Best ODI Team

[eth-dog]

fwiw here is my all time XI from all nations:


Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
V.Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers
Symonds
Kapil
Wasim
Garner
Murali
McGrath


Hardest choices are leaving out Dhoni, and leaving out a lot of good early era batsmen.

Honestly I would be tempted to drop Sachin for Hayden or Gilchrist for Ganguly. I personally feel that opening combinations are more important than the individual players.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

That's a strong side. If you're including Wasim Akram,
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/43547.html

then it would be worthwhile to consider Imran Khan.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/40560.html

Either as a replacement for Akram (similar bowling record, but far better batsman) or as a replacement for Garner. If Imran Khan replaced Garner then you would have the luxury of Kapil Dev at 8 and Wasim Akram at 9.

I wouldn't complain too much with either of those changes, but for me Garner is the first ODI bowler picked, was nearly impossible to get away, and him and McGrath opening would mean things were so dry for the openers they'd be forced to take risks. Both highly economical plus the ability to strike.

I'd always have Wasim for a few reasons: left armer, brilliant with the older ball and at the death, and capable of devastating spells while being economical. Bludgeoning lower order bat too, which in this team might be more valuable than Imran in the lower order.

Kapil plays because he's a legit bowler, plus one of the most brutal batsman I've ever seen.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Honestly I would be tempted to drop Sachin for Hayden or Gilchrist for Ganguly. I personally feel that opening combinations are more important than the individual players.

I get your point but I cant drop Sachin who set the standard in top order batsmen, or Gilly who was so brutal (plus being a great all rounder).

If I was to drop anyone to create an opening pair it'd be Sachin but I'd bring Mark Waugh to open with Gilly. Waugh also brings some handy bowling and some elite fielding.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Second XI

M.Waugh
Jayasuriya
Ponting
Jones
Abbas
Dhoni
Klusener
Hadlee
Ambrose
Saqlain
Donald

 

[eth-dog]

I get your point but I cant drop Sachin who set the standard in top order batsmen, or Gilly who was so brutal (plus being a great all rounder).

If I was to drop anyone to create an opening pair it'd be Sachin but I'd bring Mark Waugh to open with Gilly. Waugh also brings some handy bowling and some elite fielding.

Hayden/Gilchrist was statistically the better partnership, by a fair way too. Had sixteen 100+ run stands (compared to 8), twenty-nine 50-100 run stands (compared to 20), 48 as an average partnership (compared to 41) and had 5372 partnership runs (compared to 3853). Then there's the fact that Hayden averages 4 more than Waugh in ODI cricket. But that's just me.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Hayden/Gilchrist was statistically the better partnership, by a fair way too. Had sixteen 100+ run stands (compared to 8), twenty-nine 50-100 run stands (compared to 20), 48 as an average partnership (compared to 41) and had 5372 partnership runs (compared to 3853). Then there's the fact that Hayden averages 4 more than Waugh in ODI cricket. But that's just me.

Fair enough. Not going to argue that Hayden wasn't great. I'd prefer Waugh as a full package cricketer, but your choice is a fine one too.

I'd still stick with my original pairing of Tendulkar/Gilly anyhow!

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Amazing that we really have lacked a genuine all-rounder

Also - there is only one spot for Bevan or Hussey IMO - for me it goes to Hussey for two reasons.

1. He was good at timing and accelerating his innings when batting first
2. He succeeded higher up the order and wasn't so precious about his average and was happy to sacrifice himself to clear the pickets.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

fwiw here is my all time XI from all nations:


Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
V.Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers
Symonds
Kapil
Wasim
Garner
Murali
McGrath


Hardest choices are leaving out Dhoni, and leaving out a lot of good early era batsmen.

Genuine question - why is Symonds anywhere near that team?

At the very least you have 5 brilliant bowlers already.

 

[eth-dog]

Amazing that we really have lacked a genuine all-rounder

Also - there is only one spot for Bevan or Hussey IMO - for me it goes to Hussey for two reasons.

1. He was good at timing and accelerating his innings when batting first
2. He succeeded higher up the order and wasn't so precious about his average and was happy to sacrifice himself to clear the pickets.

Shane Watson averaging 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball, Symonds 40 with the bat and 37 with the ball. They're not genuine all-rounders in this format?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Shane Watson averaging 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball, Symonds 40 with the bat and 37 with the ball. They're not genuine all-rounders in this format?

Watson would be - Symonds, was more handy then regularly damaging (with ball)

If building a side I'd probably have neither. Mainly because Watto's best work was done at the top of the order, and he's not going to supplant any of Gilly, Hayden, Ponting or Waugh - and Symo's overs are as mentioned Handy - and not "best of all time" type.

 

[eth-dog]

Watson would be - Symonds, was more handy then regularly damaging (with ball)

If building a side I'd probably have neither. Mainly because Watto's best work was done at the top of the order, and he's not going to supplant any of Gilly, Hayden, Ponting or Waugh - and Symo's overs are as mentioned Handy - and not "best of all time" type.

Watson had 23 games batting at 7 and averaged 40 while there, so I can justify his place in the side there. I'd also justify Symonds in the side as he averaged 44 batting at 5. Both are automatic starters as far as I'm concerned.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Watson had 23 games batting at 7 and averaged 40 while there, so I can justify his place in the side there. I'd also justify Symonds in the side as he averaged 44 batting at 5. Both are automatic starters as far as I'm concerned.

You think Symo is in the top 5 batsman in our ODI history?

Better than - amongst others Hussey, Ponting, Bevan, Hayden, Waugh, Ponting, Jones, Chappell ?

If he isn't - then I am not picking both of Watson and Symonds. I am in the camp that I'd rather have 5 guys that can bowl, rather than 4 plus a few cobbled together.

 

[eth-dog]

You think Symo is in the top 5 batsman in our ODI history?

Better than - amongst others Hussey, Ponting, Bevan, Hayden, Waugh, Ponting, Jones, Chappell ?

If he isn't - then I am not picking both of Watson and Symonds. I am in the camp that I'd rather have 5 guys that can bowl, rather than 4 plus a few cobbled together.

Hayden, Ponting, Waugh and Chappell basically played exclusively top 3 so they shouldn't even be in the conversation with Symonds' position. I rate him at least on par as a middle order bat with Bevan and Jones, although Hussey I rate higher. When you add in Roy's fielding and bowling, definitely ahead.

 

[Scotland]

1. Gilchrist
2. M Waugh
3. Ponting (C)
4. Jones
5. Clarke
6. Bevan

7. Watson
8. S Waugh

9. Lee
10. Warne
11. McGrath

If Gilchrist/M Waugh/Ponting aren't your top 3 you're doing it wrong. Lee, Warne, McGrath see Gilchrist/M Waugh/Ponting.

Filling in the 5 spots in the middle is tough. My memories of Deano and AB have faded since both finished up when I was 10. Never saw Greg Chappell, Lillee etc. so not considering them for my team.

Surprised to see a lack of love for Clarke. Nearly 8,000 runs @ 44. WC winning captain, great fielder. Also surprised to see a lack of love for Steve Waugh. 5th highest run scorer, 6th highest wicket taker. Was a genuine all rounder for the first decade or so of his ODI career. Not a big late hitter like Faulkner or Hussey as you see now coming in late but a fine cricketer in his era. Irks me to include Watson and not Hussey (who I think would've been a superior batsman if he wasn't held out of the top 4 by Gilchrist, Ponting etc.), but the side needs bowling options. Have opted for two all rounders at 7 and 8. For a fourth bowler it's a toss up between Johnson and Bracken but I'd be tempted to open with Bracken and Lee and use McGrath at first change.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

1. Gilchrist
2. M Waugh
3. Ponting (C)
4. Jones
5. Clarke
6. Bevan

7. Watson
8. S Waugh

9. Lee
10. Warne
11. McGrath

A best ever XI for Australia with just 2 front line seamers just seems wrong.

 

[eth-dog]

I don't understand how choosing Hayden as Gilchrist's partner can be seen as incorrect. They are the greatest opening partnership in ODI history, let alone Australia's.

 

[Scotland]

I don't understand how choosing Hayden as Gilchrist's partner can be seen as incorrect. They are the greatest opening partnership in ODI history, let alone Australia's.

Because Mark Waugh is awesome. Played more matches than Hayden, scored more runs than Hayden, made more 100s and 50s than Hayden and had a comparable strike rate despite playing most of his matches in the 1990s.

 

[mugiwara]

I don't understand how choosing Hayden as Gilchrist's partner can be seen as incorrect. They are the greatest opening partnership in ODI history, let alone Australia's.

They are one of the greatest. I would say Ganguly-Sachin are good competitors for that.

 

[eth-dog]

Because Mark Waugh is awesome. Played more matches than Hayden, scored more runs than Hayden, made more 100s and 50s than Hayden and had a comparable strike rate despite playing most of his matches in the 1990s.

Hayden averaged more, had a higher strike rate (although it was comparable), had a higher 50+ score per innings than Waugh, and most importantly had a better combination with Gilchrist than Waugh.

They are one of the greatest. I would say Ganguly-Sachin are good competitors for that.

Yep, I'd agree.

 

[Scotland]

A best ever XI for Australia with just 2 front line seamers just seems wrong.

The alternative is to drop one of Waugh/Watson and play another quick.

Unlike the test side which is usually fairly well set the balance of the ODI side changes a lot. I'd be happy to go with 3 quicks + Warne but the selectors (partly by virtue of not having Lee, Warne, McGrath etc. available) tend to pick sides that bat deep. I rate Faulkner but I wouldn't say he's the 4th best bowler in the country and he is regularly our 4th pace option or even 3rd if we load up on spin.

 

[Scotland]

Hayden averaged more, had a higher strike rate (although it was comparable), had a higher 50+ score per innings than Waugh, and most importantly had a better combination with Gilchrist than Waugh.

Waugh played 141 ODIs as an opener, Hayden 147.

5,729 @ 44 vs 5,892 @ 44.3. Pretty close, and Waugh played in an era where teams made 220 and thought it was a good score. On top of that Waugh played another 100 ODIs at 3/4/5. Hayden played about 5.

Hayden spent a higher percentage of his career opening with Gilchrist. He didn't shoulder the responsibility of being the attacking opener while Mark Taylor nerdled around singles.

I get that people see Hayden better on paper but I'd pick Waugh over him any day of the week.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Genuine question - why is Symonds anywhere near that team?

At the very least you have 5 brilliant bowlers already.

Few reasons:

- Best batsman I've seen to come in the last ten overs and accelerate things. Perfect at #6 IMO
- Handy 6th bowler. Agree you need 5 legit bowlers, but having a 6th can be handy
- IMO he is the best inner ring fielder I've seen. So powerful and agile, and a brilliant throw

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Few reasons:

- Best batsman I've seen to come in the last ten overs and accelerate things. Perfect at #6 IMO
- Handy 6th bowler. Agree you need 5 legit bowlers, but having a 6th can be handy
- IMO he is the best inner ring fielder I've seen. So powerful and agile, and a brilliant throw

His versatility in being able to bowl mediums and offies was invaluable too.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Shane Watson averaging 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball, Symonds 40 with the bat and 37 with the ball. They're not genuine all-rounders in this format?

I wouldn't say they aren't genuine all rounders. Symonds usually bowled 5-10 overs in an ODI, so AFAIC that's a genuine all rounder. And he and Watto both had an ER of about 5, which is what you'd want from your 5th bowler.

 

[eth-dog]

I wouldn't say they aren't genuine all rounders. Symonds usually bowled 5-10 overs in an ODI, so AFAIC that's a genuine all rounder. And he and Watto both had an ER of about 5, which is what you'd want from your 5th bowler.

Exactly. If you put those two plus Hussey splitting them in the lower middle order, you know you have a trio that'd destroy most oppositions towards the back end of the innings.