more like Bevan instead of huge hits because the targets would be unlikely 300.

Bevan was more of an accumlator and depended on giving confidence to the tail and batting with them to pull Australia out of tough situations. He didnt hit those big sixes but he got the job done.

Personally I think it wouldnt be wrong to say Dhoni perfected that art and was better than Bevan because he could also hit bigger.

And this is why there is a huge difference between Bevan and Dhoni. But just to highlight how **** our fans can be - there were calls to drop Dhoni when his big hitting wasnt as good as it used to be. The same fans are now drooling over Bevans

But asking Kohli and Tendulkar to play at 5 or 6 and bat with the tail and eke out victories and they would undoubtedly fail because that is not their skill or requirement.

You would be delusional to think Kohli can come down at 6 and bat with tail from 50 for 4 or 5 and pull off a 230 chase. Tendulkar even less likely.

Again no need for throwing insults.

Kohli actually has taken his role to a new level - he also hangs in there till the end. I do not know how many India matches you watch but the reason for Kohli's greatness is due to this unique ability to bat long and till the end. It shows in his record.

 

[Tusker]

okay walking in at 53/4 and guiding his team to 248/8 against Shane Bond is not good enough? I don't think there is any point in arguing anymore.

Most of his runs were scored off part timers - Harris and Astle bowling after the 40th over. It was a tactical mistake by Flemming to let the part timers bowl so many overs between them allowing the tailenders to survive and thrive.

You don't make much sense. I don't know why you bring CT into everything. CT wasn't a huge thing until recently.

Anyways, I am out. Not responding anymore.

CT has always been a important ICC tournament ... I suggest you go back and look at the 2006 CT backdrop when Aus had yet to win that trophy and Ponting made it his mission to win that missing trophy.

Anyhow its the same yardstick that is being used to rundown Kohli ... its quite funny to see how the responses are drastically different when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You have to see Bevan to realize his greatness.

Getting him out was virtually impossible.

Balanced records in 90s which many ATGs didnt hav too. Amazing clutch performances in WC knockouts against ATG bowlers in full rampage mode.

Quite possibly the greatest finisher ever.

At worst, second greatest finisher.

 

[Ab Fan]

A champion in one era would have been a champion in another era.

It doesn't matter whichever era Bevan played he would have still be a champion player.

It is ridiculous to make any argument against that.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

Take a look at his strike rate ... it's closer to Rahul Dravids sr than MSD.... sorry but that wouldn't cut it in 2018.

Strike rate is not everything; plus he was par for the course in that decade where 250 was considered an above par score. What he brought was the ability to stare a big chase in the face and take it late. Playing low-risk, high-reward cricket and marshall the tail. We take these things for granted today, but Bevan wrote the book on it.

 

[Mamoon]

I usually don't, but I have to disagree with Tusker here. Bevan was a terrific ODI batsman, and would surely have been among the top batsmen in this era. Might as well have had a successful Test career too, since he would have had a longer rope these days, considering Australia's batting is not as good as it was at that time.

He is surely better than the likes of Khawaja and S. Marsh, who have undeservingly played numerous Tests. In ODIs, he was a superior version of Hussey.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I usually don't, but I have to disagree with Tusker here. Bevan was a terrific ODI batsman, and would surely have been among the top batsmen in this era. Might as well have had a successful Test career too, since he would have had a longer rope these days, considering Australia's batting is not as good as it was at that time.

He is surely better than the likes of Khawaja and S. Marsh, who have undeservingly played numerous Tests. In ODIs, he was a superior version of Hussey.

I usually strongly disagree with [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] on a lot of matters, but have to agree with him here. People look at Bevan's career and ODI cricket in the 90s with rose-tinted glasses.

I often bang this drum, but bouncers were not allowed in ODI cricket until late 2001. I shudder to imagine the effect on Bevan's superficially inflated average if the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, and even Gough were allowed the slightest margin in bowling short in that era. Anything bowled above a batsman's chest was no-balled.

Then there was also the matter of dibbly-dobbly liquorice all-sort bowlers like Mark Ealham, Adam Hollioake, Robin Singh, Chris Harris, Gavin Larsen, Aamir Sohail, Salim Malik, Hansie Cronje, Aravinda De Silva, Carl Hooper et al. being allowed ultimate leeway in bowling overs 15-40 which was the period when Bevan prospered as a nurdler of the ball. The two new balls rule that we have now is universally villified, but I for one am profusely thankful that it has caused the death of the part-time bowler.

Bevan was effective at what he did due to that typical Australian combativeness which allowed him to compete against the best. I don't think he would have been as successful in this era of power hitting and inveterate slogging, however, he might have had a longer test career due to the cupboard being bare as you rightfully state. But let's not go overboard and name him amongst the best batsmen of all time as many are wont to do on this forum.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Bevan is widely considered as one of the best ODI batsmen of all time by most fans.

 

[Cric1234]

You can't compare Tendulkar and Bevan one was an opener one was a lower order finisher 2 different roles Bevan chasing targets on tricky wickets is unmatched best ever for sure.
With t20s and power hitting today coupled with the flat wickets everywhere now there's no reason to believe he couldn't adapt and hit big it's likely he could've averaged 63 instead of 53 if he did that on tricky wickets.
The strike rate is the issue could he strike at 85-90 today its possible but you can't say for sure.

 

[Cric1234]

In the 1999 World Cup 300 or more was only scored 3 times 2 times against Kenya and Zimbabwe next year it's likely to be scored around 70-80% of the time comparing eras isn't simple here.

 

[Buffet]

One of the best in history in ODI format.

 

[Mamoon]

I usually strongly disagree with [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] on a lot of matters, but have to agree with him here. People look at Bevan's career and ODI cricket in the 90s with rose-tinted glasses.

I often bang this drum, but bouncers were not allowed in ODI cricket until late 2001. I shudder to imagine the effect on Bevan's superficially inflated average if the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, and even Gough were allowed the slightest margin in bowling short in that era. Anything bowled above a batsman's chest was no-balled.

Then there was also the matter of dibbly-dobbly liquorice all-sort bowlers like Mark Ealham, Adam Hollioake, Robin Singh, Chris Harris, Gavin Larsen, Aamir Sohail, Salim Malik, Hansie Cronje, Aravinda De Silva, Carl Hooper et al. being allowed ultimate leeway in bowling overs 15-40 which was the period when Bevan prospered as a nurdler of the ball. The two new balls rule that we have now is universally villified, but I for one am profusely thankful that it has caused the death of the part-time bowler.

Bevan was effective at what he did due to that typical Australian combativeness which allowed him to compete against the best. I don't think he would have been as successful in this era of power hitting and inveterate slogging, however, he might have had a longer test career due to the cupboard being bare as you rightfully state. But let's not go overboard and name him amongst the best batsmen of all time as many are wont to do on this forum.

In my opinion, both sides are going to extreme lengths here. Bevan was not as good as Kohli, Dhoni or de Villiers, but he wasn't your run-of-the-mill ODI batsman either, who was insanely good only because of so and so reasons.

While you make valid points about the dibbly-dobblers in the no-bouncer era, but part-timers still play a significant role in ODIs, and batsmen are rarely exposed against the short-ball in this format. Because of the small margins, bowlers do not usually bowl many bouncers.

In my view, Bevan's way of scoring runs would yield him positive results as a number 5/6 in this era as well. He would be super consistent, but yes his lack of power game would have been the reason why he would have lagged behind Kohli, de Villiers and Dhoni in this era.

Considering what he achieved in his time, it will be very harsh to not consider him a great of the ODI game. However, those who are calling him as one of the top three ODI batsmen of all time are clearly overrating him.

 

[Cric1234]

Batting up the order he averaged 59 at no4 at 70 s/r in 53 matches batting first his strike rate was 80 compared to 70 batting second mixed signs overall regards to strike rate average is all time great.
There was no t20 then players have improved their big hitting capability mostly due to this again it's hard to make a call if his strike rate could be improved enough to be the best in today's era.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Bevan's SR is pretty poor even for his era. 90s had worse strike rate for batsmen but not all had it as bad as Bevan's. It would be a folly to claim he could adapt to modern finisher role, when he failed to notch up the ante in his own time. Even Misbah boosted his average doing tuk tuk his entire life. Not comparing Bevan to Misbah, but comparing Bevan to the likesof ABD is a joke. Whaever the oldies with nostalgia goggles are claming, isn't backed up by stats.

 

[Cric1234]

Bevan's SR is pretty poor even for his era. 90s had worse strike rate for batsmen but not all had it as bad as Bevan's. It would be a folly to claim he could adapt to modern finisher role, when he failed to notch up the ante in his own time. Even Misbah boosted his average doing tuk tuk his entire life. Not comparing Bevan to Misbah, but comparing Bevan to the likesof ABD is a joke. Whaever the oldies with nostalgia goggles are claming, isn't backed up by stats.

Yousuf and Inzimam had a similar strike rate who are considered Pakistani greats in ODIs it isn't poor its average for the era nothing more where as 85+ is similar to around 95 in today's era.
Batting first he had a strike rate of 80 it's possible he could improve that to 85-90 in today's era.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Absolutely world class.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

I find it ridiculous that some people were happy to put Inzaman as one of the top 10 ODI batsman of all time in the other thread, when he had an ODI strike rate of 74.24. But somehow Bevan's SR of 74.16 is too low. Anyone who watched 90's cricket knows that 225 was a par score, and 250 was seen as a match winning score for most of the decade. Pitches were not as flat, bats were not as fat and most teams had gun bowling line-ups. I can't believe that Bevan's position as one of ODI cricket's greats is being questioned.

I don't think people realize how much batting scores have been inflated in the past 5-10 years. 300 for a long time, (until India chased it down in fact against us in the Independence Cup Final) was considered a score nigh on impossible to chase down.

 

[SL_Fan]

For those doubters he could certainly turn it on when needed.

 

[The_Odd_One]

For those doubters he could certainly turn it on when needed.

And this bowling attack is better than most international teams' bowling attacks.

If Bevan is not an ODI legend then none is. He played a blinder against WI in the 1996 World Cup semi final when the likes of Waugh brothers batted like tailenders and Ambrose was swinging it miles.

 

[Abid Z]

How do you know this and what is the logical fact based thinking that goes behind it ?

And please stop the inane put downs such as "one has to have watched the player ". I can quite easily do the same to you ... here is an sample: One has to not only watch but understand the intensity of modern day ODI cricket"

And for the record I have watched Bevan bat.

Here is just one match to give you “facts and data” to see how he could up his strike rate if needed.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...th-odi-australia-tour-of-south-africa-1996-97