Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[rich1uk]

I know you're not talking about just Tendulkar, but he was at least very good for many years. If he's had averaged say 38-40, and scored about 30 tons in all those matches, then I'd be agreeing.

Back to US sports, I suppose a fair comparison would be Jerry Rice, and Randy Moss?

I know its not an argument I am ever going to win, not even sure I think I should win it, just being devil's advocate I suppose

[sussexpob]

The fact is, lots of factors can contribute to how well your career goes, but the longer you keep on bashing around attacks, the less that argument is given lip service. I have no doubt that Tendulkar was brilliant, but in comparison to other players, how would he have functioned in other teams, playing in other conditions?

I think a lot of ODI cricket success in batting comes from synergy amongst the top order, and what is consistent in Tendulkar's career more than probably anyone else, is the sheer quality of the players he played around. Aza, Dravid, Ganguly, AJ Jadeja, Kohli, Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvrag, Raina, Dhoni...... he always went out to bat at opener knowing that if he got out,he had a guy called the "Wall" coming in after him, or in later years the best ODI player I have ever seen, and a succession of destructive hitters after that in recent times, or in the past at least guys with solid ODI careers.....Would he have been as consistent if he batted with Andrew Strauss, with Michael Vaughan to come after that, and a load of tripe down the order?

I think it makes a difference, but to what extent is unquantifiable..... so you have to take it as it is, he was immense, and I don't think you could argue that he shouldnt be in this team.

What makes Tendulkar also important..... he transferred era's and was successful in both

[Dr Cricket]

Tendulkar is a difficult one since he had two different phases.
in the 90s he was by far the best batsman in the world scored runs for fun in both format he was also very attacking batsman.

in the 90s scored 8571 runs average 43 strike rate 86 against very strong attacks.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

from top order bats only Anwar had a similar average and strike rate.
ponting, Lara, Ganguly all had lower strike rates.

Even in Test cricket Tendulkar was miles ahead in the 90s.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

in the naughties especially after 2003 not sure he played that well in ODI compared to the 90s but he would still score runs for fun and even if you comparing peaks rich Tendulkar peak would be far higher than most odi players in the world.
Tendulkar was in crazy form in ODI during 1998-2003 he destroyed some quality bowling attack around the world.

[Gingerfinch]

Tendulkar has also scored loads in world cups, which counts for something.

[yuppie]

Tendulkar has also scored loads in world cups, which counts for something.

To be fair he only scored a total of 22 runs in world cup finals. That's less than Andrew Symonds has scored in World cup finals

Interesting that Gilly has scored 54, 57 and one magnificent 149 in world cup finals. This all done at a s/r 138. Cream rising to the top and all that

[Making_Splinters]

I don't think anyone would argue that Tendulkar was one of the greatest batsmen of the modern era, but unlike Bradman his records against his peers depend mostly on his longevity and consistancy rather than being significantly ahead of them.

I can understand, Rich's point, Hussey is rarely mentioned in a list of the best of the modern era, but his performance was exceptional. Had Hussey started his international career when most players do, then there's little doubt he would be near the top of the pile. The same could be said of Kallis to a certain degree who is oft overlooked as a batsman, or indeed Dravid.

[Gingerfinch]

Hussey, 3 tons in 185 matches, with a few not outs. More of a finisher than run compiler. It would be him, Bevan, or Dhoni at six.

[shankycricket]

Gayle in, no Garner. A young persons team,me thinks.

Even a young person's team wouldn't have Gayle over Amla and Gilly surely? More like an IPL watcher's team.

[Gingerfinch]

Gayle in, no Garner. A young persons team,me thinks.

Even a young person's team wouldn't have Gayle over Amla and Gilly surely?

Well, you're young, so maybe you're right.

[shankycricket]

Gayle in, no Garner. A young persons team,me thinks.

Even a young person's team wouldn't have Gayle over Amla and Gilly surely?

Well, you're young, so maybe you're right.

Even as a young man, Garner and Viv would be the first two names on my list. Garner's ability to deliver yorkers at will from that height at that pace is kinda unimaginable. You wouldn't want to bat against a guy who can hit you on the head as well as crush your toes. His phenomenal stats only add to his case.

Viv's SR of 90 (average of 47) in that era of low scoring ODIs, red balls, world class attacks and bowler friendly pitches, without helmets defies cricketing boundaries. A true genius.

[DiligentDefence]

The first three players on my list would be Richards, Garner and Gilchrist. After that I'd start thinking but those three are automatic.

[Red Devil]

The BBC team is a joke - picked by a bunch of kids brought up on T20 presumably.

[yuppie]

The BBC team is a joke - picked by a bunch of kids brought up on T20 presumably.

A lot of Australians in the team, so maybe not to much of a joke as you know, they win world cups and are the most successful country at one day cricket.

Lara, Kallis and Gayle for me would not be in the team but the rest is arguable and the positions they would bat in.

Not sure its the t20 generation thats picked this team. Seems to have been picked by the generation just before t20

[dan08]

Vaughan picked Sobers in his ODI team. He played one ODI and didn't score a run!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Must have had a good bowling day then...