Greatest ODI batsman of all time

[Spark]

Thumbs up. One of only two players (Klusener) to average 40-plus and sub-30 with bat and ball, IIRC. Not sure if I'd have him in my all-time XI, but definitely in my Australian XI.

Yeah easily. Means you can play seven bats and field a proper 5-man attack without relying on 10 overs of filth.

 

[Mike5181]

Yeah easily. Means you can play seven bats and field a proper 5-man attack without relying on 10 overs of filth.

Yeah, he's an ATG allrounder for sure. Probably doesn't bowl as many overs as guys like Pollock, Khan, Flintoff, and to a lesser extent Klusener. He's the best batsman of the bunch though.

 

[weldone]

Ambrose as the best ODI bowler during 1995-2000....NOT

McGrath and Murali only started to really move ahead post 1999.

Only ones in contention with Saqlain during that time were pollock, wasim and donald.

Other than those 7000 runs lara had for long periods been very ordinary. Which is why he probably wouldn't make it in to most people's ODI ATXI

Probably you missed my point.

I said Lara was world's best batsman in 1993, again in 1994, then 1995, then 1996 and again in 1997.

Saqlain was among the top in 1996, 1997 and 1998. In that period he was among the best with Donald and Ambrose. In fact, he was clearly the best in 1998 - I'll give him that. But he slipped out of the very top club in 1999-2000. I didn't say Ambrose was the best in all those 5-6 years. But he was great in 1996-1997. Pollock, McGrath, Muralitharan, Wasim and probably even Warne was better than Saqlain in 1999-2000.

Being the best over a period is different than being the best at all times throughout that period. Tendulkar was probably the best test batsman in the 1989-2012 period. But was he the best batsman in the world at all times during that period?

 

[Spark]

Yeah, he's an ATG allrounder for sure. Probably doesn't bowl as many overs as guys like Pollock, Khan, Flintoff, and to a lesser extent Klusener. He's the best batsman of the bunch though.

Top order bat though. Can't see him scoring too many boundaries off yorkers.

 

[Mike5181]

Probably you missed my point.

I said Lara was world's best batsman in 1993, again in 1994, then 1995, then 1996 and again in 1997.

Saqlain was among the top in 1996, 1997 and 1998. In that period he was among the best with Donald and Ambrose. In fact, he was clearly the best in 1998 - I'll give him that. But he slipped out of the very top club in 1999-2000. I didn't say Ambrose was the best in all those 5-6 years. But he was great in 1996-1997. Pollock, McGrath, Muralitharan, Wasim and probably even Warne was better than Saqlain in 1999-2000.

Being the best over a period is different than being the best at all times throughout that period. Tendulkar was probably the best test batsman in the 1989-2012 period. But was he the best batsman in the world at all times during that period?

He was the best in 93 and 95 tbh. He certainly wasn't the best in 94, and Jayasuriya/de Silva outperformed him in 97. So explain to me how "he was the best at all times throughout that period."

Brian Lara (93)
Sachin Tendulkar (94): Lara was average
Brian Lara (95)
Sachin Tendulkar/Gary Kirsten (96): Performance-wise was good enough to be up there, but just didn't play enough.
Jayasuriya/de Silva (97)

 

[smash84]

weldone to answer that

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

To me, the debate between Gilchrist and Dhoni doesn't come down to batting or wicketkeeping - it's about bowling.

Let's assume we've got an XI that looks somewhat like this:

1. Tendulkar
2. -
3. Ponting
4. Viv
5. Miandad
6. Bevan
7. -
8. Wasim
9. Garner
10. Bond
11. Murali

(These are primarily placeholders; no debate required about the particular batsmen).

With a line-up like this, you need another frontline bowling option, and you need a wicketkeeper. Your options are Dhoni at 7 and one of Watson & Jayasuriya opening, or Gilchrist opening and one of Klusener, Symonds, Flintoff, Cairns, Imran, Kapil, or even Shakib.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah easily. Means you can play seven bats and field a proper 5-man attack without relying on 10 overs of filth.

Makes it easier to put both Dhoni and Gilchrist in an all-time XI. I'd open with Watson - whose record there is 46@92.

Watson
Tendulkar
Richards
Ponting
Dhoni
Bevan
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Garner
McGrath

You get to have Gilchrist the wicketkeeper and whose kind of batting can still be of great use towards the ends of innings, if the team still has wickets in hand. And you get Dhoni and Bevan to save an innings if needed. Watson allows you to also have 5 proper bowlers, as you've mentioned.

 

[hendrix]

How about:

1. Tendulkar
2. Anwar
3. Watson
4. Viv
5. Dhoni
6. Bevan
7. Gilchrist
8. Wasim
9. Garner
10. Bond
11. Murali

Ponting/Lara as 12th man.

Has both Dhoni and Gilchrist.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting > Anwar
Warne > Murali (overall, bowling, batting, fielding)
Bond played only 82 ODIs. Would go for someone more proven.

 

[hendrix]

Ponting, Lara > Anwar
Warne > Murali (overall, bowling, batting, fielding)
Bond played only 82 ODIs.

Murali was a better ODI bowler than Warne. Batting is irrelevant as the lineup is plenty long enough and he's coming in at 11 anyway.

82 ODIs is plenty long enough to judge Bond. On numerous occasions he performed against the best teams in the world and I believe holds the best strike rate in ODI cricket.

There's very little to separate Anwar and Lara, and Ponting was excellent but I want a left hander opening. Anwar's superior strike rate gets the nod over Lara in this case.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's very little to separate Anwar and Lara, and Ponting was excellent but I want a left hander opening.

Open with Gilchrist and bat Ponting in the middle order then.

 

[hendrix]

Open with Gilchrist and bat Ponting in the middle order then.

I have doubts about Ponting's run scoring abilities at the death.

 

[kyear2]

Murali was a better odi bowler than Warne.

 

[Ikki]

Murali was a better ODI bowler than Warne. Batting is irrelevant as the lineup is plenty long enough and he's coming in at 11 anyway.

Apart from longevity there is little between their bowling, so the batting and the fielding certainly makes a difference for me. Warne was also an incredibly good big match performer, so that plays a factor for me.

82 ODIs is plenty long enough to judge Bond. On numerous occasions he performed against the best teams in the world and I believe holds the best strike rate in ODI cricket.

IMO it is very very little compared to the bowlers he is being compared with. Its not like his era not many matches were being played.

There's very little to separate Anwar and Lara, and Ponting was excellent but I want a left hander opening. Anwar's superior strike rate gets the nod over Lara in this case.

Then have Gilchrist open and put Ponting in the middle order? Ponting is a better bat, and certainly a better fielder than Anwar. Unless you have a soft spot for Anwar, can't see the logic.

Murali was a better odi bowler than Warne.

Not IMO. People tend to overlook the fact that Murali played a lot of ODI matches against minnows.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have doubts about Ponting's run scoring abilities at the death.

But not Gilchrist's?

Watson is probably actually a more proven closer than Gilchrist tbh.

 

[hendrix]

Then have Gilchrist open and put Ponting in the middle order? Ponting is a better bat, and certainly a better fielder than Anwar. Unless you have a soft spot for Anwar, can't see the logic.

Gilchrist was not as good an opener as Anwar, IMO.

Ponting was a great middle order bat but he can't displace Watson, Viv and Dhoni. Again, I want a left-right combination and the best left handed opener I can pick is Anwar.

But not Gilchrist's?

No. Basing this on t20.

 

[Spark]

Murali was a better ODI bowler than Warne. Batting is irrelevant as the lineup is plenty long enough and he's coming in at 11 anyway.

82 ODIs is plenty long enough to judge Bond. On numerous occasions he performed against the best teams in the world and I believe holds the best strike rate in ODI cricket.

There's very little to separate Anwar and Lara, and Ponting was excellent but I want a left hander opening. Anwar's superior strike rate gets the nod over Lara in this case.

I don't dispute that Bond was awesome, but I do dispute the use of picking him in this side given that it's likely he won't be there a week later.

 

[Mike5181]

I understand the Bond injury argument. It's valid, and probably why I struggle to put his name in the best team. It wasn't actually that bad in ODIs though. He averaged 8 ODIs a year from his debut in 2002 until his last ODI in 2010. That's ok considering he wasn't eligible to be picked for internationals for basically a year and a half from Jan 2008-Jun 2009 because of that whole ICL fiasco which a lot of people seem to forget. If you take out that time period he basically played 12 ODIs a year. Performance-wise he's definitely among the best. He basically destroyed the greatest ODI side that has ever been assembled taking 44 wickets @ 15 against them. He took more wickets than Garner in ODIs, and he played 18 less innings.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist was not as good an opener as Anwar, IMO.

But he is arguably the best WK batsman; so if you are going to use both Dhoni and Gilchrist you are sacrificing Ponting for Anwar. Gilchrist averages slightly less than Anwar but is far faster in SR, and I would be more comfortable to put someone like Gilchrist in a team designed to play a similarly great team, considering his record.

You are essentially leaving him out for the slight advantage Anwar might have over Gilchrist in batting; as well as sacrificing Ponting's fielding - arguably the greatest ever in the format. That slight advantage you hold for Anwar is removed as Ponting is a better batsman than Watson. Essentially, the slight advantage you might hold for Anwar comes at a greater cost to the team.

Ponting was a great middle order bat but he can't displace Watson, Viv and Dhoni. Again, I want a left-right combination and the best left handed opener I can pick is Anwar.

If the R-L combo is so important then you, open with Gilchrist.

No. Basing this on t20.

So I guess we should start playing Bradman due to his Test record.

Everyone has their own opinions, and fair dos to them, but yours looks like your shoe-horning players in there for pretty crappy reasons. IMO Bond was a fantastic bowler - in all formats - but its a leap of faith. His overall record is not on par with the greats of the game.