Alltime ODI XI

[Pratters]

Clearly Lara at 4 averaging less than 35 would be ideal

You can interchange Richards and Lara. Not that big a deal.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay. That is a flawed logic for one day cricket. You usually have teams going for your best batsmen in the top four in national teams as they get more overs to play.

Why is that flawed logic? If your best player was good enough,hed probably be able to make his best position ITFP. You cannot simply pick Viv Richards and say hey, hes one of the best players ever so lets send him opening.

 

[tooextracool]

You can interchange Richards and Lara. Not that big a deal.

Except that Lara's best position was opening rather than at 3 or 4? As mentioned earlier, Bevan beats Lara, Richards and every other tom,**** or harry that decided to bat at number 4. So why on earth would i deprive Bevan of the number 4 position and have someone inferior do it?

 

[Pratters]

Why is that flawed logic?

Because the best players would likely bat higher up the order in their respective national teams than they could in an All Time XI. A Ponting would rarely bat at number 5 for Australia now but given an option of choosing a not so fancy player versus a Ponting - a superb one day batsman, it wouldn't make sense to not choose a Ponting just because he hasn't batted enough at 5 or hasn't been that good (just giving an example and so don't see the stats of Ponting. I have not either.)

 

[Pratters]

Except that Lara's best position was opening rather than at 3 or 4? As mentioned earlier, Bevan beats Lara, Richards and every other tom,**** or harry that decided to bat at number 4. So why on earth would i deprive Bevan of the number 4 position and have someone inferior do it?

To make a stronger team. The given players are still pretty damn good at other positions and you have very strong players in the given positions instead of them. In the end, if you just go by how a player has been at position x, you will end up having comparatively weaker players at specific slots and a weaker team over all thus.

 

[Matt79]

You are right, it probably doesnt matter. However what i was trying to show is that Bevan at 4 is a much better player than Bevan anywhere else batting first, while Vivs averages suggest he was good enough to bat at 3 anyways.




Andy Flower. Not much of a difference in average, Gilly has a better SR but in my side when you have 3-4 strokemakers its rather pointless having another when when you could instead have a player who was an accumulator.

I disagree, I think in ODIs the margin between Gilchrist and the next best alternative (which might be Sangga not Flower anyway) is so big its not funny. In an all-time XI, with Bevan already in the team, why waste a spot on an accumulator as opposed to a stroke player of Gilchrist's quality? Gilchrist is a proven matchwinner in ODIs - I wouldn't say that's as true of Flower in the short game as it was in the Test arena.

 

[tooextracool]

Because the best players would likely bat higher up the order in their respective national teams than they could in an All Time XI.

and the reason for that is because there are other players who are superior to them in their regular positions.

A Ponting would rarely bat at number 5 for Australia now but given an option of choosing a not so fancy player versus a Ponting - a superb one day batsman, it wouldn't make sense to not choose a Ponting just because he hasn't batted enough at 5 or hasn't been that good (just giving an example and so don't see the stats of Ponting. I have not either.)

At the end of the day a player like Jonty Rhodes averaging 40 odd at 5 and saving 20 runs in the field, is doing a better job than Ponting who has barely ever batted at 5 and therefore cant be trusted to succeed in that position.
My point is that how can you be so sure that if someone is scoring runs at 3 that he will score at 5 when he is required to do a completely different job in that position? I can understand having a player at 3 bat at 4 or vice versa given the small difference in those positions but why else do you think we see people with distorted records at different positions in the side? Ponting, Tendulkar and Bevan may all be superior players to Lance Klusener, yet Klusener is the best player for the number 7 position because hes a specialist for that position and nobody has done a job better than him in the same position.

 

[tooextracool]

To make a stronger team. The given players are still pretty damn good at other positions and you have very strong players in the given positions instead of them. In the end, if you just go by how a player has been at position x, you will end up having comparatively weaker players at specific slots and a weaker team over all thus.

Im sorry what? How on earth would you make a stronger team by having Tendulkar bat at 5 or Richards at 7? There is no logic behind that whatsoever IMO.
I havent picked random players in my side, Ive picked players who were absolutely brilliant in their specialist positions. They may not have scored centuries every 2nd game and they may not have as many runs as Ponting but that doesnt mean that in that select position they arent better. Ponting at 5 or 6 would be a waste of space because theres no way he is as destructive a player or as good as working singles and 2s as Rhodes, Klusener or Abdul Razzaq.

 

[tooextracool]

I disagree, I think in ODIs the margin between Gilchrist and the next best alternative (which might be Sangga not Flower anyway) is so big its not funny. In an all-time XI, with Bevan already in the team, why waste a spot on an accumulator as opposed to a stroke player of Gilchrist's quality? Gilchrist is a proven matchwinner in ODIs - I wouldn't say that's as true of Flower in the short game as it was in the Test arena.

Because when you have players like Tendulkar, Lara, Richards and Klusener there is no need to have another strokemaker or a destructive batsman in the side. At number 4 or 5, you need players who are accumulators, players who can come in and bat according to the situation. Gilchrist simply doesnt fit the description im looking for.

 

[Pratters]

and the reason for that is because there are other players who are superior to them in their regular positions.

More often than not the best players bat higher up so that they can play maximum overs (positions 1-4).

 

[Pratters]

My point is that how can you be so sure that if someone is scoring runs at 3 that he will score at 5 when he is required to do a completely different job in that position? I can understand having a player at 3 bat at 4 or vice versa given the small difference in those positions but why else do you think we see people with distorted records at different positions in the side? Ponting, Tendulkar and Bevan may all be superior players to Lance Klusener, yet Klusener is the best player for the number 7 position because hes a specialist for that position and nobody has done a job better than him in the same position.

At six, seven you can use players who have been better excellent down (Bevan, Klusener) but if you have some one who player for his team at 4 but has to play at 5 in a world XI, it is not that big a deal. You can see this in switching from FC to test cricket as well. A player who batted high in FC cricket has to bat a bit lower down in test cricket because there are other players who have done a similar job in their own FC teams. It is really not that big a deal.

 

[Pratters]

Im sorry what? How on earth would you make a stronger team by having Tendulkar bat at 5 or Richards at 7? There is no logic behind that whatsoever IMO.
I havent picked random players in my side, Ive picked players who were absolutely brilliant in their specialist positions. They may not have scored centuries every 2nd game and they may not have as many runs as Ponting but that doesnt mean that in that select position they arent better. Ponting at 5 or 6 would be a waste of space because theres no way he is as destructive a player or as good as working singles and 2s as Rhodes, Klusener or Abdul Razzaq.

No one is doing that. They are making minor adjustments which make the team stronger. Many have picked Ponting at 5 for example and not doing away with one of Lara, Richards and Ponting just because they weren't the rgeatest at x,y,z positions. Just going mechanically and picking the best player in each position historically in ODI's doesn't work. You compare your team with my team or some of the other teams people have put in. Flexibility in selections have to be there rather than following a mechanical approach. Sorry, I disagree with your logic.

 

[marc71178]

At six, seven you can use players who have been better excellent down (Bevan, Klusener) but if you have some one who player for his team at 4 but has to play at 5 in a world XI, it is not that big a deal. You can see this in switching from FC to test cricket as well. A player who batted high in FC cricket has to bat a bit lower down in test cricket because there are other players who have done a similar job in their own FC teams. It is really not that big a deal.

Except in Tests there are rarely any time pressures in terms of how long you've got to bat - in ODIs there most definitely are, and the 5,6,7 man has a different role to a 1,2,3 man.

 

[Pratters]

Except in Tests there are rarely any time pressures in terms of how long you've got to bat - in ODIs there most definitely are, and the 5,6,7 man has a different role to a 1,2,3 man.

It happens in domestic one dayers versus international ODI's as well.

 

[marc71178]

Trying to remember when most of the England team last played domestic OD cricket, but I'm sure Pietersen used to go in at the 4,5 role, likewise Collingwood and Flintoff was more about 5,6, which is what they play in Internationals.

 

[Pratters]

Trying to remember when most of the England team last played domestic OD cricket, but I'm sure Pietersen used to go in at the 4,5 role, likewise Collingwood and Flintoff was more about 5,6, which is what they play in Internationals.

My statement essentially which you tried to contradict - A player who batted high in domestic one day cricket has to bat a bit lower down in one day international cricket because there are other players who have done a similar job in their own teams.

A bit lower doesn't mean the role changes in your words. 5 versus 4 for example.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, but no matter how many times I read that it still doesn't make sense, so cannot work out what you are actually saying to reply to it.

 

[Pratters]

so cannot work out what you are actually saying to reply to it.

No worries.

 

[Sanz]

My statement essentially which you tried to contradict - A player who batted high in domestic one day cricket has to bat a bit lower down in one day international cricket because there are other players who have done a similar job in their own teams.

So where does No. 11 bat then ? i.e the guy who bats at No. 11 in domestic One Day Cricket)

 

[Pratters]

So where does No. 11 bat then ? i.e the guy who bats at No. 11 in domestic One Day Cricket)

Add more often than not to my statement and stop being idiotic.