CW'S 50 Best ODI Cricketers of all time (voting now open)

[weldone]

My All-Time ODI World XI:
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards*
Zaheer Abbas
Javed Miandad
Mahendra Dhoni+
Kapil Dev
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Muttiah Muralitharan

My All-Time 2nd ODI World XI:
Sanath Jayasuriya
Adam Gilchrist+
Dean Jones
Ricky Ponting*
Michael Bevan
Michael Hussey
Lance Klusener
Joel Garner
Saqlain Mushtaq
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

3 ODI Players I Adore the Most among the Rest:
Shane Warne
Desmond Haynes
Shane Bond

These 2 teams might change drastically on another day depending on my mood. But these are the teams that were on my mind when I forwarded my list to NUFAN. Of course, I had a pecking order for the first 11, and a pecking order for the next 11 in mind. I hope NUFAN doesn't mind this disclosure

 

[Mike5181]

My All-Time ODI World XI:
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards*
Zaheer Abbas
Javed Miandad
Mahendra Dhoni+
Kapil Dev
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Muttiah Muralitharan

My All-Time 2nd ODI World XI:
Sanath Jayasuriya
Adam Gilchrist+
Dean Jones
Ricky Ponting*
Michael Bevan
Michael Hussey
Lance Klusener
Joel Garner
Saqlain Mushtaq
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

3 ODI Players I Adore the Most among the Rest:
Shane Warne
Desmond Haynes
Shane Bond

These 2 teams might change drastically on another day depending on my mood. But these are the teams that were on my mind when I forwarded my list to NUFAN. Of course, I had a pecking order for the first 11, and a pecking order for the next 11 in mind. I hope NUFAN doesn't mind this disclosure

Would be something special to watch those two teams play each other.

 

[Burgey]

My All-Time ODI World XI:
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards*
Zaheer Abbas
Javed Miandad
Mahendra Dhoni+
Kapil Dev
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Muttiah Muralitharan

My All-Time 2nd ODI World XI:
Sanath Jayasuriya
Adam Gilchrist+
Dean Jones
Ricky Ponting*
Michael Bevan
Michael Hussey
Lance Klusener
Joel Garner
Saqlain Mushtaq
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

3 ODI Players I Adore the Most among the Rest:
Shane Warne
Desmond Haynes
Shane Bond

These 2 teams might change drastically on another day depending on my mood. But these are the teams that were on my mind when I forwarded my list to NUFAN. Of course, I had a pecking order for the first 11, and a pecking order for the next 11 in mind. I hope NUFAN doesn't mind this disclosure

Australia once again plainly lucky to have won 4 WCs, three of them in a row....

 

[benchmark00]

There's plenty wrong with that XI, but Dhoni over Gilchrist is the most mind boggling.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's plenty wrong with that XI, but Dhoni over Gilchrist is the most mind boggling.

Especially since he had to bat a middle order bat out of position to do it. And yes I know Lara has a good average opening; he didn't do it nearly enough to pick him there though IMO.

 

[weldone]

Australia once again plainly lucky to have won 4 WCs, three of them in a row....

My All-Time 2nd ODI World XI:
Sanath Jayasuriya
Adam Gilchrist+
Dean Jones
Ricky Ponting*
Michael Bevan
Michael Hussey
Lance Klusener
Joel Garner
Saqlain Mushtaq
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath

 

[weldone]

Especially since he had to bat a middle order bat out of position to do it. And yes I know Lara has a good average opening; he didn't do it nearly enough to pick him there though IMO.

Nah, Dhoni is as good as any of the remaining middle-order batsmen. There are many who opine that Gilchrist is as good as any opener bar Tendulkar, the fact that he also kept wickets puts him in front. But I don't understand why a similar theory can't work in a Dhoni vs Bevan or a Dhoni vs Hussey discussion.

And Lara was the best top order batsman (even better than Tendulkar) for quite a period. Picking him over Haynes, Jayasuriya, Gilchrist etc to open the innings with Tendulkar is hardly a crime...more so because I already have 5 top-class bowlers and a wicketkeeper in my team.

 

[weldone]

7 Aussies, 5 West Indians, 4 Pakistanis, 3 Indians, 2 Kiwis, 2 Saffies and 2 SriLankans in my top 25.

 

[NUFAN]

Who is exactly is Harry Blogger? You've sent me a list 3 days apart, do you want to scratch the first list and keep the second or what exactly? It's just that they seem quite different..

Apart from that, everything is up to date now, looking forward to receiving top 25's especially from the people disagreeing with weldone's teams.

Refer to post 168 or 192 to see a list of the 100 qualified players - cwnufan@gmail.com

 

[weldone]

An ODI XI is so much about balance. My XI bats deep. I have Wasim Akram batting at no. 10. And I have 5 quality specialist bowlers in Wasim, Hadlee, Pollock, Muralitharan and Kapil...The fact that I have my XI that way doesn't mean that I consider Pollock a better bowler than Garner, or Kapil a better batsman than Klusener...It's about balance. I believe 5 quality bowlers and batting deep down the order is a must in an all-time ODI side. My wiews are not the same in case of test cricket (for obvious reasons).

 

[Howe_zat]

An ODI XI is so much about balance. My XI bats deep. I have Wasim Akram batting at no. 10. And I have 5 quality specialist bowlers in Wasim, Hadlee, Pollock, Muralitharan and Kapil...The fact that I have my XI that way doesn't mean that I consider Pollock a better bowler than Garner, or Kapil a better batsman than Klusener...It's about balance. I believe 5 quality bowlers and batting deep down the order is a must in an all-time ODI side. My wiews are not the same in case of test cricket (for obvious reasons).

An ODI team is much less about balance than a Test side. In a Test team, having Akram come in at #10 would be a massive advantage, because a no.10 almost always has to bat eventually and so lower-order runs are always valuable.

In your team's ODIs Wasim would hardly ever have to bat and would almost never get more than an over or two, in which his all round ability would not come in much more useful than the average bowler. If he was required to play a proper innings from #10, then the top order has already failed.

In an ODI XI, much more important is having an organised unit with top plans and partnerships, and the ability to adjust to those as the game goes on. I'm not saying your side doesn't have that, of course - I would be hard pressed to find a fault in that epic lineup - but I think that's the key for an ODI side rather than giving it more bowling options and batting depth.

 

[Teja.]

Personally, I don't see what's so bad about having Dhoni keep instead of Gilchirst.

However, I'd have Mark Waugh open and not Lara, because Lara barely opened and doesn't warrant a spot, Having Dhoni at 6 basically fills 3 roles, keeper, late order hitter, finisher. There might be batsmen who are slightly better at one of those roles but rarely one who fulfills all three while being extremely effective too.

Personally I'd want all my 5 ODI bowlers to be ATGs with the ball and upto No.9, decent with the bat as well.(Pollock, Akram, Warne, Garner, McG) I'd rather not have a few players like Klusener/Dev who are very good at both bowling/batting but not exceptional at one.

 

[jaideep]

Sent.

 

[centurymaker]

I've finally managed to get the list down to 25 players. phew
Time to rank them .......... oh no this might take even longer.

 

[NUFAN]

Sent.

Great, I've just received the email from you, thank you!

I've finally managed to get the list down to 25 players. phew
Time to rank them .......... oh no this might take even longer.

LOL, good luck with ranking them, it's definitely a hard task. Look forward to seeing who you've ended up selecting.

 

[kingpin]

No one nominated Kohli and Raina?

 

[weldone]

An ODI team is much less about balance than a Test side. In a Test team, having Akram come in at #10 would be a massive advantage, because a no.10 almost always has to bat eventually and so lower-order runs are always valuable.

In your team's ODIs Wasim would hardly ever have to bat and would almost never get more than an over or two, in which his all round ability would not come in much more useful than the average bowler. If he was required to play a proper innings from #10, then the top order has already failed.

In an ODI XI, much more important is having an organised unit with top plans and partnerships, and the ability to adjust to those as the game goes on. I'm not saying your side doesn't have that, of course - I would be hard pressed to find a fault in that epic lineup - but I think that's the key for an ODI side rather than giving it more bowling options and batting depth.

5 high quality bowlers is a must in an all-time ODI side (simply because a bowler can bowl upto a maximum of 10 overs)...that's not the case in test match, seldom you see in a test match a 5th bowler bowling as much as your best bowler, if at all.

About Akram batting at no. 10, I don't make an all-time side to play against a Zimbabwe side captained by Tatenda Taibu. I make an all-time side with a top class opponent in mind (say an all-time Jupiter XI ). That's the primary reason I prefer specialist batsmen in test matches. But since I need 5 specialist bowlers in an all-time ODI XI, I guess it is very helpful if at least some of them can hold a bat. An all-specialist Test XI would mean 7 specialist batsmen (1 of them being a keeper) and 4 specialist bowlers. But since an all-time ODI side will need 5 specialist bowlers, it's better to have more than 6 people who can hold a bat.

 

[weldone]

Personally, I don't see what's so bad about having Dhoni keep instead of Gilchirst.

However, I'd have Mark Waugh open and not Lara, because Lara barely opened and doesn't warrant a spot, Having Dhoni at 6 basically fills 3 roles, keeper, late order hitter, finisher. There might be batsmen who are slightly better at one of those roles but rarely one who fulfills all three while being extremely effective too.

Personally I'd want all my 5 ODI bowlers to be ATGs with the ball and upto No.9, decent with the bat as well.(Pollock, Akram, Warne, Garner, McG) I'd rather not have a few players like Klusener/Dev who are very good at both bowling/batting but not exceptional at one.

Cheers. It's good for a forum to have people with differing opinions. And your team is great, too.

Mark Waugh (opening - 5729 runs @ 44.07) was a great opener, and certainly Lara (opening - 2166 runs @ 46.09) didn't open in ODIs as much as he should have. Apparently he moved lower down the order to 'sacrifice' for his team. However, I never understood what West Indies team got from this 'sacrifice', and why Lara opening the batting wouldn't have made them a more successful team than they were for quite a few years. Mark Waugh is definitely a good choice there, but saying that 'Lara doesn't warrant a place' doesn't sound right. He has a strong case, as strong as Waugh...more so because he was quite clearly the best ODI batsman in the world (something Mark Waugh never was, for a substantial period of time) for the whole period he opened the batting.

Your pace bowling lineup is quite great. I don't have anything to say against it...

 

[centurymaker]

LOL, good luck with ranking them, it's definitely a hard task. Look forward to seeing who you've ended up selecting.

Sent

 

[Howe_zat]

5 high quality bowlers is a must in an all-time ODI side (simply because a bowler can bowl upto a maximum of 10 overs)...that's not the case in test match, seldom you see in a test match a 5th bowler bowling as much as your best bowler, if at all.

About Akram batting at no. 10, I don't make an all-time side to play against a Zimbabwe side captained by Tatenda Taibu. I make an all-time side with a top class opponent in mind (say an all-time Jupiter XI ). That's the primary reason I prefer specialist batsmen in test matches. But since I need 5 specialist bowlers in an all-time ODI XI, I guess it is very helpful if at least some of them can hold a bat. An all-specialist Test XI would mean 7 specialist batsmen (1 of them being a keeper) and 4 specialist bowlers. But since an all-time ODI side will need 5 specialist bowlers, it's better to have more than 6 people who can hold a bat.

I agree that 5 quality bowlers is a must in ODIs and will always advocate playing up the bowling. My point was that players down at 9, 10 and 11 will almost never get to bat much of an innings and if they have to, then the top order has failed.

Look at Stuart Broad for England - he is a top Test #8 but often bats at #10 ODIs, and has only once I can think of played a very good ODI innings.

What makes this worse is that when the top order fails in an ODI they almost always do it taking too much time out of the game. So by the time your no.10 comes into bat it might be basically impossible for him to turn it around, in which case all the lower-order skill in the world won't help. It's not like in a Test match where the tailenders could stop, regroup and try and block out the bowler who's done the damage before pushing on.

So while I can see your point (and besides, you may feel Dev, Pollock, Hadlee and Akram are your best quicks regardless), I still feel batting at no.9 - 11 is almost irrelevant in an ODI, and the only real skill is being able to stick there for a few balls while the remaining finisher or all-rounder gets you there.

I'm just saying that maybe if the 180kph quicks of the Jupiter XI have ripped through a top order of Tendulkar, Lara, Richards et al then Akram isn't going to be able to do much to turn it round for you.