Sachin Tendulkar for the 1990-2007 ODI XI

[Sanz]

That's the joke. Pretty obvious to me that you are only kicking up a fuss because Richard is the one conducting the polls. Poor form.

 

[aussie tragic]

I'm thinking he shouldn't be in the side as the following is my top 7:

1. Gilchrist
2. M. Waugh
3. Ponting
4. Lara
5. Jones
6. Hussey
7. Bevan

umm..maybe a bit of Aussie bias creeping in, so he could possibly replace Deano who should also get into the earlier era team.....now that's worthy of a Poll, which era should Dean Jones be selected in as the era's you selected have split his career exactly down the middle

Pre-1990: 84 matches, 3044 runs @ 45.43
Post-1990: 80 matches, 3024 runs @ 43.82


btw, voted Tendulkar should open

 

[silentstriker]

I'm thinking he shouldn't be in the side as the following is my top 7:

1. Gilchrist
2. M. Waugh
3. Ponting
4. Lara
5. Jones
6. Hussey
7. Bevan

umm..maybe a bit of Aussie bias creeping in, so he could possibly replace Deano who should also get into the earlier era team.....now that's worthy of a Poll, which era should Dean Jones be selected in as the era's you selected have split his career exactly down the middle

Pre-1990: 84 matches, 3044 runs @ 45.43
Post-1990: 80 matches, 3024 runs @ 43.82


btw, voted Tendulkar should open

Interesting, in ODIs I would clearly rate Tendulkar better than Lara, Jones and Hussey (already he's in there?). And better than Waugh at the top. I am surprised you don't think so.

 

[open365]

Imo i think any 1990-2007 ODI side that doesn't include Tendulkar care is picked more on favouritism than acctual performance, He is almost undeniably one of the 3 greatest ODI batsmen ever.

 

[aussie tragic]

Interesting, in ODIs I would clearly rate Tendulkar better than Lara, Jones and Hussey (already he's in there?). And better than Waugh at the top. I am surprised you don't think so.

Well, I did write at the bottom that I voted Tendulkar as opener I was mainly trying to show that maybe it is possible that he be left out of some people's teams, albeit only with extreme bias as I did name 6 Aussies in the top 7.....add Warne & McGrath and that would be 8 Aussies in the XI

....Oh yeah, Dean Jones has the 5th highest ODI ICC ranking ever and he changed the way the game was played with his quick running and scoring, and you can't argue against his consistancy given the break-down of his career that I made in the post above. Also, Lara in the middle order is > Tendulkar in the middle order for mine, as for Hussey, you may have a point.

 

[Ikki]

Hmm...how about placing arguably the greatest ODI player in his favourite position? I hope that's okay with some of you guys .

 

[Richard]

The fact that it's his favourite position shouldn't automatically say that he bats there - it's what makes the strongest side.

However, with a World XI when there's many outstanding middle-order players available, it's not at all unreasonable to put him there really.

 

[Richard]

now that's worthy of a Poll, which era should Dean Jones be selected in as the era's you selected have split his career exactly down the middle

Pre-1990: 84 matches, 3044 runs @ 45.43
Post-1990: 80 matches, 3024 runs @ 43.82

I'm having Deano in the earlier team, for reasons which would probably be best stated in the main thread (and therefore will be).

Also (though this doesn't come into why he goes where he does) he was the man above all others that turned the earlier era into the later one. OK, someone else would probably have done it if he hadn't, but he was streets ahead of virtually everyone (only Richards was better in the 1971-1989 period IMO) and therefore

 

[Richard]

And if all of a sudden a bunch of people voted for Sachin not to be in the team, do you think it would be right to ignore those opinions, just because you dont agree with them?

The fact that that is inestimatably unlikely suggests that it'd not be unreasonable to do so.

I'll be having a joke-third option in any poll which is a two-option one. And it'll be very obvious when someone's voted for the joke option as a joke, as it is that As (Turb) has here.

It's very obvious that he's not of the opinion that Tendulkar shouldn't be in the side, as several (including myself once before) have said. Because he's the most patriotic Indian fan on the forums, really.

If it'd been me voting for the joke-option I'd forgive people for being less sure.

 

[Richard]

Richard at the end of this are you going to make it into a debate as to who would win in the match?

Knowing Richard, I'd give that a definite "NO!!" answer.

And yes, Robert is right. The whole point of having two teams is that the two eras are so different as to make combination impossible. You can't really change the fact that the two sides we'll end-up with played a different game to the other. Quite unlike, for instance, an all-time Pakistan XI vs an all-time West Indies XI.

And if you can't combine the two eras, you can't really play a game that involves both playing the game they played.

 

[Ikki]

The fact that it's his favourite position shouldn't automatically say that he bats there - it's what makes the strongest side.

However, with a World XI when there's many outstanding middle-order players available, it's not at all unreasonable to put him there really.

Well, as you said, we ARE talking about an all-time ODI XI here. He could be batted in other positions and we'd still have cover. The same could go for Bradman in an all-time ODI XI. Still, I think you play your best player in their most deadly spot.

For me, this akin to playing Gerrard as defensive-midfielder in the English national team (football/soccer) .

 

[Matt79]

And yes, Robert is right. The whole point of having two teams is that the two eras are so different as to make combination impossible. You can't really change the fact that the two sides we'll end-up with played a different game to the other. Quite unlike, for instance, an all-time Pakistan XI vs an all-time West Indies XI.

And if you can't combine the two eras, you can't really play a game that involves both playing the game they played.

You can - but you just have to speculate how the earlier era team would go if you showed them a dvd of all the Aussies' games at this years world cup to study and then gave them a couple of years to learn the newer style of play, and only then held the big match.

Viv, Deano, Imran, Kapil etc, are all good enough players that they could do very well in the modern game with a (probably surprisingly small) bit of practice. Or are you seriously saying that Viv would be incapable of learning to do what Ian Bell does a reasonable job of doing?

 

[Richard]

Thing is, it's not just Viv. He (and Deano too in the short game IMO) was out-of-the-ordinary - most of the rest were just unordinarily good.

I don't think the former group could play as the latter lot did unless they'd been brought-up into it, and the only reason the latter lot play like that is because they were.

Speculating on how the former lot might have played had they played at the latter time is pretty fruitless IMO, and not something I'm remotely interested in. If someone else fancied it, obviously, that'd be their choice, but as I say - not for me.

 

[adharcric]

How long will this poll run?

 

[Richard]

2 week poll, but we can now consider the result as decided. Will post the next one sometime soon.

 

[Fusion]

2 week poll, but we can now consider the result as decided. Will post the next one sometime soon.

IMHO, 2 week polls are too long. I think you should only run week-long polls.

 

[Richard]

OK, will do from now on.

 

[Fusion]

OK, will do from now on.