Top Ten ODI cricketers of All Time

[Zinzan]

My point was that it's a little absurd to not include many players (hb included one Australian but 3 Indians and an English man) from the most dominant team in the 40 years that ODI cricket has been running. And Warne was only in one successful world cup campaign. He also had Murali and Saqlain who were arguably superior than him.

My team has two controversial calls - Symonds as the all rounder and Gilly/Bevan over Jaya/Dhoni. Kluesener, Cairns, Kallis and Watson all could replace Symonds and Gilly+Bevan vs Jaya+Dhoni is a coin flip. But given they're the pinnacle of the sport, world cup results tip the balance.

I'll wager most people's sides are slightly biased towards their own. I've debated this with OS before, it likely happens even if it's unintentional & people aren't aware of it.

You're right, there's virtually nothing between some of those top guys. You could list a side with 5-6 Aussies and it would resemble an ATG XI, or one with just a couple.

 

[stephen]

I'll wager most people's sides are slightly biased towards their own. I've debated this with OS before, it likely happens even if it's unintentional & people aren't aware of it.

You're right, there's virtually nothing between some of those top guys. You could list a side with 5-6 Aussies and it would resemble an ATG XI, or one with just a couple.

Hayden
Gilchrist+
Ponting*
Jones
Bevan
Watson
Symonds
Warne
Starc
Lillee
McGrath

Yep, all players in that side in contention for the all time world XI.

 

[stephen]

And I couldn't find a spot for Hussey or Lee.

 

[Spark]

While I agree the Australians you named are all worthy of a spot in an AT XI, I don't think they necessarily deserve a spot just because the team won more WCs.

Performing in the WC definitely should be given much more weight, though, even if the team you played in didn't do that well.

 

[Spark]

Oh, and I shouldn't have to say this, but "gay" shouldn't be used as an insult, kthx.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Performing in the WC definitely should be given much more weight, though, even if the team you played in didn't do that well.

Oh absolutely.

That's pretty much the opposite of the post I was responding to, which said Australians deserved more representation in the world XI because they won more WCs than other countries.

 

[Spark]

Oh absolutely.

That's pretty much the opposite of the post I was responding to, which said Australians deserved more representation in the world XI because they won more WCs than other countries.

Yeah but they won more WCs for a reason.

 

[Tom Flint]

Why has no one got dilshan ffs, opens bowls keeps and his team best outfielder. Class odi player

 

[OverratedSanity]

They won more because they had several more great players than anyone else. As in,they were a stacked team from top to bottom.

That doesn't necessarily mean their great players, individually, were greater than the greatest players from other teams that didn't win(or won less).

Is this confusing enough?

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm not going to pick a side as it could only be Australian bias, but today's game got me thinking about where the balance is between an equally good bowling effort compared to a batting one.

A batsman can bat an entire innings (well - half of it) and thus score a huge load of runs. The bowler is limited to ten overs. In test cricket I hear people often equate a 100 with 5 wickets (perhaps even rating the 5 wicket haul higher). In limited overs runs conceded probably count more than wickets, so where is the balance. For instance, what would you say is the equivalent of Warner's juicy innings today? Did Starc's 4 wickets at under 5 equal him?

If I judged an even innings as 240/8 then I might expect a batsman to score 30 for a pass (maybe 40+ for <5th drop) and a bowler to concede 48 runs and perhaps take 1.6 wickets.

Anyways, as you can see, I'm highly confused. Where is the balance?

And let's not forget a special shout out to S.Kennedy from a bell end Aussie. **** you!

 

[Zinzan]

They won more because they had several more great players than anyone else. As in,they were a stacked team from top to bottom.

That doesn't necessarily mean their great players, individually, were greater than the greatest players from other teams that didn't win(or won less).

Is this confusing enough?

Think you might've missed stephen's point. Since so many players are neck & neck, then all other things being equal, you'd pick the player who performed in a winning world cup final, the greatest possible stage.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Hayden
Gilchrist+
Ponting*
Jones
Bevan
Watson
Symonds
Warne
Starc
Lillee
McGrath

Yep, all players in that side in contention for the all time world XI.

lillee over lee in white ball cricket?

that is silly.

 

[anil1405]

Performing in the WC definitely should be given much more weight, though, even if the team you played in didn't do that well.

Using this in another context, this is pretty much the reason why I don't rate Amla as an ATG ODI batsman as he hardly delivered in crunch situations for his team.

 

[honestbharani]

Think you might've missed stephen's point. Since so many players are neck & neck, then all other things being equal, you'd pick the player who performed in a winning world cup final, the greatest possible stage.

MSD and Jaya both performed in a WC final.. and won.

 

[Zinzan]

MSD and Jaya both performed in a WC final.. and won.

No argument against that.

So did Gilchrist and Ponting, & were total rockstars who completely bossed those two finals.

 

[honestbharani]

Again... it's a matter of opinion. I don't see any reason to pick Ponting/Gilly over MSD/Jaya even factoring in WC performances. Same for Garner over McGrath. I would be tempted to bat Bevan at 5 ahead of AB or maybe Hussey but that's about it.

 

[akilana]

No argument against that.

So did Gilchrist and Ponting, & were total rockstars who completely bossed those two finals.

Gilly did absolutely nothing in the WC 2007 until the final. That is the benefit of playing in a great team. Even if you weren't contributing much, you still get to play the final. I think Dhoni pulled off a similar feat in WC 2011. Can't remember how Ponting fared in the WC 2003.

 

[honestbharani]

And Symonds is amazingly over rated. He is nowhere close to any kind of AT ODI XIs.

 

[randycricfreak]

Aravinda must be a contender there as well.Brilliant 100 in the 96Final against Aussies,and quick fire fifty against India in the Semis against India when two quick wickets were lost.

Massively under rated,big match player

 

[Daemon]

SL have really punched above their weight when it comes to World Cups haven't they. Or is that just a lazy generalisation.