Pippen94
Cancelled
- Jun 12, 2019
- 2,670
- 976
- AFL Club
- Sydney
With a first class average of 53 and 7 tons already, he will average over 40 at test level for sure.
Bevan averaged 60 in shield cricket.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With a first class average of 53 and 7 tons already, he will average over 40 at test level for sure.
I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.Bevan averaged 60 in shield cricket.
I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.
But such was our batting strength we never had to go back to him, though he could probably be justified in asking why he was discarded after 18 tests and seemingly red lined straight away without the chance to rectify a weakness, but Greg Blewett was persisted with for 46 tests without having much better performances on the board.
Funnily enough Bevan had no problem handling Ambrose and Walsh in Australia (series average 55 in 96/97, with 87* in Perth coming in at 4/40-odd the highlight), but got undone by the Poms bowling short in England in 1997. Bizarre really.
The overall point is correct though. Success in shield cricket is no guarantee for success in test cricket, although it certainly gives one a lot more confidence in taking the next step.
I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.
But such was our batting strength we never had to go back to him, though he could probably be justified in asking why he was discarded after 18 tests and seemingly red lined straight away without the chance to rectify a weakness, but Greg Blewett was persisted with for 46 tests without having much better performances on the board.
Funnily enough Bevan had no problem handling Ambrose and Walsh in Australia (series average 55 in 96/97, with 87* in Perth coming in at 4/40-odd the highlight), but got undone by the Poms bowling short in England in 1997. Bizarre really.
The overall point is correct though. Success in shield cricket is no guarantee for success in test cricket, although it certainly gives one a lot more confidence in taking the next step.
Bevan averaged 60 in shield cricket.
Most of
Love, Hodge, Elliott, Di Venuto, Cox, Law, Moody.
Averaged below 50.
Bevan was very good as being the goat odi player shows. He may have averaged more if he played more tests?
He would have come good just the depth was that good in his era he never got a extended run to come good.
I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.
But such was our batting strength we never had to go back to him, though he could probably be justified in asking why he was discarded after 18 tests and seemingly red lined straight away without the chance to rectify a weakness, but Greg Blewett was persisted with for 46 tests without having much better performances on the board.
Funnily enough Bevan had no problem handling Ambrose and Walsh in Australia (series average 55 in 96/97, with 87* in Perth coming in at 4/40-odd the highlight), but got undone by the Poms bowling short in England in 1997. Bizarre really.
The overall point is correct though. Success in shield cricket is no guarantee for success in test cricket, although it certainly gives one a lot more confidence in taking the next step.
Amongst Englands mess he’s managed to get Root and Stokes out a couple of times each. Helps when the captain throws you the ball before it’s 60 overs old and you get more than 2 overs at a time
I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.
But such was our batting strength we never had to go back to him, though he could probably be justified in asking why he was discarded after 18 tests and seemingly red lined straight away without the chance to rectify a weakness, but Greg Blewett was persisted with for 46 tests without having much better performances on the board.
Funnily enough Bevan had no problem handling Ambrose and Walsh in Australia (series average 55 in 96/97, with 87* in Perth coming in at 4/40-odd the highlight), but got undone by the Poms bowling short in England in 1997. Bizarre really.
The overall point is correct though. Success in shield cricket is no guarantee for success in test cricket, although it certainly gives one a lot more confidence in taking the next step.
Yep, he definitely wasn't a guy that fit in super well.From what I could tell, Bevan had three problems:
1) He was a rather moody, introverted, introspective character who wasn't very experiential and (from what others have told me) wasn't all that convivial, plus he was prone to temper tantrums - someone like that would at best be tolerated by most of his teammates when he's performing well, but when he isn't...with hindsight, it's not so surprising that they dumped him permanently after his poor run of ODI form in 2003/04.
I think Blewett got an extended run due to making back to back tons in his first 2 tests, along with a brilliant 214 against a strong South African attack away.I reckon given enough time he would have sorted his issues out with the short ball and had a decent enough test career, though such a weakness was more than likely to prevent him from replicating his shield success in the test arena. That being said, Steve Waugh just took the hook and pull shot out of his repertoire to great effect.
But such was our batting strength we never had to go back to him, though he could probably be justified in asking why he was discarded after 18 tests and seemingly red lined straight away without the chance to rectify a weakness, but Greg Blewett was persisted with for 46 tests without having much better performances on the board.
Funnily enough Bevan had no problem handling Ambrose and Walsh in Australia (series average 55 in 96/97, with 87* in Perth coming in at 4/40-odd the highlight), but got undone by the Poms bowling short in England in 1997. Bizarre really.
The overall point is correct though. Success in shield cricket is no guarantee for success in test cricket, although it certainly gives one a lot more confidence in taking the next step.
Yeah that’s all well and good but the whole point of a player like Green in a team where the 4 front liners have over 1000 test wickets between them is that you don’t. You get it when their rotation isn’t working.
That seems to be curiously overlooked when people look at the bowling of players like Kallis and Stokes and saying ‘oh they wouldn’t be good enough to play as a specialist.’ Well how many bowlers who ARE specialists would boast great records if they almost exclusively bowled at best second change with the new ball at the start, and thereafter was probably only used either to get to the second new ball, to bowl when the actual specialists can no longer get any movement or life from the ball or pitch, or to do donkey work?
Green has not done much wrong as a bowler in his brief test career to date but in the only matches he’s played where the opposition ever reached a position of power against the Australian bowlers, he went wicketless.
As an all rounder who is almost certainly destined to be bowling behind a legion of decent specialist quicks, his tests will come when the openers have put on 150 and the Aussies are going to rely on him to break himself to ease the load on the front liners and summon a 3-20-8 spell in the last session with the total on 2-340
I think Blewett got an extended run due to making back to back tons in his first 2 tests, along with a brilliant 214 against a strong South African attack away.
I think Blewett got an extended run due to making back to back tons in his first 2 tests, along with a brilliant 214 against a strong South African attack away.
I'd nearly not take him to Asia.
Seems he is a confidence cricketer and if he makes no runs there it could set him back years.
Keeping him out of 3 countries (4 if you include the test vs Afghanistan) is a tough gig.
He should definitely begin the series vs Pakistan, and should at least be in the squad throughout all tours so he gets a clue.
You're getting tiresome.I am convinced Green is a serious talent with the bat (and ball). However Perth is a toxic joint for talent. Time for him to move.
You're getting tiresome.
fu** off.
Stop being an annoying sill old bugger and I might.Be better.