All time world ODI XI game

[stephen]

Centurymaker:

I'm not interested in picking an AT Australian XI in this thread. I'm interested in the best all conditions ODI team, which I believe is the following:

Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Kohli
Richards
De Villiers
Bevan
Klusener
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

I genuinely believe that you need to bat down to 9, which is why I argued for Warne over Murali. My feeling is that if you pick Murali, you need to pick a better batsman than McGrath (because Garner is the best ever) like Hadlee or Imran.

I also believe that there is no need to pick Dhoni and Gilchrist since they have the same primary skill and there are others who did their job better as a pure batsman. So I think you need to go either Dhoni/Jayasuria or Gilchrist/Bevan. I'd have been fine if we'd picked Dhoni first but we didn't, and that means Bevan plays. Also, if Dhoni plays in this side, he can't keep for the A team.

If you're going to get all nationalistic about it, my XI contains 4 Aussies, 2 Indians, 2 West Indians, 2 South Africans and a Pakistani which if anything means I'm overrating South Africans (based on World Cup performances). But it's not about the countries involved for me, it's about the team balance more than anything. My alternate team is:

Tendulkar
Jayasuria
Kohli
Richards
Dhoni
De Villiers
Symonds
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

which is 3 Indians, 2 West Indians, 3 Australians, 1 South African, 1 Sri Lankan and 1 Pakistani.

In the current XI there have been a couple of contentious decisions (IMO). The most contentious was picking Murali and Garner and McGrath. That makes for the longest tail. The second contentious decision was picking Kapil at 7. The third looks like it's going to be Dhoni at 6. With a tail of Kapil, Akram, Garner, Murali, McGrath this supposedly number one side is going to have a very, very long tail. And I think there are better players than Dhoni (as a batsman) that can be picked down the order.

 

[stephen]

Im not a fan of bringing in a poor Test player in the best ever ODI team.

I also believe that one of Bevans abilities was to strike at say 66 against the good bowlers and to target the weak bowlers. That was a fine tactic playing for the worlds best team against normal countries but will they play weak bowlers？Also Lara is world class. The brilliance of Lara fits the team more for mine.

Tl dr：If im not 100% sold on a player I am voting for a player I would target for the spot, not the general consensus.

Fair enough.

 

[stephen]

I have followed your posts in several threads on selecting all time odi Xi and believe that you have a genuine interest in selecting the best team. But there is an inherent bias when you say Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Symonds, Bevan and Warne are better than similarly positioned players. You may genuinely think they are better but it doesn't come across to everyone as genuine when they are all Australian players.

I only brought up Mark Waugh as an example of a better opener than Jayasuria as a pure batsman. I could easily have said Greenidge, Amla or Lara and perhaps I should have.

That being said, I know I'm biased towards Australians and I'm definitely biased against Indian players. I'd like to think that I have good reasons for those biases - Australians have been the dominant team in ODI cricket for most of the last two decades and in the decade before that most teams were fairly even and the decade before that I don't remember much of.

I'm biased against Indians because I don't really rate the Indian cricket culture as a whole. I didn't like the way the BCCI bullied the ICC into hosting the 2011 WC in India so that Tendulkar could have a home WC and I'm not convinced that they would have won if it had been hosted outside Asia. For the majority of their history there was little emphasis on the importance of fielding (which is super important in ODI cricket) although that has changed somewhat in the last decade. I also think that Indian fans in general rate their players way too highly and mostly based on statistics which are padded by small boundaries, weak opposition and dead tracks that we see all the time in Indian ODIs. But it's likely that given two equally skilled players, one from the West Indies and the other from India, I'd take the West Indian nine times out of ten (the other time is when the West Indian is Pollard).

But sometimes it's hard to take the voting seriously when pretty much all the Indian fans vote for an Indian player and nobody else does.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

If you had to shoehorn one English player in who would it be?

Flintoff
KP
Trescothick
Gough

 

[stephen]

If you had to shoehorn one English player in who would it be?

Flintoff
KP
Trescothick
Gough

Probably KP as a straight downgrade from De Villiers. Actually, scratch that, I'd have Flintoff at 7 instead of Kapil.

 

[srbhkshk]

I only brought up Mark Waugh as an example of a better opener than Jayasuria as a pure batsman. I could easily have said Greenidge, Amla or Lara and perhaps I should have.

That being said, I know I'm biased towards Australians and I'm definitely biased against Indian players. I'd like to think that I have good reasons for those biases - Australians have been the dominant team in ODI cricket for most of the last two decades and in the decade before that most teams were fairly even and the decade before that I don't remember much of.

I'm biased against Indians because I don't really rate the Indian cricket culture as a whole. I didn't like the way the BCCI bullied the ICC into hosting the 2011 WC in India so that Tendulkar could have a home WC and I'm not convinced that they would have won if it had been hosted outside Asia. For the majority of their history there was little emphasis on the importance of fielding (which is super important in ODI cricket) although that has changed somewhat in the last decade. I also think that Indian fans in general rate their players way too highly and mostly based on statistics which are padded by small boundaries, weak opposition and dead tracks that we see all the time in Indian ODIs. But it's likely that given two equally skilled players, one from the West Indies and the other from India, I'd take the West Indian nine times out of ten (the other time is when the West Indian is Pollard).

But sometimes it's hard to take the voting seriously when pretty much all the Indian fans vote for an Indian player and nobody else does.

ATG poor reasons.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah I was thinking that.

Still, I'd maybe take Trescothick as a pure batsman above Jayasuria. Tresco was a monster in ODIs

 

[stephen]

Actually, I've been thinking about how hard it is to rate the current English team for the purposes of this thread. They look like they will have some ATG players but it could easily be a purple patch for them. And I honestly feel like they are better as a team than they are individually amazing.

 

[NUFAN]

Fair enough.

Thank you.

 

[stephen]

ATG poor reasons.

A strong argument can be made that batting in ODIs in India is easier than elsewhere when Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo reveals that of the grounds that have held the highest team totals, 5 of the top 10 are Indian grounds. Compared to 2 English grounds, 2 South African and 1 Australian ground. Looking further, 9 of the top 20 are Indian.

Of the grounds which have the highest batting averages (with more than 5 games played), Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo 6 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 grounds are Indian grounds.

Whichever way you slice it, Indian grounds result in more runs being scored, which inflates the record of the batsmen who bat upon them. I think their World Cup record is more indicative of their actual consistent skills as a team. That's not to say that they haven't had fine players over the years and I definitely do rate Kapil, Tendulkar, Dhoni, Kohli, Sehwag, Sharma, Ganguly and a few others as ODI cricketers. But I do think that Indian fans tend to buy into the Indian team's hype.

 

[ankitj]

I only brought up Mark Waugh as an example of a better opener than Jayasuria as a pure batsman. I could easily have said Greenidge, Amla or Lara and perhaps I should have.

That being said, I know I'm biased towards Australians and I'm definitely biased against Indian players. I'd like to think that I have good reasons for those biases - Australians have been the dominant team in ODI cricket for most of the last two decades and in the decade before that most teams were fairly even and the decade before that I don't remember much of.

I'm biased against Indians because I don't really rate the Indian cricket culture as a whole. I didn't like the way the BCCI bullied the ICC into hosting the 2011 WC in India so that Tendulkar could have a home WC and I'm not convinced that they would have won if it had been hosted outside Asia. For the majority of their history there was little emphasis on the importance of fielding (which is super important in ODI cricket) although that has changed somewhat in the last decade. I also think that Indian fans in general rate their players way too highly and mostly based on statistics which are padded by small boundaries, weak opposition and dead tracks that we see all the time in Indian ODIs. But it's likely that given two equally skilled players, one from the West Indies and the other from India, I'd take the West Indian nine times out of ten (the other time is when the West Indian is Pollard).

But sometimes it's hard to take the voting seriously when pretty much all the Indian fans vote for an Indian player and nobody else does.

What utter rubbish. At least Indian fans are not voting Waugh, Lee and Symonds level of players. Get a mirror.

 

[ankitj]

Btw Gilchrist/Bevan and Dhoni/Jayasuriya are not exclusive or only options. I'd have Dhoni+Bevan+Watson in my team.

 

[stephen]

What utter rubbish. At least Indian fans are not voting Waugh, Lee and Symonds level of players. Get a mirror.

I didn't vote for two of those players and justified why I voted for Symonds.

And besides, Lee was a gun ODI cricketer as was M Waugh, who averaged 44 opening the batting. Not too far behind Tendulkar, who averaged 48 and he's everyone's first choice.

Now I'm not saying that Waugh is on Tendulkar's level. I'm not saying he belongs in the first or second teams. All I ever said was that he was a better pure ODI batsman than Jayasuria.

On Lee: he averaged 23.36, took 380 wickets and had an average under 30 against all but Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. I don't rate him much in tests but he's right up there at ODI level. Remarkably similar stats to Waqar who most rate in the top few ODI bowlers of all time. I could see why he gets votes, especially since he was a very good lower order hitter as well.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean, if someone doesn't rate a cricketer due to their fielding abilities, or because they feel their record is padded by favorable conditions/opposition, that's fair enough.

To not rate a cricketer due to the actions of their country's cricket board, as though the two are in any way related, is crazy.

 

[srbhkshk]

A strong argument can be made that batting in ODIs in India is easier than elsewhere when Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo reveals that of the grounds that have held the highest team totals, 5 of the top 10 are Indian grounds. Compared to 2 English grounds, 2 South African and 1 Australian ground. Looking further, 9 of the top 20 are Indian.

Of the grounds which have the highest batting averages (with more than 5 games played), Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo 6 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 grounds are Indian grounds.

Whichever way you slice it, Indian grounds result in more runs being scored, which inflates the record of the batsmen who bat upon them. I think their World Cup record is more indicative of their actual consistent skills as a team. That's not to say that they haven't had fine players over the years and I definitely do rate Kapil, Tendulkar, Dhoni, Kohli, Sehwag, Sharma, Ganguly and a few others as ODI cricketers. But I do think that Indian fans tend to buy into the Indian team's hype.

I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that India has been a batsman dominated country for like ever, and thus will produce high scoring matches in general wherever they play?

 

[cnerd123]

Also MSD is gun I just didn't want to pick two keepers in the ATG XI. Bevan is perfectly good at that position, can bowl a bit if needed, is a better fielder, and MSD can captain and keep in the A team.

 

[srbhkshk]

Also MSD is gun I just didn't want to pick two keepers in the ATG XI. Bevan is perfectly good at that position, can bowl a bit if needed, is a better fielder, and MSD can captain and keep in the A team.

One of the criticisms of selecting of this team has been that the tail might lead to it being worse off than the A team, getting MSD in solves that issue and makes A weaker by default.

 

[stephen]

I mean, if someone doesn't rate a cricketer due to their fielding abilities, or because they feel their record is padded by favorable conditions/opposition, that's fair enough.

To not rate a cricketer due to the actions of their country's cricket board, as though the two are in any way related, is crazy.

I did say that it was a bias. I don't claim that it's entirely rational.

However I do feel that the Indian players are mollycoddled by the BCCI. That was why they got the 2011 WC and why Harbhajan Singh got off without discipline over the monkeygate scandal, among other things. Related to that, Indians seem to care more than other teams about individual statistics, which is why Tendulkar was allowed by the selectors to play on for way longer than he should have, searching for that hundredth hundred. Maybe it's because of the way that the game is marketed in India but individual batsmen (in particular) seem way overrated in the minds of Indian supporters. At an institutional level, the BCCI coming out and saying publicly "don't worry, we'll beat them at home" after getting thrashed in a series is a totally terrible attitude to have. In Australia getting thrashed overseas is considered a public disgrace and almost worthy of a national investigation because winning is more important than the players.

It's not really just the BCCI. It's the whole of Indian cricket. It seems to be content with mediocrity (provided that the stats look great) and that filters down to the players attitudes across the board.

I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that India has been a batsman dominated country for like ever, and thus will produce high scoring matches in general wherever they play?

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

India average 37 per wicket in India, 36 in Pakistan, 34 in England, 33 in Sri Lanka, 29 in Australia and the West Indies, 27 in New Zealand.

Australia average 39 in Pakistan, 38 in India, 36 in the West Indies, 34 in South Africa, New Zealand and England, 33 in Australia and 30 in Sri Lanka.

England average 34 in England, 31 in India, 29 in Pakistan and the West Indies, 28 in South Africa, 27 in Australia and New Zealand and 23 in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka average 33 in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, 32 in the West Indies, 29 in India, 28 in England, 28 in New Zealand and South Africa and 26 in Australia.

South Africa average 39 in South Africa, 36 in the West Indies, India and Pakistan, 35 in NZ, 33 in Aus, 30 in England and 27 in Sri Lanka.

I'm not going to bother looking at any more teams. In all cases except Sri Lanka, teams average more in India than virtually anywhere else. Interestingly, Sri Lanka appears the worst place to tour for batsmen, followed by Australia and New Zealand. Australia seem to get no real home ground boost to their averages in ODI cricket at all, despite Australia having a ton of gun batsmen over the years.

 

[stephen]

Also MSD is gun I just didn't want to pick two keepers in the ATG XI. Bevan is perfectly good at that position, can bowl a bit if needed, is a better fielder, and MSD can captain and keep in the A team.

One of the criticisms of selecting of this team has been that the tail might lead to it being worse off than the A team, getting MSD in solves that issue and makes A weaker by default.

Only because the A team won't have a top two keeper-batsman. It's strategic drafting

 

[vcs]

I did say that it was a bias. I don't claim that it's entirely rational.

However I do feel that the Indian players are mollycoddled by the BCCI. That was why they got the 2011 WC and why Harbhajan Singh got off without discipline over the monkeygate scandal, among other things. Related to that, Indians seem to care more than other teams about individual statistics, which is why Tendulkar was allowed by the selectors to play on for way longer than he should have, searching for that hundredth hundred. Maybe it's because of the way that the game is marketed in India but individual batsmen (in particular) seem way overrated in the minds of Indian supporters. At an institutional level, the BCCI coming out and saying publicly "don't worry, we'll beat them at home" after getting thrashed in a series is a totally terrible attitude to have. In Australia getting thrashed overseas is considered a public disgrace and almost worthy of a national investigation because winning is more important than the players.

It's not really just the BCCI. It's the whole of Indian cricket. It seems to be content with mediocrity (provided that the stats look great) and that filters down to the players attitudes across the board.



Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

India average 37 per wicket in India, 36 in Pakistan, 34 in England, 33 in Sri Lanka, 29 in Australia and the West Indies, 27 in New Zealand.

Australia average 39 in Pakistan, 38 in India, 36 in the West Indies, 34 in South Africa, New Zealand and England, 33 in Australia and 30 in Sri Lanka.

England average 34 in England, 31 in India, 29 in Pakistan and the West Indies, 28 in South Africa, 27 in Australia and New Zealand and 23 in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka average 33 in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, 32 in the West Indies, 29 in India, 28 in England, 28 in New Zealand and South Africa and 26 in Australia.

South Africa average 39 in South Africa, 36 in the West Indies, India and Pakistan, 35 in NZ, 33 in Aus, 30 in England and 27 in Sri Lanka.

I'm not going to bother looking at any more teams. In all cases except Sri Lanka, teams average more in India than virtually anywhere else. Interestingly, Sri Lanka appears the worst place to tour for batsmen, followed by Australia and New Zealand. Australia seem to get no real home ground boost to their averages in ODI cricket at all, despite Australia having a ton of gun batsmen over the years.

These are all, mostly, terrible generalizations.