Battle between Test and ODI cricketers

[SJS]

I chose an all time one day XI (including those i felt would be great for the one day game even though they had never played it) and then chose an all time test XI disqualifying those in the first team. Here they are.

ODI Team

1. Tendulkar
2. Gilchrist
3. Richards
4. Lara
5. Sobers
6. Botham
7. Bevan ???
8. Waqar
9. Garner
10. Ambrose
11. McGrath
    

Test Team

1. Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Bradman
4. Hammond
5. Headley
6. Ames
7. Imran
8. Hadlee
9. Murali
10. Warne
11. Barnes
    

You may not agree with my teams and may have your own. My question wil be valid, which is..

If I just presented you with these two teams and then asked you to tell me which is a better cricket team (without talking of the format of cricket) what would your reaction be ?

 

[SJS]

Remember the test team here is at a disadvantage since some players may have been in the test team (Richards, Sobers to name just two). The same excercise could be done by choosing the test team first and we will have a much stronger test team, at least I think so.

However the point would still be the same. Which is, do the best cricketers make the best one day cricketers ? and the converse..are the best one day cricketers the better cricketers ??

 

[Adamc]

You've got it all wrong SJS. Sobers is actually the worst ODI player ever, just look at his record.

Seriously though, I can't decide. I think if it were not for Bradman, the Test team would have a relatively weak batting lineup, with two bowling allrounders playing. The ODI team suffers for lack of a specialist spinner, though. The Bradman factor aside, the ODI team appears to have the stronger batting lineup. Both bowling lineups are very strong. I can't decide really.

I know we're not supposed to discuss the actual selections, but... *cough*Wasim*cough*.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that the ODI team would beat the Test team in a One Day match, and the Test side would win a Five Day match.

In all honesty, I think that the ODI team I'd back to win the majority of games, barring the Bradman factor. Although the long tail for the ODI team is worrying - they could afford to drop Waqar maybe for another batsman, IMO.

 

[Buddhmaster]

The top 6 in the ODI lineup would be a good chance for the Test Team, so it's hard

 

[open365]

the best cricketers are test cricketers because test cricket is the better game.

Players in tests have more time to show what they are capable off and test cricket is the best way of finding the best overall side.

take for example, bangladesh. terrible in both forms but they can compete in one dayers because they are shorter.

if a player is good at test cricket, most of the time, he could easily play one day cricket.

but the opposite is not as true,they're are more one-day specialists than there are test specialists.

 

[Adamc]

take for example, bangladesh. terrible in both forms but they can compete in one dayers because they are shorter.

That doesn't exactly help them in the pace bowling department.

 

[Richard]

If I just presented you with these two teams and then asked you to tell me which is a better cricket team (without talking of the format of cricket) what would your reaction be ?

Not possible.
There is limited-overs cricket and their is two-innings cricket.
The two are not comparable and you can't blend the two.
It's like talking about is a CoE or a RC a better Christian.

 

[Richard]

ODI Team

1. Tendulkar
2. Gilchrist
3. Richards
4. Lara
5. Sobers
6. Botham
7. Bevan ???
8. Waqar
9. Garner
10. Ambrose
11. McGrath

BTW, what's the question-marks against Bevan? And why is he batting so low down the order? Below Botham (who wasn't an especially good one-day batsman)?

 

[Buddhmaster]

BTW, what's the question-marks against Bevan? And why is he batting so low down the order? Below Botham (who wasn't an especially good one-day batsman)? And how much one-day cricket did Sobers play? I could have sworn ODIs were after his time, so he can't have played much.

Read the first paragraph Dicko

 

[Richard]

True indeed.

 

[Beleg]

If you substitute Waqar with Wasim (IMO, the best ODI bowler ever, but that's an aside) than I would have choose the first.

 

[Richard]

I can't see how there has ever been a better ODI bowler than Wasim.
Would have been even better if he didn't sometimes have no-ball attacks.

 

[honestbharani]

I like the ODI team, because I have seen most of them play.

 

[SJS]

You've got it all wrong SJS. Sobers is actually the worst ODI player ever, just look at his record.

Seriously though, I can't decide. I think if it were not for Bradman, the Test team would have a relatively weak batting lineup, with two bowling allrounders playing. The ODI team suffers for lack of a specialist spinner, though. The Bradman factor aside, the ODI team appears to have the stronger batting lineup. Both bowling lineups are very strong. I can't decide really.

I know we're not supposed to discuss the actual selections, but... *cough*Wasim*cough*.

You are spot on about Sir Garfields "unmatched" odi record. If we remove him it does wonders to the test side since he becomes eligible for selection there unless like Inzy he cries off insisting on being included in both . (Kidding Inzy fans )

Yes Wasim could replace Waqar. Should actually.

 

[SJS]

BTW, what's the question-marks against Bevan? And why is he batting so low down the order? Below Botham (who wasn't an especially good one-day batsman)?

He seems to stand out in that crowd

Batting orders in odi's are not THAT rigid. But its okay for him to go above.

 

[Richard]

IMO Bevan, being the best ODI player ever, would do well placed anywhere in any ODI order at any stage of it's evolution.