Which off these ATG XIs from different eras will win a tournament if they competed with each other?

[bagapath]

Era 1: 1971 - 1992

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Miandad
Jones
Imran *
Kapil
Dujon +
Akram
Garner
Qadir

Era 2: 1992 - 2007

Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
Ponting *
Kallis
Lara
Bevan
Klusener
Pollock
Lee
Murali
McGrath

Era 3: 2007 - 2023

Rohit
Q de kock
Kohli
AB de Villiers
Shakib
Dhoni + *
Stokes
Starc
Boult
Shami
Bumrah

 

[honestbharani]

Era 1: 1971 - 1992

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Miandad
Jones
Imran *
Kapil
Dujon +
Akram
Garner
Qadir

Era 2: 1992 - 2007

Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
Ponting *
Kallis
Lara
Bevan
Klusener
Pollock
Lee
Murali
McGrath

Era 3: 2007 - 2023

Rohit
Q de kock
Kohli
AB de Villiers
Shakib
Dhoni + *
Stokes
Starc
Boult
Shami
Bumrah

For the middle side, I will bat Lara at 3, Ponting at 4 and get Flintoff in for Kallis at 5.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Era 2 will be last because of Kallis at 4.

Garner+Akram is OP. So probably 1 but 3 is also good.

But none of them are ATG XI imo.

Zaheer is missing. There are better openers than Haynes. Qadir? Idk

Warner over De **** if you are not using him as a keeper. Stokes no. Tahir or Rashid over Boult or Shami. If you want 4 seamers then Maxwell over Stokes.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

No Warne in middle team? Given how he dragged the Aussies to the 99 win he has to be in as spinner.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The middle team should win easily but the selection of Kallis is an abomination if this is supposed to be ODI cricket, which I assume it is given Bevan in the team. Kallis was barely even a good ODI player let alone an ATG. The middle side would be better off playing with 10

Replace him with Symonds or Flintoff. Or just a better batsman since he's 6th bowler. There are at least 50 to choose from

 

[Starfighter]

Qadir?

As much as I endlessly point out people overrating him in tests, he's one of the few realistic choices in ODIs. When one day cricket was really becoming a thing round then people thought it would be bad for spin bowlers and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Having Statsgurued '71 to 30/6/92 (because the OP went for 'inclusive' years), only eight of the top fifty ODI wicket takers was a spinner. Qadir is leader, followed by Shastri who averaged ten more, then Richards (who, incredibly, bowled medium pace in at least one match) who also averaged 35. If you want a better averaging bowler than those two, then you've got the likes of Emburey and Taylor, but neither did as well as Qadir (and yes, home umpiring yadda yadda).

 

[shortpitched713]

ODI cricket has been ever changing in nature, and this exercise highlights that. And looking at the extreme case I really think team 1 vs team 3 are basically incomparable, and you can tell from the names. Team 1 is basically an extremely strong Test side (could contend with any nation's All-Time XI), whereas Team 3 has players who are almost all much stronger in ODIs than Tests.

 

[Slifer]

Era 2 will be last because of Kallis at 4.

Garner+Akram is OP. So probably 1 but 3 is also good.

But none of them are ATG XI imo.

Zaheer is missing. There are better openers than Haynes. Qadir? Idk

Warner over De **** if you are not using him as a keeper. Stokes no. Tahir or Rashid over Boult or Shami. If you want 4 seamers then Maxwell over Stokes.

From that era, like who??

 

[Adorable Asshole]

From that era, like who??

Boon, Gooch, Turner

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kallis
Thats unfair to 2nd team.
Desilva, Hussy, Watson.. Lots of better ( far ) options

 

[Slifer]

Boon, Gooch, Turner

Turner possibly but he played about a quarter of ODIs Haynes did. The other two....no.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think Wasim played most of his best cricket in era 2, so I'd put him there ahead of Lee. Then put Hadlee in era 1.

 

[bagapath]

Boon, Gooch, Turner

no... dessie was certainly better... imo, of course

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Are we playing with present day laws and regulations? Everything we know now ?

 

[Burgey]

Haynes was a pretty gun ODI player for his time iirc.

I think the second era side would win this provided, as others have said, they bin Kallis and play AN Other. The rest of its batting is monumental really.

Doing these exercises I tend to just assume great players will be great players so am not really worried about playing conditions and raw scoring rates etc, as great players adapt - it's what makes them great. I suspect, for example, Viv never played a reverse sweep or a ramp, but if he came along now I'm pretty certain it would be in his repertoire, it's just what players do these days.

 

[Burgey]

Are we playing with present day laws and regulations? Everything we know now ?

I genuinely don't think this matters, just as when you're comparing test players across eras it isn't really fair to assume someone who dominated pre-WWI or in the 30s would have to play without modern equipment, training, nutrition etc etc. Greats are gonna great.

 

[shortpitched713]

I genuinely don't think this matters, just as when you're comparing test players across eras it isn't really fair to assume someone who dominated pre-WWI or in the 30s would have to play without modern equipment, training, nutrition etc etc. Greats are gonna great.

Test cricket hasn't changed as much as ODI cricket though. A great player in the early ODI years might have to play a drastically different role now, or might not even be viable. I can think of a lot of slower scorers from the earlier days who could fit this criteria. ( From the bowling side, some innocuous length dibbly dobblers too ).

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but blokes from the pre odi era adapted to its arrival and the good ones prospered at it, just as guys have scored faster as things have changed over the years. If it’s a purely lineal thing then you just give this contest to the most recent XI every time

 

[TheJediBrah]

Test cricket hasn't changed as much as ODI cricket though. A great player in the early ODI years might have to play a drastically different role now, or might not even be viable. I can think of a lot of slower scorers from the earlier days who could fit this criteria. ( From the bowling side, some innocuous length dibbly dobblers too ).

Nah they would just play differently to suit

Great example is Mike Hussey. In the late 90s/early 00s he was your typical nurdler in 50 over cricket, basically a discount Bevan. When the big bats, flat pitch era really kicked off around 2005/06 he became a late-order hitter to fit the role he was needed for. And that was only a difference of a few years.

Maybe not everyone would be as adaptable but generally speaking the best players will be the best players regardless of how the game changes

 

[shortpitched713]

Nah they would just play differently to suit

Great example is Mike Hussey. In the late 90s/early 00s he was your typical nurdler in 50 over cricket, basically a discount Bevan. When the big bats, flat pitch era really kicked off around 2005/06 he became a late-order hitter to fit the role he was needed for. And that was only a difference of a few years.

Maybe not everyone would be as adaptable but generally speaking the best players will be the best players regardless of how the game changes

Sure that works in a relatively subtle difference between periods right next to one another. But my point is it will break down at the edges.

In the very early days of ODIs, we had teams be okay with scoring out a hundred odd using a vast majority of the overs, and were happy if they only lost a few wickets. Actually both sides tended to be happy with this, and the games were often decided in the late flurries. This approach is suboptimal obviously, but it's not even the bats I'm talking about here. There were bowlers who would rack up what we might now consider godly low economy rates, just because they specialized in this least combative of game stages. We can't compare these kinds of players to now, as their skills simply wouldn't translate.