Greatest Ever One Day XI

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bit surprised not see Mark Waugh in these teams, who is definately an all-time great in ODIs, and after further thought I actually think Kapil Dev is a better choice than Lance Kluesener for the number seven spot.

So my team should be:

Adam Gilchrist (k)
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting (c)
Viv Richards
Mark Waugh/Dean Jones
Michael Bevan
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Brett Lee/Joel Garner
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

 

[Blaze]

Bit surprised not see Mark Waugh in these teams, who is definately an all-time great in ODIs, and after further thought I actually think Kapil Dev is a better choice than Lance Kluesener for the number seven spot.

So my team should be:

Adam Gilchrist (k)
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting (c)
Viv Richards
Mark Waugh/Dean Jones
Michael Bevan
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Brett Lee/Joel Garner
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

No Brian Lara?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Also I am surprised Jonty Rhodes has been mentioned.. he was nothing special with the bat.. Sure he was a spectacular fieldsman but fielding doesn't matter if you havent got any runs to bowl at.

True, but at backward point he would guarantee an extra 30 runs saved in the field, and contributing 30 (40+ on a good night) extra runs to the team's cause. Any batting he contributed (and he was an above-average ODI batsman, with several centuries) was a bonus.

 

[Blaze]

True, but at backward point he would guarantee an extra 30 runs saved in the field, and contributing 30 (40+ on a good night) extra runs to the team's cause. Any batting he contributed (and he was an above-average ODI batsman, with several centuries) was a bonus.

30 is a bit steep..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No Brian Lara?

He's another fair contest for Jones and M. Waugh. On his day he is better than anybody, but I think he lacked consistency a bit more than the previous two. However, he's easily interchangable with the middle order spots, and Saqlain is a fair switch for Warne too, although I rate Warne higher because of his amazing ability to win games almost single-handedly from nowhere (WC semi finals in 96 and 99 etc).

 

[masterblaster]

My team....

Adam Gilchrist (w/k)
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting (captain)
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Michael Bevan
Jacques Kallis
Shaun Pollock
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

Really well balanced side that I reckon.

 

[masterblaster]

Ajit Agarkar,

203 Wickets at 27, with a Strike Rate of 32!

Now thats cool

*The above post was made with a gentle humour, so dont take it seriously*

 

[C_C]

He's another fair contest for Jones and M. Waugh. On his day he is better than anybody, but I think he lacked consistency a bit more than the previous two.

lara has played a lot more than Jones with similar consistency and much better than mark waugh really...averages over 40 against OZ, PAK and RSA.....i think BCL is more consistent and easily better than Mark Waugh and Deano.

 

[C_C]

And Brett Lee is nowhere near Garner's standard....Garner was just as potent with the ball but way way more economical...okay you can sya that all their economy would take a hit if played in the modern era...but brett lee is around 4.7 rpo and garner is 3.3...i dont think Garner would cross 4 rpo today let alone close to 4.7 by brett lee.

And in my opinion, both Akram and McGrath are superior to Hadlee and Imran with the ball in the ODI arena....i rate McGrath and Akram very close together and Akram wins mainly because of his far massive # of games with negligibly worse record.

Both have higher wicket/match and similar economy as Imran despite playing mostly in an era where there is significantly higher ODI scores and batsmen-friendly conditions.
Both have higher wicket/match than Hadlee with a bit worse economy rate.

As per tests go...Imran in Pollock's class as a batsman ? Puh-lease....he was not flamboyant but dogged.... and IMO he is the best genuine allrounder batsman after Sobers...higher career average than Keith Miller and averaged over 50 with the bat for over 50 test matches.......thats no mean feat by any standards.

Imran, IMO is the best test allrounder ever after Sobers and that too, not by much.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As per tests go...Imran in Pollock's class as a batsman ? Puh-lease....he was not flamboyant but dogged.... and IMO he is the best genuine allrounder batsman after Sobers...higher career average than Keith Miller and averaged over 50 with the bat for over 50 test matches.......thats no mean feat by any standards.

Imran, IMO is the best test allrounder ever after Sobers and that too, not by much.

Imran wasn't a particularly spectacular test batsman. He was decent by all means, and worthy of his average, but he wasn't really a brilliant match turner with the bat like he was with the ball, and both Keith Miller and Ian Botham were. I rate him in a similar class to Pollock in that both are good batsman in the lower order that can form good partnerships and help their team out, but aren't going to win matches with the bat.

Just to compare:
Pollock: 93 tests, 3120 @ 31.20 - 13 fifties, 2 hundreds, HS 111.
Imran: 88 tests, 3807 @ 37.69 - 18 fifties, 6 hundreds, HS 136.
Miller: 55 tests, 2958 runs @ 36.98 - 13 fifties, 7 hundreds, HS 147.
Botham: 102 tests, 5200 @ 33.55 - 22 fifties, 14 hundreds, HS 208.

Even ignoring the sensational impact that Botham's innings had when he played at his best, he clearly has the superior record. He played just 14 more tests for 1400 more runs and more than twice the centuries. He had the ability to turn a match with the bat, and batted higher in the order than Imran did generally. Miller was a top order batsman in his time and quite successful in that capacity, and again was relied on as a batsman to make a real difference with the bat. Neither Imran or Pollock are in that situation - they play in the lower order and make useful runs and are definately all-rounders, but they aren't anything like as important with the bat as they are with the ball. Both Miller and Botham, even when they were the best bowlers in their respective sides, were just as important with the bat.

 

[C_C]

He was decent by all means, and worthy of his average, but he wasn't really a brilliant match turner with the bat like he was with the ball, and both Keith Miller and Ian Botham were. I rate him in a similar class to Pollock in that both are good batsman in the lower order that can form good partnerships and help their team out, but aren't going to win matches with the bat.

irrelevant really...match-turner is akin to matchwinner and that is again, dependent on the situation the side is in....Imran FYI has won a few matches with the bat....

Even ignoring the sensational impact that Botham's innings had when he played at his best, he clearly has the superior record. He played just 14 more tests for 1400 more runs and more than twice the centuries. He had the ability to turn a match with the bat, and batted higher in the order than Imran did generally. Miller was a top order batsman in his time and quite successful in that capacity, and again was relied on as a batsman to make a real difference with the bat. Neither Imran or Pollock are in that situation - they play in the lower order and make useful runs and are definately all-rounders, but they aren't anything like as important with the bat as they are with the ball. Both Miller and Botham, even when they were the best bowlers in their respective sides, were just as important with the bat.

Imran IMO was a superior bat to Botham and Miller by far....he averaged 50+ in the tests with the bat for over 50 matches.... neither one of them had that kinda patch and nor did they average higher career-wise.
Imran batted at #7 for a reason- that being PAK wicketkeeper(Bari) was really weak with the bat...Botham had Knott and others who were competent/good bats...And Imran batting higher meant the tail being extremely fragile...he adopted the role of shepherding the tail and did excellently....
And i think Imran was a LOT more important with the bat for PAK than Miller was for AUS...just do a relative comparison of the batting depth of the two sides.... PAK were in a lot worse situation batting-wise than OZ.
The few times he's batted up the order in specific match-conditions, he has averaged into the 40s or 50s with the bat- indicating that he did have the ability.... but PAK adopted an 'extra batsman' philosophy, which benifitted them in the long run compared to ENG who were not in PAK's class through the 70s and 80s...

All in all...Imran didnt bat high enough to gather centuries but did gather 50s.... and centuries without the average means nothing.......or else Slater is every bit as good as Hayden/Langer...ent ?
or hell....Azharuddin is as good as Ponting...right ?

fact is, Imran was the second best allrounder of them all after Sobers IMO....he had a slow start or he would've been the best.... for the last 50 matches of his career, he averaged 50+ with the bat and 21 with the ball.... that is an allround patch that neither Botham nor Miller could replicate for more than dozen-match patches, let alone 50 match overall.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

fact is, Imran was the second best allrounder of them all after Sobers IMO....he had a slow start or he would've been the best.... for the last 50 matches of his career, he averaged 50+ with the bat and 21 with the ball.... that is an allround patch that neither Botham nor Miller could replicate for more than dozen-match patches, let alone 50 match overall.

I'm not disagreeing that Imran is the second best all-rounder as such... although I'd probably place him third personally. You claimed that he was the best batsman of the big all-rounders after Sobers, and I disagree with that strongly. The simple fact that he had a better average than Botham or Miller does not indicate that he was a better batsman than them. Pollock has a decent average as well, that doesn't mean he's a brilliant batsman - he's simply good. Botham was a brilliant batsman, he played innings which will be remembered for a lifetime and on his day was one of the most lethal batsman to ever play the game. Imran was as you said quite good at sheparding the tail and assisting the batsman of the side, and he maintained a good average for some time, but he was not a particularly brilliant batsman, he was simply good.

The thing that makes him among the greatest all-rounders of all-time is that he combined being a good lower order batsman with being one of the all-time great bowlers, on par with the other greats of his time like Hadlee, Lillee and Holding. Similarly, Sobers combined being a good, versatile back-up bowler with being one of the absolute greatest batsmen ever seen, perhaps second only to Bradman. Imran was a better bowler than Botham, who was a bit like Waqar in that for a period in his career he was simply one of the greatest bowlers ever seen and for the rest of his career was distinctly average. He wasn't quite as good as Miller in my book, who played in a time much more dominated by batsman and maintains a similar record, but certainly he wasn't far behind. He was not however the equal of Botham with the bat, in my opinion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

centuries without the average means nothing.......or else Slater is every bit as good as Hayden/Langer...ent ?
or hell....Azharuddin is as good as Ponting...right ?

Not sure what you mean here. In every case that you just listed, the players assumed to be better (hayden/langer compared to slater, ponting compared to azharuddin) score hundreds more frequently...

Hayden: 20 hundreds, 67 tests - 3.35 tests per century
Ponting: 22 hundreds, 89 tests - 4.05 tests per century
Langer: 21 hundreds, 88 tests - 4.19 tests per century
Azharuddin: 22 hundreds, 99 tests - 4.50 tests per century
Slater: 14 hundreds, 74 tests - 5.29 tests per century

And just for good measure...
Bradman: 29 hundreds, 54 tests - 1.86 tests per century

And for our all-rounders...
Botham: 14 hundreds, 102 tests - 7.29 tests per century
Miller: 7 hundreds, 55 tests - 7.86 tests per century
Imran: 6 hundreds, 88 tests - 14.67 tests per century
Pollock: 2 hundreds, 93 tests - 46.50 tests per century

 

[C_C]

Well all this talk of 'brilliant' is about strokeplay really...and if strokeplay is your criteria, then move over Botham....its Kapil Dev all the way....i think he has the highest or one of the highest strike rates in entire test cricket and blasted bowlers around the park almost everytime...
But i evaluate on performance...not just strokeplay...a dour Kenny Barrington is more important than a flamboyant Foud Bacchus.... a dour Steve Waugh is more important than a flamboyant and attractive Damien Martyn....or Kris Srikkanth....
in terms of batting record, i will put Imran had and shoulders ahead of Botham and Miller.... Imran's stats are a bit spoilt by his slow start to ihs career...but from late 70s till the end of his career...he was absolutely brilliant....also, as a testament to his batting skills(and also PAK's weak batting), he played several matches solely as a batsman.......neither Botham nor Miller have done that i think...ie, command their place in the side solely as a batsman without bowling a ball(i think this was due to an injury that imran had which prevented him from bowling)...

In terms of my alltime allrounders ratings though,
i put Sobers first, Imran behind by a whisker...followed by Miller, Kallis and Kapil....
Botham i find is a bit overrated and i would rank Benaud, Mankad and Pollock ahead of him as well.....his batting and bowling were brutally exposed by the strongest team of his time-the west indies....while all the others performed much much better.......

And for me, unless you perform against the best of the best, i cannot rate you amongst ones who have similar record but have performed against the best of the best.

 

[C_C]

ok.. bad example from me then..but i think you got the point...ie, more century/test or innings at an average considerably lower(Botham) still means you are inferior by a fair bit.
its 6:30 am here..i should really get to bed...nite nite

 

[roseboy64]

So far, the most picked players are:
Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Richards
Warne
Ponting
Lara
Bevan

That pretty much seems to be the batsmen, spinner and wicketkeeper/batsman. The only spots left really are the all rounders and fast bowlers.

 

[C_C]

Wouldnt include warney over Murali IMO.

 

[roseboy64]

Some of the selection panel that picked the 1975-2000 team include; Gary Sobers, Dickie Bird, John Reid, Barry Richards, Bishap Bailey(sp), some other Pakistan and India guys, a Zimbabwean and Ravi Shastri as the presenter.

 

[roseboy64]

Wouldnt include warney over Murali IMO.

Warne's been included more than Murali in most teams.

 

[C_C]

Warne's been included more than Murali in most teams.

Perhaps..just saying *I* wouldnt and i see no reason for it.

Murali again has everything better than Warne- average, strike rate, wicket/match ratio, economy rate, etc. despite operating in a much inferior bowling attack.