The Non-Spamming Thread on the announcement of the greatest Aussie ODI team

[Matt79]

Jack asked for it - Cricket Australia will annouce the greatest Australia ODI team drawn from the 163 players to have pulled on the pyjamas for Oz on 27 Feb, in the lead up to the WC.

As a PR gimmick a 30 strong "squad" was announced today, from which the team will be drawn. They are:
1. Terry Alderman
2. Michael Bevan
3. David Boon
4. Allan Border
5. Greg Chappell
6. Ian Chappell
7. Simon Davis
8. Adam Gilchrist
9. Jason Gillespie
10. Gary Gilmour
11. Matthew Hayden
12. Michael Hussey
13. Dean Jones
14. Brett Lee
15. Darren Lehmann
16. Dennis Lillee
17. Damien Martyn
18. Greg Matthews
19. Craig McDermott
20. Glenn McGrath
21. Tom Moody
22. Simon O'Donnell
23. Ricky Ponting
24. Bruce Reid
25. Paul Reiffel
26. Andrew Symonds
27. Doug Walters
28. Shane Warne
29. Mark Waugh
30. Steve Waugh

If I was choosing the XI, I'd have
Gilchrist
Mark Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
Bevan
Hussey
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath

Can't believe I can't find room in the team for Steve Waugh, but Symonds hitting ability, and genius in the field just has him shading Steve IMO. Tugga is definitely 12th man/supersub however. Probably a bit biased towards modern times, but I think the way ODIs were played in Chappelli and Walters day is so different from today's game that its hard to include them. Lillee gets in because his record is decent, and because there isn't really another bowler in the list who I think makes an ironclad claim for that spot.

Deplore the absence of Michael Slater and Mick Lewis from the squad however, tbh

 

[howardj]

If I was choosing the XI, I'd have
Gilchrist
Mark Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
Bevan
Hussey
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath

Can't believe I can't find room in the team for Steve Waugh, but Symonds hitting ability, and genius in the field just has him shading Steve IMO. Tugga is definitely 12th man/supersub however. Probably a bit biased towards modern times, but I think the way ODIs were played in Chappelli and Walters day is so different from today's game that its had to include them. Lillee gets in because his record is decent, and because there isn't really another bowler in the list who I think makes an ironclad claim for that spot.

Deplore the absence of Michael Slater and Mick Lewis from the squad however, tbh

Geez, hard to argue with your XI, to be honest.

Good work.

 

[silentstriker]

Hayden should be there in the ODI team, averages almost as much as Ponting. He started off slow in the format, but over the past five years or so, he has been fantastic.

 

[Richard]

Honestly, how stupid are people to mention names like Gilmour, Alderman, Chappell and Lillee in the same breath as Gilchrist and Gillespie?

Any fool could see that the game is not the same and should not be treated as such to what it was in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Matt79]

The list was based on the votes of all the players who have received one day caps - I'd guess there'll be a large proportion who fall into the "rate your contemporaries above any recent players" trap...

 

[Matt79]

Mark Waugh was a very good opener and a good partner for Gilly, plus a brilliant fielder and a handy bowler (mainly spin, but sometimes some medium pace) so he adds a bit more balance to the team than Hayden, but yeah, Hayden would be the next choice to partner Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

The list was based on the votes of all the players who have received one day caps - I'd guess there'll be a large proportion who fall into the "rate your contemporaries above any recent players" trap...

That's certainly not my "trap" at all, if anything I'm the very opposite.

However, to deny that the ODIs in the 70s and 80s were different - not superior, not inferior - to ODIs of the 90s and 2000s is IMO pretty stupid. You need a separate vote for each era.

 

[Richard]

Mark Waugh was a very good opener and a good partner for Gilly, plus a brilliant fielder and a handy bowler (mainly spin, but sometimes some medium pace) so he adds a bit more balance to the team than Hayden, but yeah, Hayden would be the next choice to partner Gilchrist.

IMO M Waugh >>>>> Hayden in ODIs. Purely as a batsman regardless of bowling and fielding.

Similarly, Slats >>>>> Hayden in Tests.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO M Waugh >>>>> Hayden in ODIs. Purely as a batsman regardless of bowling and fielding.

Similarly, Slats >>>>> Hayden in Tests.

It's debatable for M Waugh though I probably agree with you. Not so in Tests. Since 2000, after Ponting, Hayden has been the best batsman for Australia along with Gilly.

 

[Richard]

Since 2001\02 more like.

Since - not coincidentally - bowling stocks went bare and pitches by-and-large became incredibly flat.

Slater was one of a tiny number of openers who succeeded by playing shots against the new-ball against broadly good attacks (Anwar and Fredericks are two others who immidiately spring to mind). Hayden has not, he's succeeded by being a flat-track bully in the most general sense of the word. As have quite a few others in the post-2001 era.

 

[silentstriker]

Since 2001\02 more like.

Since - not coincidentally - bowling stocks went bare and pitches by-and-large became incredibly flat.

You could say that about every player since 2001, including Ponting, Gilchrist, etc. Because if you say Hayden is a flat track bully, then surely Ponting, Gilchrist, Dravid, etc are all the same way.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

IMO M Waugh >>>>> Hayden in ODIs. Purely as a batsman regardless of bowling and fielding.

Similarly, Slats >>>>> Hayden in Tests.

Mark Waugh is certainly better than Hayden in ODIs, and pretty comfortably as well IMO.

Slater is not better than Hayden in tests. Slater was a good test opener, but that's it.

Anyway, the XI mentioned above is more or less perfect IMO. Could be a case for Steve Waugh because of his bowling, but Symonds and Mark can cover 10 overs, you'd imagine. And really, the only batsman spot that isn't 100% settled is Hussey's, and that's purely because he hasn't played that long. I don't think you can really leave him out. If there's no Hussey, you could probably slot Steve in at 6.

 

[Richard]

You could say that about every player since 2001, including Ponting, Gilchrist, etc. Because if you say Hayden is a flat track bully, then surely Ponting, Gilchrist, Dravid, etc are all the same way.

Ponting, Gilchrist and Dravid are certainly not flat-track-bullies - Gilchrist is not a top-order batsman, so a glaring weakness against quality seam (which he's hardly exhibited in the same manner as Hayden anyway) is not so significant.

Ponting and Dravid I certainly don't rate anywhere near as high as some do. Dravid, however, still averaged over 50 in the 1990s and 2000, so he's still a fantastic player. Ponting, though, is nothing more than a very good player. I find it totally inconceivable that he'd have averaged over 70 accross 5-and-a-half years had bowling-attacks not been so poor for most of that time. Sure, he'd probably have averaged more than the 40 he averaged in his first 5-and-a-half years, but I think to suggest the increase would have been so steep against better bowling is ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

Mark Waugh is certainly better than Hayden in ODIs, and pretty comfortably as well IMO.

Slater is not better than Hayden in tests. Slater was a good test opener, but that's it.

And Hayden's a flat-track bully. That's it.

Slater, on the other hand, actually played shots against the new-ball against good Test-match attacks and succeeded, something very few have done.

 

[Pup Clarke]

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And Hayden's a flat-track bully. That's it.

Slater, on the other hand, actually played shots against the new-ball against good Test-match attacks and succeeded, something very few have done.

Except he didn't. He hammered England all over the place and was nothing more than decent against other teams. Scored more than half his test centuries against England in fact, and made hardly any against the three great seam attacks he faced.

Anyway, either way, I think Hayden's a better test opener than Slater was, and he's generally underrated because his batting isn't as easy on the eye as others. Though he's hardly alone in the current era in being underrated as a batsman. Somewhat overrated in ODIs, but he's had some very good patches in that form too, like recently for instance.

 

[Swervy]

That's certainly not my "trap" at all, if anything I'm the very opposite.

However, to deny that the ODIs in the 70s and 80s were different - not superior, not inferior - to ODIs of the 90s and 2000s is IMO pretty stupid. You need a separate vote for each era.

its just a bit of fun dont get hett up about it

 

[Fiery]

Honestly, how stupid are people to mention names like Gilmour, Alderman, Chappell and Lillee in the same breath as Gilchrist and Gillespie?

Any fool could see that the game is not the same and should not be treated as such to what it was in the 1970s and 1980s.

Would you stop going on about that please Richard? The point of the thread is to name an ALL-TIME team. ODIs started in the early 1970s. Cricket hasn't changed beyond recognition since the 1980s like you like to tell us it has (ad nauseum). It's all limited overs cricket and there's nothing wrong with taking all players and eras into account when trying to select a team. Calling people "stupid" and "fools" for doing this is stupid and foolish in itself.

 

[Goughy]

Similarly, Slats >>>>> Hayden in Tests.

No

 

[Richard]

Except he didn't. He hammered England all over the place and was nothing more than decent against other teams. Scored more than half his test centuries against England in fact, and made hardly any against the three great seam attacks he faced.

Anyway, either way, I think Hayden's a better test opener than Slater was, and he's generally underrated because his batting isn't as easy on the eye as others. Though he's hardly alone in the current era in being underrated as a batsman. Somewhat overrated in ODIs, but he's had some very good patches in that form too, like recently for instance.

Err, what? Slater averaged 48 against New Zealand, all but 50 against Pakistan, 43 against South Africa, 61 against Sri Lanka and 30 against West Indies when you exclude the final series. Seems like only one side got the better of him to me. So what if he happened to score half his centuries against England (who weren't always as poor as they were in 1993, y'know - although yes he missed the series against our best side of his career in 1997)? He still scored runs against others.