BBC's Greatest ODI Side

A few Cricketing 'experts' at the BBC have chosen their greatest ever one day XI's. We, if we like, have to pick a side from the players they have picked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30983202

No Kohli, Bond, Flintoff, Pollock?

To me some of these players are great in the test arena, but not so much in the one day equivalent. Botham, Marshall, Sehwag, S Waugh come to mind.

From the pool of players to select from, mine would be.

Amla
Tendulkar
Ponting
Richards
De-Villiers
Dhoni
Imran
Akram
Garner
Muralitharan
McGrath

I think their choices look ok, or at least I can't see any ommissions which are that glaring. The ones you name, maybe Bond was too injury affected to play enough games to be an all time great. Flintoff played for a poor team, Kohli is on his way there certainly and Pollock probably should be in there.

From their list I would go with:

Jayasuriya
Tendulkar
Lara
Devilliers
Bevan
Gilchrist
Afridi
Akram
Malinga
McGrath
Murali

By memory Pollock has the lowest economy rate in ODI history, and is a very handy batsman, so yeah, he should be considered

VTR wrote:I think their choices look ok, or at least I can't see any ommissions which are that glaring. The ones you name, maybe Bond was too injury affected to play enough games to be an all time great. Flintoff played for a poor team, Kohli is on his way there certainly and Pollock probably should be in there.

From their list I would go with:

Jayasuriya
Tendulkar
Lara
Devilliers
Bevan
Gilchrist
Afridi
Akram
Malinga
McGrath
Murali

You dismissing the fastest batsman to 2000 runs, 3000 runs, 4000 runs, 5000 runs and has 32 innings to score 641 runs to be the fastest to 6000 runs?

It's a tough call. I didn't want to just pick statistically the best players.

I really liked Sanath's explosive batting, it's nothing special in today's terms but was at the time. Useful bowling option too and gives a right/left combination.

My pick of Afridi is similar, there are others with better numbers and consistency but he gives good variety with the ball (my team has Offspin, Legspin and Slow Left Arm) and then there is that mercurial batting.

Understand your thinking, but you are comparing two players with a similar strike rate (Jayasuriya 91.2 Amla 89.61) and batting averages where the one is vastly superior to the other (Jayasuriya 32.36 Amla 56.41)

Biltong wrote:Understand your thinking, but you are comparing two players with a similar strike rate (Jayasuriya 91.2 Amla 89.61) and batting averages where the one is vastly superior to the other (Jayasuriya 32.36 Amla 56.41)

Well I didn't look at the stats when choosing, so was unaware of that. I think though that Jayasuriya's SR is worth more because of the era that he played, and also I value the impact he had in shaping the role of the modern ODI opener.

To be honest I would have Gilchrist/Tendulkar as my ideal opening pair, but the BBC poll is not structured like that.

VTR wrote:

Biltong wrote:Understand your thinking, but you are comparing two players with a similar strike rate (Jayasuriya 91.2 Amla 89.61) and batting averages where the one is vastly superior to the other (Jayasuriya 32.36 Amla 56.41)

Well I didn't look at the stats when choosing, so was unaware of that. I think though that Jayasuriya's SR is worth more because of the era that he played, and also I value the impact he had in shaping the role of the modern ODI opener.

To be honest I would have Gilchrist/Tendulkar as my ideal opening pair, but the BBC poll is not structured like that.

You can have Gilly as an opener, but not as the keeper. That's how I read it, anyway?

Stella wrote:

VTR wrote:

Biltong wrote:Understand your thinking, but you are comparing two players with a similar strike rate (Jayasuriya 91.2 Amla 89.61) and batting averages where the one is vastly superior to the other (Jayasuriya 32.36 Amla 56.41)

Well I didn't look at the stats when choosing, so was unaware of that. I think though that Jayasuriya's SR is worth more because of the era that he played, and also I value the impact he had in shaping the role of the modern ODI opener.

To be honest I would have Gilchrist/Tendulkar as my ideal opening pair, but the BBC poll is not structured like that.

You can have Gilly as an opener, but not as the keeper. That's how I read it, anyway?

Yeah it looks that way, I was confused as I was sure I voted on it and picked Gilchrist as an opener. But reading the bit about him he is now in the w/k section because he didn't get voted in as an opener. I just picked the numbers per category as prescribed, I didn't read the article.

I've been around since the first ODI (and a bit before that too! ). Not claiming that gives me any greater insight but I have seen a lot of ODI players. There is one who sticks out in my memory as being the most consistently effective and successful. He is Joel Garner.

I've just looked up his record to see if my memory was letting me down. For once, it wasn't. 98 ODIs and 140 odd wickets at an average below 19 along with, more significantly, an economy rate of 3.09, the lowest of all time (for those bowling at least 1,000 balls) in ODIs. All this over a ten year period from '77 to '87.

I fully accept that run rates were noticeably lower in Garner's era. Nonetheless, he outperformed his contemporaries by some way and undoubtedly helped earn some wickets for his West Indian team mates bowling at the other end as he dried up the runs leaving the opposition batsmen to chance it elsewhere.

Garner's greatest strength was his yorker. I also accept that international batsmen play that type of ball much better nowadays. However, I still believe that most would still find considerable difficulty in dealing with a delivery that Garner normally bowled with speed and precision from such a great height - he stood about 6' 8''. Whilst batsmen today might be prepared to take him on more, that would probably increase his wicket taking chances.

A definite for my ODI XI. Now who are the other ten?

Garner, Akram, Tendulkar, and Viv, should be shoe ins, in most people's teams.

Stella - I'm not so sure that Garner is as well regarded today as he deserves. That was partly the reason for my post.

guildfordbat wrote:Stella - I'm not so sure that Garner is as well regarded today as he deserves. That was partly the reason for my post.

Anyone who's seen him bowl will have him in, though to be fair there is some good opposition.

Stella wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Stella - I'm not so sure that Garner is as well regarded today as he deserves. That was partly the reason for my post.

Anyone who's seen him bowl will have him in, though to be fair there is some good opposition.

That's the reason I didn't include him. I could just stick him in based on stats but have no idea what his bowling was like. Whereas McGrath who I chose as an economical fast bowler, so a similar type of role, I have seen plenty of his bowling in my time.

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Stella - I'm not so sure that Garner is as well regarded today as he deserves. That was partly the reason for my post.

Anyone who's seen him bowl will have him in, though to be fair there is some good opposition.

That's the reason I didn't include him. I could just stick him in based on stats but have no idea what his bowling was like. Whereas McGrath who I chose as an economical fast bowler, so a similar type of role, I have seen plenty of his bowling in my time.

That's a fair enough reason. The only player I tend to pop into an all time XI (test), who I've never seen play is Bradman, just because he was a freak.

VTR - you could probably dig up some of Garner's bowling on youtube. I'm not canvassing here, just think you might appreciate and enjoy it.

Joel Garner

https://youtu.be/0SQS75loWAA

This is the side I'd most want to watch play from that, rather than necessarily the best. Although I'd still back my side against any of your sides

1.Gilchrist (wk)
2.Tendulkar
3.Amla
4.IVA Richards
5.Ponting
6.De Viliers
7.Klusenar
8.Marshall
9.Akram
10.Warne (c)
11.Garner

I wouldn't argue that as a ODI player Murali, or possibly Mushtaq as well, may have been better than Warne.

I also wouldn't argue that any of Donald, McGrath, Younis, Lillee or Lee could be cited as better ODI bowlers than Marshall due to longevity - Pollock also. However Marshall is in my eyes not only the best pace bowler to have played the game but also one of the greatest sportsman to have lived. Hence I'm not leaving him out of my side!

I've picked a side of players I loved to watch. Whether I saw them live inflicting painful loses on poor England sides of the late 90's and early 00's. Or ones I watched on freckly VHS tapes that my grandad handed down to me.

Carlos

I never saw Marshall bowl a great spell in ODI's, unlike in tests, whereas garner, Younis, McGrath, Bond and a few more, have. Some players didn't give it 100% in ODI's like now. Malcolm may have been one of those?

I like Carlos' side. Tempted though to bring in Imran Khan for Klusener and a fit Lloyd (in his Supercat circa 1970 time) for De Viliers. Lloyd also to skipper.

[PS Carlos - interested in your view on my alternate Surrey team approach.]

PPS Biltong - thanks for the Garner film, brilliant.

Stella wrote:Carlos

I never saw Marshall bowl a great spell in ODI's, unlike in tests, whereas garner, Younis, McGrath, Bond and a few more, have. Some players didn't give it 100% in ODI's like now. Malcolm may have been one of those?

I'd say the 1983 World Cup was a good example of his prowess in 50 over cricket. Given he arrived considered to be an extremely talented first change bowler in that exalted pace attack - at International level anyway, in 1982 he took 130 odd wickets for Hampshire I believe! However he left it with the best average of that Windies and a runners up medal.

As said I could very much accept an argument for most the pace bowlers on offer in this squad being better ODI players than Marshall - however I have a self admitted soft spot for the bloke as he is one of my heroes.

guildfordbat wrote:I like Carlos' side. Tempted though to bring in Imran Khan for Klusener and a fit Lloyd (in his Supercat circa 1970 time) for De Viliers. Lloyd also to skipper.

[PS Carlos - interested in your view on my alternate Surrey team approach.]

Must admit I thought long and hard about Lloyd when I was struggling for a skipper but just left him out. If the side was playing in this era I'm not sure I could cope with the sight of Clive in contact lenses instead of glasses anyway!

Klusenar was close with Khan and Dev for me but I just love a player who can bat well with the tail. Once you omit real express pace bowling or top class wrist spin, I think seeing a batsmen drag a side through whilst protecting a terrified tail ender is one of my favourite sights in Cricket!

[Will just pop over to the Surrey page and give it a look.]

Are there any posters that think Steve Waugh deserves a place in the listed players?

Stella wrote:Are there any posters that think Steve Waugh deserves a place in the listed players?

Stella - I'm expecting Mike Selig to be here before long and I'm sure you are too!

The difficult (although nice) thing about all this is that you can end up with a truly brilliant team even though some all time greats have to be omitted.

Amla
Gilchrist (WK)
Lara
De Villiers
Clarke
Dhoni
Klusener
Warne
Brett Lee
Dale Steyn
Akram

A side heavily condensed with South Africans and Australian players. No surprise I suppose given the fact that they are far and away the two most consistently successful ODI teams in world cricket. Well if you ignore the lack if silverware on our part. Also a rather personal selection. So no surprise I picked South Africans, and the players who caused me the most emotional damage. Players who just missed out - Tendulkar, Pollock, Murali (actually nearly picked him ahead of Warne, but I wanted a batting capable #8. Ponting also came pretty close. Steyn is a slightly lucky entrant, but read Carlos' post on Marshall, and replace Marshall with Steyn for my justification

I enjoyed that Garner video. He is an absolute giant, unbelievable!

Looked like he had a good action and bowled full from wide on the crease. I like the look of the length he bowled, how often do tall bowlers bowl too short, whereas a fully length still gives problems with the bounce but brings lbw and bowled into play.

Some nice yorkers in there as well!

Tendulkar
Gilchrist+
Lara
Richards
De Villiers
Imran*
Kapil
Botham
Akram
Warne
Murali

I would not put Warne in an all time ODi side. Hisperformances whilst solid is nothing spectacular.

Here goes.

Tendulkar
Amala
Richards
Lara
Ponting
Botham
Gilchrist
Akram
Imran khan
Garner
murali

3 faSt bowling all rounder in Botham, Imran and Akram. The only two that cannot bat are garner and murali. That team will be able to chase down any total.

Amla's role will be to anchor the innings whilst the other more naturally gifted and aggressive stroke makers play thier natural game.

I understand your reasoning for not having Warne, you have however picked Botham, who's ODI record was pretty average.

Morning all.

Interesting discussion, I think in ODIs it's possibly even tougher to make judgements across eras as the game has changed so much over time. How do you compare for instance the finishing qualities of say Bevan and Dhoni? Both are undoubtedly great ODI batsmen, but both went about their business in thoroughly different ways. Does Bevan deserve more credit for being the first to really make that role his own (with the caveat that Fairbrother had kind of done so a bit), or do you credit Dhoni with redefining the role as he did? To what extent were they both simply the right person at the right time? Could either/both have adapted to different eras?

Longetivity is also an issue. Garner's record is of course great, but he played far far fewer ODIs than current players are expected to. To what extent does that matter? And whilst we're on Garner, I do find him another good example of era translation: we all know that nowadays it is not enough to merely be able to bowl yorkers at the death, you need that variation and stuff also. Could Garner have adapted?

Finally, because nobody really cares much about ODI series, people's memories and perceptions will be greatly influenced by performances at world cups. This makes it a very different proposition from test cricket.

With all that out of the way a few thoughts.

Botham doesn't deserve to be on that list, or anywhere near any side. He was a very ordinary ODI player, there are (or should be) a dozen all-rounders ahead of him, including Saqib Ul-Hassan (not saying Saqib makes an all-time XI, but it is absurd to even include Botham in such conversations).

Steve Waugh is a more interesting one. Personally I would have many middle-order players above him in the pecking order, but if we are judging mainly on world cups... he played a key role in not 1 but 2 WC wins, as a death bowler back in 87, and then of course in 99 with that hundred in the super 6 match, and a much less remembered crucial 50odd in the semi-final (when he and Bevan got Australia out of all sorts of trouble and gave Warne at least something to bowl at - the rest of course is history). Plus of course as a leader he played a huge role in that 99 triumph. I wouldn't necessarily have him ahead of people like Hussey, even Symonds but I understand why he's on the list. It is also worth remembering that in his early days he was mainly an ODI bowler and late-order basher, so that will have an impact on his overall figures.

Warne vs Murali is a perfect example of special moments (we all remember the 99 bowling effort, but in 96 Warne also produced a 4-36 precipitaing a West Indies collapse to get Aus to the final; at one point the West Indies needed just 43 from 8 overs with 7 or 8 wickets in hand, before Warne ran through the lower order and Aus won by a handful of runs) vs career excellence (you can argue ad infinum about their test careers, but Murali's ODI record is comfortably superior). You could make a case for Saqlain over Warne in fact, Saqlain was a terrific ODI bowler.

I'm please to see Brett Lee get a few shouts. IMO he is too often neglected when such discussions happen - tremendous ODI bowler and one of the best outfielders of all time.

Surprised nobody (I think) has picked Ponting as captain. Two WCs without ever losing a game, he had to be doing something right?

For what it's worth, and with all the caveats above, I would go for:
Gilchrist
Tendulkar
Ponting (C)
Viv Richards
De Villiers
Bevan
Imran Khan
Pollock
Wasim Akram
Murali
Garner

Pollock just shaded McGrath thanks in part to his batting ability (a 9-10-11 combination of McGrath, Murali, Garner wouldn't have filled me with much confidence) whilst Klusener wasn't far off Imran Khan. Dhoni vs Bevan was a tough one as well; I wouldn't consider picking Dhoni as a keeper BTW, not good enough to keep in a world XI; Gilchrist was far the superior glovesman, and will be an excellent foil for Tendulkar at the top of the order.

A ring field of Ponting, Richards, AB and Bevan would have been worth the entrance fee alone.

Good point about the fielders. There won't be too many quick singles taken, with those men around.

It's funny how only Warne and Murali are the only considerations as the sole spinner, when Saqlain was probably the best ODI spinner of all time.

More surprising... no one has selected KP. His first five years in ODI were as remarkable as anybody else's... except maybe Amla

again when selecting the sides...criteria is important
Two criteria must apply:

1) scaling across eras.....for those playing in 1980s with an average of 30 with bat are like today average of 45.....as the par score has gone from 200 then to 280 now.......
and one who had a SR of 80% in 1980s is like a SR of 120% these days

2) World Cup shows...that's the big stage....and those who performed on that stage.....score above others

--Kapil Dev scores on both those criteria.... had an amazing world cup in 1983, a very good one in 1987 and reasonably good in 1992 with bat has a career strike rate of 95% ..stupendous....and a bowling economy of 3.7...largely bowling those fantastic yorkers at death

He might be the best ODI allrounder of all times if a deeper analysis is run.

--Botham doesn't stand out because he played perhaps one world cup only at his prime so misses on criteria-2....but with a batting SR of 80% and bowling under 4 RPO....normalized across eras was a fantastic all-rounder.

--I did consider KP and he would be my 12th man......the most explosive all format middle order batsman after Richards against highest quality bowling.....in all conditions...not just Patta pitches.
no wonder only time he fired in a world cup event...Eng won the title and their only title to date

Lara was just more consistent and one class higher than KP...so he is in my 11

--others who ran close....Waugh..for the same reasons as Mike said I considered....was an all rounder in 1987....but lost his bowling hence can't compete for the Botham/ kapil slots

--Garner, Marshal, Ambrose were all deadly bowlers in reckoning,...but in the "deadly" category....Akram was one cut above and take the one slot...and in the bowling allrounder category.... Imran, Kapil, Botham are obviously ahead.

--Bevan doesn't make it because he was a specialist finisher and hence a high average.....kapil could finish just as well and with more flair and dominance....just that in Kapil's time they did not groom specialists.

Dhoni is a FTB...was never in reckoning

--There hasn't been a more mercurial spinner than Warne...in all forms....and as Mike points out the world cup games vs. WI and SA he turned them on his head.

If I was to pick only one spinner I would put Warne ahead Of Murali who I am convinced "threw"

Gilchrist†
Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting*
Richards
ABdV
Kallis
Akram
Warne
McGrath
Garner

I'm surprised nobody has opted for Kallis. A proven performer in every facet of the modern game. The problem is the log-jam at 3. I opted for Lara there and Ponting at 4.

The Punter would be captain. 3 World Cups under his belt (2 as captain)... and although he may have seemed too considered or even "stuck" at times (under severe scrutiny) - on the field he simply oozed leadership and tactical nous. The ultimate Australian sports-psycho nut with the prerequisite physical & mental capabilities to go with it.

Richards also batted 3-6... and you'd want to see de Villiers have a bat. Kallis could have swapped places with Gilchrist (if you were feeling gernerous!) but I have him as the last piece of steel in a long batting wall and go for the more explosive, faster-scoring opening partner alongside Tendulkar.

Kallis would have to bowl 10 overs. Or maybe 7 or 8 if you threw it to Viv, Sachin, or Lara for a few.

Depends who they are playing....   (oh no!)

Gilly would keep, AB there for his immense batting, decent hands and all-round athletic ability.

Wasim Akram and The Big Bird would be a frightening left-right combination of stealth, precision, terror and superior mind control.
McGrath would come on as first change to create further havoc.

It's a toss up between Warne, Murali and Mushtaq but I'll go for Warne, not only because he was a Godsend for Australia and came up with the goods so often and at crucial times but also because of his extroverted star attraction on the field. As a pure sportsman he was so captivating to watch.

I feel bad that I left out Dhoni, actually KP_f. I guess he appears more convincing from these shores! The man is a legend.

Also, one could easily see any of Amla, Sangga, Marshall, Khan, Dev, Donald or Younis slotting in for a top or middle order batsman, all-rounder or pace bowler and making the necessary solid contributions.

Kallis at seven seems a waste. I'd rather have an Imran, Dev, or a Chris Cairns. He would either need to bat in the top six as a batsman who can bowl as a sixth bowler, or not play at all, imo.

KP_fan wrote: ...

--I did consider KP and he would be my 12th man......

I look forward to you telling him that!

Mark Boucher (South Africa)
ODIs: 295; Runs: 4,686; Average: 28.57; Strike rate: 84.76
Catches: 403; Stumpings: 22
One of only three men to take more than 400 victims in his career, Boucher
was an accomplished wicketkeeper first, and a batsman second. Still he
lies fifth in the list of runs made by wicketkeepers, his total of 4,686
impressive because he rarely batted higher than number six. Memorably hit
the winning runs in South Africa's chase of 434 to beat Australia.

Indeed, 137 innings out of 221 in the top six represents a scarcity of opportunity

Well the side has been picked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30983202

Stella wrote:Well the side has been picked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30983202

What do you think of it, Stella?

Can see some merit in having Gayle perhaps but I seriously wouldn't have Lee in there. The rest is pretty much as we expected though.

Gayle doesn't deserve a place, and if you want Gilchrist, then open with him and put punter in, instead of Gayle. I would replace Lee with Garner.

I wouldn't have Kallis either, but you can't argue too much with him being picked.

The format is a bit flawed isn't it? Once Gilchrist isn't an opener (he was 3rd in the vote), then he is batting too far down. All of the other choices are ahead of Gayle as an opener in my view.

Then if your all-rounder is the number 7 you want more of a bowling all-rounder, Kallis would be such a waste at 7, especially as 8, 9, 10 can all hit a long ball.

Yes the format was flawed, and some of the players picked was a little strange. It couldn't have been that difficult to ask the general public to pick a all time ODI XI?

My XI would thrash this XI to pieces. Well, it wouldn't because this is a good team, but I wouldn't mind chucking a new ball at Gayle, and Kallis definitely wouldn't strike fear coming into death.

To be fair to Gayle, until T20 became a legitimate format, he had as good a record at opener as, say Gilchrist. he just fell off quite badly.

Stella

Did you notice that Botham was actually second in the all rounders vote? Most of us would say that he didn't even merit a nomination based on his ODI performances.

Agree that the whole thing was flawed, as it was a case of picking the best players in their specialisation rather than the best team - Bevan should make any all-time ODI team as a specialist number 6 batsman who was also a great fielder and useful 6th choice bowler, but would always struggle at being voted in to the middle order above the likes of Lara, Richards and ABDV when only 3 genuine middle order batsmen were picked.

Oh, and the absence of Garner is an absolute shocker...

I was expecting Botham to be picked to be honest, dh. As I said before, some players in the mix seem to have been selected on their test status.

Stella wrote:I was expecting Botham to be picked to be honest, dh. As I said before, some players in the mix seem to have been selected on their test status.

I think Gayle was selected for his T20 status!

It would have been much better to get the public to submit a full team, it's hardly beyond the realms of computing power these days to work out the best team from that.

Or better still they should have just asked us lot on here

Votes are now in guys. Here is the link: surprised by some of the selections. Example Gayle, Kallis and Warne making it.

The BBC team.

Gayle
Tendulkar
Lara
vic
AB
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Akram
Brett Lee
mcgrath

The selection seems to have a bias towards players from the Internet GeneratioN

Would rather have jayasuriya at the top than Gayle. Just as devastating plus he is a much better bowler. He can share the 5th bowler role with Kallis.