ODI ATG XIs

[Daemon]

Stephen, zinzan, papp finn and sunilz please stop

 

[stephen]

The gap between atg sides is starting to narrow somewhat. Ten year ago, you could probably make a case that Aus were close to world xi, let alone a another national side. But greats have been appearing. We've seen a few world greats, like AB, Kohli, and Dhoni. And a bunch of national greats. See the English current lineup.

Lots of country xis would be pretty competitive with each other these days, even if some are clearly stronger than others.

Pretty much every Australian AT XI player retired a decade ago, with the exception of Starc. Since their retirement, Dhoni, Kohli, de Villiers have all forced their way to prominence. But note that no bowlers have forced their way into the ODI AT side in the last decade. The only one in contention is Starc. Probably goes to show just how tough life has become for the bowlers in limited overs formats in the last ten years (and in particular the last 4 years).

 

[stephen]

Stephen, zinzan, papp finn and sunilz please stop

No.

It's not like the thread has gone off topic.

 

[jimmy101]

Pretty much every Australian AT XI player retired a decade ago, with the exception of Starc. Since their retirement, Dhoni, Kohli, de Villiers have all forced their way to prominence. But note that no bowlers have forced their way into the ODI AT side in the last decade. The only one in contention is Starc. Probably goes to show just how tough life has become for the bowlers in limited overs formats in the last ten years (and in particular the last 4 years).

This is mostly due to the decline of the Australian team over the past decade, even though they won a CWC 4 years ago.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

Maybe right but I don't see why population size is a factor. It is 11 vs 11 after all and smaller nations have won 8 of the 11 WCs decided.

 

[Borges]

Though population size is totally irrelevant, the actual number of people playing cricket would be important to the eventual strength of an international team.

 

[Borges]

Stephen, zinzan, papp finn and sunilz please stop

Please don't.

 

[jimmy101]

Though population size is totally irrelevant, the actual number of people playing cricket would be important to the eventual strength of an international team.

Availability of good equipment & quality of practise facilities as well imo. This is where some nations struggle.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Though population size is totally irrelevant, the actual number of people playing cricket would be important to the eventual strength of an international team.

very wrong.

Population size even directly affects the "actual number of people playing cricket" that you mentioned

Population size is absolutely relevant, but that doesn't mean that it's the only relevant factor

 

[Borges]

Overall population size is totally irrelevant to the strength of an international cricket team. Or else, China would have dominated cricket.

 

[smash84]

Overall population size is totally irrelevant to the strength of an international cricket team. Or else, China would have dominated cricket.

how is it totally irrelevant?

Let's say you had a country with a population of 2 people. They wouldn't even be able to field a cricket team. Or if they had only 11 people in the country that could form a cricket team? There would be no reserve strength and it is highly unlikely that all the 11 folks would be competitive at the international level.

So it is a somewhat relevant variable.

 

[Victor Ian]

Apart from Murali (quite clearly better white-ball bowler than Warne, surprised anyone would think otherwise) and Flintoff over Symonds, I like it.

Murali is now in. Warne was only there for his batting but I've since decided it wont be needed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Overall population size is totally irrelevant to the strength of an international cricket team. Or else, China would have dominated cricket.

. . . no

What I think you're trying to say is that population size is not the sole determinant of the strength of an international cricket team, which is what I said here:

Population size is absolutely relevant, but that doesn't mean that it's the only relevant factor

Just because a factor isn't the only factor, doesn't mean it's "totally irrelevant"

 

[stephen]

Apart from Murali (quite clearly better white-ball bowler than Warne, surprised anyone would think otherwise) and Flintoff over Symonds, I like it.

When you remove stats against minnows, Warne and Murali average virtually the same - 25.8 vs 26.35. Their strike rates are virtually identical - 36.8 vs 38.2.

Murali has a fractionally better average away and at home, Warne has a better average at neutral venues.

Warne bowled some very significant world cup spells, including the spells that won Australia the 1999 world cup (man of the match in the semi and the final).

Murali has more wickets and a longer career. That is the only measure by which he is clearly better. Everything else is very line ball.

 

[stephen]

I mean quite clearly the statistically best ODI spinner is Saqlain.

Against top 8 batsmen he averaged 23.55 and struck at 32.

 

[Borges]

Murali > Saqlain > Warne > Everyone else. (ODIs)

 

[Victor Ian]

Didn't Tendulkar always choke when the important games came around?

92 a baby - forgiven.
96 Stumped when India could not afford this. He needed to go hero mode here but failed.
99 Once India got out of group stage he failed.
Everyone knows about 2003.
2007 when it was easy to get out of group stage if only Tendulkar did something...he didn't.
2011 he choked again. Lucky for him others were ready to handle the pressure knowing he'd fail again.

Why would you pick a guy that never performs in a big game?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So Warne was the greatest non-chucking ODI spinner of all time? I don't think so.

Imran Tahir is better

 

[Borges]

So Warne was the greatest non-chucking ODI spinner of all time? I don't think so.

You shouldn't think so. Murali, Saqlain, Rashid, Kuldeep, Chahal ... were/are all vastly superior. I do agree that the last three haven't played for long enough,

 

[ankitj]

Didn't Tendulkar always choke when the important games came around?

92 a baby - forgiven.
96 Stumped when India could not afford this. He needed to go hero mode here but failed.
99 Once India got out of group stage he failed.
Everyone knows about 2003.
2007 when it was easy to get out of group stage if only Tendulkar did something...he didn't.
2011 he choked again. Lucky for him others were ready to handle the pressure knowing he'd fail again.

Why would you pick a guy that never performs in a big game?

It's not an entirely invalid but semis and quarters count too, right? Scored 50s in semi and quarter of WC11 and semi of WC03

And a gentle reminder, this is not a thread about world cups alone but ODIs overall (I know Aussies want to reduce it to that alone because they won plenty but there is more to ODI cricket). Tendulkar in fact has a pretty good record in tournament finals.

Quarters, Semi and Final: Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Finals only: Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com