Michael Bevan was one of the best ODI batsmen ever. During his career, he repeatedly pulled Australia out of the fire, sometimes playing with the tailenders, and dragging them over the finish line. Bevan ended up with almost 7000 runs from 232 matches with a phenomenal average of 53.58. One of the reasons for his high average was that it was really difficult to get him out – he was unbeaten 67 times in the 196 innings that he played. That is 34% of the time. Even a solid middle-order batsman like Steve Waugh has been not out only 20% of the time.
It is illuminating to look at the two players who have similar averages as Bevan. Mike Hussey’s current stats are very similar to Bevan. Hussey has an average of 53.85 (just above Bevan) and has been not out 28 times out of 75 innings (37% of the time). Both Hussey and Bevan have done well at No. 4 (56.87 vs. 59.60); This position was Bevan’s best position and Hussey’s 2nd best, Hussey having an enormous average of 117.66 at No. 7. Kevin Pietersen with an average of 48.36 has been not out 19% of the time. He has actually performed better down the order than at No. 3 and No. 4. Although Hussey and Pietersen have played similar number of innings, Kevin has more runs (3047 vs. 2531) and more consequential innings (27 vs. 18 innings over 50).
Is it useful to have a batsman who remains unbeaten? In Tests, it may be useful when such a batsman is paired with a more free-flowing batsman. Bowlers would be demoralized by a stonewall on one end and punishment on the other. If the anchoring batsman can rotate the strike, then you can have huge innings totals. Such a batsman is also invaluable in a 4th innings chase, or a batting collapse when you just want to shut out the opposition bowlers for some time. However, Bevan was never able to replicate his ODI success in Tests (a poor average of 29.07). Perhaps someone like Chanderpaul (in his recent form) would be more appropriate for a debate on the subject.
But we are talking about ODI’s, so is this useful? Bevan was able to anchor Australia to many victories, but they definitely were the ascendant team during those times. Bevan’s batting strike rate is a poor 74 runs per 100 balls. So in many cases, Australia could have made a larger score when batting first, or succeeded in the chase because their bowlers had limited the target that they had to chase. Most of Bevan’s big scores were not quick scoring innings. It can be debated whether a more aggressive batsman could have ended the match sooner during the chase.
The batting team’s Powerplay may mean that an anchoring batsman like Bevan finds no place in an ODI team. The batting team has to make tons of runs at the end, because larger targets are becoming easier to chase down. Having a batsman who is more interested in playing safe shots to preserve his wicket is less useful than someone with the more risky and unorthodox shots that has the potential to fetch 20 runs in an over.
The “unbeatable” batsman also has the danger of be hyped up over his average. This may cause two problems. One is that they keep trying to maintain their average by playing safer instead of taking calculated risks – this will have a heavy tax on the team when they are batting first in an ODI. Second is that the pressure of inflated expectations could weigh on them, so when they are in a slump, they try to hit large scores to get back into form, instead of slowing working themselves back into form. Hussey seems to suffer from that, Pietersen less so.
Weaker or improving teams have typically relied on such a batsman, because they need someone who can be there till the end. Essentially, what that means is other batsmen are not capable or ready to take responsibility for the team’s failures. For a long time, Tendulkar played this role for India, so that when he was out, the Indian batting order collapsed if the remaining task was too steep. When that changed, India started winning more.
