Michael Bevan

[Sultan of spin]

One Day cricket was a different game when Richie Richardson and Dean Jones played, a score of 200-220 was considered a very good score so a strike rate in the mid 70's was very high, these days teams can score 300+ so the more agressive players have strike rates in the mid/high 80 or even in the 90's.

At the start of his ODI career Bevan did have a strike rate in the 80's but then he built up this massive average so in recent times his scoring has slowed because he bats for not outs to protect his average.

Having said that though I still think he is an important player because there is no better player to come in if the team is 3 or 4 down for not many and you need a guy to steady the ship and play an anchor role.

[Donny]

Exactly, mate. Both those innings were made possible by the batsman at the other end. You know, the boring one.

Clarke and Bic were able to play as they did because their partner knew how to put them on strike.

[JLC]

Oh so Bevan plays the role of a tail ender or a night watchman?? He holds up one end and lets the other player make the runs and take all the risks. My mistake i thought Bevan was in the side as a batsman.

jlc

[Donny]

Right again, JLC.

He is a batsman but where you err is in the last overs he doesn't hold up an end, he puts the hitter on strike.

[piedys]

[commonwombat]

Donny, Donny, getting a little peevish aren't we??

Prone to exaggerate?? Methinks not. Controversial??? May plead guilty to that one.

Re technical flaws; would totally agree with you about disregarding them if he were effective. The fact is that his technical flaws which are becoming more pronounced as he gets older are impeding his effectiveness.

What are they?? OK, I'll lay my cards on the table. His footwork is frequently non existant or consists of front foot straight up wicket rather than across closer to the line. He is frequently hitting the ball on the run so to speak and is therefore off balance. Please explain to me how you can consistently time a ball well if you are off balance at time of contact??

My criticism of the footwork also comes into play when you see him consistently swat at the ball because his head is nowhere near the line. Again this leads to frequent mistiming, ergo decreased capability to hit boundaries.

Before you start frothing at the mouth, allow me to say that I am no devotee of textbook purity for it's own sake, far from it. My point is that Bevan's methods have been butressed by some fine physical gifts.

However as he has got older and his "eye" by necessity worsens, he is much less effective as a striker. Let's face it, it's been seen with others form many nations who are purely reliqant on their physical gifts without the sound fundamentals to back it up.

His modus operandi has became increasingly that of turning over the strike efficiently. It is then incumbent on his partner to be the agressor. He is indeed fortunate in this regard with the depth and capability of the Australian batting line up with players generally down to 10 able to score reliably and hit boundaries.

Man of the match awards are by nature subjective judgements and are made by the media. Certainly some have been justified but lets be honest many in the media do play favourites and media influence/pressure does impact on selections.

Certainly I expect to be criticised for my views and accept they are controversial. Mind you, I do not appear to be an orphan. But Donny, I have tried to back up my case and to those who may differ, I simply ask that you watch him play bearing in mind what I have said.

BTW, Donny old buddy pal, I didn't see you try and contest my point about his throwing arm. Then again, it is somewhat futile trying to defend the indefensible is it not??

[Donny]

Where do I start ??

Peevish ? It's the wombat who seems agitated and annoyed.

Exaggerating just to be controversial ? The first one cancels out the second one.

Technical flaws impeding his effectiveness ? He is still picked in Australia's best ODI eleven and still winning Man of the Match awards.

And before that one slips away, Man of the Match awards are awarded by the match referee, not the media.

The criteria for this award is and always has been: The player considered to have contributed most to his team winning the match unless (rarely) an exceptional performance comes from within the losing team.

All your gobbledegook about Bevan's technical 'flaws' means absolutely nothing if he does the job. Time and time again, he does. Not all the great batsmen are/were technically perfect/correct.

The last point you make is so wide of the mark, I previously didn't deem it worthy of reply, on at least two counts.

JLC, in his opening line writes, "but I think he is dead set boring to watch" He was referring to his batting but since you've blown Bevan's weak throwing arm way out of proportion, I'll address it.

If his arm was a real issue, the brains trust wouldn't use him in the outfield. They use him there because of his running speed. He saves far more runs stopping boundaries than the 3 or 4 a game (if that) he may lose when the batsmen take an extra one 'on his arm'

To those who say Bevan plays for the 'red ink', they are also off the mark. Batting average means very little in one dayers. Those of you who've read my stuff over the last year will notice I never refer to a batsman's average as a measure of his worth or stature.

This may shock you, wombat (& even JLC) but I think Bevo is very much in his 'twilight time' with the Aussie ODI team. Over probably the last 12-18 months, he's dropped sitters in the outfield that he used to gobble and he gets injured too often.

Wanna hear another one ? I also agree with JLC that he's boring (for some) to watch. I just wanted to point out what I thought was/is his valid contribution to this great team.

Last but not least. An extremely pertinent point was made by Dyso (piedys), a few posts back.

He wrote, and I also ask, " ... do you really think John Buchanan, S Waugh/R Ponting would allow a player to protect his average by batting for not-outs instead of risking his wicket in the run chase? This flies right in the face of ANY team plan.

[commonwombat]

Donny,

Rather than keep this little argument running till both our beards go grey, and bore everyone else shitless in the process; lets just agree to differ and put it to bed.

Do concede yr point re MOM being now decided by match referees. However, he is, in his spot alongside the 3rd ump, getting his "feed" from the media.

I HAD already made my point about technical perfection, did you not read it, however it is also an incontrovertible FACT that those whose games are not backed up by solid fundamentals tend to fade far quicker than others once their physical gifts start to fade.

Gobbledegook you say. Fine, you are welcome to yr opinion. I have merely voiced my observations of his game and the traits which to my eye have became more pronounced as he has gotten older.

Selfish player. I have not said as such however have acknowledged that he or his methods have created that perceptions. His game has largely became risk averse and he is a very slow starter. However the depth of Aus batting and the fact he is playing in a frequently dominant team has allowed him to be effective in this role. I'll leave the selfish judgement for others to make, this judge will withhold his verdict.

Certainly he does cover the outfield v quickly which to date has dissuaded timid oppositions from running on his arm. I do however stand by my point on his arm which is the weakest in the side. Yes, he is dropping a lot of catches.

To end. I have never regarded Bevan particularly highly unlike some who have regarded him as the greatest thing since canned beer but I will acknowledge that he became a very effective one day player. My objection has became the media myth and legend that has been created about him. At least Donny and I can agree on the fact that his future looks rather limited.

[hoggy]

[commonwombat]

Thanks for yr research, Hoggy.

[Donny]

Yes, thanks hoggy.

And thanks, wombat, for a reasonable reply. Much more respectful than your previous one. I wasn't impressed with the 'peevish' and 'frothing at the mouth' comments.

I love a good debate. I don't enjoy an argument. Sometimes I'll take the devil's advocate position as JLC does. I think it's healthy and fun.

[commonwombat]

Donny,

Agree. Let's have peace in our time. I, too, love a good debate but try to avoid long pointless arguments. Will stand my ground but do try to avoid acrimony.

Due to my "half caste" background and outlook, I will sometimes take a view that may be controversial to some but do try to be as circumspect as possible in arguing my case.

You were not impressed by my jibes just as I was similarly unimpressed by the tone of some of yr comments on this and another topic which I considered condescending to say the least. No personal attack was intended and apologise for any offence taken.

We both obviously love and understand our cricket and will naturally find points of agreement and dispute.

Wombat

[Donny]

Bevan deserves Indian berth
By former Australian Test batsman Keith Stackpole
November 23, 2003

MICHAEL Bevan, recognised as one of Australia's best one-day batsmen, deserves another chance in next year's Test tour of the sub-continent.

In the past few years there have been derogatory comments made about his batting when it comes to the longer version of the game. But Bevan's performances in the recent tri-series in India show he is an expert under Indian conditions.

The Australian selectors have often stated that they select "horses for courses" when choosing Test teams in certain conditions and situations.

Even though the tour is almost a year away, preparations and planning are already in place for the one hurdle that Australia has not been able to overcome since 1969.

Bevan displayed his expertise in the tri-series - and his ability to cope with the spinning ball was as good as any.

The left-hander sums up the conditions perfectly and knew that a total of about 230 would be hard to beat.

Even though he was criticised by some for his slow scoring, insinuating he was chasing another "not out", Bevan was mindful he had to be there at the finish to ensure a difficult target was set.

During this summer's four-Test series against the Indians, most of the Australian batsmen will be able to inflate their averages and impress the selectors by pounding the Indian spinners.

But destroying Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble on flat Australian decks is vastly different to keeping them out on the slower, lower Indian turning pitches.

Bevan was dropped several seasons ago from the Test team because he had a perceived weakness against the short ball.

I've watched him closely in Pura Cup matches for NSW in the past few seasons. While his technique is not perfect at avoiding the rising ball, he does it effectively.

In his 18 Tests for Australia, he is best remembered for his match-winning 10-wicket haul against the West Indies in 1996-97 at the Adelaide Oval.

His batting average is a little less than 30, with a top score of 91.

Since his omission, he has been tagged a one-day specialist. Recently he was quoted as saying he was considering scaling back his four-day commitments for NSW to concentrate on one-dayers and lengthen his international career.

The battle for middle-order positions in the touring party to India next year will be contested hotly. Darren Lehmann, Simon Katich, Martin Love and Michael Clarke also have claims to be selected before him, but none of this quartet can handle quality spin as well as Bevan.

It was a fabulous win in the tri-series by Ricky Ponting's men and one would expect that success to flow again this summer.

Historically, the Indians have struggled in Australia, winning only three of 28 Tests.

[couragous cloke]

Beven... this man has the capability to make even fours and Sixes Boring!! He is the worst batsmen to watch in the world, the most over rated batsmen in the world and the most selfish batsmen in the world

End of story...

[London Dave]

Interesting debate....my thoughts...

On Boring Bevan...don't think he's boring, has a job to do and does it. Winning has never bored me. He doesnt smash the ball round the park as other guys do, but his record is pretty consistent. Bill Lawry was labelled 'boring', though my dad tells me he was a bit of a dasher when younger, only 'shutting up shop' after Simpson retired and he couldnt find an opening partner who'd stay in! If it's repeated enough, some will believe it true, though evidence may suggest otherwise., but we don't let facts get in the way of opinion now, do we?


Technical Flaws...Bradman had 'technical flaws', simple game cricket, they bowl it, you hit it to where they ain't. That's the technique. Rambling on ad nauseum re Bevans 'flaws' does him a dis service...he may not be 'elegant' or a batsman in the 'classical' style I'll grant you, but labelling him 'boring' because of (in part) 'technical flaws is a bit rich. He's got the runs on the board.

Selfish batman...absolute bollocks. Pure and simple. If he batted for himself as some posters seem to suggest, he wouldn't last long in the team. Find one innings where his alleged selfishness has cost Australia the game. If you can, (which I doubt) there'd be another 10 where he's, if not won the game, got Oz to a decent enough target to allow the bowlers to get the job done. Calling him 'selfish' really only advertises your ignorance...you don't make runs in the pavilion, and I ain't heard last man gets his tucker in ODI's. People who call him 'selfish' are the same 'sheep' who believe in urban myths etc, if you hear something often enough , it must be true!

regarding his fielding...his shoulder was shot years ago, hasn't had an 'arm' to speak of for years......but throwings half of it, you gotta get to the ball as well, then get rid of it. Not much point being able to throw a cricket ball at Mach 2 if you have the turning circle of the titanic and take 5 minutes to wind up and throw. Just as important to get the ball in motion early. Aussies use baseball style cut off anyway dont they? I kinda recall him running of Cullinan in the Semi at 99 WC...not the teams best fieldsman, but not the worst either.