How good was Michael Bevan in ODIs?

[Abid Z]

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




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





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.




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




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.

Firstly this thread is not about celebrating kohli srt or dhoni so let’s leave them out for a sec.

Please do one thing. Go to a cricket museum somewhere and see the bats that have been used in previous eras.(pre 1970’s) You’ll be shocked to see how narrow they are in comparison to today. So records of the past made with bats as wide as a baseball bat have to be considered in context. The 1990’s bats and today’s bats are qualitatively different much Heavier and broader facilitating bigger hits. There are two new balls, one at each end so there is little old ball advantage such as reverse swing. There is drainage in many grounds so wickets have been slower and drier bringing more cutters into play and reducing swing and seam. DRS has come into play along with power plays with the field up forcing batsmen to go over the top.

There is no doubt that as I’ve posted the score sheet to illustrate Bevan could up the rate when and if needed because he was a very calculating and measured player and all those points above only enhance batting to the detriment of bowling so of course he could have cashed in. A great he certainly wasn’t but is this the topic? I thought it was how good was he...well in a nutshell he was a pioneer pretty much like jayasuria or Saeed Anwar at the time, though they also were not cricketing greats.

The point I wish to highlight to you is that the worth of a player is only measured by his value amongst a specific playing 11 and Bevan was unique to the playing 11 he was in. Some players stand way above their playing 11, eg SRT OR LARA. Some have flaws but intrinsically are only giants of their team. Yousuf, saeed, inzi are a case in point. They probably wouldn’t make it into an Australia, saf or Indian team of their time but for Pakistan they were giants of the game.

Bevan was the complete antithesis of the gung-ho batters in the 11 he played in. If you had seen cricket in real time in the 90’s which I’m guessing you haven’t then it was pretty obvious the absolute psychological hold Australia had over other teams. You can say a dragon with 9 heads or a medusa that could turn the opposite to stone with a glare.

No match was ever over while Bevan was still there. If only I could recreate the tension of the matches such as 2003 eng v Australia World Cup or 1996 Sydney v windies etc or the absolute elation on waqars face in the first encounter with Australia in NatWest trophy 2000 when he bowled him for 5 after been carted around for 50 runs in 5 overs by Gilchrist. These moments can’t be recreated with the facts and figures you need. For that there is stats guru and youtube. But for some fans who tracked his career Bevan was the stuff of nightmares. No emotion, no screaming or sledging just cold calculating method. Yes would say watching him dig in, in a chase would give you the chills

 

[giri26]

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

He will not agree to that Score card as I had already presented him with one. For him a player can only bat in this era if he had chased 100 in 12 overs. Not sure how he pulled out that number and when I told Bevan helped chase 100 in 13.4 overs, he said it is not 12 overs and others contributed too. So I decided to quit the conversation.

 

[giri26]

Firstly this thread is not about celebrating kohli srt or dhoni so let’s leave them out for a sec.

Please do one thing. Go to a cricket museum somewhere and see the bats that have been used in previous eras.(pre 1970’s) You’ll be shocked to see how narrow they are in comparison to today. So records of the past made with bats as wide as a baseball bat have to be considered in context. The 1990’s bats and today’s bats are qualitatively different much Heavier and broader facilitating bigger hits. There are two new balls, one at each end so there is little old ball advantage such as reverse swing. There is drainage in many grounds so wickets have been slower and drier bringing more cutters into play and reducing swing and seam. DRS has come into play along with power plays with the field up forcing batsmen to go over the top.

There is no doubt that as I’ve posted the score sheet to illustrate Bevan could up the rate when and if needed because he was a very calculating and measured player and all those points above only enhance batting to the detriment of bowling so of course he could have cashed in. A great he certainly wasn’t but is this the topic? I thought it was how good was he...well in a nutshell he was a pioneer pretty much like jayasuria or Saeed Anwar at the time, though they also were not cricketing greats.

The point I wish to highlight to you is that the worth of a player is only measured by his value amongst a specific playing 11 and Bevan was unique to the playing 11 he was in. Some players stand way above their playing 11, eg SRT OR LARA. Some have flaws but intrinsically are only giants of their team. Yousuf, saeed, inzi are a case in point. They probably wouldn’t make it into an Australia, saf or Indian team of their time but for Pakistan they were giants of the game.

Bevan was the complete antithesis of the gung-ho batters in the 11 he played in. If you had seen cricket in real time in the 90’s which I’m guessing you haven’t then it was pretty obvious the absolute psychological hold Australia had over other teams. You can say a dragon with 9 heads or a medusa that could turn the opposite to stone with a glare.

No match was ever over while Bevan was still there. If only I could recreate the tension of the matches such as 2003 eng v Australia World Cup or 1996 Sydney v windies etc or the absolute elation on waqars face in the first encounter with Australia in NatWest trophy 2000 when he bowled him for 5 after been carted around for 50 runs in 5 overs by Gilchrist. These moments can’t be recreated with the facts and figures you need. For that there is stats guru and youtube. But for some fans who tracked his career Bevan was the stuff of nightmares. No emotion, no screaming or sledging just cold calculating method. Yes would say watching him dig in, in a chase would give you the chills

Brilliant post!!

 

[Tusker]

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

That remains the one and only chase of a total above 275 that Bevan helped Aus win. If the bar is so low I would like to present Kaif, Yuvraj, Raina, Dravid as contenders for ATG titles.

 

[Tusker]

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.

This is pretty much my summary on the topic as well. The only thing we disagree on is if he would be as successful in this ERA which according to me is not obvious given the modest strike rate which is a result of limited range of shots and non-existant power game.

Keep in mind that he barely lasted 200 ODIs which is on the low side for a supposedly ATG batsman from the modern ERA.

 

[Tusker]

Firstly this thread is not about celebrating kohli srt or dhoni so let’s leave them out for a sec.

Please do one thing. Go to a cricket museum somewhere and see the bats that have been used in previous eras.(pre 1970’s) You’ll be shocked to see how narrow they are in comparison to today. So records of the past made with bats as wide as a baseball bat have to be considered in context. The 1990’s bats and today’s bats are qualitatively different much Heavier and broader facilitating bigger hits. There are two new balls, one at each end so there is little old ball advantage such as reverse swing. There is drainage in many grounds so wickets have been slower and drier bringing more cutters into play and reducing swing and seam. DRS has come into play along with power plays with the field up forcing batsmen to go over the top.

There is no doubt that as I’ve posted the score sheet to illustrate Bevan could up the rate when and if needed because he was a very calculating and measured player and all those points above only enhance batting to the detriment of bowling so of course he could have cashed in. A great he certainly wasn’t but is this the topic? I thought it was how good was he...well in a nutshell he was a pioneer pretty much like jayasuria or Saeed Anwar at the time, though they also were not cricketing greats.

The point I wish to highlight to you is that the worth of a player is only measured by his value amongst a specific playing 11 and Bevan was unique to the playing 11 he was in. Some players stand way above their playing 11, eg SRT OR LARA. Some have flaws but intrinsically are only giants of their team. Yousuf, saeed, inzi are a case in point. They probably wouldn’t make it into an Australia, saf or Indian team of their time but for Pakistan they were giants of the game.

Bevan was the complete antithesis of the gung-ho batters in the 11 he played in. If you had seen cricket in real time in the 90’s which I’m guessing you haven’t then it was pretty obvious the absolute psychological hold Australia had over other teams. You can say a dragon with 9 heads or a medusa that could turn the opposite to stone with a glare.

No match was ever over while Bevan was still there. If only I could recreate the tension of the matches such as 2003 eng v Australia World Cup or 1996 Sydney v windies etc or the absolute elation on waqars face in the first encounter with Australia in NatWest trophy 2000 when he bowled him for 5 after been carted around for 50 runs in 5 overs by Gilchrist. These moments can’t be recreated with the facts and figures you need. For that there is stats guru and youtube. But for some fans who tracked his career Bevan was the stuff of nightmares. No emotion, no screaming or sledging just cold calculating method. Yes would say watching him dig in, in a chase would give you the chills

I do not have the time for a lengthy reply but I think both of us are saying the same thing (See the highlighted part above). My disagreement was with people labeling him as an ATG - which he certainly is not. IF he is then that automatically means he is on par with SRT, VK, MSD so hence the comparison with these players to highlight the gulf in class.

Big bats also means the edges will carry further than they would with a old fashioned bat.

 

[Tusker]

He will not agree to that Score card as I had already presented him with one. For him a player can only bat in this era if he had chased 100 in 12 overs. Not sure how he pulled out that number and when I told Bevan helped chase 100 in 13.4 overs, he said it is not 12 overs and others contributed too. So I decided to quit the conversation.

I thought you were done with this discussion ... did you change your mind? Let me know and I will give you a proper explanation.

 

[Abid Z]

I do not have the time for a lengthy reply but I think both of us are saying the same thing (See the highlighted part above). My disagreement was with people

labeling him as an ATG

Big bats also means the edges will carry further than they would with a old fashioned bat.

Many players are not good enough to edge and many can’t catch. Just look at our own hapless performance in 1999 World Cup final

He is not an ATG but if you are bringing yuvi or msd into this then you are as guilty of being too liberal with the accolade as the very people you are critical of.

Just to be clear I hated the sight of Bevan and actually chuckled when he got hit by a Pakistan fan. But that’s because I am a very partisan and flawed Pakistan fan. The one thing I don’t expect to see is the spunk and spirit of a maverick Pakistan team deflated by cool calm application of method. Bevan took his chances in a great great Australia team. In fact you could see that the opposition was always defeated before they even stepped onto the field. So to see him hit by a beer can or McGrath twisting his ankle on a cricket ball was the only time this team appeared vulnerable. So Bevan was a good player but certainly not a great.

You don’t have to complicate the argument by bringing others from a different era. All you can say is that if Waugh ponting gilchrist and Hayden were not in the batting line up then how good would Bevan be and I would say he probably also wouldn’t find a place. By way of an example I would say that Damian Martyn a far superior batsman didn’t play as often as he could simply because he just didn’t fit the team make up.
To repeat...you just can’t have too many steady eddies or ultra aggressive players in the team and all teams can benefit from a happy balance of both types.
Some people say Bevan was ahead of his time but I disagree. He was absolutely of his time in the sense that he was never leadership material as other Australian players were, he was an astute and dependable lieutenant. But he pioneered the cool calculating chase.

I think it would help if somebody did an analysis of 50’s in a winning cause. I can’t be bothered but it would possibly highlight low scoring games won by Australia at that time.

 

[Abid Z]

That remains the one and only chase of a total above 275 that Bevan helped Aus win. If the bar is so low I would like to present Kaif, Yuvraj, Raina, Dravid as contenders for ATG titles.

Well dravid certainly is an all time great there’s no argument there. Yuvi and raina would have to do something extraordinary in a variety of grounds against the best attacks to reach that standard and kaif was at best a lovely artist who just couldn’t find a place in that particular 11 though he could have walked into another country’s 11 at any time. But we are discussing how “good was Bevan” not the criteria of ATG

 

[Abid Z]

That remains the one and only chase of a total above 275 that Bevan helped Aus win. If the bar is so low I would like to present Kaif, Yuvraj, Raina, Dravid as contenders for ATG titles.

It is extremely hard to find 300 plus scores before 2005 especially against Australia with Warne and McGrath in the team.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Many players are not good enough to edge and many can’t catch. Just look at our own hapless performance in 1999 World Cup final

He is not an ATG but if you are bringing yuvi or msd into this then you are as guilty of being too liberal with the accolade as the very people you are critical of.

Just to be clear I hated the sight of Bevan and actually chuckled when he got hit by a Pakistan fan. But that’s because I am a very partisan and flawed Pakistan fan. The one thing I don’t expect to see is the spunk and spirit of a maverick Pakistan team deflated by cool calm application of method. Bevan took his chances in a great great Australia team. In fact you could see that the opposition was always defeated before they even stepped onto the field. So to see him hit by a beer can or McGrath twisting his ankle on a cricket ball was the only time this team appeared vulnerable. So Bevan was a good player but certainly not a great.

You don’t have to complicate the argument by bringing others from a different era. All you can say is that if Waugh ponting gilchrist and Hayden were not in the batting line up then how good would Bevan be and I would say he probably also wouldn’t find a place. By way of an example I would say that Damian Martyn a far superior batsman didn’t play as often as he could simply because he just didn’t fit the team make up.
To repeat...you just can’t have too many steady eddies or ultra aggressive players in the team and all teams can benefit from a happy balance of both types.
Some people say Bevan was ahead of his time but I disagree. He was absolutely of his time in the sense that he was never leadership material as other Australian players were, he was an astute and dependable lieutenant. But he pioneered the cool calculating chase.

I think it would help if somebody did an analysis of 50’s in a winning cause. I can’t be bothered but it would possibly highlight low scoring games won by Australia at that time.

This is exactly how I view Bevan's career myself. He was very much of his time in the same mould as players such as Neil Fairbrother, Ajay Jadeja, Roger Twose, Jonty Rhodes, Arjuna Ranatunga, Hashan Tillekaratne et al. I believe most of these players would be successful in today's era as well, some more than most, but Bevan I reckon was a degree or two superior to his peers. He had a psychological grip on teams and spectators alike, but I'd say so did the other Australians in that team (the Waughs, Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne, McGrath). It was one of the greatest teams in history for a reason. Bevan complemented the balance of that team perfectly.

 

[Saj]

He was one of those players who without playing any big shots would be 30 off 30 balls in no time.Then before you knew it he was on 50 off 40 balls.

Brilliant runner between the wickets and lovely timer of the ball.

 

[Abid Z]

Brilliant post!!

Thank you.

 

[SL_Fan]

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.

Yeah an ODI beast. If he had a slightly better ICC tourney record would have put him second to Viv.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Why are some people saying he isn't an ATG?

 

[Abid Z]

Why are some people saying he isn't an ATG?

Because I think it’s a purely subjective term. There are no objective criteria for being an ATG. sure stats are important but they don’t provide the complete picture. Yes he was one of a kind and frighteningly methodical as a player but he also had the best line up in history to play alongside so was rarely carrying the batting on his own. Ushering the tail to win in tight situations was his forte but I’m not sure this qualifies as being ATG.

 

[Dulex9]

Micheal Bevan-what a player

Micheal Bevan was an oustanding finisher.

I read a player described him being a calculator that he assess the game situation and takes calculated risks and takes the game deep.

Some of his best knocks:

1) His last ball four vs WI
2) WC SF vs WI 96 when Australia was under 20 for 4 wickets down
3) WC SF 99 vs SA
4) Last 5th odi vs India in India
5) His 102 vs NZ in Melbourne 2002
6) His knock against England in 2003 wc
7) His knock against NZ in 2003 wc
8) His 185 odd Asia vs ROW chasing

There is another innings however I cannot recall.

 

[Mamoon]

Would have been a fairly substandard ODI player today. Incredible for his era though, but not someone who would be very useful on 320+ pitches.

A perfect middle-order player for 250 odd targets.

 

[Dulex9]

The 185 he made, ROW needed 19 from 5 balls and they lost by 1 run! They were chasing 320 and at one stage needed 10 an over in the last 10 with 3 wickets in hand.

He was facing the likes of Vaas, Kumble, Murali clobbering them through mid-wickets, using their pace.

 

[warcry]

the 2nd best finisher in odi second only to Hussey.
the match is never over when bevan is on the crease.

could bowl some useful chinaman stuff too.

 

[Saurav]

Best finisher

 

[iniqbal223]

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.

And Rahul Dravid batted at number 2/3/4 for India with almost 30-40 overs remaining on average. On the other hand, Bevan used to come at 5/6/7 with 20 overs remaining and batted almost his career with tai lenders

Shows you have never saw him batted or you have never seen batting of Dravid as well.. poor analysis just to say anything. Please go and watch the batting if you could find

 

[saqibali]

Would have been a fairly substandard ODI player today. Incredible for his era though, but not someone who would be very useful on 320+ pitches.

A perfect middle-order player for 250 odd targets.

wrong to compare him with this era, Bats were thinner, boundries were bigger back in the days. A great of 90's who bailed out australia in countless high pressure games. world cup semis of 96,99, 2003 world cup games against NZ and England, B&H games. Brilliant fielder too

 

[MenInG]

He may have been a legend on the cricket field but Aussie cricketer Michael Bevan’s singing saw him kicked off The Masked Singer last night on the second episode of the show.

Before Hammerhead revealed his identity, Dannii Minogue guessed Murray Cook from The Wiggles, Dave Hughes had all eyes on that tool belt and suspected Nick Cummins was hiding out, Jackie O thought all signs pointed to Shannon Noll, while Urzila Carlson had Hammerhead penned as Keith Urban.

Below, we’ve been keeping tabs on who’s been unmasked — and whose identity is still up for guessing — so far on The Masked Singer 2020. It goes without saying that there are spoilers ahead if you’re not up-to-date with the latest episode.

Australian cricketer Michael Bevan was shown the door on episode two of the show.

Belting out Australian pub-rock classic Working Class Man by Jimmy Barnes, Bevan did his best to channel his inner rock star, but instead he was left drowning in the wake of Kitten's energetic take on Dua Lipa's Don't Start Now.

 

[sweep_shot]

Michael Bevan is one of the best finishers (ODI only) of all time. I know there are many like him nowadays but he was quite unique during his playing days.

 

[Junaids]

He sings like I bat!

One of the teenage girls where I work in Australia is a very talented young cricketer. And the clues for Bevan on The Masked Singer made it clear that he was a sportsman. ( I was expecting Paul Gallen).

But when he removed his head she just went “who is that? I have never heard of him!”

It just shows that even in Australia, white ball fame does not last very long at all!

 

[therealAB]

Because I think it’s a purely subjective term. There are no objective criteria for being an ATG. sure stats are important but they don’t provide the complete picture. Yes he was one of a kind and frighteningly methodical as a player but he also had the best line up in history to play alongside so was rarely carrying the batting on his own. Ushering the tail to win in tight situations was his forte but I’m not sure this qualifies as being ATG.

The issue with the strong team comment is that his legacy is purely driven by the fact that when Australia was struggling he won games for his country
Also remember that his prime was before the truly dominant Aus odi aides from the 2003 wc onwards

 

[therealAB]

An unbelievably good ODI player
Remember that in the late 90’s when Sachin was at his peak, Bevan vs Sachin was real and legitimate debate

 

[Last Monetarist]

Remember that in the late 90’s when Sachin was at his peak, Bevan vs Sachin was real and legitimate debate

Not really, their roles were utterly different, thereby making a comparison meaningless.

 

[therealAB]

Not really, their roles were utterly different, thereby making a comparison meaningless.

I agree, but there definitely was discussion over who was the better ODI batsmen. I remember it reasonably well

 

[Cricket Warrior]

MEDIA RELEASE
February 3, 2025

Michael Bevan to be inducted in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame as updated criteria is announced

The Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Committee, together with Melbourne Cricket Club (MCC), Cricket Australia (CA) and the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), has announced Michael Bevan has been inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame.



Media Opportunity Reminder: Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Chair Peter King and Hall of Fame Inductee Michael Bevan will be available to media at 10am AEDT today. Please meet at Gate 2 at 9.45am for entry.



Bevan becomes the 66th inductee into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame and the first player inducted under the updated criteria.


A review of the criteria was undertaken by the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Committee and the Melbourne Cricket Club, manager of the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), to ensure all formats of the game which were available in respective eras were equally recognised.


The updated criteria see the introduction of two categories in which candidates can be inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame as either a Player or in the General category.


The Player category will see the Committee assess candidates for induction who have significantly contributed to the game of cricket while playing at the national level across formats available in their respective era. The Committee will consider a candidate’s outstanding service, overall contribution, impact, playing statistics, integrity, sportsmanship and general standing in the Australian community. A candidate will only be eligible for induction in the Player category after a minimum period of five years has passed since they last participated at the national representative level.


The introduction of a General category opens the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame to those candidates who have significantly contributed to the game of cricket while working or volunteering at the national and/or international level in the roles of coach, umpire, media personnel, referee, administrator or in another position as determined by the Committee.


A candidate eligible in the General category will be considered for induction through their outstanding service, overall contribution and public standing. The number of years of service to Australian cricket and the game generally across available formats in the candidate’s era shall only be a consideration and shall not be a sole determination in assessing the full eligibility of a candidate.


The Committee determined that Australian Cricket Hall of Fame could elevate inductees to Legend status. The new classification for inductees will be applied to honour players who have made the most significant contribution to the game of cricket in Australia over a prolonged period. A candidate for Legend status will have their contribution assessed by their stature in the game of cricket and how they have personally transcended their sport to become key figures in the community.


Michael Bevan


Michael Bevan is widely regarded as one of the greatest white ball players of all time, a prolific run-scorer, who was the world’s top-ranked One Day International batter for 1259 consecutive days between 1999 and 2002.


Bevan played 232 One Day Internationals, scoring 6912 runs at 53.58 including 6 centuries and 48 half centuries. He was a member of Australia’s 1999 and 2003 ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup winning teams. At the time he retired, he had the third-highest batting average of any cricketer in One Day Internationals. With the ball Bevan took 36 wickets at an average of 45.97.


Bevan also played 18 Test matches, scoring 785 runs at 29.07 with the bat and taking 29 wickets and 24.24, including a 10-wicket match haul against West Indies in 1996/97 at the Adelaide Oval.


Representing Australia, NSW, Tasmania, South Australia, Yorkshire, Sussex, Leicestershire and Kent, Bevan played 237 First Class matches making 19,147 runs at 57.32 including 68 centuries and 81 half centuries with a top score of 216.


Born in Canberra, Bevan made his First-Class debut for South Australia aged 19 against Western Australia, scoring a century on debut. After a single season with South Australia, he moved to New South Wales where he played for the majority of his career.


After making his limited overs debut for Australia against Sri Lanka in Sharjah in May 1994, Bevan eventually secured his place in Australia’s middle order and became known as ‘The Finisher’ for his incredible ability to manage tense run-chase situations. An all-round athlete, who was one of the quickest runners between wickets and a brilliant fielder, Bevan also contributed as an all-rounder with his left-arm wrist spin.


He is best remembered for his unbeaten 78 at the SCG on New Year’s Day in 1996, when he rescued Australia from a near impossible position against the West Indies, hitting Roger Harper for four from the final delivery to cement his reputation as a player who thrived under pressure.


One of Bevan’s most memorable hundreds came in 2002 at the MCG against New Zealand when he rescued Australia from 6/82 to a successful chase of 246, scoring an unbeaten 102 off 95 balls.


Bevan made his Test debut in September 1994 in Karachi against Pakistan, where scored 82 in his first innings. His best performance came against West Indies at the Adelaide Oval in the 1996/97 season where he scored an unbeaten 85 and took 10 wickets in the match, including 6/82 in the second innings.


In Sheffield Shield, Bevan was a prolific run-scorer throughout his career, scoring 42 centuries, the second most of any player. In 2005, he signed with Tasmania and scored an incredible 1464 runs in the season, which included a Sheffield Shield record eight centuries.


Bevan announced his retirement in January 2007.


Peter King, Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Chairman, said:

“On behalf of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Committee, it is with great pride we announce Michael Bevan as the latest inductee into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame.


“Michael without a doubt revolutionised white ball cricket and became a household name for his masterful batting, amazing athleticism and ability to chase down runs.


“It was Michael’s exceptional playing record and public standing that pushed the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Committee to review its selection criteria to ensure players who excelled in One-Day or Twenty20 Internationals were equally recognised as those who shone in the Test format.


“In the late 90s and early 2000s, the name Bevan and One-Day Internationals were synonymous with one another. Michael’s stunning performances forced fans to either flock to a stadium or turn on their televisions, which was the impact he had on the game of cricket in Australia and globally.


“Beloved by fans for his thrilling innings with the bat, Michael is known as one of the greatest players to ever play white ball cricket and his induction into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame is truly fitting. Congratulations on this honour.”


Nick Hockley, Cricket Australia CEO said:

“Michael Bevan is an icon and a pioneer in one day cricket where he was regarded as the original finisher. He was a favourite among fans with his incredible temperament and ability to deliver in pressure situations, producing numerous memorable victories for Australia." Hockley said.

“He is a two-time World Cup winner and finished his career with one of best records in 50-over cricket. He was also one of the most prolific run-scorers in the Sheffield Shield during what was one of the strongest eras in Australian cricket.

"Michael is widely regarded as one of the greatest one-day players of all time and it’s fantastic to recognise his contribution to the game with his inclusion in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame.”


Greg Dyer, Australian Cricketers’ Association Chair said:


“Michael Bevan’s impact on Australian cricket cannot be understated. Over his career he was a fantastic servant to both the Australian team and the state system.


“While his on-field statistics speak for themselves, his dedication to get the best out of his team-mates and grow the game of cricket are achievements that should be held in just as high regard.


“A true winner - the great finisher - often willing his side over the line off his own bat, his competitiveness and determination positively impacted all those around him.


“A place in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame is a fitting accolade for one of the greats of our game, and I congratulate Michael on this thoroughly deserved recognition.”

 

[FearlessRoar]

‘Icon and pioneer’: Australia’s ODI great Michael Bevan elevated to Hall of Fame​

Michael Bevan has been elevated to the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame after a tweak to the criteria governing selection.

Bevan, one of Australia’s greatest white-ball players, scored 6912 runs at 53.58 from 232 ODIs while routinely steering his side to victory in many chases.

The batter’s last-ball four, to secure a one-wicket win at the SCG on New Year’s Day in 1996, ranks highly among the sport’s most iconic moments.

Bevan, who featured in Australia’s 1999 and 2003 World Cup triumphs, has been eligible for elevation for 15 years.

But, until last month, the Hall of Fame’s rules penalised him for a relatively-modest Test career that spanned 18 matches.

“It was Michael’s exceptional playing record and public standing that pushed the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame Committee to review its selection criteria ... to ensure players who excelled in one-day or Twenty20 Internationals were equally recognised as those who shone in the Test format,” Hall of Fame chairman Peter King said.

“Michael without a doubt revolutionised white-ball cricket and became a household name for his masterful batting, amazing athleticism and ability to chase down runs.”

Speaking at the MCG, Bevan said he was “very proud and very grateful” to join Michael Clarke and Christina Matthews as this year’s inductees.

“I’m not sure I truly believed I would play for Australia,” he said. “But I definitely wanted to play for Australia. It was my main focus as a person in my younger years.

“I guess I fell into the [finisher] role or the role found me. That was one of the reasons I was successful.”

Bevan noted he did not appreciate the career-defining and game-changing impact of his New Year’s Day classic at the time, highlighting the 1999 World Cup as one of his most cherished memories.

“We had to win seven matches in a row to win the World Cup final,” he said.

“It was really quite amazing and astounding, the performances of individuals in each of those seven games, under pressure.”

Cricket Australia chief executive Nick Hockley described Bevan as an “icon and a pioneer”.

“He was a favourite among fans with his incredible temperament and ability to deliver in pressure situations,” Hockley said.

“He is a two-time World Cup winner and finished his career with one of best records in 50-over cricket. He was also one of the most prolific run-scorers in the Sheffield Shield during what was one of the strongest eras in Australian cricket.”

‘Icon and pioneer’: Australia’s ODI great Michael Bevan elevated to Hall of Fame

Legendary one-day batter Michael Bevan is the 66th inductee into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame

www.theguardian.com