Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Bob was a bowling legend.

Not sure you'd want Bob roaming the outfield though.

If he had a piece of 2 by 4 in his hands ready to chastise our players for below-par performances, I wouldn't mind too much.

I saw this on the bbc website, and was immediately struck by its pointlessness

If only there was a team that had won 3 world cups on the trot, then they could have debated which of their 11 players were the best, instead of pratting about with a spurious mix and match

remind me how many times a 'World' XI featuring the best players from around the world, ever beat the best 'team' in the world

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Looking over the stats, Dean Jones, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abass, Steyn, Hadlee and Curtly might have made it into the options.

You forgot Neil Fairbrother...

Seriously though, I remember when the BBC did one of these a few years back (2008/9 maybe) and KP was seriously being talked about as a contender for a greatest ever ODI XI, based on his record to that date. At the time he was definitely a better ODI batsman than ABdV for example. Interesting how the latter has kicked on to be on most people's lists, and KP (still probably England's best ODI batsman of all times) has been rightly left out.

Sad but fair that no England players feature. Well, Botham's in the shortlist as a sop to the Brits (it is the British Broadcasting Corporation, after all), but you can't compare his achievements as an ODI allrounder to Kapil, Imran, Kallis, Kluesner or even Hadlee (who has been cruelly overlooked).

It's a touch interesting to think about the things but a top side will beat a collection of players, no matter how great they are. The game has changed so much over the years it's hard to know how older players would have faired in the modern ODI game.

Cricinfo did a very good peice on bats a while back which is well worth a read.

Durhamfootman wrote:I saw this on the bbc website, and was immediately struck by its pointlessness

If only there was a team that had won 3 world cups on the trot, then they could have debated which of their 11 players were the best, instead of pratting about with a spurious mix and match

remind me how many times a 'World' XI featuring the best players from around the world, ever beat the best 'team' in the world

Lets not also forget that the same team was finalist in 1996. So a team that contested 4 WC finals in a row, and won 3 of them.

shankycricket wrote:Gilly - Avg 36 SR 97
Sehwag - Avg 35 SR 104

Considering that Gilly started off earlier than Sehwag and retired 5 years before him and didn't play much ODI cricket in the T20 era (Sehwag's best ODI performances came post 2008) and played majority of his cricket in conditions where the par ODI score is far lower than India, that IMO takes care of the SR difference (97 is hardly slouch anyway). Also, Sehwag never made much of an impact in World Cups unlike Gilly, surely that has to count for something too?

India is about 15 runs per innings easier to bat in Australia if you take the average scores from each country since 2000. But this isn't a stat that is meaningful for one reason..... how much of the high scoring in India is down to India's amazing array of batting talent masking higher figures? Here we actually see that, in 40 matches that India have played in OZ in the same period, their average scoring rate of just under 5 means that India score in Australia about the same as the average game hosted in India..... ie, when Australia play at home to India, the matches have about the same runs as the average "featherbed" Indian wicket..... so maybe Australia blow more teams away of poor quality, but good teams still score as much

Another point worth noting...... playing in Asia more against SL ( 3 finals in WC's since 1996) and Pakistan, both consistent forces, in any conditions, has in the last decade and a half meant playing against quality teams and bowling attacks in away conditions...... Gilchrist hardly played in Sri Lanka and basically never played in Pakistan.

If Sehwag was able to duck playing in Oz and only played there 12 matches, and only played 3 in South Africa, what would his stats look like? Gilchrist after all, legendary struggled in some series in India to good off spin.

As for the "T20" era, realistically there was about a year or two in it, but Sehwag was finished by the time he came to England in 2011. I think at the end of 2010 ish he lost his eye sight and batted with glasses on, and he had lost his ability.

An analysis of Gilchrist uncovers also how much his form was often consistently middling.... he never averaged over the low 40's for a calendar year, he quite simply played and got out early all the time, and then come up with fairly frequent useful innings...... Sehwag touched form that Gilchrist couldn't compete with, but went through low points that Gilchrist never had.

Sehwag for me is therefore the better player.... his higher level was better

Changing the subject slightly.

Which 'team' is the best ever? Impossible to answer, I know.

The Aussie 2007 team went through unbeaten, or maybe the 79 windies team?

Dr Robert wrote:Changing the subject slightly.

Which 'team' is the best ever? Impossible to answer, I know.

The Aussie 2007 team went through unbeaten, or maybe the 79 windies team?

India 2010 to 2011 were my best team, simply because their batting line up was like the cricket equivalent of the death star.....

sussexpob wrote:

Dr Robert wrote:Changing the subject slightly.

Which 'team' is the best ever? Impossible to answer, I know.

The Aussie 2007 team went through unbeaten, or maybe the 79 windies team?

India 2010 to 2011 were my best team, simply because their batting line up was like the cricket equivalent of the death star.....

The death star had a massive hole in the centre, a bit like England's.

Wow just off the top of my head I see there is no Symonds, Dean Jones or Hayden.

The Waugh Twins wrote:Wow just off the top of my head I see there is no Symonds, Dean Jones or Hayden.

Would Symonds seriously be considered, good player that he was?

The Waugh Twins wrote:Wow just off the top of my head I see there is no Symonds, Dean Jones or Hayden.

The Master Blaster isn't there, nor Haynes or Greenidge.