Playing Selector: let's pick the ODI sides of the two eras (Feature Article planned)

Hoping the thread-title will attract the boss' attention. Would like the seal-of-approval early on.

I'm deeply fascinated by this, myself, and though I've not taken part in the Test version, I'd love to do a Feature Article on it. I'll have some element of veto-style-control over the thing, but I'd like maximum input. This will make it a truly CW feature, not merely the exclusive preserve of one person. What I want is a ODI team chosen by poll of 1970-1989 and 1990-2007.

Up for it, CWers? I'll need some basic help on the 1970-1989 team, though, in that I'll need some nominations (ie, in this thread) for players, not merely selections in the polls.

lets see your sides first richard!

I'll give it a shot when I get a chance.

1970-1989

1. Haynes
2. Greenidge
3. Zaheer Abbas
4. Richards
5. Jones
6. Imran Khan (c)
7. Hadlee
8. Smith (wk)
9. Holding
10. Garner
11. Lillee

Need a spinner? Bring in Abdul Qadir. Need an extra batsman? Bring in Javed Miandad.

1990-present

1. Tendulkar
2. Gilchrist (wk)
3. Ponting
4. Pietersen
5. Lara
6. Hussey
7. Klusener
8. Wasim Akram
9. Waqar Younis
10. Muralitharan
11. McGrath
12th man: Saqlain Mushtaq

1990 to present
Matthew Hayden
Saeed Anwar
Ricky Ponting
SRT
Rahul Dravid
InzamamulHaq
Gilchrist (wk)
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Waqar Younis
Shoaib Akhtar

Bevan itbt.

Eclipse said:

lets see your sides first richard!

Click to expand...

The point is I'm gonna give options, and everyone else is going to select from them.

I'm not planning to work on the "where he batted most is the only position he can bat in" theorem at all, BTW. The best players are available - people who were openers-only will be options as openers, bowlers will be considered equally regardless of whether they bowl seam or spin.

Someone who played in one XI cannot, however, play in the other.

Richard said:

I'm not planning to work on the "where he batted most is the only position he can bat in" theorem at all, BTW. The best players are available - people who were openers-only will be options as openers, bowlers will be considered equally regardless of whether they bowl seam or spin.

Someone who played in one XI cannot, however, play in the other.

Click to expand...

I made this post on the thread that (wisely) got deleted. Richard, I think you should list a selection criteria before getting started. It doesn't have to be as rigid as "he didn't play at number 3 so he can't be selected for that position", but it does need to make some sense. A middle order player should be eligible for the 3 through 6 positions for example, regardless of where they normally batted. However, a player that's never kept shouldn't be an option for WK. Also, don't exclude a player from a certain position just because of your preference. Let the majority decide. Lastly, don't dictate the makeup of the team. Meaning don't make it a rule that 3 seamers + 1 spinner will qualify. Or would there be an all-rounder or not. Once again, let the majority decide.

The criteria on bowlers is simple: there must be 5 bowlers who you would think "I can rely upon him to bowl 10 overs". The batting of these bowlers, naturally, should come into consideration - it makes no sense to pit, for example, Kapil against Imran for the earlier team. Anyone with any sense would have the both of them. Equally, it'd make no sense to exclude Garner because he can't bat. In teams like this, all-rounders are clearly going to be capable of playing as front-line bowlers.

As regards spinners, if a spinner is worth his place ahead of a seamer he should get in. The presumption, I should also make it clear, is that this is for a ODI to be played on a pitch as thus: no real turn for fingerspinners, no real seam-movement so as to try to minimise the odds of being bowled-out in 40 overs, but not so ridiculously easy-paced as to make 300 a near-formality. It's not stupidly fast (WACA-esque) nor stupidly slow. But it is slow enough so as it will reward those who bowl a tight line and a good length, in that they'll be difficult to get away, and it'll allow batsmen who can use their brains and inventiveness (but not encourage over-inventiveness). This, basically, is my ideal ODI pitch.

There is more, I daresay, that needs to be covered. Probably started too soon without thinking about the undertakings.

I'll say this straight off too: I'm clearly going to get the 4-year-old response from pretty much the entire forum if I don't have Tendulkar opening for the later team. So we'll put him straight in at number-one without even bothing to vote for that, and simply have a poll to choose his partner.

Richard said:

There is more, I daresay, that needs to be covered. Probably started too soon without thinking about the undertakings.

Click to expand...

Something that immediately comes to mind, too, is this: a wicketkeeper-batsman will be picked. This must be the man who can combine both jobs best. It makes no sense to pick a batsman to keep who cannot do the job well enough. Equally, it makes no sense to pick the best wicketkeeper you can possibly find who's minutely better with the gloves than someone who can do an excellent job with the bat.

Richard said:

I'll say this straight off too: I'm clearly going to get the 4-year-old response from pretty much the entire forum if I don't have Tendulkar opening for the later team. So we'll put him straight in at number-one without even bothing to vote for that, and simply have a poll to choose his partner.

Click to expand...

FFS Richard, just make an openers poll with Tendulkar included. We were pissed off he wasn't included, that's understandable.

There's no point IMO. You either say he's not going to open or you have him opening being a formality (as if he were to be included in a poll pretty much everyone would vote for him).

It seems no-one will countenance a 1990-2007 team which does not feature him opening, so therefore I'll have to let the rabble bend my will. (YES, THIS LINE WAS IN JEST!!!!!!!!!)

Richard said:

There's no point IMO. You either say he's not going to open or you have him opening being a formality (as if he were to be included in a poll pretty much everyone would vote for him).

It seems no-one will countenance a 1990-2007 team which does not feature him opening, so therefore I'll have to let the rabble bend my will. (YES, THIS LINE WAS IN JEST!!!!!!!!!)

Click to expand...

Just do it, there could be quite a lot of suport for him at #4. If you are going to run one of these then you have to be totally unbiased and basically all you are is the guy who runs it all, you are entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn't in any way come across during the opening post or anything official IMO.

It'd have to be decided by poll, before the openers were picked. It might be an interesting question, actually. Good thinking, chap. The first thing to be decided about the 1990-2007 XI should be not "who should partner Tendulkar at the top of the order?" but "where should Tendulkar bat?"

Perm said:

Just do it, there could be quite a lot of suport for him at #4. If you are going to run one of these then you have to be totally unbiased and basically all you are is the guy who runs it all, you are entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn't in any way come across during the opening post or anything official IMO.

Click to expand...

Yet Richard's personal opinion shapes the whole thing, by dividing it into eras arbitarily decided by him.

vic_orthdox said:

Yet Richard's personal opinion shapes the whole thing, by dividing it into eras arbitarily decided by him.

Click to expand...

That is one point, but I think most people would get over the fact and accept that ODIs are/were vastly different over the two eras. I doubt too many would have a big problem with that, but I do understand what you're saying.

Perm said:

That is one point, but I think most people would get over the fact and accept that ODIs are/were vastly different over the two eras. I doubt too many would have a big problem with that, but I do understand what you're saying.

Click to expand...

We had different eras picked by bagapath and no one seemed to mind.

Anyway, trying to give constructive input: these were the criteria on which players were picked for the Test XIs. Slightly lowered averages (both batting and bowling) and an inclusion of batting strike rate (70+) and economy rate (lower than 4.8), would probably be useful, as well as increasing the minimum games to 40.

Also, maybe only place players in one era, where they played the majority of their careers.

vic_orthdox said:

Yet Richard's personal opinion shapes the whole thing, by dividing it into eras arbitarily decided by him.

Click to expand...

You (and virtually everyone else) surely don't deny, though, that the ODI game in, say, 1998 was totally unrecogniseable for what it was in, say, 1984?

Purely and simply, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You could choose the 1992 WC I suppose, but I prefer the turn of the decade and no-one's come-up with anything telling me to choose something else. If they do, I'm willing to listen to the reasoning.