Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[sussexpob]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler existed in his day?

Surely its common sense.... bowlers before 2000 never bowled to anyone with a SR really past 85 maximum, and hence their econ rate stats are brilliant..... batsman before this time were slower, and made bowlers look better..... batsman nowadays hit anything out the park, and make bowlers and their contemporary look worse.

[Gingerfinch]

Going back, Des Haynes was a tremendous opener. Scored 17 tons, with only sir Viv ahead of him at one stage.

[Making_Splinters]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler

Probably not, but that's nothing to do with the physical fitness argument. There's little to say that the great bowlers of yesteryear wouldn't have been successful in the modern age. Greatness is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. Hadlee probably wouldn't have had the same ecconomy rate, but that doesn't mean he would not be in the top bowlers around in the world if he was playing today.

[Gingerfinch]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler existed in his day?

Surely its common sense.... bowlers before 2000 never bowled to anyone with a SR really past 85 maximum, and hence their econ rate stats are brilliant..... batsman before this time were slower, and made bowlers look better..... batsman nowadays hit anything out the park, and make bowlers and their contemporary look worse.

Would today's players be able to hit the great 80's bowlers around the park, with the old bats, and not so great wickets that they get treated to these days?

I find it very hard to believe that Maxwell could take on Garner, Marshall, etc.

[sussexpob]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler

Probably not, but that's nothing to do with the physical fitness argument. There's little to say that the great bowlers of yesteryear wouldn't have been successful in the modern age. Greatness is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. Hadlee probably wouldn't have had the same ecconomy rate, but that doesn't mean he would not be in the top bowlers around in the world if he was playing today.

But we are talking about "best bowler" off all time. Surely in terms of bowlers, anyone near 4 economy strike rate and an average near 20 would be superior to that of their old age forefathers? They maintained that performance in a tougher time?

As for batters, the skill level you see nowadays to dispatch all times of bowling quickly is also much more impressive.

I failed to see how both skills sets in ODI cricket can not be considered to have peaked, and will continue to

[Making_Splinters]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler

Probably not, but that's nothing to do with the physical fitness argument. There's little to say that the great bowlers of yesteryear wouldn't have been successful in the modern age. Greatness is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. Hadlee probably wouldn't have had the same ecconomy rate, but that doesn't mean he would not be in the top bowlers around in the world if he was playing today.

But we are talking about "best bowler" off all time. Surely in terms of bowlers, anyone near 4 economy strike rate and an average near 20 would be superior to that of their old age forefathers? They maintained that performance in a tougher time?

As for batters, the skill level you see nowadays to dispatch all times of bowling quickly is also much more impressive.

I failed to see how both skills sets in ODI cricket can not be considered to have peaked, and will continue to

It's really a moot point because you can't compare performances over anything other than a short period of time. The true quality of a player is their performance relative to their peers. Bradman would not be considered one of the greatest ever batsmen if there were four or so other players averaging 90 when he was around.

Modern players can play the way they can because they have the tools to do so: Pitches prepared for one day cricket, bats that make clearing the ropes easier, protective equipment that allows them to go after the ball with little worry and perhaps most importantly, the fact that one can become rather wealthy by being a one day specialist. Previous generations had none of these and the game reflected that.

I'd echo Ginger's point that it would be hard to argue that Maxwell and his ilk would cart the likes of Holding all over the park if you stripped them of their advantages.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The scoop would be impossible without the helmet.

Bowlers' pace recordings aren't that reliable, but such as they are, the fastest recorded bowler was Jeff Thomson over 40 years ago. That's half way back to bodyline. But then, the kinds of incremental increases in performance you get in other sports, would hardly touch cricket. It doesn't really matter if someone bowls at 90 or 91 mph. And besides, changes in equipment and conditions easily outstrip the the differences that may have been brought about by coaching.

[The Waugh Twins]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler existed in his day?

Surely its common sense.... bowlers before 2000 never bowled to anyone with a SR really past 85 maximum, and hence their econ rate stats are brilliant..... batsman before this time were slower, and made bowlers look better..... batsman nowadays hit anything out the park, and make bowlers and their contemporary look worse.

Would today's players be able to hit the great 80's bowlers around the park, with the old bats, and not so great wickets that they get treated to these days?

I find it very hard to believe that Maxwell could take on Garner, Marshall, etc.

Right, and Steve Smiths technique I'm afraid wouldn't hold up what so ever against any of those West Indies bowlers. I'm sure the West Indies tours of the 80's would have been rated "R" today because they were scarier than a Stephen King film to watch.

[The Waugh Twins]

I'll never forget Gower clipping two sixes off his toes against Hadlee in the Benson and Hedges cup. I think he was on his way to 144?

[The Waugh Twins]

I'll never forget Gower clipping two sixes off his toes against Hadlee in the Benson and Hedges cup. I think he was on his way to 144?

Which game was that Mark?

[The Waugh Twins]

I'll never forget Gower clipping two sixes off his toes against Hadlee in the Benson and Hedges cup. I think he was on his way to 144?

Which game was that Mark?

Can't remember.

[The Waugh Twins]

So you believe a pace bowler can still have an econ of 3 an over in ODI cricket over a career??? And that its just Hadlee was better than modern day bowlers, even though no batters had SR like 140 as Maxwell and Buttler

Probably not, but that's nothing to do with the physical fitness argument. There's little to say that the great bowlers of yesteryear wouldn't have been successful in the modern age. Greatness is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. Hadlee probably wouldn't have had the same ecconomy rate, but that doesn't mean he would not be in the top bowlers around in the world if he was playing today.

But we are talking about "best bowler" off all time. Surely in terms of bowlers, anyone near 4 economy strike rate and an average near 20 would be superior to that of their old age forefathers? They maintained that performance in a tougher time?

As for batters, the skill level you see nowadays to dispatch all times of bowling quickly is also much more impressive.

I failed to see how both skills sets in ODI cricket can not be considered to have peaked, and will continue to

It's really a moot point because you can't compare performances over anything other than a short period of time. The true quality of a player is their performance relative to their peers. Bradman would not be considered one of the greatest ever batsmen if there were four or so other players averaging 90 when he was around.

Modern players can play the way they can because they have the tools to do so: Pitches prepared for one day cricket, bats that make clearing the ropes easier, protective equipment that allows them to go after the ball with little worry and perhaps most importantly, the fact that one can become rather wealthy by being a one day specialist. Previous generations had none of these and the game reflected that.

I'd echo Ginger's point that it would be hard to argue that Maxwell and his ilk would cart the likes of Holding all over the park if you stripped them of their advantages.

Good point Splinter, and a little like Tennis players, particularly the men today not playing doubles like the old days. You had to be far more versatile.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gower's record against the WI was appalling, except for a 150 in Jamaica. A big exception, admittedly.

Regarding the 80s WI, they could bowl six bouncers an over back then. And when bowling to Robin Smith, they did. They'd be a different proposition now. They'd still be great (Ambrose bowled with bouncer restrictions and was incredible). But there wouldn't be a similar level of intimidation. And they wouldn't be able to bowl at ten overs an hour.

[The Waugh Twins]

Very true, and if you toured the West Indie they would confiscate your helmet (if you had one) at customs.

[The Waugh Twins]

Very true, and if you toured the West Indie they would confiscate your helmet (if you had one) at customs.

Yeah I had my helmet messed with quite a bit whilst in the Windies.