ODI All Time XI

[Red]

but it is interesting to note that all the openers have a higher SR because they get to play when the ball is new and hard and shot making is easy

Dhoni has a SR of 89 coming down the order. That is just phenomenal

Agree absolutely. And if it weren't for Gilly, Dhoni would be my pick for sure.

And even WITH Gilly in my team, Dhoni would be close on batting alone.

I just can't go past how destructive Gilchrist was. No one has hit the ball cleaner and further and harder than him, ever (well, maybe Viv...)

 

[Dazinho]

Agree absolutely. And if it weren't for Gilly, Dhoni would be my pick for sure.

And even WITH Gilly in my team, Dhoni would be close on batting alone.

I just can't go past how destructive Gilchrist was. No one has hit the ball cleaner and further and harder than him, ever (well, maybe Viv...)

It's often asked how far Viv would be able to strike the ball now with a modern bat, and if he could score more sixes against the boundaries that are generally shorter.

He was the ultimate ODI power-player long before the term had been invented.

It's worth considering whether you want two power openers or one who is able to drop anchor and stay in for most of the innings. Gilchrist as the keeper/opener has to be one of them, agreed on that.

Tendulkar and Richards blend quite nicely with each other at 3 and 4.

I'm going for Martin Crowe at 5 and Michael Bevan at 6, both capable of really accelerating the scoring. Bevan can contribute with the ball as well in the event of an injury.

Imran Khan at 7 and Richard Hadlee at 8.

Specialist bowlers - Warne, Ambrose, McGrath.

 

[Debris]

The difference in SR b/w Dhoni and Gilchrist is small while the difference in average is huge.

Dhoni easily the better ODI batsman. I really don't understand how Gilchrist has Dhoni covered in the batting dept?

The difference is when they score those runs. A high strike-rate is much more valuable at the start of an innings than at the end. And we are comparing players from two different eras here. No batting powerplay when Gilchrist was around.

The other reason to pick Gilchrist is that he is a much better wicketkeeper. I know it is not valued very highly in ODIs but...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I think Dhoni is a better ODI batsman than Gilly. Much better average and he is a finisher who has won India so many games.

 

[BackFootPunch]

The difference is when they score those runs. A high strike-rate is much more valuable at the start of an innings than at the end. And we are comparing players from two different eras here. No batting powerplay when Gilchrist was around.

The other reason to pick Gilchrist is that he is a much better wicketkeeper. I know it is not valued very highly in ODIs but...

Yeah awta. You might need Dhoni to score 60 off 35 to win a game once every 10 matches but Gilchrist going hard at the top will always be wanted - hence the lower average.

 

[Migara]

Gilchrist has Jayasuriya covered in the batting stakes completely.

Not necessarily. Jaya averages 35 as a opener and has a SR around 90 too, playing from an earlier era than Gilchrist. I'd say 25% better, it's not Gilly is class ahead of Jayasuriya as a batsman.

And Gilchrist has Dhoni covered as a batsman too. Dhoni has a higher average, but Gilly opened and had a much higher strike rate.

Nah, relative SRs are almost equal for them, and their average takes Dhoni to a different level. However with gloves, I'll take Gilly.

Opposing captains would MUCH prefer to see Dhoni listed at #5 than to see Gilchrist walking out for the first over, knowing the opposition could quite easily be 0/100 after 8 overs.

Wrong once more. I'll know that Gilly has a chance to get out early (or take bowlers to cleaners), but with Dhoni. it's relentless accumulation followed by brutal hitting, with minimized risk. I am wary of the latter type of batsmen, because they don't give you a chance at all.

An all time ODI team should have Gilchrist in the first 3 picked, as an all-rounder.

I don't necessarity disagree with this. If MSD was non-existent, Gilly would walk in to everybody's all time ODI XI.

 

[Dan]

The thing with Gilchrist is that he plays in a role with lesser competition. You look at the opening batsmen he is competing against (assuming Tendulkar is already selected):

Jayasuriya, Hayden, Watson, Mark Waugh .etc

Gilchrist lets you get the wicketkeeping role out of the way, whilst being an ATG ODI opening batsman.

Dhoni, in the middle order, should be compared to the likes of Bevan, Hussey and Kluesner in terms of a finishing role. 6 & 7 are the slots for that role - Bevan has one locked in - he's the best ever - and if you want to pick a side with 5 specialist bowlers, Kluenser has to take 7.

Dhoni is an ATG finisher, no doubt, but Bevan pioneered it and thus deserves a place, and Kluesner lets you have a much stronger bowling attack. Same thing would apply if it were Imran or Kapil at 7.

Australia were highly successful in the ODIs during Gilchrist's era because they could have that genuine all rounder at 7 - they didn't have to sacrifice a bowler to put them at 8, or a batsman to have them at 6 because the 'keeper was a middle-order batsman. Gilchrist, by opening, solved that problem.

Comparing their averages is fallacious - Dhoni is a finisher, he remains not out either because the overs expire or the game ends. Gilchrist, coming in first, does not have that luxury. Dhoni averages ~37 per trip to the crease (he has 53 not outs), whereas Gilchrist averages ~34. I'm not one for discounting not-outs, batsmen can be too good for bowlers and hence remain not out, but I think we can see the way Dhoni's batting position influences his average.

tl;dr Gilchrist lets you pick an extra all-rounder/middle order bat while being a good opening batsman.

stl;dr Gilly > Dhoni, IMO. Dhoni still an ATG.

 

[Migara]

The thing with Gilchrist is that he plays in a role with lesser competition. You look at the opening batsmen he is competing against (assuming Tendulkar is already selected):

So is jayasuriya. You don't get opening batsmen who are 5th bowlers, if they are not Watson or Hafeez.

Jayasuriya, Hayden, Watson, Mark Waugh .etc

Gilchrist lets you get the wicketkeeping role out of the way, whilst being an ATG ODI opening batsman.

Same goes for Jaya. Gets the 5th bowler out of the way while being one of the most destructive batsmen ever.

Dhoni, in the middle order, should be compared to the likes of Bevan, Hussey and Kluesner in terms of a finishing role. 6 & 7 are the slots for that role - Bevan has one locked in - he's the best ever - and if you want to pick a side with 5 specialist bowlers, Kluenser has to take 7.

Dhoni is very much compared to Bevan and Hussey, and comes as almost as good as them.

Dhoni is an ATG finisher, no doubt, but Bevan pioneered it and thus deserves a place, and Kluesner lets you have a much stronger bowling attack. Same thing would apply if it were Imran or Kapil at 7.

How about ahving BOTH Dhoni and Bevan?

Australia were highly successful in the ODIs during Gilchrist's era because they could have that genuine all rounder at 7 - they didn't have to sacrifice a bowler to put them at 8, or a batsman to have them at 6 because the 'keeper was a middle-order batsman. Gilchrist, by opening, solved that problem.

AWTA, conversely, Sri alnka did give tyhat Aussie side run for their money in 95-99 era because Jayasuriya was the 5th bowler and they could play seven full batsmen.

Comparing their averages is fallacious - Dhoni is a finisher, he remains not out either because the overs expire or the game ends. Gilchrist, coming in first, does not have that luxury. Dhoni averages ~37 per trip to the crease (he has 53 not outs), whereas Gilchrist averages ~34. I'm not one for discounting not-outs, batsmen can be too good for bowlers and hence remain not out, but I think we can see the way Dhoni's batting position influences his average.

Openers averaged 32.3 @ 70.4 while #5-7 averages 26.7@ 75. So cannot see how middle order would average more than openers.

tl;dr Gilchrist lets you pick an extra all-rounder/middle order bat while being a good opening batsman.

I don't need that extra all rounder when I have Jayasuriya in my team!

 

[Debris]

So is jayasuriya. You don't get opening batsmen who are 5th bowlers, if they are not Watson or Hafeez.

Same goes for Jaya. Gets the 5th bowler out of the way while being one of the most destructive batsmen ever.

Dhoni is very much compared to Bevan and Hussey, and comes as almost as good as them.

How about ahving BOTH Dhoni and Bevan?

AWTA, conversely, Sri alnka did give tyhat Aussie side run for their money in 95-99 era because Jayasuriya was the 5th bowler and they could play seven full batsmen.

Openers averaged 32.3 @ 70.4 while #5-7 averages 26.7@ 75. So cannot see how middle order would average more than openers.

I don't need that extra all rounder when I have Jayasuriya in my team!

It is fairly interesting that their fates are almost tied together, it is Jayasuriya and Dhoni versus Gilchrist and Symonds. Jayasuriya and Dhoni have a slight edge in batting, bowling is basically a wash and Gilchrist and Symonds have a significant edge in the field. It really depends on how much you think that edge is fielding is worth (half a wicket and 8 to 10 runs a game a reasonable estimate?) and does it balance out the batting,

 

[ankitj]

Remaining not out does nothing to the batting average. FACT.

 

[Jager]

The thing with Gilchrist is that he plays in a role with lesser competition. You look at the opening batsmen he is competing against (assuming Tendulkar is already selected):

Jayasuriya, Hayden, Watson, Mark Waugh .etc

Gilchrist lets you get the wicketkeeping role out of the way, whilst being an ATG ODI opening batsman.

Dhoni, in the middle order, should be compared to the likes of Bevan, Hussey and Kluesner in terms of a finishing role. 6 & 7 are the slots for that role - Bevan has one locked in - he's the best ever - and if you want to pick a side with 5 specialist bowlers, Kluenser has to take 7.

Dhoni is an ATG finisher, no doubt, but Bevan pioneered it and thus deserves a place, and Kluesner lets you have a much stronger bowling attack. Same thing would apply if it were Imran or Kapil at 7.

Australia were highly successful in the ODIs during Gilchrist's era because they could have that genuine all rounder at 7 - they didn't have to sacrifice a bowler to put them at 8, or a batsman to have them at 6 because the 'keeper was a middle-order batsman. Gilchrist, by opening, solved that problem.

Comparing their averages is fallacious - Dhoni is a finisher, he remains not out either because the overs expire or the game ends. Gilchrist, coming in first, does not have that luxury. Dhoni averages ~37 per trip to the crease (he has 53 not outs), whereas Gilchrist averages ~34. I'm not one for discounting not-outs, batsmen can be too good for bowlers and hence remain not out, but I think we can see the way Dhoni's batting position influences his average.

tl;dr Gilchrist lets you pick an extra all-rounder/middle order bat while being a good opening batsman.

stl;dr Gilly > Dhoni, IMO. Dhoni still an ATG.

Open with Watson, statistically in the mould of Klusener and opens. Then you can have MSD for double finishing power with Bevan.

 

[Ikki]

Remaining not out does nothing to the batting average. FACT.

Let's stick to his point; which is that comparing averages of an opener and a middle-order bat is flawed. And it is.

Open with Watson, statistically in the mould of Klusener and opens. Then you can have MSD for double finishing power with Bevan.

That's a pretty decent solution. I simply pick Gilchrist because he is a much better keeper than Dhoni.

 

[Migara]

It is fairly interesting that their fates are almost tied together, it is Jayasuriya and Dhoni versus Gilchrist and Symonds. Jayasuriya and Dhoni have a slight edge in batting, bowling is basically a wash and Gilchrist and Symonds have a significant edge in the field. It really depends on how much you think that edge is fielding is worth (half a wicket and 8 to 10 runs a game a reasonable estimate?) and does it balance out the batting,

Jayasuriya in his younger days was as good as anyone in the field. Not quite in Symonds clas, but almost there. And on bowling, Jayasuriya is a class above Symonds with the ball.

 

[Migara]

Let's stick to his point; which is that comparing averages of an opener and a middle-order bat is flawed. And it is.

Yes, we cannot compare. But the fact remains that opening batsmen average higher than middle order batsmen in ODI cricket as much as 25%. Having that in mind, form your own opinion on Dhoni's average.

That's a pretty decent solution. I simply pick Gilchrist because he is a much better keeper than Dhoni.

Perfectly valid point of view.

 

[Red]

Remaining not out does nothing to the batting average. FACT.

Umm, yes it does. FACT.....


Dhoni has 53 not outs from 184 innings.

Gilchrist had 11 not outs from 279 innings.


Remove the luxury of "not outs" and Gilchrist averages 34, while Dhoni averages 36 (without ever facing the new ball).

Gilly all the way!

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Richards
Ponting
Dhoni
Bevan
Klusener
Akram
Warne/Lee
Muralitharan/Lee
Garner

 

[Ikki]

How's Dhoni in the field anyway? Like, if he weren't picked as WK?

 

[uvelocity]

gilly

 

[Debris]

Umm, yes it does. FACT.....


Dhoni has 53 not outs from 184 innings.

Gilchrist had 11 not outs from 279 innings.


Remove the luxury of "not outs" and Gilchrist averages 34, while Dhoni averages 36 (without ever facing the new ball).

Gilly all the way!

Oh, he was serious about that?

 

[Red]

Oh, he was serious about that?

Oh.....