The Top 9 ODI Nations

[Athlai]

Since the start of 2008 we have seen the balance of power in one day internationals shift heavily. Australia's throne is no longer secure and the fight for the new top nation before the WC begun. In this time Bangladesh have become a team worthy of consideration at home (mostly due to the efforts of Shakib who was recently related the best one day all-rounder in the world) and even England won one or two abroad.

If you judge the best nation by their win/loss ratio the table reads as follows:

Pakistan 2.60
New Zealand 2.50
South Africa 2.40
Australia 2.33
India 2.25
Sri Lanka 0.84
England 0.54
West Indies 0.20
Bangladesh 0.09

This table shows a massive void between the top 5 and the bottom 4, yet we recently saw Sri Lanka beat Pakistan and both the West Indies and Bangladesh (at home) push New Zealand only to be beaten in a close contest. If instead we look at the averages runs per wicket what does the table show?

Pakistan 38.97
South Africa 38.54
India 34.78
New Zealand 32.95
Australia 30.58
England 29.97
Sri Lanka 27.94
West Indies 25.89
Bangladesh 20.30

Pakistan once again is well on top again followed by South Africa.
Instead what if we compared the scores by the team and against the team over the period and see which team has been most dominant.(NR excluded)

Australia 237.15 vs. Opposition 190.75= +46.4
Sri Lanka 214 vs. Opposition 192.63= +21.37
South Africa 222.82 vs. Opposition 216.59= +6.23
India 236.46 vs. Opposition 231.69= =+4.77
New Zealand 208.27 vs. Opposition 207.6= +0.67
England 220.78 vs. Opposition 220.94= -0.16
Pakistan 238.17 vs. Opposition 244.39= -6.22
West Indies 213.5 vs. Opposition 229.94= -16.44
Bangladesh 178.54 vs. Opposition 231.46= -52.92

While these figures favor matches won by batting first it shows a very different table to what we have previously seen if we dissect it even further we find that in terms of average totals the best teams have been:

Pakistan 238
Australia 237
India 236
South Africa 223
England 221
Sri Lanka 214
West Indies 214
New Zealand 208
Bangladesh 179

And in terms of bowling:

Australia 191
Sri Lanka 193
New Zealand 208
South Africa 217
England 221
West Indies 230
Bangladesh 231
India 232
Pakistan 244

From these figures we learn that when Australia win they win by a lot, and that when Pakistan lose they get absolutely hammered (averaging -6.22 runs a match despite winning 2.6 to every loss!). That Sri Lanka despite being on a losing streak skittle out their opposition for next to nothing more often than not and that India, South Africa and New Zealand are very solid in both their batting and bowling.

So who is the best in the world today and who will be the best a year from now? As an avid cricket fan I really can't tell. And I enjoy that, the competition between all the teams, that we never really know who is going to win.

 

[Flem274*]

Probably leaning towards SA, but they're not exactly rock solid the whole way through (absence of Smith doesn't help).

 

[Athlai]

I don't think South Africa's bowling is quite strong enough and their batting isn't quite solid enough to make this a non-issue. India have a similar problem, though I'd probably back a full strength Indian team in a years time to be the best in the world.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

While these figures favor matches

:
Very un-Athlai like. Where did this get copied and pasted from?

 

[Athlai]

:
Very un-Athlai like. Where did this get copied and pasted from?

I used firefox to spell check it.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't think South Africa's bowling is quite strong enough and their batting isn't quite solid enough to make this a non-issue. India have a similar problem, though I'd probably back a full strength Indian team in a years time to be the best in the world.

I'm getting lost as to who is in the Indian team tbh. They seem to blood new guys, use old guys, blood more new guys etc. Awesome team but I couldn't name the first XI team. The Test team is much easier.

India still has a few holes too. Plus guys will retire shortly.

Eeny meeny miney mo wins for me.

 

[Athlai]

I'm getting lost as to who is in the Indian team tbh. They seem to blood new guys, use old guys, blood more new guys etc. Awesome team but I couldn't name the first XI team. The Test team is much easier.

India still has a few holes too. Plus guys will retire shortly.

Eeny meeny miney mo wins for me.

Full strength Australia is probably the best all-round team by a smidge followed by South Africa/India then New Zealand/Sri Lanka/Pakistan then West Indies/England then Bangladesh (though at home they may move up to the next group)

But Australia is an old team and full strength is something that they seem to have taken for granted, because while you may have the best first XI in cricket do you have the best 20?

 

[pasag]

If they were all fit:

Watson
Marsh
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Bracken
Clark

Would be the best ODI side in the world, IMO.

 

[pup11]

I think Australia still are a pretty strong ODI unit, there are problems with the test side, but i think the ODI side is still pretty strong and the Aussies would just be fine, once the ODI side is back to full strength and the new blokes settle down.

Among the teams that are most likely to challenge Australia are India and South Africa, India have a very strong batting line-up atm, with good bowlers to back them, and the South African side are very strong in the bowling department and when Smith comes back they would have a decent batting line-up too.

 

[Athlai]

If they were all fit:

Watson
Marsh
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Bracken
Clark

Would be the best ODI side in the world, IMO.

Agreed but Symonds has his off the field issues and Ponting, Symonds and Clarke all had a poor 2008. Watson is plagued with injury. Marsh isn't exactly the best allrounder in the world. Lee and Clark have had a few injury scares lately and Lee is on somewhat of a decline.

How much longer does an XI like that have to play at its peak? Can it still?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Marsh isn't exactly the best allrounder in the world.

No **** hey.

 

[Athlai]

No **** hey.

Meant opener clearly, Watson on other hand would be a relevant case to the not that great all-rounder eh?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Meant opener clearly, Watson on other hand would be a relevant case to the not that great all-rounder eh?

Actually had no idea that's what you meant, probably more to do with myself than anything else though. Yeah good call on Watson though, clearly trash. Wouldn't make it in, say, New Zealand.

 

[Uppercut]

If they were all fit:

Watson
Marsh
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Bracken
Clark

Would be the best ODI side in the world, IMO.

This.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Dunno, I think Aussie should still be top. But it's definitely close.

A full strength NZ side would be right up there with India and South Africa.

 

[Athlai]

Actually had no idea that's what you meant, probably more to do with myself than anything else though. Yeah good call on Watson though, clearly trash. Wouldn't make it in, say, New Zealand.

We'd probably make him focus on one aspectof his game or the other. Don't need an allrounder who's there 1 in every 7 games, a proper batsman would be much much more valuable.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

We'd probably make him focus on one aspectof his game or the other. Don't need an allrounder who's there 1 in every 7 games, a proper batsman would be much much more valuable.

Yeah, we've already got about 4 of them in our full strength XI.

 

[Precambrian]

Right now I'd say India is the best ODI side, though I'd like to see Ind Vs SA series now.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, we've already got about 4 of them in our full strength XI.

Precisely.

 

[Flem274*]

Plus Oram (once he became a genuine allrounder) is better.