Poll 1: Opening bowlers for the Best ODI XI from the Tendulkar Era

[SirBloody Idiot]

What stats are you working off for McGrath, SJS?

[harsh.skm]

I would have McGrath and Bond first up. Strategy wise, they would be explosive and containing at the same time. Plus, they will take bucketloads of wickets. I was tempted to go with Bond and Lee/Waqar though.

My first change would be either Wasim, Waqar, Donald or Lee. Must think.

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

What stats are you working off for McGrath, SJS?

McGrath's SR was 34, and average was 22.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Bowling stats in ODIs are so hard to make proper conclusions about. Even compared to Test stats, which are flawed at the best of times, number-cruching for the pyjama cricket leaves a lot to be desired.

The value of a wicket and a maiden changes in Test cricket depending on the match situation, but those are relatively rare circumstances, and a bowler's primary job is always to take wickets. Not so in one-dayers, where the changes happen at the same time in every match.

I wish we could see strike rates and economy rates for each period of the innings.

These bowlers will have two jobs - take wickets at the top of the innings and save runs at the death. Batsmen will be naturally more keen to play themselves in and set up a platform against the new ball, and in the last half a dozen overs wickets are bound to fall in pursuit of quick runs.

If a bowler - particularly these bowlers - takes 0/14 off his first 5 overs, we can't look at that economy of 2.8 and applaud him because the oppo were probably just seeing him off. And now the change bowlers have to try and manufacture a wicket with the field spread. If he takes 4/40 off his final 5 overs, who cares about the 4-for? He's conceded eight runs an over while a few lower-order players hole out off him.

If the spells were the other way around, it's an amazing performance. Both cases go down as 4-54, an average scorebook entry, but it could be brilliant and it could be awful.

This is all before we get into the likes of trying to work out which ODIs actually matter. In Tests you say quite confidently that almost every match had the best team the selectors thought available playing and the fans cared about it. Maybe if you're a harsher man than me you'll skim over performances against minnow teams or early tours that didn't at the time count as Tests, but in both cases you're making a minor adjustment.

Not so in one-dayers. The schedules are full of matches were first team players are rested. There are post-Test matches at the end of a long tour where the drive and contest just isn't present. There are matches where potential Test targets are picked to see how they go in internationals despite the difference in format, and worst of all there are matches that include Jade Dernbach.

You could focus on World Cup games, as the only games where everyone involved genuinely gives a ****, but then half your games are against Canada or Namibia. We're losing matches at a rate of knots here and we're only left with a fraction of the data we started with.

So it's my view that, while ODI stats are a okay guideline for identifying the top echelon of players - such as everyone mentioned in the OP plus Donald - past that the specifics just aren't there. I don't think there's any real difference in a few points of strike rate or a few tenths of a run per over, not least because those two things are often cancelled out anyway.

I guess the only way to really form the best opinion on the finest ODI players is just to watch as much ODI cricket as there is, all over the world, all the time.

Ah, ****.

Great post! or The greatest post ever!

[hendrix]

Bond and Ambrose

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Bowling stats in ODIs are so hard to make proper conclusions about. Even compared to Test stats, which are flawed at the best of times, number-cruching for the pyjama cricket leaves a lot to be desired.

The value of a wicket and a maiden changes in Test cricket depending on the match situation, but those are relatively rare circumstances, and a bowler's primary job is always to take wickets. Not so in one-dayers, where the changes happen at the same time in every match.

I wish we could see strike rates and economy rates for each period of the innings.

These bowlers will have two jobs - take wickets at the top of the innings and save runs at the death. Batsmen will be naturally more keen to play themselves in and set up a platform against the new ball, and in the last half a dozen overs wickets are bound to fall in pursuit of quick runs.

If a bowler - particularly these bowlers - takes 0/14 off his first 5 overs, we can't look at that economy of 2.8 and applaud him because the oppo were probably just seeing him off. And now the change bowlers have to try and manufacture a wicket with the field spread. If he takes 4/40 off his final 5 overs, who cares about the 4-for? He's conceded eight runs an over while a few lower-order players hole out off him.

If the spells were the other way around, it's an amazing performance. Both cases go down as 4-54, an average scorebook entry, but it could be brilliant and it could be awful.

This is all before we get into the likes of trying to work out which ODIs actually matter. In Tests you say quite confidently that almost every match had the best team the selectors thought available playing and the fans cared about it. Maybe if you're a harsher man than me you'll skim over performances against minnow teams or early tours that didn't at the time count as Tests, but in both cases you're making a minor adjustment.

Not so in one-dayers. The schedules are full of matches were first team players are rested. There are post-Test matches at the end of a long tour where the drive and contest just isn't present. There are matches where potential Test targets are picked to see how they go in internationals despite the difference in format, and worst of all there are matches that include Jade Dernbach.

You could focus on World Cup games, as the only games where everyone involved genuinely gives a ****, but then half your games are against Canada or Namibia. We're losing matches at a rate of knots here and we're only left with a fraction of the data we started with.

So it's my view that, while ODI stats are a okay guideline for identifying the top echelon of players - such as everyone mentioned in the OP plus Donald - past that the specifics just aren't there. I don't think there's any real difference in a few points of strike rate or a few tenths of a run per over, not least because those two things are often cancelled out anyway.

I guess the only way to really form the best opinion on the finest ODI players is just to watch as much ODI cricket as there is, all over the world, all the time.

Ah, ****.

I understand this train of thought, but the thing about a lot of statistics is that they do even out somewhat over a period of time.

There are also plenty of options using statsguru to figure out who the best death bowlers were/who took the most top-order wickets etc etc

[Coronis]

McGrath and Akram. Donald should be the first change.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Coronis

McGrath and Akram. Donald should be the first change.

Agree 100%

[Burgey]

Went McGrath and Amby. Plan on having Wasim first change. Thought about having Wasim because the two I chose are quite similar.

Similar, but hardly pleasant to face.

[Dan]

Wasim and Bond for me.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Went McGrath and Amby. Plan on having Wasim first change. Thought about having Wasim because the two I chose are quite similar.

Similar, but hardly pleasant to face.

Surprised at the lack of support for Ambrose. Imho was far better than Put me to Mcgrath

Thought Wasim and Ambrose would be a good pairing

[morgieb]

Averaging 26 isn't that good IMO. Yes he kept it tight but so could Wasim and McGrath, who were more likely to take wickets.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by morgieb

Averaging 26 isn't that good IMO. Yes he kept it tight but so could Wasim and McGrath, who were more likely to take wickets.

Yeah, I was thinking Test cricket, see comments in other thread

[SJS]

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

What stats are you working off for McGrath, SJS?

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

McGrath's SR was 34, and average was 22.

My apologies. There was a typo in his wickets column (no less) which affected the avg, strike rate as well as wkts/match.

Corrected.

[Jono]

Put ODI in the title to not confuse peeps I guess.