ODI ATG XIs

[harsh.ag]

Some hypothethical scenarios.

10 Kapils in the team will give you 238 runs and restrict opposition to 186 runs in 50 overs.

10 Pollocks in the team will give you 260 runs while restricting opposition to 184.

10 Afridis in the team will just about win you a game ( 236 vs 231).

Just taking batting average and bowling econ is not a good measure.

Will ten Kohlis give you 550?

 

[h_hurricane]

Just taking batting average and bowling econ is not a good measure.

Will ten Kohlis give you 550?

I did not just take batting average and bowling economy rate. Batsmen are given 300 balls to bat and bowlers 300 balls to bowl. For instance, Kapil's batting average is 23.79, his strike rate is 95.07. He bats only 250 balls in a 50 over match, wastes 50 balls, but still scores 238. With the bowl in the hand, he balls all 50 overs, restricts the oppostion to 186 as his economy rate is 3.71. He doesn't have to bowl out the opposition to win the match.

Ten Kohlis will only give me 278 (his strike rate is 92.7).

 

[Bolo]

Even if you add pollock (but especially if you dont) that team, the tail looks pretty long. Im not sure how it would go against another atg side relative to one that included a batting ar, but I think it would drop games against much weaker sides from time to time. Mini collapses happen even when the middle is quality, and that tail is going to implode a lot.

 

[harsh.ag]

I did not just take batting average and bowling economy rate. Batsmen are given 300 balls to bat and bowlers 300 balls to bowl. For instance, Kapil's batting average is 23.79, his strike rate is 95.07. He bats only 250 balls in a 50 over match, wastes 50 balls, but still scores 238. With the bowl in the hand, he balls all 50 overs, restricts the oppostion to 186 as his economy rate is 3.71. He doesn't have to bowl out the opposition to win the match.

Ten Kohlis will only give me 278 (his strike rate is 92.7).

Ah. Thought it was 23.79*10 = 238, haha

 

[h_hurricane]

Even if you add pollock (but especially if you dont) that team, the tail looks pretty long. Im not sure how it would go against another atg side relative to one that included a batting ar, but I think it would drop games against much weaker sides from time to time. Mini collapses happen even when the middle is quality, and that tail is going to implode a lot.

I was a big fan of bat deep philosophy (even believe this is more pertinent in test cricket than ODIs) till recently, but the recent indian bowling attack in ODIs made me change my mind. When we had Ashwin and Jadeja, we used to score some runs at the tail end(not the biggest hitters admittedly, but still decent). But they used to concede more runs while bowling or not taking many wickets which affected other bowlers as well in the slog overs. Kul-Cha are far superior ODI bowlers which makes their batting inferiority irrelevant in most matches. I am now insecure with the idea of part timers (Symonds, Tendulkar, Viv etc) having any sort of bowling.

Having said that, Kapil followed by Pollock at 8 or the other way around is a good idea as OS has suggested. Issue is which fast bowler to drop. Akram, Mcgrath and Garner are the best ODI bowlers ever imo. Or may be dropping Warne and playing 5 pace bowlers is another way to go

 

[Tom Flint]

I'm going to ruffle a few feathers and drop McGrath.
Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Viv
Kohli
Abdv
Bevan
Kapil
Pollock
Was in
Warne
Garner

 

[Bolo]

I was a big fan of bat deep philosophy (even believe this is more pertinent in test cricket than ODIs) till recently, but the recent indian bowling attack in ODIs made me change my mind. When we had Ashwin and Jadeja, we used to score some runs at the tail end(not the biggest hitters admittedly, but still decent). But they used to concede more runs while bowling or not taking many wickets which affected other bowlers as well in the slog overs. Kul-Cha are far superior ODI bowlers which makes their batting inferiority irrelevant in most matches. I am now insecure with the idea of part timers (Symonds, Tendulkar, Viv etc) having any sort of bowling.

Having said that, Kapil followed by Pollock at 8 or the other way around is a good idea as OS has suggested. Issue is which fast bowler to drop. Akram, Mcgrath and Garner are the best ODI bowlers ever imo. Or may be dropping Warne and playing 5 pace bowlers is another way to go

Klusener and watson are always options. Far better than part time bowlers, although you need a bit of work out of the part timers unless you play both, especially in the case of watson (the fact that he is playing semi-fit is basically a given).

If you want 5 bowlers i think you need a couple of ARs. Cant drop warne or wasim. 4 rmf line and length bowlers is just too samish. Picking between garner and Mcgrath isn't the easiest. Idk about quality, but Toms version of cw blasphemy likely better in terms of variety.

 

[smash84]

I'm going to ruffle a few feathers and drop McGrath.
Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Viv
Kohli
Abdv
Bevan
Kapil
Pollock
Was in
Warne
Garner

Was in to?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I did some calculations. Based on the no. of deliveries taken by the top 5 to get dismissed on an average, Kapil and Bevan would be at the crease around 44th over. Kapil will have the license to go for the bowling from the word go with Wasim and Warne to follow. Bevan would be batting around them. Pollock was definitely better batsman than Wasim, but his batting may not be required most of the times. Wasim was also a better clutch bowler.

I did not want part timers to bowl hence Symonds went out.
Klusener and Watson are good shouts, but Kapil was a bit better bowler than them. I wouldn't mind any of them in my team anyways.

On a side note, Kapil and Afridi are the only 2 players in history with a batting strike rate 50 % better than their bowling economy rate (min 200 wickets and 3000 runs).

Kapil

Batting strike rate : 95
Bowling runs conceded per 100 balls : 62

Afridi

Batting strike rate : 117
Bowling runs conceded per 100 balls : 77

Some hypothethical scenarios.

10 Kapils in the team will give you 238 runs and restrict opposition to 186 runs in 50 overs.

10 Pollocks in the team will give you 260 runs while restricting opposition to 184.

10 Afridis in the team will just about win you a game ( 236 vs 231).

I did not just take batting average and bowling economy rate. Batsmen are given 300 balls to bat and bowlers 300 balls to bowl. For instance, Kapil's batting average is 23.79, his strike rate is 95.07. He bats only 250 balls in a 50 over match, wastes 50 balls, but still scores 238. With the bowl in the hand, he balls all 50 overs, restricts the oppostion to 186 as his economy rate is 3.71. He doesn't have to bowl out the opposition to win the match.

Ten Kohlis will only give me 278 (his strike rate is 92.7).

You know cricket doesn't exactly work like that right?

It's not a completely useless measure but it's not particularly useful either

 

[jimmy101]

Was in to?

I think that's a typo. Pretty sure he meant to select Wasi Akrim. Either him or Whaddyamean Wasi.

 

[stephen]

He needed it to swing to be effective, and he hooped the white ball round corners, but was never the same in the longer forms when the ball got old and did nothing

He was great at bowling cutters as well. You can use them as a stock ball in odis, but in tests they seem to be best as the odd surprise ball.

Yeah he was mostly a cutter bowler. Took pace off the ball and controlled ther run rate, forcing the batsmen to play a good shot to score off him. Was very good in ODIs but completely innocuous in tests. He was like a much better Tye.

 

[h_hurricane]

You know cricket doesn't exactly work like that right?

It's not a completely useless measure but it's not particularly useful either

The aim was to see how would they perform if given full 50 overs with the bat and 50 with the ball. As I mentioned, it is a hypothetical scenario, but very close to how a 50 overs game work. 266/2 (recent SA score against Pak) is a poorer batting effort than 290 all out. Similarly with the ball in hand, 220/5 is better than bowling out opposition for 250. If you go by the criteria which I mentioned, as allrounders, Pollock > Kapil > Klusener > Afridi > Kallis which is pretty to close to how they would be mostly rated in ODIs.

The 7-11 I picked played crucial role in winning world cups in 1979,1983,1992,1999,2003 and 2007. That is 6 world cups.

From a pure team balance point of view, I liked Tom Flint's team better than mine though

 

[Tom Flint]

Was in to?

Was in was meant to be wasim!

 

[Red]

I'm going to ruffle a few feathers and drop McGrath.
Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Viv
Kohli
Abdv
Bevan
Kapil
Pollock
Was in
Warne
Garner

I'll take him and challenge you:

Jayasuriya
M.Waugh
Ponting
Lara
Flintoff
Symonds
Hussey
Dhoni +
Shakib
Donald
McGrath

Was going to take Murali but took Shakib instead to avoid having three #11s. Batting can be rearranged according to match situation.

 

[Bolo]

I'll take him and challenge you:

Jayasuriya
M.Waugh
Ponting
Lara
Flintoff
Symonds
Hussey
Dhoni +
Shakib
Donald
McGrath

Was going to take Murali but took Shakib instead to avoid having three #11s. Batting can be rearranged according to match situation.

3 number 11s isn't that bad when you have Dhoni at 8. But if you really want the extra batting you can always swap donald and shakib out for murali and klusener, which makes it even stronger.

 

[Bolo]

3rd team remainders

Watson
Miandad
Sanga
Abbas
Jones
G chapple
Klusener
Hadlee
Saqlain
Murali
Ambrose

Specialist batting options are running a bit thin, but those are some amazing bowling options. Murali, watson and maybe klusenar all make my 1st xi so its pretty good leftovers for my taste in a 3rd xi.

 

[trundler]

A palpable lack of Aravinda.

 

[mr_mister]

3rd team remainders

Watson
Miandad
Sanga
Abbas
Jones
G chapple
Klusener
Hadlee
Saqlain
Murali
Ambrose

Specialist batting options are running a bit thin, but those are some amazing bowling options. Murali, watson and maybe klusenar all make my 1st xi so its pretty good leftovers for my taste in a 3rd xi.

Glen Chapple batting a bit high

 

[trundler]

That's too many dinosaurs in one lineup.

 

[h_hurricane]

That's too many dinosaurs in one lineup.

Pretty good dinosaurs though.