CW votes- The greatest ODI teams of all time (Australia)

[Red]

I'm surprised ppl are surprised MWaugh got thru. Absolute elite odi bat

 

[adub]

Junior as an ODI opener

141 matches
5729 runs
44.06 ave
76.74 s/r
15 tons
32 50s

in World Cups his average goes up to 57.26 and sr of 81.42

top shelf

 

[Zinzan]

Junior as an ODI opener

141 matches
5729 runs
44.06 ave
76.74 s/r
15 tons
32 50s

in World Cups his average goes up to 57.26 and sr of 81.42

top shelf

Pretty good SR playing between '91 & '02

Overall ODI batting SRs in 5 year increments since Jan '71 - (top 9 sides)

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yeah, I’d forgotten how exceptional Mark Waugh was at the 1996 WC. I was thinking more of the 1999 WC where he was good without being particularly outstanding.

I guess my memory was based on him being a consistent contributor as opener without really being outstanding. During the 1998/99 home ODI series he scored 6 consecutive 50s, which is pretty impressive for an opener; but this was also a period where he went over 50 matches without scoring a ODI ton. And I guess when you’re judging the best of the best those things matter.

But factoring in everything (as well as his bowling/fielding attributes) I undersold him previously.

 

[Victor Ian]

McGrath, Lee, Starc

 

[stephen]

Everyone who is including Starc but not Lillee, may I ask why?

Both have remarkably similar records in ODI cricket. Starc's is better but not by much and his career isn't over yet (and has been shorter than Lillee's so far).

Brett Lee, for how good he was always played second fiddle to McGrath and was arguably the third best quick in the team behind McGrath and Bracken for much of his career. He also had a tendency to leak runs.

I can understand a lineup of McGrath, Lee and Bracken (if one believes Starc and Lillee haven't played enough) but I can't really understand McGrath, Starc and Lee.

 

[Zinzan]

Everyone who is including Starc but not Lillee, may I ask why?
.

Starc's been the best ODI bowler in the world for the last 5 years now, Lillee was always behind Garner in his time, and arguably Hadlee and Holding too.

 

[stephen]

Starc's been the best ODI bowler in the world for the last 5 years now, Lillee was always behind Garner in his time, and arguably Hadlee and Holding too.

And how many bowlers was Lee behind? McGrath, Pollock and possibly Akhtar and Bracken all spring to mind.

It's like Lillee is the forgotten man of early ODI cricket. Bloke was gun and carried the attack through that era.

 

[Zinzan]

And how many bowlers was Lee behind? McGrath, Pollock and possibly Akhtar and Bracken all spring to mind.

It's like Lillee is the forgotten man of early ODI cricket. Bloke was gun and carried the attack through that era.

Wait what? Your question was just about Starc vs, Lillee, & not Lee..

But on Lillee vs. Lee, I found it hard to separate the two, Lillee had the better record, Lee played for a long long time in much more difficult era for a bowler, and had an incredible strike rate over all. I wouldn't argue too much with someone calling for Lillee over Lee though.

 

[Adders]

I think you have to give a lot of weighting to modern one day players if you're comparing them to players of earlier eras if they are turning up similar stats. The game has evolved so much in recent years that IMO Starcs ave of 19 and sr of 24 is far more impressive than Lillees 20/34.

To do what Starc is doing in this batsmen dominated era of the game is just incredible and makes him a bonafide ATG already and I'd name him in any ODI ATG side.

 

[stephen]

I agree that Starc is ridiculously amazing right now but I think the point was missed - people are including Starc on the basis of 65 ODIs in a 7 year career. But Lillee is being largely ignored despite being amazing over the course of 63 ODIs in a 9 year career.

Lillee has a better strike rate and average than anyone not named Garner in his era. Most people consider Garner the GOAT. Lillee's record isn't *that* far behind.

 

[veganbob]

Everyone who is including Starc but not Lillee, may I ask why?

Both have remarkably similar records in ODI cricket. Starc's is better but not by much and his career isn't over yet (and has been shorter than Lillee's so far).

Brett Lee, for how good he was always played second fiddle to McGrath and was arguably the third best quick in the team behind McGrath and Bracken for much of his career. He also had a tendency to leak runs.

I can understand a lineup of McGrath, Lee and Bracken (if one believes Starc and Lillee haven't played enough) but I can't really understand McGrath, Starc and Lee.

If people are gonna take -5 off modern batting averages since it is easier now, would you not minus atleast 3 off the bowlers average since bowling is much harder than in Lillee's day. Starc easily in odis over Lillee

 

[S.Kennedy]

There is no way I can ever have Starc over Lillee.

I'd have Lillee, McGrath and (probably) Lee.

 

[Zinzan]

I agree that Starc is ridiculously amazing right now but I think the point was missed - people are including Starc on the basis of 65 ODIs in a 7 year career. But Lillee is being largely ignored despite being amazing over the course of 63 ODIs in a 9 year career.

Lillee has a better strike rate and average than anyone not named Garner in his era. Most people consider Garner the GOAT. Lillee's record isn't *that* far behind.

That's a little deceptive imo. Both Hadlee and Holding had better records than Lillee considering they both played significantly more games than Lillee & still maintained about the same average as he, but better ERs in spite of playing 5-6 year longer into a slightly more batsmen friendly era.

That's quite easy to see... the difference in the averages was less than 0.5. Lillee retired in '83, Hadlee and Holding both went close to 1990. Much harder to maintain an average that good over a long period.

 

[Victor Ian]

Everyone who is including Starc but not Lillee, may I ask why?

Both have remarkably similar records in ODI cricket. Starc's is better but not by much and his career isn't over yet (and has been shorter than Lillee's so far).

Brett Lee, for how good he was always played second fiddle to McGrath and was arguably the third best quick in the team behind McGrath and Bracken for much of his career. He also had a tendency to leak runs.

I can understand a lineup of McGrath, Lee and Bracken (if one believes Starc and Lillee haven't played enough) but I can't really understand McGrath, Starc and Lee.

I'm almost convinced to drop Lee for Lillee but I seem to recall Lee making many handy runs at the end of the innings.

Ahh, stuff it. Lee out, Lillee in.

New list
McGrath
Lillee
Starc

 

[harsh.ag]

Lee's SR is amazing. Esp for the number of games he played.

 

[srbhkshk]

Slightly late but I'm just gonna mention that a combined ATG XI of Indians (East and West ) can have a cracker of a series against Aust XI and will probably come out on top.

 

[a spambot]

McGrath
Lee
Starc

pretty easy.

 

[Red]

Lillee beats Lee by one vote for the third position after Starc and McGrath


Team so far:


A. Gilchrist +
M. Waugh
-
-
-
-
-
-
M. Starc
D. Lillee
G. McGrath

 

[Red]

Next up are batting positions in the middle order (3, 4 and 5):




Ricky Ponting

Greg Chappell

Dean Jones

Steve Smith

Michael Clarke

Damian Martyn

Steve Waugh

Glenn Maxwell

Michael Bevan

George Bailey

Greg Chappell

Mike Hussey

Shane Watson




If players are not selected in these spots they will still be available for 6 and 7.