Alltime ODI XI

[aussie]

I think ive done one before but i will do it again:
Tendulkar
Lara- Its where hes performed best, and i cant see why you wouldnt want to give him as much time as possible to get set.

Lara & Tendulkar to face the new-ball, nightmare for the bowlers, top stuff..

 

[silentstriker]

Lara & Tendulkar to face the new-ball, nightmare for the bowlers, top stuff..

In ODI, a Gilchrist & Tendulkar partnership would be more destructive IMO. Lara can come it at 3, which would fit him better, plus we'd still get to see Lara + Tendy batting plenty of times.

 

[pietersenrocks]

1.Sachin
2.Gilchrist
3.Pietersen
4.Bevan
5.Hussey
6.Kallis
7.Botham
8.Mcgrath
9.Ambrose
10.Bond
11.Asif

 

[BhupinderSingh]

1.Sachin
2.Gilchrist
3.Pietersen
4.Bevan
5.Hussey6.Kallis
7.Botham
8.Mcgrath
9.Ambrose
10.Bond
11.Asif

 

[Matt79]

My team would be v. similar to C_C's at the start of the thread, with McGrath in for one of Waqar or Garner (hard tho it be to leave either out).

for the sake of contributing something interesting, a slightly different alternative could be:
Sachin
Gilchrist
Ponting
Viv
Lara
Bevan
Kluesner
S. Pollock
Wasim
Murali
McGrath

 

[aussie]

well they aren't the worst options, they may well and turn out to be great ODI players when they call it quits.

 

[tooextracool]

In ODI, a Gilchrist & Tendulkar partnership would be more destructive IMO. Lara can come it at 3, which would fit him better, plus we'd still get to see Lara + Tendy batting plenty of times.

Problem is that Richards was better at 3 than at 4, and Bevan in the first innings was a much better player at 4 than anywhere else. Gilchrist simply just doesnt fit in the side IMO

 

[Pratters]

Problem is that Richards was better at 3 than at 4, and Bevan in the first innings was a much better player at 4 than anywhere else. Gilchrist simply just doesnt fit in the side IMO

Not true.

3rd position 1 1 0 17 17 - - 17.00 0 0 0
4th position 27 27 4 1202 108* 106 83 52.26 2 8 0
5th position 19 19 5 604 101* 58 58 43.14 1 3 1
6th position 58 58 22 2041 84* 83 72* 56.69 0 16 2
7th position 10 10 6 166 42* 36* 29* 41.50 0 0 0

 

[Matt79]

I'm sure it really doesn't make that big a deal whether you come in 3 or 4 in ODIs for a player of Viv's ability, cf. the situation in the game, the stage he was at in his career etc etc.

Gilly doesn't fit in the team?? Given you need a keeper, who do you suggest is a better fit for the team?

 

[andyc]

tandulker
Chris Gayle
M. bevan
b. lara
inzi
Adam gilgrist
imran khan (c)
wasim akram
saqlin mushtaq
shoiab akhter
bret lee

Best spelling ever?

 

[Dydl]

^ Most definitely. The players should change their names in order to honour this occasion.

 

[Rajeev]

Wasim
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Inzamam Ul _ haq
Jayasuriya
Warne
Vaas
Bevan
Viv Richards

 

[PhoenixFire]

Wasim
Tendulkar
Ganguly
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Inzamam Ul _ haq
Jayasuriya
Warne
Vaas
Bevan
Viv Richards

It would make more sense if it was in batting order....

 

[tooextracool]

Not true.

3rd position 1 1 0 17 17 - - 17.00 0 0 0
4th position 27 27 4 1202 108* 106 83 52.26 2 8 0
5th position 19 19 5 604 101* 58 58 43.14 1 3 1
6th position 58 58 22 2041 84* 83 72* 56.69 0 16 2
7th position 10 10 6 166 42* 36* 29* 41.50 0 0 0

So you dont think that Bevan at 4 with 2 centuries and 4 not outs at an average of 52.26 is better than Bevan at 6 with 22 not outs and no centuries at an average of 56.69?
P.S- the reason why i had him at 4 ITFP was because he would bat in the middle overs instead of the slog overs and his strike rate would be far more effective.

 

[Pratters]

So you dont think that Bevan at 4 with 2 centuries and 4 not outs at an average of 52.26 is better than Bevan at 6 with 22 not outs and no centuries at an average of 56.69?

It is certainly not much better (what you claimed initially for him playing at the given position and thus having Gilly out of the team). Bevan lower down the order is pretty effective as well and if you have an option to chose Bevan at 4 and not have Gilly in the team opposed to Bevan lower down and have Gilly in the team, why go for the first option? Especially considering the alternates at four are not bad at all and Bevan has been one of the best finishers and lower order players in one day cricket if not the best.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sure it really doesn't make that big a deal whether you come in 3 or 4 in ODIs for a player of Viv's ability, cf. the situation in the game, the stage he was at in his career etc etc.

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.

Gilly doesn't fit in the team?? Given you need a keeper, who do you suggest is a better fit for the team?

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.

 

[tooextracool]

It is certainly not much better (what you claimed initially for him playing at the given position and thus having Gilly out of the team. Bevan lower down the order is pretty effective as well and if you have an option to chose Bevan at 4 and not have Gilly in the team opposed to Bevan lower down and have Gilly in the team, why go for the first option? Especially considering the alternates at four are not bad at all and Bevan has been one of the best finishers and lower order players in one day cricket if not the best.

Finisher? The problem is Bevan has been a great finisher batting 2nd. Batting first theres been a lot of fuss about his SR being rather rubbish and that scoring at a run a ball or a little more is not good enough in the last 10 overs. Thats exactly the point im trying to argue against. If Bevan was maintaining a similar average and SR batting 4 with a lot less not outs than Bevan at 6 with the same SR and more not outs(and more importantly smaller scores), then surely youd want him batting up the order? Why have Bevan 30 not out of 30 balls when you could have him 80 out of 80 balls?

 

[Pratters]

Why have Bevan 30 not out of 30 balls when you could have him 80 out of 80 balls?

There are other players who can do the role higher up the order:

IVA Richards
BC Lara
RT Ponting

Also, where team composition is concerned, if you have to choose Bevan lower down and Gilchrist in the team v Bevan higher up and Gilchrist out of the team, I really don't see why I should go for the second option. Also considering you have Jonty Rhodes at number 6 instead of Bevan. You mention Rhodes being quick between the wickets but Bevan was pretty quick as well if you recall. Andy Flower at 5 is not needed. It is like saying you need a Katich in the Australian one day team.

 

[tooextracool]

There are other players who can do the role higher up the order:

IVA Richards
BC Lara
RT Ponting

Also, where team composition is concerned, if you have to choose Bevan lower down and Gilchrist in the team v Bevan higher up and Gilchrist out of the team, I really don't see why I should go for the second option. Also considering you have Jonty Rhodes at number 6 instead of Bevan. You mention Rhodes being quick between the wickets but Bevan was pretty quick as well if you recall. Andy Flower at 5 is not needed. It is like saying you need a Katich in the Australian one day team.

Clearly Lara at 4 averaging less than 35 would be ideal
The point is not that other players could do a good job there, it is that Bevan could do the best job there, and he was not just better in that position than everyone else, he was much much better. I am a firm believer that you pick a team according to which player is the best for each position, Unfortunately a lot of other people including yourself seem to think you can pick the best 7 players ever in ODIs and randomly slot them in any position and have them perform at their best. This flawed thinking is what resulted in the ICC rest of world side getting thrashed against the aussie XI not too long ago. I mean Pietersen at 7? commone
The reason i picked rhodes was not just because he was quick between the wickets, but because he actually saved about 15 runs in the field every game, no fielder could resemble that sort of consistency ever. Add that to his average at 5 or 6 and he was an excellent player.
The reason why i didnt select gilchrist is once again the first point i mentioned. best player for each position and find which player matches each position better.

 

[Pratters]

I am a firm believer that you pick a team according to which player is the best for each position

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.