Bevan's position must be looked at.

[Santos L Helper]

I know this will rile the conservative amongst you but Bevan has to go.
His fielding is attrocious (my little niece can throw harder), his bowling is sub par, and the selectors seem to realise this, and his batting has become a bit of a joke. When was the last time he looked good at the crease in an international for us?

I'm also starting to believe that Watson is becoming the next Glenn Trimble. Good in Pura Cup games but a supreme hack in internationals.

Anyway, I welcome opinions on this.

[bunsen burner]

I think he holds his position at no 6 or 7 (or wherever he bats) for the time being. He is good when he is needed, and when we don't need him, who cares?

As for test match cricket? pfft!

Watson? I've never rated him at all. It will be interesting if he can step up by the time the World Cup comes around. If he doesn't step up, they should scrap the allrounder idea and go with Maher, Clarke, or Bichel.

[Squeak]

When coming in at 6/100, there is no batsman you would rather have come in.

When he goes in at 2/200 like yesterday, he won't play well because there is no pressure, he doesn't need to hit a half-century to keep us in the game. He is at his best when he is being relied upon to play well, eg West Indies on NYD in 96, and versus the Kiwis at the G last year.

Keep him in the side, but only put him in to bat when the team is struggling.

[Desredandwhite]

IMHO Bevo has been batted too low in the order in the past. If he comes in when the side is in trouble, he can't bat freely... if he comes in when we're cruising, he is forced to hit out to maintain momentum. (though I would love us to ALWAYS be in that position)

now that he is more 4 or 5, I think he will still come in very handy. he is NOT the explosive power hitter that hayden, or gilchrist, or ponting are.

[DaveW]

Bevan is worth is spot in the one-day side. And let's face it - I know it sounds like Aussie gloating - but he'd walk into almost any other Test side. I've always felt the best time to bring him in would be the middle overs where he can rack up singles without the pressure of scoring boundaries, which isn't his strength.

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
I know this will rile the conservative amongst you but Bevan has to go.
His fielding is attrocious (my little niece can throw harder), his bowling is sub par, and the selectors seem to realise this, and his batting has become a bit of a joke. When was the last time he looked good at the crease in an international for us?



I think he's overrated as well. People go on and on about his matchwinning innings against the West Indies on New Year's Day in 1996, but that was just one innings out of 188 matches.

Certainly he's played many crucial other innings but nowhere near as many as you would think. Could you imagine him dominating an attack like Gilchrist, Ponting and Hayden have so far in the one-dayers? The large amount of not outs he has has over-inflated his average and his style of accumulation seems a relic of the Australian one-day side of the mid-1990s.

I'm sure he'll be in the Australian one-day side for a while yet but he will arguably the least important member of Australia's one-day squad.

[Zombie]

Originally posted by wagstaff
I think he's overrated as well. People go on and on about his matchwinning innings against the West Indies on New Year's Day in 1996, but that was just one innings out of 188 matches.

Certainly he's played many crucial other innings but nowhere near as many as you would think. Could you imagine him dominating an attack like Gilchrist, Ponting and Hayden have so far in the one-dayers? The large amount of not outs he has has over-inflated his average and his style of accumulation seems a relic of the Australian one-day side of the mid-1990s.

I'm sure he'll be in the Australian one-day side for a while yet but he will arguably the least important member of Australia's one-day squad.

How can Not Outs inflate your average? You seem not to understand how batting averages are worked out if you fail to understand the 'not out' system.

A players batting average is based on the amount of runs they make for each time they get out, it is not based on the average runs per innings. If you make 56, 44* and 99* you have an average of 209, is that average 'inflated'? No, that is your average, simple as that.

Bevan has done alot more for Australian One Day cricket than Gilchrist has, nothing against Gilly, I love watching him play. However Gilly is alot more hit and miss than Bevo is.

[mattyc2422]

I do agree that Bevan is very over-rated, and a one-dimensional type of player, who's defieciencies are getting shown up more often.

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Zombie
How can Not Outs inflate your average? You seem not to understand how batting averages are worked out if you fail to understand the 'not out' system.


I do understand how the not out average system works. My point was that as so many people look at averages as a guide to quality, they can distort how much worth a player is to a side.

For example during the one-day series in 1998/99, Bevan twice got not outs against England (scores ranging in the 40-50 area) yet actually was a detriment to the team because he was unable to get little more then singles in the final overs so that Australia lost both matches.

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Zombie


Bevan has done alot more for Australian One Day cricket than Gilchrist has, nothing against Gilly, I love watching him play. However Gilly is alot more hit and miss than Bevo is.

While I disagree with you on Bevan, I agree that Gilchrist is a somewhat hit and miss player at one-day international level.

Since he made his Test debut in November 1999, he has probably exceeded all expectations as a Test player but not fully lived up to the 1998/99 period (5 centuries in around 12 months).

Before this particular one-day series, Gilchrist had scored 3 half-centuries and 1 century from his last 24 one-day innings - averaging 26.5.

For an opener, and someone as good as talented a batsman as Gilchrist is, he should be doing better.

[BW]

Bevans is definatly a required player IMHO. As you say his average is inflated because of the not outs, but his ability to stay in and not get out towards the end of an innings is second to none. He deserves the average he has because of this. Rarely when he comes in at 6 does he leave 2 tailenders at or near the end.

As for not being a destructive player aka Gilly and Hayden, its always good to have a mix of the 2. Bevan and Martyn do this exceptionally well, while Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting etc. do the hitting. On the odd occasion if the top 3 fail, Bevan can ensure that one batsmen isnt going to be dismissed. Very much required, has done nothing wrong at all in recent times.

[Santos L Helper]

Lehmann will prove to be more valuable to this current side.

[fabulousphil]

I would rather Bevan than Lehmann any day, i reckon Lehman is suspect in a pressure situation, Bevan has been a match winner in pressure situations many times.

[GoEagles]

Watson needs more time, he's still very raw - the selectors would see him as a long term prospect for the next 5-10 years.

I noticed Hayden's fielding, especially throwing from the deep was very poor - he seemed to lock his shoulder when throwing, definately did not look a good action. Anyone else pick up on this?

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
I know this will rile the conservative amongst you but Bevan has to go.

His fielding is attrocious (my little niece can throw harder), his bowling is sub par, and the selectors seem to realise this, and his batting has become a bit of a joke. When was the last time he looked good at the crease in an international for us?

Anyway, I welcome opinions on this.

Do you remember the Australia vs New Zealand match last year at the MCG where Michael Bevan batted brilliantly with the tail to guide us to victory?? For memory, we were 6 for 82 chasing 240 odd, still needing to score at well over 6 runs per over when Bevan was joined by Shane Warne. Bevan scored 102 not out and was the hero as he batted with Warne, Lee and Bichel to see us through to victory.

I've also seen him guide us home in matches in India, South Africa and even though it wasn't really an international match, his innings of 183 off 135 balls for the Rest Of The World team vs Asia a couple of seasons ago was one of the best batting displays I've ever seen and almost got them a win chasing 320.

How quickly we forget!! ;)

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by ScouseCat
Do you remember the Australia vs New Zealand match last year at the MCG where Michael Bevan batted brilliantly with the tail to guide us to victory?? For memory, we were 6 for 82 chasing 240 odd, still needing to score at well over 6 runs per over when Bevan was joined by Shane Warne. Bevan scored 102 not out and was the hero as he batted with Warne, Lee and Bichel to see us through to victory.

I haven't forgotten. This is the one reason he must be in the team. He is a rare commodity and he provides a balance to the team. I like to think of it this way:

- If the top five don't fire, he is the best man (in the world) to either get us a decent score, keep us in the hunt, or occassionally win us the match from a winless position.

- If the top 5 do fire, then whoever bats at no 6 isn't really needed anyway.

Australia have the luxury of being able to beat most teams with 5 batters. If something goes wrong, the best ODI batsman in the world is there for backup. This is Bevan's function in the team. No other country has the luxury of being able to have this type of player.

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I haven't forgotten. This is the one reason he must be in the team. He is a rare commodity and he provides a balance to the team. I like to think of it this way:

- If the top five don't fire, he is the best man (in the world) to either get us a decent score, keep us in the hunt, or occassionally win us the match from a winless position.

- If the top 5 do fire, then whoever bats at no 6 isn't really needed anyway.

Australia have the luxury of being able to beat most teams with 5 batters. If something goes wrong, the best ODI batsman in the world is there for backup. This is Bevan's function in the team. No other country has the luxury of being able to have this type of player.

I agree with Bunsen.

[London Dave]

An interesting call, I'd say you could look at Bevan's position, and if there's anyone better, play that player. There isn't. To suggest Lehmann exposes the rocks in your head. Lehmann got the big A after the last world cup because of his fielding, and I don't reckon it's improved. Can anyone name one outstanding international innings Lehamnn has played?? Give up?? Answer NONE. Bevan plays one a season. You can bitch and moan about 'lack of opportunity' but it dont cut the ice. Lehmann fans should try to look a litle further than the back pages of the Advertiser for selection advice. An they said NSW were OTT with S Waugh!

The mere fact Boof is in the side now suggests we've gone backwards as a team over the last few years.

Watson is an experiment....wouldn't have him in the best 12, but they want an all rounder do the selectors.

[P0RT P0WER]

Amazing how short our memories are.
Bevan has one of the best one day records of all time, never gets many hundreds but over the last 5 years has scraped together numerous 50's and 60's, as much as I unfavour NSW cricketers he has been our loungeroom hero for the past five years.
So many times he has dug us out of trouble, I remember many games he has put on late stands with Mcgrath, Warne, Reiffel etc and brought us victories that we thought weren't possible.
Times where Id turn it off when we were 8 wickets down needing another 70 of 50 balls and half and hour later Id turn it back out of curiosity and we'd be needing 10 off the last 10 balls. Bevan has been Australia's best one dayer for the last five years, so many times I have thought he cannot keep doing it and he does it again, his average is the best in the side and he has scored the second most amount of one day runs for Australia over the last 6 years.
Id say out with Watson and in with Blewett.
Blewett's bowling has picked up remarkably over the last few months and a few knocks in the CUB series should set him up for the World Cup, especially on the Sth African pitches where he has had previous success.

Do you know if Warnie misses this World Cup it will be the first time ever a Victorian hasn't represented Australia in a World Cup Match.

[P0RT P0WER]

Originally posted by London Dave
An interesting call, I'd say you could look at Bevan's position, and if there's anyone better, play that player. There isn't. To suggest Lehmann exposes the rocks in your head. Lehmann got the big A after the last world cup because of his fielding, and I don't reckon it's improved. Can anyone name one outstanding international innings Lehamnn has played?? Give up?? Answer NONE. Bevan plays one a season. You can bitch and moan about 'lack of opportunity' but it dont cut the ice. Lehmann fans should try to look a litle further than the back pages of the Advertiser for selection advice. An they said NSW were OTT with S Waugh!

The mere fact Boof is in the side now suggests we've gone backwards as a team over the last few years.

Watson is an experiment....wouldn't have him in the best 12, but they want an all rounder do the selectors.

How can you bag Lehmann, he has the second best strike rate in the team and has cemented his place in the one day side over the last 12 months with continous knocks of 40's and 50's, most being in the risky end of the innings, Lehmann's career has been burnt by the simple fact he was never given a chance in the 90's when he deserved one, he was always named 12th man, had to make 50 or more or was given the A not like Steve Waugh who continously failed at International level over the past two years.
It was harsh not naming steve Waugh in the top 30 players for the cup squad but he is not in Australia's top 12 one day players let alone our top 16. And you say the Australian side has been going backwards over the last few years? As if, this Australian one day side at the moment is one of the best ever, these selectors have balls, it should of been done ten years ago, the Geoff Marsh's, Mark Taylors, etc wouldn't have been able to live on test reputations. Amazing what went through there heads just before the mid 90's when players like Dean Jones, Darren Lehmann, Jamie Siddons and Tom Moody couldn't get a game before some of these old slouches with a strike rate around 30.
Trevor Hohns is doing a great job, he's rolling heads like rolling tobacco.

[Tony_Clifton]

Bevan excels in two situations:

1. Run chases where lots of wickets are lost and runs are not a huge priority.
2. Batting first; he is good to do the boring running between the wickets pushing for ones and twos between overs 15 and 40.

From what I've seen he tries to work it out so that he can personally bat for the longest amount of time. When chasing runs he will work it out to win in the 49th over whereas the rest of the batsmen would rather winn as quickly as possible. Bevan bats as safely as the situation will dictates.

He often takes many balls to get going, the theory being that he will make amends at the end of the innings. Sometimes though he takes many balls to get going then gets out thus putting more pressure on the rest of the bating order.

If Bevan's grand plan fails he has stacked extra pressure on the reast of the team by batting so slowly. By having his reputation ( which is made by wiining 6 games single handedly) he gets away with backing his ability.
Overated- the best in certain situations, but most games don't suit his style.





Definately worth keeping but keep the batting order flexible enough to only send him in when the situation suits him.

I also think his average is inflated by not outs. At last people are catching on that Bevan is not a great 'stereotypical' (big hitting)one day batsman. Damien Martyn has caught onto his selfish trick.
Bevan seems preoccupied with protecting his average.

Lehmann has been dealt an unfair hand. He has never got a real opportunity to bat as a top order batsmen for australia and still doesn't. His batting for australia from what I have seen is attrocious and not a true indication of how good he can be.

On current form I would replace him with Michael Clarke, but it seems that the selectors and the whole of australian cricket are waking up to the tragedy that has been Lehmanns treatment by selctors over his career.
Matty hayden must be thinking that but for the grace of god he would be another Shield Master like Lehmann.

[stoisle]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

His fielding is attrocious (my little niece can throw harder), his bowling is sub par, and the selectors seem to realise this, and his batting has become a bit of a joke. When was the last time he looked good at the crease in an international for us?


I must have been imagining his direct hit run out on Sunday night.

Why don't you also have a go at Martyn for his poor batting on Sunday? It is very hard to come out after sitting through a stand of 200+ to come out and continue, thats the way it always happens. Remember last summer in the tests when Hayden and Langer had 200+ stands but the middle order would struggle.

One of Bevan's great games under pressure was the 99 World Cup Semi Final against South Africa. He was last out for 65 in the final after we were 4/60 odd had good partnerships with Tugger and Warney. He also run out Cullinan (direct hit) and took a catch in the deep. All important stuff in a tied game.

[Wicked Lester]

My view is that Bevan is overrated, but only slightly.

IMO he is not the greatest ODI batsman of all time - that goes to one of a number of highly successful players to have either opened or batted at 3 for several teams. Even in the current team I would rate Ponting over a long period of time as being more important to the team.

It is easy to go on about match winning innings by Bevan. What about those many times when a match saving knock is not required because Mark Waugh, Gilchrist or Ponting set the match up for a win against the new ball from the word go.

Having said that, Bevan is still a very special player in the ODI arena. I don't think its fair to judge anyone two matches into the series. Particularly middle order batsmen coming in after the top three have already as good as decided the outcome of the game.

As for Watson I understand he has a similar record to that of Steve Waugh after his first 10-15 ODI's. Whether he's the right man for the World Cup I'm not sure, but he is certainly worht persisting with long term.

[Simon_Nesbit]

I think we need to get away from this 'batting order' situation, and move towards a 'situation'.

Why should Bevan (or Martyn for that matter), come in a 5/6 because that's their 'batting spot', when with 4 overs to go, a big-hitting Lee or Warne would be the better option?

Personally, I would have the 'order' as something approximating:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann They all bat similar styles. None are 'quick' ODI batsmen.
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann
Symonds/Clarke
Warne/Hauritz (rate Hauritz)
Lee/Bichel/Noffke (rate Noffke too)
Gillespie
McGrath

Clarke, Symonds, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne, Lee are probably the only guys who can come in and hit boundaries straight away. Bevan, Martyn, Watson all take their time to get going.

I believe that there is only room for two of Bevan, Lehmann and Martyn in the ODI side, and Lehmann's bowling gets him above Martyn IMO. The only way Martyn would stay in the side is if Gilly moves down to #5-6 (over 40 till finish).

Therefore my suggested 'XII' is:

Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Bevan, Lehmann, Clarke, Symonds, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath, Watson (12th).

[Tony_Clifton]

Beg to differ.
Martyn is better than
Symonds- OK, I can see your reasoning with the need of a utility slogger
Lehmann-saying his bowling gets him over the line is pushing the envelope. On his performance the other night his bowling should have won him MOM but its like AB taking seven for. Martyn is 3 years ahead of Lehmann in terms of performance at international level. Martyn had Lehmannns unenjoyable late batting position at test and one day level and exceled at it. So much so that he is now no4. Lehmann is failing regularly at a position where Martyn exceled. hell-Martyns bowling is in the same league as lehmanns,amateur
Bevan-Martyn copied Bevans trick of playing as a defensive no.6 or seven and batting australia home. He can do that job almost as well and he can also bat fast- his batting in his younger days was typified carribean cameo type innings. I wish Bevan would bowl again because I rated him as a bowler b4.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit
Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann They all bat similar styles. None are 'quick' ODI batsmen.
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann
Symonds/Clarke
Warne/Hauritz (rate Hauritz)
Lee/Bichel/Noffke (rate Noffke too)
Gillespie
McGrath



DS Lehmann 83 75 16 2128 110* 36.06 2 81.12 8 AUS

strike rate = 81.12

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Zombie
How can Not Outs inflate your average? You seem not to understand how batting averages are worked out if you fail to understand the 'not out' system.

A players batting average is based on the amount of runs they make for each time they get out, it is not based on the average runs per innings. If you make 56, 44* and 99* you have an average of 209, is that average 'inflated'? No, that is your average, simple as that.

Bevan has done alot more for Australian One Day cricket than Gilchrist has, nothing against Gilly, I love watching him play. However Gilly is alot more hit and miss than Bevo is.
You are right to point out the reason why not outs are treated the way they are in determining averages - I think some people overlook this. But there is no doubt this can be exploited. I think this is especially so in one-dayers when a batsman knows his innings is going to be a limited one.

For instance, should taking a one off the last ball of the innings and getting run out going for the second be treated differently to just taking a lazy single off the last ball and finishing not out? In this situation, average-wise, the team player gets penalisted.

[dr nick]

Originally posted by DaveW
You are right to point out the reason why not outs are treated the way they are in determining averages - I think some people overlook this. But there is no doubt this can be exploited. I think this is especially so in one-dayers when a batsman knows his innings is going to be a limited one.

For instance, should taking a one off the last ball of the innings and getting run out going for the second be treated differently to just taking a lazy single off the last ball and finishing not out? In this situation, average-wise, the team player gets penalisted.

true, it often infuriates me the number of selfish players who will not push for the 2nd run on the last ball of the innings. i cant exactly single out someone because they all do it. they obviously believe that their personal average is more important than an extra run for the team. but why wouldnt they?? the number of people who think averages are the be all and end all in ODI cricket is just ridiculous.

[dr nick]

i would like to see someone compile an "adjusted average" for one day cricket, where run outs off the last ball do not contribute as a wicket in determining averages. also, players who get out trying to back away and slam one over the extra cover boundary in the 49th over should probably be counted as half a wicket. genuine dismissals where the bowler is too good or poor shot selection should be one full dismissal.

all too often bowlers who bowl at the death pick up easy wickets. an adjusted average system would reward those bowlers who bowl at the start of the innings against better batsman just working the gaps and playing conservatively.

those darren lehmann wickets for mine were easy pickings. i'd imagine adam gilchrist could get wickets bowling near the end when the other team needs 15 an over to win.

[P0RT P0WER]

Originally posted by nicko18
those darren lehmann wickets for mine were easy pickings. i'd imagine adam gilchrist could get wickets bowling near the end when the other team needs 15 an over to win.

Lehmann took his 3/32 when England were in a commanding position batting first, they only needed 6 an over when he come on to post a 300 plus score.

[P0RT P0WER]

Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit
I think we need to get away from this 'batting order' situation, and move towards a 'situation'.

Why should Bevan (or Martyn for that matter), come in a 5/6 because that's their 'batting spot', when with 4 overs to go, a big-hitting Lee or Warne would be the better option?

Personally, I would have the 'order' as something approximating:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann They all bat similar styles. None are 'quick' ODI batsmen.
Watson/Bevan/Martyn/Lehmann
Symonds/Clarke
Warne/Hauritz (rate Hauritz)
Lee/Bichel/Noffke (rate Noffke too)
Gillespie
McGrath

Clarke, Symonds, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne, Lee are probably the only guys who can come in and hit boundaries straight away. Bevan, Martyn, Watson all take their time to get going.

I believe that there is only room for two of Bevan, Lehmann and Martyn in the ODI side, and Lehmann's bowling gets him above Martyn IMO. The only way Martyn would stay in the side is if Gilly moves down to #5-6 (over 40 till finish).

Therefore my suggested 'XII' is:

Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Bevan, Lehmann, Clarke, Symonds, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath, Watson (12th).

Wow a Tasmanian based Queenslander.

[GoEagles]

Bevan will be signing his new book this Saturday at Garden City in Booragoon, outside A & R's.

[Nige_Bix]

I think Watson is a bit of a "golden boy" with selectors atm - as clarke will become!

Bevan is still worth something to the side - but htere have cetainly ben times when his bating hasseemed ordinary and pedestrian.

Yikes- over 10 replies in 40 minutes!- must be the holidays - and now my son wants "his" computer back!

dzm