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

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Dan26, you are talking shyte...big time.

Bevan averages 57 for one reason - the not outs he accumulates. simple...end of story.

Bevo is a great player...no question, however apply his % of not outs to Tendulkars record and Sachin would average 60.

simple as that.

got it?

That post confirms YOU know nothing about the game yourself. A batsman's average is calculated from their TOTAL runs divided by the number of times they are dismissed. If the fieldng side cannot get the batsman out, then rightly his average increases. As it should. His average, even with the not-outs indicates that the fielding side was unable to dismiss him. Not outs count and contibute towards an average, and so they should.

In 1989, Steve Waugh made 350-odd runs over the first three tests of the Ashes tour before he was dismissed. Now, those 350-odd runs came across several innings, but so what? It's not his fault that all the other basmen were dismised leaving him the last one there! It's not his fault his captain declared with the fielding team still unable to get him out.

If Bevan's not-outs make his average higher, then more power to him. It just means the bowling side can't get him out! Why is that so hard to understand?

This proves you have very little understanding of batting averages, if you are questioning the "not-out's" a batsman has. I mean, really.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

You are a dill.

You have demonstrated in the past (and again here) that you posting on cricket is like John Howard commentating on ice hockey.

57 equals 70...muhahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26


That post confirms YOU know nothing about the game yourself. A batsman's average is calculated from their TOTAL runs divided by the number of times they are dismissed. If the fieldng side cannot get the batsman out, then rightly his average increases. As it should. His average, even with the not-outs indicates that the fielding side was unable to dismiss him. Not outs count and contibute towards an average, and so they should.

In 1989, Steve Waugh made 350-odd runs over the first three tests of the Ashes tour before he was dismissed. Now, those 350-odd runs came across several innings, but so what? It's not his fault that all the other basmen were dismised leaving him the last one there! It's not his fault his captain declared with the fielding team still unable to get him out.

If Bevan's not-outs make his average higher, then more power to him. It just means the bowling side can't get him out! Why is that so hard to understand?

This proves you have very little understanding of batting averages, if you are questioning the "not-out's" a batsman has. I mean, really.

ho hum, trolling for a post fest are we?

forget it chump, on any other topic except essendons winning margin in the 83 grand final, I laugh at you.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
57 equals 70...muhahahahahahahahahaha

Yes...just like a baseballer with a 0.333 avergae is in the upper echeleon of achievement in his sport, just like a test batsman avergaing 50 is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport.

Or an AFL footballer who averages 30-possessions per game is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport, and is roughly equivalent to a test batsman averaging 50 (which is also in the upper echeleon of achievement in that sport)

Or a basketballer who averages 32 points per-game 4 rebounds and 4 assists is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport. Just like a batsman averaging 50 in test cricket is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport.

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.

Yes all the sports are different, but all sports have BENCHMARKS. I think it is "about" as difficult to average 70 in test cricket as it would be to average 57 in one day internationals. Very difficult to compare, but that is my guess.

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute? Becuase you are making a fool of yourself with your behaviour.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26


Yes...just liek a baseballer with a 0.330 avergae is in the upper echeleon of achievement in his sport, just like a test batsman avergaing 50 is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport..

Or an AFL footballer who averages 30-possessions per game is in the upper echeelon of achievement in his sport, and is roughly equivalent to a test batsman avergaing 50 (which is also in the upper echeleon of achievement in that sport)

Or a basketballer who averges 32 points per game 4 rebounds and 4 assists in in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport. Just like a batsman averaging 50 in test cricket is in the upper echelon of achievement in his sport.

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

I think it is "about"as difficult to avergae 70 in test cricket as it would be to average 57 in one day internationals. Very difficult to compare, but that is my guess.

can't believe I'm doing this, guess i'll be up to 1000 posts by the end of the night...

Dan, answer me this...if you can.

Who has the highest % of not outs to completed innings in one day international cricket history?

Simple question, not asking why, just the answer please (if you don't know his initials are MB).

Your answer goes here................................>

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


can't believe I'm doing this, guess i'll be up to 1000 posts by the end of the night...

Dan, answer me this...if you can.

Who has the highest % of not outs to completed innings in one day international cricket history?

Simple question, not asking why, just the answer please (if you don't know his initials are MB).

Your answer goes here................................>

What's that got to do with his quality of one-day batting? If he is not out, then it just means his teammates have all been dismissed and he is the only one who has been good enouh not to get out. Or, it means that at the end of 50 overs, he and his partner remains not out,

If he has a high percentage of not-outs to completed innings, it just means that the other teams can't get him out. IT STILL COUNTS. Don't you know anything? It's one of the simplest cricketing concepts to understand. Didn't your Dad teach you about the game as a youngster and give you the basics like all Dad's do to their kids? Didn't you ever try to increase your average by being "not out", knowing that if you did, it meant they other team didn't "get you?"

If Bevan has a high % of not-outs, then it just re-affirms his quality. They can't get him out! If his total runs are spread over several innings, many of which are not out, it makes no differecne to his quality as a player. It's not his fault if he is not out. It just means he is too good.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26


What's that got to do with his quality of one-day batting? If he is not out, then it just means his teammates have all been dismissed and he is the only one who has been good enouh not to get out. Or, it means that at the end of 50 overs, he and his partner remains not out,

If he has a high percentage of not-outs to completed innings, it just means that the other teams can't get him out. IT STILL COUNTS. Don't you know anything? It's one of the simplest cricketing concepts to understand. Didn't your Dad teach you about the game as a youngster and give you the basics like all Dad's do to their kids? Didn't you ever try to increase your average by being "not out", knowing that if you did, it meant they other team didn't "get you?"

If Bevan has a high % of not-outs, then it just re-affirms his quality. They can't get him out! If his total runs are spread over several innings, many of which are not out, it makes no differecne to his quality as a player. It's not his fault if he is not out. It just means he is too good.

I guess I will have to spell this out for you...

Bevan accumulates a lot of not outs for the simple reason he has batted at the death in the past and not faced a huge amount of deliveries. Law of averages would suggest that the less you face, the less chance there is of being dismissed. Scored lots of 30 and 20 not outs.
Ok?
Got it?
Good.

If he had been able to get these not outs whilst batting at three or four then good on him, his average would be a fair reflection of his ability. Simple fact is he hasn't. I repeat the point I made earlier (which you conveniently overlooked); apply Bevans not out % to Tendulkar (who bats at 1!!!) and Tendulkar would average 60.

I hope you understand this.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


I guess I will have to spell this out for you...

Bevan accumulates a lot of not outs for the simple reason he has batted at the death in the past and not faced a huge amount of deliveries. Law of averages would suggest that the less you face, the less chance there is of being dismissed. Scored lots of 30 and 20 not outs.
Ok?
Got it?
Good.

If he had been able to get these not outs whilst batting at three or four then good on him, his average would be a fair reflection of his ability. Simple fact is he hasn't. I repeat the point I made earlier (which you conveniently overlooked); apply Bevans not out % to Tendulkar (who bats at 1!!!) and Tendulkar would average 60.

I hope you understand this.

God you're thick.

If he bats at the death 4 times and scores 25 not out for the first three times, and then is out for 25 on the fourth occasion he is averging 100.

If he bats for one innings and makes 100 and is dismissed he is also avergaing 100. Both are identical, because he has still managed to score 100 runs and has only been out once.

You said this:

"Law of averages would suggest that the less you face, the less chance there is of being dismissed."

If you have any concept of averages you will realise that is wrong. His batting avergae doesn't just take into account one innings. It takes into account every run he has made over his entire one-day international career and adds them together. He could face only ten balls a match for 2000 matches on end, but over the whole 2000 matches, he will have accumulated a batting averqge based on his whole career. All the runs wil be added up. The fact that he might only make 20 n.o. is not the point. That 20 n.o. will be added to every run he has ever made in one-day internationals, and that total will be divided by how many times he has gone out!

Regardless of how many balls he has faced, he has still managed to score 57 runs for every time he goes out. My God, man, how hard is that to understand?

 

[Dan26]

Maybe there is someone else out there who can explain this to young Dippers donuts? Maybe he just needs to hear it from another voice to help him understand. Anybody who wants to explain this simple concept to him in a different way, please do. I'm off to bed.

Night.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Dan26


God you're thick.

If he bats at the death 4 times and scores 25 not out for the first three times, and then is out for 25 on the fourth occasion he is averging 100.

If he bats for one innings and makes 100 and is dismissed he is also avergaing 100. Both are identical, because he has still managed to score 100 runs and has only been out once.

You said this:

"Law of averages would suggest that the less you face, the less chance there is of being dismissed."

If you have any concept of averages you will realise that is wrong. His batting avergae doesn't just take into account one innings. It takes into account every run he has made over his entire one-day international career and adds them together. He could face only ten balls a match for 2000 matches on end, but over the whole 2000 matches, he will have accumulated a batting averqge based on his whole career. All the runs wil be added up. The fact that he might only make 20 n.o. is not the point. That 20 n.o. will be added to every run he has ever made in one-day internationals, and that total will be divided by how many times he has gone out!

Regardless of how many balls he has faced, he has still managed to score 57 runs for every time he goes out. My God, man, how hard is that to understand?

Ha ha, you have really proved your stupidity this time...again!!

So, if I face ten balls i would have the same chance of being dismissed if I had faced 100 balls!! Nice one einstein

I enjoy debating you, you make me feel superior (don't think i've lost one yet with you

anyway, you better go to bed, you've got a busy day at the sheltered workshop tomorrow.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Oh and when I said the law of averages he took me literally!!

Ie cricket averages!!

 

[jod23]

Well im with Dan on this one....

 

[Briedis]

I agree with Dans original statement as well. 57 is an unbelievable average in ODIs and is probably equivilent to 70+ in test cricket.

Regardless, there is no need to get personal guys...

1) Dan is right, if a guys average is high because people can't get him out then he deserves it.

2) Because Bevo comes in at the death it may mean he gets a few more not outs, but it also means that he has less chance to score runs, as well as a higher chance of getting out cheaply as this is the pressure time to bat. Personally I think 57 from number 6 is extraordinary.

 

[Fat Red]

I'm with Dan too.

If anything, it's harder to get a high average through not outs. Anyone who plays the game knows that a batsman is most vulnerable early in his innings. So a guy who has made 4 scores of 25 not out has made it through 4 vulnerable periods, while someone who scores 100 not out has only been through one.

Additionally, while in Test cricket it can be easier batting down the order,in one-dayers, you're batting at the high-pressure time as well.

 

[Pies rock]

Dan is 100% spot on. If a batsman can stay not out in a one day game, he deserves the higher average, but u can't get an average of 57 on not outs alone. His strike rate is in the high 70's which is even better than the great Deano's and for Dipper's Donuts to pretty much dismiss him shows he doesn't really understand the game. Bevan plays with minimal risk everytime he bats, but still compiles runs at an extremely fast rate and can do it no matter what the situation. No one can finish an innings as consistently as Bevo and his ability to turn ones into twos and twos into threes is amazing. He is the best one day batsman in the world...

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
I'm with Dan too.

If anything, it's harder to get a high average through not outs. Anyone who plays the game knows that a batsman is most vulnerable early in his innings. So a guy who has made 4 scores of 25 not out has made it through 4 vulnerable periods, while someone who scores 100 not out has only been through one.

Additionally, while in Test cricket it can be easier batting down the order,in one-dayers, you're batting at the high-pressure time as well.

I recall a test or one day series where McGrath (I think) averaged 40 odd, simply because he accumulated a lot of 8 and 9 not outs and was dismissed only once. It was a bit of a running joke in the Aussie dressing room that he could end up topping the averages...

I suppose you'll try to tell me that that average was worthy too...

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Pies rock
Dan is 100% spot on. If a batsman can stay not out in a one day game, he deserves the higher average, but u can't get an average of 57 on not outs alone. His strike rate is in the high 70's which is even better than the great Deano's and for Dipper's Donuts to pretty much dismiss him shows he doesn't really understand the game. Bevan plays with minimal risk everytime he bats, but still compiles runs at an extremely fast rate and can do it no matter what the situation. No one can finish an innings as consistently as Bevo and his ability to turn ones into twos and twos into threes is amazing. He is the best one day batsman in the world...

Read closer champ.

I have never dismissed Bevan, he is a champion one day batsman, for me only Tendulkar is better in the one day game.
I am merely trying to put his achievements in proper context.

The bottom line is Bevan accumulates a lot of not outs, lots of little innings at the end of the 50 overs (do you rocket scientists think it just might be easier to dismiss a tailender rather than Bevan?).

Nearly a third of Bevans innings are not out, whereas statistically in one day cricket, for batsman it has historically been around 10-15%. Apply this number to Bevan and his average is around the low 40 mark.

Got it?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by jod23
Well im with Dan on this one....

why does this not surprise me...

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


I recall a test or one day series where McGrath (I think) averaged 40 odd, simply because he accumulated a lot of 8 and 9 not outs and was dismissed only once. It was a bit of a running joke in the Aussie dressing room that he could end up topping the averages...

I suppose you'll try to tell me that that average was worthy too...

Sure, there are statistical quirks. But I think McGrath's career averages are fair reflections on his batting achievements.

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Read closer champ.

I have never dismissed Bevan, he is a champion one day batsman, for me only Tendulkar is better in the one day game.
I am merely trying to put his achievements in proper context.

The bottom line is Bevan accumulates a lot of not outs, lots of little innings at the end of the 50 overs (do you rocket scientists think it just might be easier to dismiss a tailender rather than Bevan?).

Nearly a third of Bevans innings are not out, whereas statistically in one day cricket, for batsman it has historically been around 10-15%. Apply this number to Bevan and his average is around the low 40 mark.

Got it?

No, I haven't got it.

He is so good BECAUSE he doesn't get out. Got it?

Batting is trying to score as many runs as you can without getting out. Got it?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red


No, I haven't got it.

He is so good BECAUSE he doesn't get out. Got it?

Batting is trying to score as many runs as you can without getting out. Got it?

Well I guess you never will get it then will you...

Do you think he would have had the same amount of not outs if he had opened or batted at 3 or 4 for the majority of his career?

If you answer yes, then you don't know cricket.

If you answer no, I rest my case.

Got it?

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Well I guess you never will get it then will you...

Do you think he would have had the same amount of not outs if he had opened or batted at 3 or 4 for the majority of his career?

If you answer yes, then you don't know cricket.

If you answer no, I rest my case.

Got it?

No. But he would have made a lot more runs. Eg, the day he made 78* against the Windies, the New Years Day four-of-the-last-ball match, he would have at least made a ton.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Fat Red


No. But he would have made a lot more runs. Eg, the day he made 78* against the Windies, the New Years Day four-of-the-last-ball match, he would have at least made a ton.

Good to see your crystal ball is working nicely.

 

[Left Field]

The not outs are irrelevent. It's how many runs he has scored, how he has scored them, and when he has scored them. Bevan has continously proven himself to be every bit as good as Tendulkar at the one day game. Tendulkar bats at the start of an innings when there are field restrictions and greater oppotunity for aggresive play. Bevan bats at the end when the pressure to score is greater but the fielding team is less resticted in its field placings. For Bevan to average 57 in that kind of enviroment is testament to his skill, and the fact that the oppostion has been unable to dismiss him in most matches is one of the main reasons Australia is World Champions.

I think Dan has summed up Bevan's achievements pretty well.

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Good to see your crystal ball is working nicely.

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.