ODI ATG XIs

[ankitj]

But I agree that all time Australia XI will not be a match for all time rest of the world XI.


ROW XI:

Tendulkar
Greenidge
Kohli
Richards
De Villiers
Dhoni +
Klusener
Pollock
Akram
Garner
Muralitharan

(Hate that I couldn't find a place for Hadlee but this is what I'll go with)

Aus XI:

M Waugh
Gilchrist +
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
Bevan
Watson
Warne
Starc
Lillee
McGrath

 

[smash84]

McGrath is as good as if not better than Garner and Akram. There is no argument over that.

It definitely is arguable.

Wasim has significantly higher 4 and 5 wicket hauls I believe. Plus I'd say wasim was probably a better death bowler too.

And as a total odi package definitely better than McGrath

 

[MrPrez]

It definitely is arguable.

Wasim has significantly higher 4 and 5 wicket hauls I believe. Plus I'd say wasim was probably a better death bowler too.

And as a total odi package definitely better than McGrath

Better is arguable. As good is not.

They're on the same level more or less. Definitely an interesting discussion, but not one easily resolved.

 

[ankitj]

Innings per 4+ wicket haul:

Akram – 15.2
McGrath – 15.5
Murali – 13.6
Garner – 19.6

And some notable figures on that measure:

Lee – 9.4
Waqar – 9.5

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's not an argument in how you expect an AT Australia XI to compete with my named XI, when it has the following 6 players who are better than any one Australian ODI player.

Sachin
AB
Viv
Kohli
Wasim
Garner
Murali


For starters, there's daylight between those 4 batsmen & any Australian ODI batsman, while on the bowling side most acknowledge Garner & Wasim as the 2 greatest ODI pacers, and either Murali (or Saqlain) as the best spinner.


So never mind the little brother insults, if you really think that hypothetical match-up would somehow be a close outcome, you're utterly delusional.

If however you want to make an argument for McGrath, Bevan or Symonds to be included in that side, that'd at least be reasonable.

I don't really need to do either. And I'm not the one who's utterly delusional. Anyone can pick any team they want, if you want to pick a team without any Australians (for whatever reason, deliberately or subconsciously) that's fine, but you're trying to justify it by making absolute statements that are just not true.

 

[stephen]

But I agree that all time Australia XI will not be a match for all time rest of the world XI.


ROW XI:

Tendulkar
Greenidge
Kohli
Richards
De Villiers
Dhoni +
Klusener
Pollock
Akram
Garner
Muralitharan

(Hate that I couldn't find a place for Hadlee but this is what I'll go with)

Aus XI:

M Waugh
Gilchrist +
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
Bevan
Watson
Warne
Starc
Lillee
McGrath

I don't know why you'd play Watson at 7 in that lineup. He has to open in place of M Waugh if he plays at all, and I wouldn't make that trade. Play Hussey at 7 and rely on Symonds and Waugh for your extra ten overs.

The only problem with this Australian side vs the RoW side you posted is the fifth bowler. Batting there is little to separate the two sides. Ponting is better than his average suggests (though not quite as good as Viv). Jones is one of the most underrated ODI batsmen. Bevan is the best in role.

I would also argue that Greenidge is too slow to be an opener. Jayasuriya is a better pick since you probably care more about his strike rate than his average given the batting behind him. And bat your best batsman at 3 - Viv. Drop Kohli down one to his rightful place behind the master blaster.

Bowling is pretty even, even if you argue Murali > Warne, the Australian fast bowlers are better than the RoW ones with that side. Hadlee over Pollock and it's even.

Symonds was better with the bat than Klusener, Klusener was better with the ball. Bevan was as much better than Dhoni with the bat as Viv is over Ponting.

Hussey is better than anyone the world XI can bat at 7 unless Jayasuriya opens and shares the extra ten overs with Richards. Even then I'm struggling to think of a lower order batsman the world XI can bat who is as good as Hussey.

Tendulkar is a moderate upgrade on Mark Waugh as opener. Similar average but Tendulkar scored faster. Gilchrist is an upgrade on Jayasuriya with the bat. So in all the openers come out with the RoW ones fractionally ahead.

Viv-Kohli- de Villiers is superior to Ponting- Jones- Symonds by a decent margin. Bevan- Hussey is better than Dhoni- Klusener in the 6 and 7 spots.

So batting- wise the RoW XI is a little ahead, bowling is pretty even, but the fifth bowler is where the RoW really pulls ahead. Klusener is a reasonable amount better than Symonds and that's probably the biggest difference between the two sides right there.

 

[ankitj]

smh

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar is a moderate upgrade on Mark Waugh as opener.

Heh. Cute.

 

[TheJediBrah]

stephen and zinzan cancelling each other out nicely tbh

 

[marc71178]

bevan was as much better than dhoni with the bat as viv is over ponting.

ok

 

[TheJediBrah]

In all seriousness it's definitely a stretch (to say the least) to claim that an Aus ATG XI would beat a World ATG XI on any kind of regular basis. That should be obvious, how can one (relatively small) country compete with the rest of the cricketing world combined.

They'd be competitive at least though, which you can't really say about any other country's ATG XIs.

 

[stephen]

Heh. Cute.

Tendulkar 48@88
Waugh 44@76

There is a difference but it's nowhere near as big as you'd imagine. It's really their strike rate that makes Tendulkar better.

The difference is remarkably close to the difference between Gilchrist and Jayasuriya as openers (average of 4, strike rate of 6).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tendulkar 48@88
Waugh 44@76

that's a pretty big difference m8


edit: what are those numbers anyway? They're not career averages because Tendulkar was 44 and Waugh was 39.

 

[stephen]

that's a pretty big difference m8


edit: what are those numbers anyway? They're not career averages because Tendulkar was 44 and Waugh was 39.

Averages as opener.

 

[trundler]

Probably their figures while opening.

 

[stephen]

And I did say "moderate". A huge upgrade would be Tendulkar over Finch. Tendulkar was better than Waugh by a moderate margin. I don't know how else to describe it. Gilchrist is almost, but not quite the same level ahead of Jayasuriya statistically, but I'd not describe Gilchrist as any more than moderately better than Jayasuriya.

 

[trundler]

I'd say:
Tendulkar



Waugh

Gilchrist

Jayasuriya




Finch

Side note: how do feel about Jason Gillespie compared to Donald as an ODI bowler, Stephen?

 

[stephen]

I'd say:
Tendulkar



Waugh

Gilchrist

Jayasuriya




Finch

Side note: how do feel about Jason Gillespie compared to Donald as an ODI bowler, Stephen?

Donald was quite a bit better.

But then Donald was incredible and Dizzy was merely good. But then there's a much bigger gap between a bowling average of 21 and 25 than a batting average of 44 and 48.

A better comparison would be Waqar to Donald. Donald is a moderate upgrade on Waqar.

 

[trundler]

That's reasonable but I think you're just not giving Tendulkar enough credit on his longevity. Better stats over a shitload more matches. That's a huge upgrade IMO.

 

[trundler]

Plus, you know. Tendulkar was a game changer. He's in a league of his own as an opener. You have to acknowledge that. Viv was a game changer too, obviously. His and Zaheer Abbas's stats are different by a smaller margin I think. Viv did it longer and better. And he changed the way the game was played whilst at it. How many other openers go big and fast like Tendulkar? Amla? That's about it and you'd probably agree his stats flatter him a bit.