Unpopular Cricket Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

Great post. You could probably do up a similar one for all the batsmen in the nineties who would be locks today or would have played a lot more if they were few years older.
That is way too heartbreaking. There is about a dozen of them. And as good looking a batsmen as Mark Waugh was, you could argue he was pretty lucky to stay in that team for so long with an average just a tick above 40. He did make some pretty crucial tons though, but you could argue the likes of Lehmann, Law, Love, Siddons et al would have done so if given more a chance. The only guy I can think off the top of my head he did well at shield level but couldn't step up to tests was Bevan. To a less degree Greg Blewett and Matt Elliot ended up with pretty uninspiring records, but did have their moments of brilliance at the top.

At least with the spinners it was only MacGill, and even still he had a pretty fulfilling career able to get the 200 wicket mark.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That is way too heartbreaking. There is about a dozen of them. And as good looking a batsmen as Mark Waugh was, you could argue he was pretty lucky to stay in that team for so long with an average just a tick above 40. He did make some pretty crucial tons though, but you could argue the likes of Lehmann, Law, Love, Siddons et al would have done so if given more a chance. The only guy I can think off the top of my head he did well at shield level but couldn't step up to tests was Bevan. To a less degree Greg Blewett and Matt Elliot ended up with pretty uninspiring records, but did have their moments of brilliance at the top.

At least with the spinners it was only MacGill, and even still he had a pretty fulfilling career able to get the 200 wicket mark.
Law is the ultimate sliding doors story. He and Ponting came in for Blewett who was dropped and Steve Waugh who was injured. Ponting went in first, and first ball he ran down the wicket to Murali, edged a catchable ball just wide of first slip and was off the mark with a four to third man. Taylor declared after Pinting was dismissed for 96. Law was unbeaten on 54. Ponting went on to become Ponting and Law became a one test wonder when Steve Waugh came back for the next test.

I can't remember the full story with Bevan, but did he ever actually get a game as a batsman, or only ever as an all rounder?
 
I can't remember the full story with Bevan, but did he ever actually get a game as a batsman, or only ever as an all rounder?

Bevan was picked as a batsman, but took 11 wickets against the West Indies in Adelaide in 1997. After that, they tried to use him as a second spinner in South Africa, then as a number 6 who bowled a bit in England. His test career was over by the time he was 27, after only 3 years. As his shield career showed, his best as a batsman was after this, but the perception that he was weak against the short ball hurt him in terms of selection for his best years.
 
I can't remember the full story with Bevan, but did he ever actually get a game as a batsman, or only ever as an all rounder?
Got found out against the short ball. Barely bowled in his first few tests, then got given the ball as a part timer and took some wickets, then took a 6-for not long after. Batting deteroriated and got moved from a middle order batsmen to a bowling all rounder batting at 7, maybe even 8, but with Warney in the team bowling so many overs it was never going to be viable long term. In the end he wasn't getting enough overs, and when he was bowling he wasn't able to sustain the success he had in a couple of earlier series, and his batting averaged dropped below 30, so had to get dropped.
 
Bevan was picked as a batsman, but took 11 wickets against the West Indies in Adelaide in 1997. After that, they tried to use him as a second spinner in South Africa, then as a number 6 who bowled a bit in England. His test career was over by the time he was 27, after only 3 years. As his shield career showed, his best as a batsman was after this, but the perception that he was weak against the short ball hurt him in terms of selection for his best years.
Got found out against the short ball. Barely bowled in his first few tests, then got given the ball as a part timer and took some wickets, then took a 6-for not long after. Batting deteroriated and got moved from a middle order batsmen to a bowling all rounder batting at 7, maybe even 8, but with Warney in the team bowling so many overs it was never going to be viable long term. In the end he wasn't getting enough overs, and when he was bowling he wasn't able to sustain the success he had in a couple of earlier series, and his batting averaged dropped below 30, so had to get dropped.
Thanks Guys. Thought I'd ask because I don't really like to judge players too harshly who are utilised in unsuitable roles.
 
Bevan was picked as a batsman, but took 11 wickets against the West Indies in Adelaide in 1997. After that, they tried to use him as a second spinner in South Africa, then as a number 6 who bowled a bit in England. His test career was over by the time he was 27, after only 3 years. As his shield career showed, his best as a batsman was after this, but the perception that he was weak against the short ball hurt him in terms of selection for his best years.
Bevan was picked as the Batsman to replace Allan Border, he went to Pakistan got 3 50's in his first three tests, including a 70, an 80 and a 90, came back for an Ashes series and missed out in three digs and looked less the assured against the short ball and that's where things went pear shaped for him. He certainly played more cricket but others went past him and the 91 he got in Pakistan remained his highest score. Later he got a game due to his chinaman's but the knock on him stayed with him for all time.
 
Bevan was probably unlucky not to be given a second chance a few years down the track. Many others did and took advantage, he may well have. His first class record is just insanely good.

But it was hard to get a crack in the test batting line up in the early part of the century. Our batting was absolutely golden for about 3 years. It was obviously brilliant for about 15 years but every now and then a few cracks would appear. But for a few years early 2000's it was out of control. Pretty much when Steve Waugh was still dominating, Ponting was coming into his prime, Hayden and Langer had just formed one of crickets great opening partnerships and Gilly was regularly coming in at 7 with the score 5/400 and peeling off a soul destroying century. This was about the time when Bevan was trying to get a recall.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bevan was also a little immature. By his own admission he didn't like his role as a bowler, and now he regrets not just going with the flow.

Justin Langer also said that he didn't see what the fuss was with Bevan and the short ball in Shield cricket. Maybe with another go, more maturity and experience it would have worked out differently. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
Bevan was picked as a batsman, but took 11 wickets against the West Indies in Adelaide in 1997. After that, they tried to use him as a second spinner in South Africa, then as a number 6 who bowled a bit in England. His test career was over by the time he was 27, after only 3 years. As his shield career showed, his best as a batsman was after this, but the perception that he was weak against the short ball hurt him in terms of selection for his best years.
The thing with Bevan and the short ball was that once the bouncer was reintroduced into oen day cricket, it didn't seem to affect him. At Shield level he was often facing faster and better bowlers than many Test nations (South Africa aside) had at the time. I think it was largely mental, possibly the pressure of playing a Test.
Had he been given opportunities, i.e. in another era when there weren't so many who just slotted in and succeeded, I think he could have been a very good Test player. But circumstance went against him, as it did many others in that time.
 
The thing with Bevan and the short ball was that once the bouncer was reintroduced into oen day cricket, it didn't seem to affect him. At Shield level he was often facing faster and better bowlers than many Test nations (South Africa aside) had at the time. I think it was largely mental, possibly the pressure of playing a Test.
Had he been given opportunities, i.e. in another era when there weren't so many who just slotted in and succeeded, I think he could have been a very good Test player. But circumstance went against him, as it did many others in that time.
No I disagree, Bond and Gough regularly troubled him with it, but it was always less of a threat because of the nature of the game. It definitely weighed him down for a long time until his last few years. He was an intense cat, would shower in his gear and was just so intense when he got out it used to put a few blokes off. Fitting into the environment is a very important thing and it is underrated by many. In a 50/50 call things like that count against you.

The other player who came back in around that time was a bloke called DM Martyn, very underrated and beautiful to watch bat.
 
No I disagree, Bond and Gough regularly troubled him with it, but it was always less of a threat because of the nature of the game. It definitely weighed him down for a long time until his last few years. He was an intense cat, would shower in his gear and was just so intense when he got out it used to put a few blokes off. Fitting into the environment is a very important thing and it is underrated by many. In a 50/50 call things like that count against you.

The other player who came back in around that time was a bloke called DM Martyn, very underrated and beautiful to watch bat.

That's for sure. I can't remember exactly who it was, but in their autobiography they recounted rooming with Bevan on tour - he had to be in bed at a certain time, taping over the TV standby light and a few other things which sounded a bit like OCD. From what I gather in reading a few of these books, he was still respected (or at least the authors aren't willing to do a retrospective hatchet job on him!) and given the ridiculous levels of talent around he probably had appropriate opportunity in comparison to contemporaries like Law, Siddons etc.

macgill was an excellent bowler and took wickets.

i get the sense that he wasnt all too popular in the boys club. and he always looked angry after taking a wicket

A similar kind of story in that MacGill was a very different cat. Still seemed a pretty popular bloke as he features in a number of famous cricketers nights out, but Gilchrist summed it up by saying that MacGill wasn't an 'ocker' type of bloke as he was far more into having a glass of wine with a fine meal compared to the rest of the side. It did sound as though the competition with Warne got pretty fierce at times and MacGill was never afraid of voicing his opinion (very volatile on the field too IIRC) - but people respected that.
 
Aside from the ashes / World Cup it doesn't overly phase me if Australia win or lose. My preference is still for Australia to win but I would rather see a quality game of cricket and great individual performances. Can't stand people who can only appreciate good Australian innings/ performances and get stuck in to the opposition bogan footy supporter style. Test cricket in particular is so much more than that.
 
Great post. You could probably do up a similar one for all the batsmen in the nineties who would be locks today or would have played a lot more if they were few years older.

If Jamie Siddons was around today he'd be considered one of our greatest Test bats ever, and Jamie Cox would have played 100 tests if he played now.
 
If MacGill was born 10 years later he'd be in the test side right now and have 500+ test wickets by now.
 
Not a great spinner though. More likely to go somewhere as a batsman, rather than a spinner.
You underrate his spin. Will be a good bowler.

Admittedly, I am a bit biased.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Unpopular Cricket Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top