Bevo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red

You asked me to look into a crystal ball.

Do you think he would have got out more times and made no more runs if he batted at 3 or 4?

If yes, you know nothing about cricket.

If no, I rest my case.

I didn't ask if he would make more runs, I asked if he would have been dismissed more times, which I am assuming you are agreeing with (because obviously he would have).

 

[Fat Red]

You don't have to assume I agree with it. I said so.

But for that to have the effect on his average that you claim, he would also have had to not make more runs.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
You don't have to assume I agree with it. I said so.

But for that to have the effect on his average that you claim, he would also have had to not make more runs.

Works both ways, for his average to remain at 57 with a "normal" percentage of not outs ('bout 12% say) he would have to have scored nearly 50% more runs to date than he already has.

 

[Fat Red]

Yeah, but even if he batted at 4 he would not have a normal number of not outs. Other guys who bat at 6 do not have the number he has.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Yeah, but even if he batted at 4 he would not have a normal number of not outs. Other guys who bat at 6 do not have the number he has.

Rather tenuous statement which is not true.
Chris Harris bats at 6 (sometimes 7) and also has a similarly high percentage of not outs.

 

[Fat Red]

Your original premise was that Bevan had an abnormal number of not outs. Does he or doesn't he? If it's a normal number for a number 6, why is his average so far ahead of any other number 6?

BTW, I think you have to combine average and strike rate to select the best one day batsman. For me it's definitely Viv.

Tendulkar and Bevan pretty even in 2nd spot.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Your original premise was that Bevan had an abnormal number of not outs. Does he or doesn't he? If it's a normal number for a number 6, why is his average so far ahead of any other number 6?

BTW, I think you have to combine average and strike rate to select the best one day batsman. For me it's definitely Viv.

Tendulkar and Bevan pretty even in 2nd spot.

Of course he has a high number of not outs, that is not in dispute, although it would be fair to say that the lower order batsmen as a whole have a higher % of not outs compared to higher order batsmen. Common sense alone would suggest that.

Bevo's average is higher than any other number 6 because he is a better batsman, I have never suggested otherwise.

Fair call about Viv.

Anyway, let's move on, I have work to do and I shall no doubt have to gird my loins for later when Dan26 responds with his pithy missives.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

What does it matter how many not outs he has??? That doesn't give him any extra help with the averages than other players.

He doesn't go out, he earnt his average.

For mine, he's the best one day batsman of all time. His strike rates not as good as Viv's but he averages 10 more runs, which is a huge difference

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Of course he has a high number of not outs, that is not in dispute, although it would be fair to say that the lower order batsmen as a whole have a higher % of not outs compared to higher order batsmen. Common sense alone would suggest that.

Bevo's average is higher than any other number 6 because he is a better batsman, I have never suggested otherwise.

Fair call about Viv.

Anyway, let's move on,

Fair enough.

I have work to do and I shall no doubt have to gird my loins for later when Dan26 responds with his pithy missives.

Pithy they ain't

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan26


It is harder to sustain a high average in one-day cricket for a couple of reasons.

* There are only 50 overs in which to compile your score
* You have to take more risks as a batter

Most players who have played both forms of the game have a higher average in test cricket. Allan Border averaged 50 in Tests, and 30 in One-day cricket. In fact every member of the Australian team, bar Bevan has a higher test batting average.

Poor example. First of all...Allan Border played in an era when 230 was considered an almost impossible score to get...when 180 was considered a top score. Nowadays 180 is almost a certain loss while 230 is only a medium/average one day score. Allan Border also use to come in the majority of the time at the butt end of the innings and would go the slog and more often than not, get 20 off 15 balls then get out.

Most people do have a higher test average tho. Bevan is different because Bevan is useless at test level. Probably be willing to say the same for Harvey and Symonds.

 

[BMD]

Just adding my 2 cents. I generally agree with Dan and his supporters that Bevan's average is extraordinary.

On Tendulkar (who apparently would have an average of 60 if he didn't get out as much). He plays a lot of his one day cricket in India - flat pitches; (mostly) small grounds; big scores. I reckon this inflates his average in comparison to Bevan's.

BTW, I agree that Viv is the greatest of all time.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan26


Bevan averaging 57 is far superior to any other one-day batting average. Plenty of players have aveaged 50 in tests, but none have averaged 57 in one-dayers. As a level of excellence I rate it roughly equivalent to averaging 70 in tests.

How did you get the no. 70 tho??? Why 70?? Why not 65...or 72.57?? How did you work out that 57 in a one day = 70 in tests. Personally i dont reckon it does...as if Bevan was that special he would be in the test team...averaging 70. Fact is he isnt...and hasnt been in the test team for a number of years.


One innings doesnt make him the best one day player in the world...it would be like me declaring Chris Cairns as the best one day player in the world after he scored 102 the other week. How often does Bevan do this??? Not as much as he should if he is the best one day player in the world. Its the only good innings hes had this summer at all. This is the first time hes saved Australias arse for quite a long time.....yes he scored 180 or whatever against the rest of the world....big deal, in a ho-hum game.
Yes it was a great match winning innings...but does that one innings make him the best one day player in the world again??? i dont think so. What will you all say if he comes out next game and gets 4?
Having said my rant....id like to see him play maybe one or two spots up from where he does....come in at no 4 maybe. Then he will get a chance to score a lot more runs that he does at the moment.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Macca19


How did you get the no. 70 tho??? Why 70?? Why not 65...or 72.57?? How did you work out that 57 in a one day = 70 in tests.

I was just comparing his high quality in one form of the game to a comprable high quality in the other form of the game. I know it's nearly impossible to compare, because they are different sports, but we can still look at his high quality, and make a realistic comparison to a similar high quality of another sport.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan26


I was just comparing his high quality in one form of the game to a comprable high quality in the other form of the game. I know it's nearly impossible to compare, because they are different sports, but we can still look at his high quality, and make a realistic comparison to a similar high quality of another sport.

I realise this but you didnt answer the question. What did you pick 70 as the number?? Was there an equation you used to get it, or did you just go "hmmm 70 sounds good"

just wondering thats all

 

[Dan26]

Dippers donunts,

I've been trying to think of another way to explain this, because you seem to be confused by the whole 'not out" thing.

Pretend Bevan's one-day career is one big match that never ends. Imagine watching every ball he has faced in one-day cricket one ball after the other. Forget the fact that the match might finish, and he is not out. Forget that. Just kep watching every ball. When a match finishes, he will eventually face the first ball of his next match and so on.....12,000 balls one after the other....

From these 12,000 balls (or however many he has faced) he has might have accumulated 5,700 runs and been dismissed 100 times, from 198 innings. He might have had 98 not-outs. That gives him an average of 57. The not-outs don't matter. It doesn't make his performance any less worthy. His average takes into account every run from every match. From the 12,000 balls he has faced, he has scored 5,700 runs at an average of 57. (not his exact figures, I am just giving an example)

Another player might bat as an opener and he might NEVER have had a not out. He has been given out in every game. Over this players career, he has scored 5,700 runs, and been given out 100 times too, with NO not outs. His average is still 57. His performance is no better than Bevans. He hasn't had a not out, but over his whole career he has scored the same number of runs and been dismissed the same number of times, so his overall, performance is exactly the same.

So, if you watch Bevan's whole one-day career, end to end, watching every ball from every match, and ignorng the fact that a match finishes. Just watch all 12,000 balls he has faced, one after the other, you will see that his average of 57 is well and truly earned, and his high percentage of not-outs in no way diminish his fine achievments in the shortened form of the game.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Macca19


I realise this but you didnt answer the question. What did you pick 70 as the number?? Was there an equation you used to get it, or did you just go "hmmm 70 sounds good"

just wondering thats all

No, no equation. No science at all. Just my rough comparison. I've always considered 50 to be the benchmark average in tests, Macca. if you average 50, you are a champion. I have considered an averge of 40 in one-day cricket the mark of a chmpion one-day batsman.

The fact that Bevan averages 57, made me state, unscientifically, that his career one-day performace is roughly equivalent in quality to a test batsman averaging 70. No science, no equation - just my own little comparison, that you don't have to agree with.

I didn't think my comment was that big a deal actually.

 

[Pies rock]

Originally posted by Dan26


No, no equation. No science at all. Just my rough comparison. I've always considered 50 to be the benchmark average in tests, Macca. if you average 50, you are a champion. I have considered an averge of 40 in one-day cricket the mark of a chmpion one-day batsman.

The fact that Bevan averages 57, made me state, unscientifically, that his career one-day performace is roughly equivalent in quality to a test batsman averaging 70. No science, no equation - just my own little comparison, that you don't have to agree with.

I didn't think my comment was that big a deal actually.

I think ur pretty must right about this, Dan. A large majority of players have higher test averages than their one day average, and as u said, 40 is seen as being very good. 57 is extraodinary in one dayers, just as 70 would be an extraordinary test match average, so I can see where ur coming from...

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Originally posted by Dan26
Dippers donunts,

I've been trying to think of another way to explain this, because you seem to be confused by the whole 'not out" thing.

Pretend Bevan's one-day career is one big match that never ends. Imagine watching every ball he has faced in one-day cricket one ball after the other. Forget the fact that the match might finish, and he is not out. Forget that. Just kep watching every ball. When a match finishes, he will eventually face the first ball of his next match and so on.....12,000 balls one after the other....

From these 12,000 balls (or however many he has faced) he has might have accumulated 5,700 runs and been dismissed 100 times, from 198 innings. He might have had 98 not-outs. That gives him an average of 57. The not-outs don't matter. It doesn't make his performance any less worthy. His average takes into account every run from every match. From the 12,000 balls he has faced, he has scored 5,700 runs at an average of 57. (not his exact figures, I am just giving an example)

Another player might bat as an opener and he might NEVER have had a not out. He has been given out in every game. Over this players career, he has scored 5,700 runs, and been given out 100 times too, with NO not outs. His average is still 57. His performance is no better than Bevans. He hasn't had a not out, but over his whole career he has scored the same number of runs and been dismissed the same number of times, so his overall, performance is exactly the same.

So, if you watch Bevan's whole one-day career, end to end, watching every ball from every match, and ignorng the fact that a match finishes. Just watch all 12,000 balls he has faced, one after the other, you will see that his average of 57 is well and truly earned, and his high percentage of not-outs in no way diminish his fine achievments in the shortened form of the game.

Spot on Dan26

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26
Dippers donunts,

I've been trying to think of another way to explain this, because you seem to be confused by the whole 'not out" thing.

Pretend Bevan's one-day career is one big match that never ends. Imagine watching every ball he has faced in one-day cricket one ball after the other. Forget the fact that the match might finish, and he is not out. Forget that. Just kep watching every ball. When a match finishes, he will eventually face the first ball of his next match and so on.....12,000 balls one after the other....

From these 12,000 balls (or however many he has faced) he has might have accumulated 5,700 runs and been dismissed 100 times, from 198 innings. He might have had 98 not-outs. That gives him an average of 57. The not-outs don't matter. It doesn't make his performance any less worthy. His average takes into account every run from every match. From the 12,000 balls he has faced, he has scored 5,700 runs at an average of 57. (not his exact figures, I am just giving an example)

Another player might bat as an opener and he might NEVER have had a not out. He has been given out in every game. Over this players career, he has scored 5,700 runs, and been given out 100 times too, with NO not outs. His average is still 57. His performance is no better than Bevans. He hasn't had a not out, but over his whole career he has scored the same number of runs and been dismissed the same number of times, so his overall, performance is exactly the same.

So, if you watch Bevan's whole one-day career, end to end, watching every ball from every match, and ignorng the fact that a match finishes. Just watch all 12,000 balls he has faced, one after the other, you will see that his average of 57 is well and truly earned, and his high percentage of not-outs in no way diminish his fine achievments in the shortened form of the game.

Post of the year, for all the wrong reasons...

With your silly example it is hypothetically possible for a batsman to average as high as a top order batsman whilst batting at number 11 (obviously a very high percentage of not outs would be required to make this happen) and be favourably compared to an opener with very few not outs. According to your his "overall performance is exactly the same. Obviously an extreme example, but hey, you set up the scenario...

And that's obviously where you are wrong, everything cannot be taken at face value; all factors must be placed in their proper context.

If Bevan's average equates to 70 in test cricket then perhaps you can tell me why he only averages 29 in test cricket...

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by BMD
Just adding my 2 cents. I generally agree with Dan and his supporters that Bevan's average is extraordinary.

On Tendulkar (who apparently would have an average of 60 if he didn't get out as much). He plays a lot of his one day cricket in India - flat pitches; (mostly) small grounds; big scores. I reckon this inflates his average in comparison to Bevan's.

BTW, I agree that Viv is the greatest of all time.

It funny that this conversation is going on in here. On the India vs. England match they were comparing Viv and Sachin and I noticed that Vivs ODI average is higher and is strike is far superior to Sachins. The commentators made the strange comparison of the amount of runs scored, which is a little unfair considering Sachin has played 120 more games...

Viv definately the best!

 

[Dan26]

Bevan averages 29 in Test because he is not as competant in that form of the game. They are different games that require different skills.

And, no, a tailender will not average 50 over their career, even if they have a lot of not outs. Why? They aren't good enough. Averages take into account every run from every innings. McGrath has had a lot of not-outs, but he still only averages 4.5 runs for every time he loses his wicket. The fact that he gets not-outs is irrelevant. His average takes into account his WHOLE ONE-DAY CAREER as if it is one enourmous never ending entity. If he averages 50, even with a lot of not-outs it means over his one-day career, the number 11 batsman would be scoring 50 runs for every time he goes out. Um.... if this was the case, he wouldn't be batting at 11, Dipp.

Averages mean total runs over his career divided by the number of times he has gone out. If a player is not out then their average deserves to go up, because they havn't gone out. If McGrath could somehow average 50 by getting a lot of not outs (even though he wouldn't be good enough to do this) then he would still deserve it, because it means he is scoring 50 runs on average for every time he goes out. Not surprisingly, he gets nowhere near this. The fact that his total runs, outs, and not-outs are spread over many matches is totally irrelvant. At the end of his career he will have scored a total number of runs and gone out a certain number of times. That will detrermine his average. Get these not-outs out of your head. It is confusing you. To work out the average all that is needed is runs divided by the number of times he has gone out. That is all. If he gets a not out, it just means he is continuing to add to his total career runs, without have gone out for two matches. Why is that so hard to understand?

You are having difficulty with the concept and I think we need someone else to explain it to you. Anyone?

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


why does this not surprise me...

??? Go find three other occasions when Dan and I have agreed??

On this one though he is right.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26
Bevan averages 29 in Test because he is not as competant in that form of the game. They are different games that require different skills.

And, no, a tailender will not average 50 over their career, even if they have a lot of not outs. Why? They aren't good enough. Averages take into account every run from every innings. McGrath has had a lot of not-outs, but he still only averages 4.5 runs for every time he loses his wicket. The fact that he gets not-outs is irrelevant. His average takes into account his WHOLE ONE-DAY CAREER as if it is one enourmous never ending entity. If he averages 50, even with a lot of not-outs it means over his one-day career, the number 11 batsman would be scoring 50 runs for every time he goes out. Um.... if this was the case, he wouldn't be batting at 11, Dipp.

Averages mean total runs over his career divided by the number of times he has gone out. If a player is not out then their average deserves to go up, because they havn't gone out. If McGrath could somehow average 50 by getting a lot of not outs (even though he wouldn't be good enough to do this) then he would still deserve it, because it means he is scoring 50 runs on average for every time he goes out. Not surprisingly, he gets nowhere near this. The fact that his total runs, outs, and not-outs are spread over many matches is totally irrelvant. At the end of his career he will have scored a total number of runs and gone out a certain number of times. That will detrermine his average. Get these not-outs out of your head. It is confusing you. To work out the average all that is needed is runs divided by the number of times he has gone out. That is all. If he gets a not out, it just means he is continuing to add to his total career runs, without have gone out for two matches. Why is that so hard to understand?

You are having difficulty with the concept and I think we need someone else to explain it to you. Anyone?

So Bevan's average of 57 in ODI's equates to a test average of 70 for everyone except Bevan?

You are having a hard time grasping a perfectly simple concept: the more not outs you have the more inflated your average becomes...


It's quite simple really, what part do you not understand?
Let me know which part of that is causing you problems and I will step it through for you...

 

[BMD]

Originally posted by Briedis


It funny that this conversation is going on in here. On the India vs. England match they were comparing Viv and Sachin and I noticed that Vivs ODI average is higher and is strike is far superior to Sachins. The commentators made the strange comparison of the amount of runs scored, which is a little unfair considering Sachin has played 120 more games...

Viv definately the best!

Yeah, really good comparison. Just like Graham Gooch was a better test match batsman than Bradman because he made more runs!

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


So Bevan's average of 57 in ODI's equates to a test average of 70 for everyone except Bevan?

You are having a hard time grasping a perfectly simple concept: the more not outs you have the more inflated your average becomes...


It's quite simple really, what part do you not understand?
Let me know which part of that is causing you problems and I will step it through for you...

Dippers have u noticed something in cricket. If u finish not out u therefore did not lose your wicket.

Bevans average is high in part because of not outs, but he earnt those not outs. It doesn't make his achievements any less amazing. The average is worked out fairly, and Bevan's average is the greatest ever in one day cricket and he deserves that honour

For every player the average is runs divided by wickets. How can that be seen as an advantage to people who have the skill to last till the end of an innings. If anything the fact that Bevan bats at 6 makes his average even more remarkable because he comes out to bat in pressure situations and when the team needs quick runs