Best Ever ODI XI

[Deja moo]

Not having Bevan in a best ever ODI XI is the same as not having Bradman in a best ever Test XI, its just wouldn't be right.

Bevan isnt that good

 

[Craig]

Again the question regarding the batsman with SR 100 And Average 14.
Why r u obsessed with this guy ? Who is this guy ?

Answer...NO.

Nobody actually playing world cricket or even exists.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Bevan isnt that good

What I'm trying to say is that Bevan is one of the best ever (if not the best ever) ODI players.

Bradman is the best ever Test player, also best overall player by a country mile.

I was never comparing them.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Nobody actually playing world cricket or even exists.

Wel the closest player that comes to a SR of 100 and a average of 14 is Nuwan Zoysa

 

[twctopcat]

Bradman is the best ever Test player, also best overall player by a country mile.

I was never comparing them.

I'm sure alot of Sober's fan's would like to argue that point with regards to best overall player ever. I think even Bradman once said that Sobers was the best cricketer he had ever seen, in terms of all round game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Wel the closest player that comes to a SR of 100 and a average of 14 is Nuwan Zoysa

Beat me to it!

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sure alot of Sober's fan's would like to argue that point with regards to best overall player ever. I think even Bradman once said that Sobers was the best cricketer he had ever seen, in terms of all round game.

well you dont expect bradman to say that sobers wasnt as good a player as he was now do you?

 

[tooextracool]

He has Kallis

kallis as a pacer doesnt deserve a place in the SA side let alone a world XI. you can imagine that all the batsmen will be queueing up when he comes out to bowl after wasim and waqar go off.

 

[tooextracool]

bevan has an one-day strike rate of 74 and a 56 average which has been boosted by the high number of not-outs which he has has coming lower down the order..

so how many other no 6s and 7s have averages of above 50? coming down the order also means that he has the responsibility to get quick runs without getting set and that means that he is just about as likely to get out without scoring too much as well. its also interesting that he averages higher at 4 than he does at 6 and 7 so i dont see how you could say that batting lower down the order has boosted his average.

however, he did play 2 important knocks against england and new england to take australia to wins.

you havent seen much of bevan pre 2003 have you?

bevan, has not done too much recently as well and players like viv richards get in ahead of him.

is this a current world XI? we're looking at the best ODI players in the history of the game and i dont see how you could use his being out of form recently as an excuse for not having him on your side. what has viv richards done in cricket lately?

 

[Craig]

Beat me to it!

Granted he doesnt bat in the middle doesnt he?

 

[a massive zebra]

I'm sure alot of Sober's fan's would like to argue that point with regards to best overall player ever. I think even Bradman once said that Sobers was the best cricketer he had ever seen, in terms of all round game.

Bradman could not watch himself could he so Sobers would obviously be the best player he has ever seen. A search to find the best player ever has been done a number of times and Bradman wins on every occasion.

 

[chicane]

I'm sure alot of Sober's fan's would like to argue that point with regards to best overall player ever. I think even Bradman once said that Sobers was the best cricketer he had ever seen, in terms of all round game.

Yep. Gary Sobers is the best overall player ever.

 

[twctopcat]

Bradman could not watch himself could he so Sobers would obviously be the best player he has ever seen. A search to find the best player ever has been done a number of times and Bradman wins on every occasion.

Yeah but it's not as if Bradman doubted his own ability, he said he would have himself in an all time XI, correct as he is. In terms of all round cricketer i wouldn't dismiss sobers so readily as the best player ever, Sobers could bowl a bit don't you know....

 

[twctopcat]

Bradman could not watch himself could he so Sobers would obviously be the best player he has ever seen. A search to find the best player ever has been done a number of times and Bradman wins on every occasion.

Yeah but it's not as if Bradman doubted his own ability, he said he would have himself in an all time XI, correct as he is. In terms of all round cricketer i wouldn't dismiss sobers so readily as the best player ever, didn't Sobers play a knock one time which left Bradman saying " i wish i could play like that".

 

[a massive zebra]

In terms of all round cricketer i wouldn't dismiss sobers so readily as the best player ever, Sobers could bowl a bit don't you know....

Yes but not enough to make up for the difference in batting. Sobers batting was by far the strongest point in his game yet is still falls 42 runs an innings short. And Bradman was also an outstanding captain unlike Sobers who lost more matches than he won as captain despite having himself in the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course, at the same time, would he save 10 runs that another player would not? Almost certainly. That effectively adds ten runs to his average. People never think about things in that way, but with overall value, you have to consider the amount that they will add to their team's score and also the amount that they will remove from the opponent's score.

Gilchrist (wk)
Tendulkar
Bevan
Ponting
Richards
Rhodes
Klusener
Warne
McGrath
Akram
Bond

Others I considered: Murali, Ambrose, Donald, Cairns, S. Pollock, PA de Silva.

Not sure if I really have the bowlers right - the main four are fine, but that still leaves ten overs. I guess it'll do, at least for about ten minutes thought on my lunch break.

Klusener will do just fine, and even if he isnt oerforming with the ball, with an attack like that, it wouldnt matter!

Tendulkar could also act as a 5th bowler. Tendulkar and Klusener is a much better 5th bowling combination than some I have seen (eg. A.McGrath and R.Clarke, M.Waugh and R.Ponting, S.Matsikenyeri and E.Chigumbura).

 

[chicane]

S.Matsikenyeri and E.Chigumbura.

Why should they even be mentioned?

 

[tooextracool]

Klusener will do just fine, and even if he isnt oerforming with the ball, with an attack like that, it wouldnt matter!

klusener pre injury was a pretty good bowler capable of bowling upto 90 mph. he came to india in 96 and took 8/64 in eden gardens. unfortunately post injury he really became a medium pacer who bowled 4 slower balls and 2 quick ones in an over.

 

[a massive zebra]

klusener pre injury was a pretty good bowler capable of bowling upto 90 mph. he came to india in 96 and took 8/64 in eden gardens. unfortunately post injury he really became a medium pacer who bowled 4 slower balls and 2 quick ones in an over.

You seem to be confusing the quality of a pace bowler with their pace. The best bowlers are those who can consistently take wickets cheaply (ie McGrath, Pollock, Akhtar) and not necessarily the fastest (ie Sami, Jones, Hayward). If Klusener lost pace it does not mean he became a worse bowler, because there is more to pace bowling than simply pace. (im not disagreeing with your point that Kluesener is no longer the bowler he once was, but pointing out that a loss of pace is not necessarily detrimental, as you implicity state. When Richard Hadlee started his career, he bowled flat out pace and was rather expensive, but he later cut down his pace and concentrated on accuracy and became one of the best bowlers never)

 

[tooextracool]

You seem to be confusing the quality of a pace bowler with their pace. The best bowlers are those who can consistently take wickets cheaply (ie McGrath, Pollock, Akhtar) and not necessarily the fastest (ie Sami, Jones, Hayward). If Klusener lost pace it does not mean he became a worse bowler, because there is more to pace bowling than simply pace. (im not disagreeing with your point that Kluesener is no longer the bowler he once was, but pointing out that a loss of pace is not necessarily detrimental, as you implicity state. When Richard Hadlee started his career, he bowled flat out pace and was rather expensive, but he later cut down his pace and concentrated on accuracy and became one of the best bowlers never)

it varies from bowler to bowler. some bowlers need pace while others dont. generally taller bowlers(mcgrath,walsh,caddick etc) dont need pace and tend to last longer in world cricket because they get more out of a wicket than a shorter bowler would. whereas bowlers like gough,donald and waqar were never really the same once they had lost that extra pace that they had. a combination of pace and accuracy can be deadly and those are the bowlers that tend to be amongst the elite.
coming back to klusener, klusener went from bowling at around 90 mph to bowling at 75 mph. thats a major drop of pace and unless you are playing in english conditions, i dont care how accurate you are, you wont be a successful pacer. look at martin bicknell, ealham etc they are accurate but without the pace they are nothing. generally to be a successful pacer you at least need to bowl at 80mph and then be accurate.