age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
no, why waste time at any point in the innings if you can avoid it...
besides bevans best cricket was never played at the top of the order was it.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Greatest Ever One Day XI
- Thread starter roseboy64
- Start date
no, why waste time at any point in the innings if you can avoid it...
besides bevans best cricket was never played at the top of the order was it.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
doesn't mean he couldn't bat does it. certainly good enough for number 8
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
59 matches at number 4, good average yes, but SR of just 70
105 matches at number 6 average only a couple lower, SR close to 80
tooextracool
International Coach
as opposed to pollock who averages 24. wasim akram was a slogger and nothing else. coould have been something else though.age_master said:
tooextracool
International Coach
brilliant statistics sherlock, isnt it fairly obvious why his SR is higher? do you really believe that he would score at the same SR in the middle overs as he would towards the end of an innings?age_master said:
tooextracool
International Coach
except that he clearly didnt, otherwise he wouldnt have won so many games for his country.age_master said:
really, is that why he was averaging 60 at 4? he was never allowed to bat at the top thanks to the geniuses known as the australian selectors.age_master said:
tooextracool
International Coach
so how many bowlers have an ER of below 4 then? saqlain's ER is 4.29 as opposed to murali's which is 3.78.age_master said:maybe because he just isn't
tooextracool
International Coach
is that why his ER and avg has gone up over the last few years.aussie said:
slugger
State Vice-Captain
the way the odi game is played is far differ'ent to the way it is played now. each decade 70's, 80's, 90's the batsmen and bowlers and even fielding have all been modified and improved, according to the way the game was believed to be the best way to play it. openers for one of yesterday year did'nt bat like they bat now they far more aggressive. middle to lower order batsmen would have given up chasing a big score compared to klausner or bevan. fielding like rhodes was never even considered years before. etc. etc.
i think for more of a realistic choice it could be broken down into best all XI team from each decade.
i think for more of a realistic choice it could be broken down into best all XI team from each decade.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
and which of the batsmen in the aussie team currently score at a rate under 70? when he had the time to take time to set up his innings he did, but when he didn't he averaged almost the same and had a SR nearly 10 higher
C_C
International Captain
arguing that bevan should bat higher than #4 is idiotic. openers + #3 have to negotiate the 15 over rule...and to be successful, you MUST be a strokeplayer who hits it to the boundary...bevo is NOT. he is a nurdler of the highest class and if you think pinching singles with the field up is easier than pinching singles when the field is spread...what can i say.....except get some brains!!
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
Saqlain:
Home: 20.61
Away: 23.3
Neutral: 21.6
Career:
ave: 21.78
sr: 30.4
er: 4.29
Murali
Home: 21.95
Away: 22.62
Neutral: 21.91
Career:
ave: 22.11
sr: 35
er: 3.78
the main thing that surprised me there was just how few matches Saqlain played at home, 28 games out of 169. few more and his average might have been even better.
Saqlain has the better average and SR, Murali the better economy. personally i go for the wicket taker over the tight bowler, especially when the averages are about the same or when they are in the wicket takers advantage.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
hmm maybe because Gilchrist also takes care of the opening spot, not sure who to push out of the middle order to put flower in, another opener would be needed to? ME Waugh maybe?
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Can't really argue much with that side. I'd put Kapil Dev in the all-rounders spot and I'd rather have Lee, Saqlain or Murali than Hadlee, but it's pretty damn good regardless.roseboy64 said:
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I rate brett lee as well, but ahead of hadlee?? Have you seen Hadlee's one day record?? In fact have you seen Joel Garners? Apart from Viv your team is totally full of players playing since 1990. ODI's have been played since the early to mid 70s.FaaipDeOiad said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
That's done on purpose. The nature of one day cricket changed massively in the early 90s. People took it more seriously, scores went up and bowlers economy rates went up with them. Garner is a very good pick and I'd be happy to see him come in for Lee, or a second spinner such as Saqlain or Murali. On later reflection I changed Kluesener to Kapil Dev.zinzan12 said:
However, aside from Richards, Kapil and Garner I wouldn't really consider people from before the 90s very much. The likes of Hadlee, Imran and Lillee were awesome bowlers, but their records in ODIs are too slanted by the fact that a scoring rate of 60 then was considered quite acceptable.