trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sure, maybe but De Villiers is way ahead based on their careers so far and you'd have to drop Bevan to fit both in which would be ridiculous too.Absolutely. You can just pick both.
Sure, maybe but De Villiers is way ahead based on their careers so far and you'd have to drop Bevan to fit both in which would be ridiculous too.Absolutely. You can just pick both.
I agree re: de Villiers.Sure, maybe but De Villiers is way ahead based on their careers so far and you'd have to drop Bevan to fit both in which would be ridiculous too.
Australia were a team filled with great batsmen and they still needed Bevan to save them plenty of times tbf. Ultimate safety net.I agree re: de Villiers.
Buttler vs Bevan is trickier because they played so differently. I don't think it'd be crazy to say that Bevan was a better player but a worse pick for a ATG side where you can afford to load up on high SR players due to the batting depth.
I placed Klusener at 8 because that's where he came to his own in 1999 wc just behind pollock, well that also depends upon what.Great team. I would switch Pollock and Klusener and put Ponting for Dean Jones. However, not having a spinner is still a big gamble. I think even Pollock, McGrath and Garner would be a super tight combo. Still, missing a reverse swinger though.
23.55 = 23.623.6 is not much different from 25. Mendis has the best SR, best wicket taker among spinners. The real deals are sub 21 averages
Aravinda is an ATG ODI batsmanSanga averages 43, 45, 47 , 40 and 39 against Australia, SA, England, NZ and India. The only team he truly sucked against was the WI. Pakistan was 35.
He averages higher away than at home, including 46 in Australia and 48 in England.
So how is he a minnow basher?
Desilva did great against Australia, 48. But didn't average more than 40 against anyone else. He averages 44 at home, 32 away and sucked in all SENA countries.
Again, you want to still say DeSilva is better, fine. But stop treating the guy like he is beyond Sanga's class.
MSD is much better tbh.He can be picked as a wicketkeeper bat because the other options for an Asia Xi aren't good,
Man.. @sledger is not even the best sledger now?He was a useful keeper and sledger
He averages significantly better than all of them. If they are better, they it can only be a close thing.
Klusenar was insanely reliable in the late overs. It came as a bit of a surprise when he failed, which is saying something, cos the most typical innings for every bat ever is a failure. His overall stats, as good as they are for his era are made to look a lot worse than they are by the fact that he played a bunch up the order, from opening down. His lower order stuff is just leagues better than anyone else.That's one tournament. Yet you're against De Silva. I don't think the gap between their batting is anywhere as big as the state suggest and Kapil was a far better bowler.
1988-1997, for a 10 year period Desilva was the top scoring batsman in the worldDont really care how you rate Sanga but stop overrating Desilva and acknowledge that with his record he doesnt belong in the final XI.
Klusener better batsman. Kapil better bowler. Depends on the combinations IMO. If you play two ATGs in Donald and Pollock and then have your batting all rounder who has similar pace, Klusener's fast mediums as fourth or fifth seamer is good enough.Klusenar was insanely reliable in the late overs. It came as a bit of a surprise when he failed, which is saying something, cos the most typical innings for every bat ever is a failure. His overall stats, as good as they are for his era are made to look a lot worse than they are by the fact that he played a bunch up the order, from opening down. His lower order stuff is just leagues better than anyone else.
![]()
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
stats.espncricinfo.com
Rice was far better in both batting and bowling.Rice would be like Hardik.
He had very low WPM in FC and ok WPM in List A. All rounders always suffer a massive downgrade in their secondary discipline and a minor one in their primary discipline when they go from FC to tests. Hadlee averaged 37 and sub 20 in CC. See also: Keith Miller and literally every other all rounder.Rice was far better in both batting and bowling.
Pretty good but my longevity contention is still there. He just didn't play enough IMO.Klusenar was insanely reliable in the late overs. It came as a bit of a surprise when he failed, which is saying something, cos the most typical innings for every bat ever is a failure. His overall stats, as good as they are for his era are made to look a lot worse than they are by the fact that he played a bunch up the order, from opening down. His lower order stuff is just leagues better than anyone else.
![]()
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
stats.espncricinfo.com
I am pretty sure Ranatunga averaged 35+ and had a SR of 75+ in that era. Criminally underrated ODI batsman.1988-1997, for a 10 year period Desilva was the top scoring batsman in the world
Batting avg 39.5, strike rate 85
Among top 50 scorers, Only 8 other batsmen averaged better than him.. None had better SR (Only Lara and Anwar managed a SR above 75.)
Statistically Desilva was arguably greatest batsman in the world for a decade.
Sangas peak Last 5 years
53 at 85.
Dhoni, 54 at 91, Kohli 51 at 91, AB 69 at 110, Amla 54 at 88
They all were ATGs or ATVGs.. One or 2 league above the likes of Sanga and Dravid.I am pretty sure Ranatunga averaged 35+ and had a SR of 75+ in that era. Criminally underrated ODI batsman.
Aravinda, Anwar, Azhar, Malik and Crowe are very similar players. They are flawed geniuses. Not the perfect batsman, but when they fire, they fire spectacularly.
Rice stats in List A is identical to that of Sobers.He had very low WPM in FC and ok WPM in List A. All rounders always suffer a massive downgrade in their secondary discipline and a minor one in their primary discipline when they go from FC to tests. Hadlee averaged 37 and sub 20 in CC. See also: Keith Miller and literally every other all rounder.
Thats a different argument to not being much better. He's a massively superior bat (and especially so in.the lower order).Pretty good but my longevity contention is still there. He just didn't play enough IMO.