Explain to me ...

[KevinPoulsen]

How someone that has played 193 games, and is "supposely" considered one of the best one day players in the world, can struggle to 30 runs off 90 balls (Micheal Bevan), whereas some kid can making his international debut in one day cricket can make 39 * off 47 balls with ease and guide Australia to Victory (Micheal Clarke)

Has Bevan lost it .. ? (VB Series, 211 @ 52.75, HS: 52, NO: 2, SR: .... id imagine well below career)

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by KevinPoulsen
How someone that has played 193 games, and is "supposely" considered one of the best one day players in the world, can struggle to 30 runs off 90 balls (Micheal Bevan), whereas some kid can making his international debut in one day cricket can make 39 * off 47 balls with ease and guide Australia to Victory (Micheal Clarke)

Has Bevan lost it .. ? (VB Series, 211 @ 52.75, HS: 52, NO: 2, SR: .... id imagine well below career)

***cough*** Smart manipulation ***cough***

Bob

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by KevinPoulsen
How someone that has played 193 games, and is "supposely" considered one of the best one day players in the world, can struggle to 30 runs off 90 balls (Micheal Bevan), whereas some kid can making his international debut in one day cricket can make 39 * off 47 balls with ease and guide Australia to Victory (Micheal Clarke)

Has Bevan lost it .. ? (VB Series, 211 @ 52.75, HS: 52, NO: 2, SR: .... id imagine well below career)

Unfornunately for him he got out so no red ink.

It is actually Marto's fault for not going hard enough and getting out before him so he could be still there when Clarke, Watto Etc
scored the runs needed.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by KevinPoulsen
How someone that has played 193 games, and is "supposely" considered one of the best one day players in the world, can struggle to 30 runs off 90 balls (Micheal Bevan), whereas some kid can making his international debut in one day cricket can make 39 * off 47 balls with ease and guide Australia to Victory (Micheal Clarke)

Has Bevan lost it .. ? (VB Series, 211 @ 52.75, HS: 52, NO: 2, SR: .... id imagine well below career)

It was a pretty slow effort by Bevan today but not that much slower then some of his other batting performances during his batting career. I said it before earlier in the series and I'll say it again, having Martyn and Bevan batting together in the order isn't a good idea; they're too similar in that they while they're capable batsmen, they're too methodical in their play and way too slow when starting their innings. None of the partnerships they have been together in have been particularly impressive.

Bevan's overrated in my view anyway. Sure, he's played some matchwinning innings over the years but when he's played as many matches as he has, you would expect him to (and perhaps a few more).

 

[The Hippie]

They (Bevan and Martyn) did what they had to, didn't need to go trying to thrash the bowling after losing some quick wickets, just steady the innings so the younger blokes weren't under too much pressure if either of them got out early. They only needed to score at 3 and a bit an over, and after seeing off Caddick and Anderson, that is what they did, just kept it ticking along. I thought they read the situation well and played accordingly.

 

[Darky]

Bevan and Martyn do play similar styles, starting slowly and accelerating once they are set. As wagstaff said, there is probably room for only one such sheet-anchor role where one player faces 100-120 balls, when the side as a total only gets to use 300.

Both players were well held by some tight English bowling, and Bevan especially did seem to struggle. But he didn't look like getting out either, until his eventual dismissal.

The two got the score to 2/96, which was their job... as much as it may have been slow and boring, they managed to steer Australia to safety at around 3 an over, and let the run chase begin with 50-60 runs to chase at 4 an over, with 8 wickets in hand.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Bevo's been protecting that average for the last 5 years. Either that or he's on a contract with Channel 9 to make the coverage go all the way up to 10:30 pm .....

 

[Squeak]

OF course when Bevan comes in when the inniga is 3 overs old, he is gonna go slow. He's the designated slow guy, security in case the fast scorers all get themselves out. That's always been his role, and he didn't need to score faster than he did, because there were few enough runs to get that was always gona be someone else at the other end to get the runs quickly.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Darky


The two got the score to 2/96, which was their job... as much as it may have been slow and boring, they managed to steer Australia to safety at around 3 an over, and let the run chase begin with 50-60 runs to chase at 4 an over, with 8 wickets in hand.

But they didn't do their job as considering they had batted for so long, they had to go the whole distance and ensure that the match was safely in the bag, which it wasn't when their parternship was broken.

And what compounded their error was that they both went out very close to one another, giving England the opportunity to bowl at two fresh batsmen at the crease, which they exploited for a couple of further wickets.

As Michael Clarke showed at the end of the match, while it wasn't the world's easiest pitch to bat on, you could certainly easily bat at a faster rate then 30 off 90 balls.

 

[KevinPoulsen]

Bevan:

VB Series
SR: 59.94

Career
SR: 74.51

Whereas every other batsmen whom has played in the VB Series has a Strike Rate greater than 70,

Campbell:
SR: 88.88

Clarke:
SR: 82.97

Gilchrist:
SR: 112.50

Hayden:
SR: 91.66

Lehmann:
SR: 87.06

Maher:
SR: 74.60

Martyn:
SR: 71.04

Ponting:
SR: 79.60

Watson:
SR: 78.89

 

[Perty4]

maybe he was just under instructions to ensure england receive a point and to make sure we play them not sri lanka in the finals...

 

[P76]

Originally posted by Perty4
maybe he was just under instructions to ensure england receive a point and to make sure we play them not sri lanka in the finals...

Interesting point - do you reckon that teams worry at all about the bonus point. Would it come into their thinking I wonder - I know the commentators go on and on about the bloody thing....

 

[Squeak]

That was almost surely the tactic. Giving the point to England ensured they will make the final. Much rather play England than Sri Lanka in the finals. Gives more chance of AUS winning, and also denied Sri Lanka a few more hitouts before the world cup. Simple.

 

[acuguy]

i think we all often think our players are superheroes, no matter what level of cricket you play some days you feel as if you are hitting them like bradman and other days like your worst batsmen at your club. Obviously we were slowing the run rate down for finals purposes, but to think that our batsmen are going to go out there and slay international opposition everytime is just naive, stupid and shows your lack of knowledge of our great game of cricket.

 

[mattyc2422]

Don't forget Bevan's fielding of late. Disgraceful at times.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Even on the very off chance that the Aussies would consider such a ploy to ensure England's presence, and hence Sri Lanka's absence, in the VB finals, there seems little logic to it.

Sure the Murali/Jayasuriya factors have our boys a little rattled, but there is a chance that we may have to front up to them in the World Cup. I would have thought any opportunity to play against them in the leadup to the the big tournament would be an advantage - our batsmen might even learn to pick a few of Murali's deliveries, or develop a strategy to cope with Jura's bludgeoning.

After all, nobody really remembers who wins the B&H/CUB/VB series a few years down the track, yet I bet most people on this site could roll off the last handful of World Cup winners.

 

[Aussie-Basher]

Sorry mate .... could you explain the advantage that Australia would derive from meeting England in the final?

Not picking up the logic ......

 

[El Cid]

There's no Murali in your team is there.

 

[Aussie-Basher]

But he can only bowl 1/5th of SL's overs. Not much to worry 'world champs' I wouldn't have thought - no?

 

[Aussie-Basher]

... besides I would have thought the Aussie crowds would have him beaten before the cricketers get a go!

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Aussie-Basher
Sorry mate .... could you explain the advantage that Australia would derive from meeting England in the final?

Not picking up the logic ......

I agree it's bullsh*t. Australia have beaten Sri Lanka two times out of three this summer. Running scared? F*ck off!

 

[Squeak]

Originally posted by DaveW
I agree it's bullsh*t. Australia have beaten Sri Lanka two times out of three this summer. Running scared? F*ck off!

What happened the one game Murali was fully fit?

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Squeak
What happened the one game Murali was fully fit?

He took 2/44 off 10 overs. The wickets being Symonds & Hogg. Am I supposed to be impressed?

 

[Angus1]

If everyone went out there like Gilchrist does and started swinging the bat then Australia would lose a hell of a lot more games. When it comes off it looks great but how many times does Gilly go out without making much of an impression on the scoreboard?
During the long and boreing middle overs all that is needed is to hit singles and two's. Bevan is the master of this and he does have the abliity to hang around for long periods.
Also if a few wickets fall quickly then it is important to just stay in and don't do anything stupid.
It's the biggest problem with one day cricket IMO. Fields are too defensive during middle overs so a lot of tip and run singles are played. Sooooo ****ing boreing.
Pull shot in a test match = 4
Pull shot in one day match =1 maybe 2

 

[Squeak]

Originally posted by DaveW
He took 2/44 off 10 overs. The wickets being Symonds & Hogg. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Sri Lanka beat, nay, thrashed Australia.

What he adds to the team isn't just his own stats. They lift when he plays. That was my point, and I thought it was pretty obvious. Oh well.