ODI ATG XIs

[TheJediBrah]

What about Richard Hadlee ? Best Batsman among best of the bowlers.

sure it's been said many times, but you don't need your number 9, 10, 11s to do much batting at all in ODIs. Statistics show this.

Definitely wouldn't be the worst selection though, you could justify picking him on his bowling alone and the extra 3-4 runs you'd get a game from him with the bat over a Garner/McGrath is a bonus.

 

[Borges]

With the 50+ measure, Ambrose and Hadlee are gold class: Ambrose once every 16.00 innings, Hadlee once every 14.38 innings

 

[Bolo]

Pollock's batting is unnecessary in an ATXI which already contains a Devine number 8 (Akram). It's a nice to have. I'd much rather the better bowler.

Klusener is the kind of all rounder I want to see batting number 7 in an all time side. Aggressive with the bat, very good with the ball. Kapil if you want a slightly better bowler and slightly worse batsman. Symonds if you want a better batsman and worse bowler.

If Viv is in an all time side I think Symonds is a good enough all rounder for the side. You have two genuine fifth bowlers for world class sides with those two.

But if you're looking for a bowler I'd go with Klusener or Kapil for the number 7 spot.

Akram is a tailender in odis. A very good one admittedly, but the bottom 4 are dismal with the bat collectively if you just pick the best bowlers. Needs a batting AR unless you play 2 bowling ARs.

Symonds and Viv were very expensive. Put them up against an atg lineup in modern conditions and you will see them going for over 70 runs in half the games you play. You are losing a ton of games before your best bowlers even bowl out, because you arent saving these two for the death. By the time the death comes around the opposition has runs on the board and wickets in hand. Brutal.

Klusener also expensive. He has a partial excuse in that he bowled a lot at the death, but its also the fact that he was inconsistent.

Hard to find a place for dev. He can only play if there are two bowling ARs, but flintoff is slightly better in both disciplines, while pollock is vastly superior with the ball and only slightly worse with the bat.

 

[the big bambino]

Pollock was pretty pitch reliant by 2007. He was the best around when there was seam and bounce, but he was too slow to generate lift on soft decks by that stage. Mcgraths extra bounce served him well, but he wasn't completely immune to the same problem. He also got smashed in the game hayden took pollock apart.

Given they were about the same pace why was McGrath capable of generating the lift whereas Pollock wasn't? It seems the ability to generate bounce is not simply a factor of speed. Pollock was only 2 inches shorter than McGrath so it doesn't seem height is a distinguishable factor either.

 

[Borges]

The moral of the story is that if you do not want to concede too many runs, and as an added benefit score a lot of lower order runs, pack your team with genuine all rounders.

The conclusive, well established and scientifically proven 50+ measure tells us this:

Imran: once every 15.91 innings (well below Garner, but then who isn't below Garner?)
Kapil: once every 15.00 innings
Hadlee: once every 14.38 innings

Botham and Flintoff are not doing too shabbily either, with McGrath and Murali sandwiched between them:

Botham: once every 8.29 innings
Flintoff: once every 7.05 innings

And for a spin bowling all rounder, look no further than
Shakib Al Hasan: once every 5.13 innings (well below Murali, but only slightly worse than Saqlain and better than Warne).

Q.E.D

 

[_00_deathscar]

Sorry to bring this discussion back a few pages, but is someone SERIOUSLY arguing that Sachin Tendulkar as an ODI opener was only a marginal upgrade on Mark Waugh? Sachin's played more matches batting 2nd alone than Waugh played in his entire career.

Funnily enough, they would actually be good openers together though, seeing as Waugh's statistics are not really affected by whether he batted in the first position or second (just about a run or so in the average, and thereabouts in the strike rate too).

Sachin's were, for some bizarre reason (some weird mental block?), vastly, vastly different.
1st: 47 matches @ 36.81 SR 82.82
2nd: 293 matches @ 50.31 SR 88.71

That 2nd set of statistics is Kohli-esque. Of course, it took a while to work it out (1994 when he first opened?).
And Sachin wasn't very good in 4th or 5th, having played nearly 100 ODIs in both positions and averaging in the mid 30s, albeit some of these was when he was much younger.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sorry to bring this discussion back a few pages, but is someone SERIOUSLY arguing that Sachin Tendulkar as an ODI opener was only a marginal upgrade on Mark Waugh?

Yes and we laughed at it. No need to go over this again.

 

[Bolo]

Given they were about the same pace why was McGrath capable of generating the lift whereas Pollock wasn't? It seems the ability to generate bounce is not simply a factor of speed. Pollock was only 2 inches shorter than McGrath so it doesn't seem height is a distinguishable factor either.

4 inches according to Wikipedia. This is significant, although I'm not sure the difference is this big in reality.

Height, release point, flick of the wrist, and seam usage are all I can think of. It mostly comes down to height when comparing these two. Not sure about the wrist. Early career pollock was something of a back of a length bowler and he went good length when he slowed, so ended with less bounce.

Lift is basically a cheat code for odis. Skiddier bowlers are never that good. Compare the records of garner and Marshall or Steyn and morkel in tests and odis.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I would consider Waqar Younis to be somewhat of an exception, but broadly I agree

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah we all know those bowlers in club cricket that bowl quick back of a length getting good bounce and don't go for runs, but they don't get you out either. Much more useful the more you limit the overs in the innings.

 

[mr_mister]

Sorry to bring this discussion back a few pages, but is someone SERIOUSLY arguing that Sachin Tendulkar as an ODI opener was only a marginal upgrade on Mark Waugh? Sachin's played more matches batting 2nd alone than Waugh played in his entire career.

Funnily enough, they would actually be good openers together though, seeing as Waugh's statistics are not really affected by whether he batted in the first position or second (just about a run or so in the average, and thereabouts in the strike rate too).

Sachin's were, for some bizarre reason (some weird mental block?), vastly, vastly different.
1st: 47 matches @ 36.81 SR 82.82
2nd: 293 matches @ 50.31 SR 88.71

That 2nd set of statistics is Kohli-esque. Of course, it took a while to work it out (1994 when he first opened?).
And Sachin wasn't very good in 4th or 5th, having played nearly 100 ODIs in both positions and averaging in the mid 30s, albeit some of these was when he was much younger.

I don't see why your first point is that important. Sachin played an absurd amount of matches, it's not like Waugh's career was short.

And my posts were pretty wordy, but I'll state it simply. In the 90s, at the three WCs they played together, against bowlers that everyone knows were better than the 2000s crop, Mark came out on top as an opener. It's worth noting.

 

[Bolo]

I would consider Waqar Younis to be somewhat of an exception, but broadly I agree

Lift becomes a bit less meaningful when the ball is never bouncing before it gets to the batsman. Funny how that works .

 

[sunilz]

I don't see why your first point is that important. Sachin played an absurd amount of matches, it's not like Waugh's career was short.

And my posts were pretty wordy, but I'll state it simply. In the 90s, at the three WCs they played together, against bowlers that everyone knows were better than the 2000s crop, Mark came out on top as an opener. It's worth noting.

He came out on top despite averaging 10 less
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[TheJediBrah]

He came out on top despite averaging 10 less
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

heh sunilz makes a valid and relevant argument

never thought I'd see the day

 

[mr_mister]

heh sunilz makes a valid and relevant argument

never thought I'd see the day

Nope. I said he came out on top as an opener. His record as an opener in that time period is better.

 

[smash84]

Mcgrath was as vulnerable to getting hit in ODIs by good, great and decent batsmen as Pollock. It is just that Glenn was better in getting wickets and turned up more often in World Cups. But it is not as if Pollock was poor when it mattered. His bowling in 1999 world cup semis was spectacular.

I would easily prefer Pollock over any part time bowler plus big hitting batting allrounder. The extra runs produced by the big hitter would not be conceded by Shaun in the first place.

Come on, this can't be a serious argument. Everybody gets hiat least once in a while in ODIs. Even Garner as good as he was, wasn't pasting proof.

Was looking to find some sharjah matches where the windies bowlers were getting clobbered, and sure enough found old footage of Garner getting smashed.

 

[Borges]

He came out on top despite averaging 10 less

Why not? Why can't a player averaging 10 less, but at a similar strike rate, be considered to have batted better?
The modern scientific way is to gracefully yield to relativism: who batted better lies in the eye of the beholder. etc.

 

[mr_mister]

Though I'm sure my post clarifying that I am comparing them as openers will be conveniently ignored by sunilz, even their overall record would be identical if not for Sachin pasting 2 of his 3 tons in that time period against Kenya. I don't want to go down that road though.

 

[h_hurricane]

Come on, this can't be a serious argument. Everybody gets hiat least once in a while in ODIs. Even Garner as good as he was, wasn't pasting proof.

Was looking to find some sharjah matches where the windies bowlers were getting clobbered, and sure enough found old footage of Garner getting smashed.

I did not argue anything If anything, my point was exactly yours. Every one gets hit,Mcgrath as much as Pollock. I would have Pollock in my team over a big hitter with far lesser bowling skills because he has a chance to get less hit though.

It is between Pollock and Jaysurya/Symonds.

Good video this, by the way.

 

[mr_mister]

And upon further exploration, those stats posted by sunilz are incorrect anyway. Both Waugh and Sachin got around 1000 runs in those 3 world cups (Sachin closer to 1050) and that list is well under that mark.