Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[Arthur Crabtree]

SRT, Sehwag, Lara, Viv, Dhoni, Bevan, Imran, Wasim, Warne, Garner, McGrath.

Still nearly left McGrath out for his fielding.

On second thoughts.

[Arthur Crabtree]

don't want to get into the comparisons between eras, but I am going to, how would the likes of Richards do with todays bats where every mis-hit has a chance of going for 6

people don't hit the ball any farther these days when it is timed perfectly, they do get away with edges and mis-hits going for 4s and 6s that would never have happened when Richards was playing

One or two balls?

Red or white?

Asia or elsewhere?

[yuppie]

Not one Australian. Even though they have won the world cup 4 times, finalist 2 more times? Most successful nation at the 50 over game. 4 South africans and no world cup wins, though that might change this year?

Must just produce the greatest teams ever, but no good individual players......

Gilly would be my wk pick after Dhoni and ABD - he'd also be the next opener after Sachin, Sehwag and Amla. Lillee and McGrath were both close contenders with Donald for the last fast bowling slot

my second XI would be (bending rules since Kohli is not in BBC list): Gilly, Jayasuriya, Kohli, Ponting, Sanga, Lloyd, Imran, Kapil Dev, Lillee, McGrath, Saqlain

4 aussies in my top 22 players - but I'd agree with the point about strong teams - the aussie line-ups in that era just didn't have a weak link whereas SA did even though they had some great players (Donald, Klusener, Pollock - but their batting was not that great at that time and no decent spinner)

I thought Red your first team was named as a team that could have possibly beaten the Australian team of 1999 to 2007

I think people forget how good a one day bowler Brett Lee was. He has the best strike rate of all the bowlers mentioned above, and did take 380 wickets. Some strange omissions as well from the BBC team.

[rich1uk]

don't want to get into the comparisons between eras, but I am going to, how would the likes of Richards do with todays bats where every mis-hit has a chance of going for 6

people don't hit the ball any farther these days when it is timed perfectly, they do get away with edges and mis-hits going for 4s and 6s that would never have happened when Richards was playing

One or two balls?

Red or white?

Asia or elsewhere?

I know and that's why you cant compare eras , I do think that bat changes have made a much bigger difference in performance than any other factor however

[Red Devil]

Econ of 3 for a pace bowler the is the same as 5 now. But Garner was pretty awesome. The best in ODIs in his era at least.

Shouldn't Steyn be an option.

Bevan was a great, can't leave out Lara, so it's ABDV or Viv. I think I'll stick with ABDV. Which is an incredible compliment to the South African.

Imran as skipper.

Bevan has a surprisingly low SR so I wonder how he would cope with the modern ODI game - Viv and Clive Lloyd played in an earlier era and still had far superior strike rates (and you'd think they would have loved the modern game) and pretty good averages (albeit not near Bevan's) Also, Kohli is superb in chases and guides the team hom, similar average to Bevan but a stunning SR (albeit in the modern game but still a stunning SR)

on Botham - he tended to play in more seamer friendly conditions than Kapil (who also played many games at the end of his career when he should have been retired) yet Kapil has a better average by 1.1 runs per wicket and a better ER by 0.25 runs per over. Kapil also has a slightly better batting average and those that remember his 175 and his 4 sixes in 4 balls in a test will know that he could clear any boundary. Imran was a much better test bowler but his ODI bowling was about the same as Kapil, he averaged much higher with the bat but his SR would be much lower than Kapil's (or Botham's)

[Arthur Crabtree]

Given econs have changed so much, maybe SR is the best way to judge bowlers across the eras.

[Arthur Crabtree]

And you can't compare batting SRs across eras, so have to go with batting average there.

[rich1uk]

And you can't compare batting SRs across eras, so have to go with batting average there.

even that is tough to do tho , as something that would have been top edged to a fielder 30-40 years ago will go for 6 now

[Red Devil]

I reckon there's only three that have no question - Sachin, Viv and Akram. Sir Viv was without a doubt the greatest of all time. The rest are all arguable, and all great players.

I'd add Garner to that list and Murali (if people could get over the bowling action stuff) - Dhoni must be in everyone's team too I'd guess.

[yuppie]

Econ of 3 for a pace bowler the is the same as 5 now. But Garner was pretty awesome. The best in ODIs in his era at least.

Shouldn't Steyn be an option.

Bevan was a great, can't leave out Lara, so it's ABDV or Viv. I think I'll stick with ABDV. Which is an incredible compliment to the South African.

Imran as skipper.

Surely in the one day game Ponting ahead of Lara.

I agree with Rich and wondering what Viv would do in the current game. Batting is so much easier, we just need to look at how many players are comparible to each other. But in Vivs time, well there was just Viv.

With the team provided and options given and no tweaking my team would be:
Sachin
Sanath
Ricky
Viv
Bevan
Dhoni(pointless Gilly being here, and probably within 2 years it will be AB)
Imran
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

[rich1uk]

that's why I kinda just went with feel and what I saw watching when picking my team rather than worry too much about numbers , tried to pick the guys that were destructive as batsmen and frightening as bowlers

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bevan has a surprisingly low SR so I wonder how he would cope with the modern ODI game - Viv and Clive Lloyd played in an earlier era and still had far superior strike rates (and you'd think they would have loved the modern game) and pretty good averages (albeit not near Bevan's) Also, Kohli is superb in chases and guides the team hom, similar average to Bevan but a stunning SR (albeit in the modern game but still a stunning SR)

on Botham - he tended to play in more seamer friendly conditions than Kapil (who also played many games at the end of his career when he should have been retired) yet Kapil has a better average by 1.1 runs per wicket and a better ER by 0.25 runs per over. Kapil also has a slightly better batting average and those that remember his 175 and his 4 sixes in 4 balls in a test will know that he could clear any boundary. Imran was a much better test bowler but his ODI bowling was about the same as Kapil, he averaged much higher with the bat but his SR would be much lower than Kapil's (or Botham's)

Too many variables. No fielding restrictions back in the early days, but captains would set up Test match fields at the start, and put everyone on the boundary at the end. Outfields were bigger. Fielders were worse.

[Red Devil]

And you can't compare batting SRs across eras, so have to go with batting average there.

Viv and Clive managed pretty healthy SR's in the old days, but Bevan and Kallis have much lower SR's despite playing in much more recent times - so I think it's a pretty big factor. SR is a big factor in having Sehwag in the side.

[yuppie]

And you can't compare batting SRs across eras, so have to go with batting average there.

I think it just needs to be compared to how they performed in the time they played. Against their peers of the day. We cant say how will they perform in the modern day and judge them on that. Because if that's the case we can ask how new batsman would have performed in Vivs day. No helmuts, less padding, no fielding restrictions, not middling the ball means no 4(unless edge) or 6. But then this argument has been done before, many times.

[yuppie]

And you can't compare batting SRs across eras, so have to go with batting average there.

Viv and Clive managed pretty healthy SR's in the old days, but Bevan and Kallis have much lower SR's despite playing in much more recent times - so I think it's a pretty big factor. SR is a big factor in having Sehwag in the side.

Bevan's greatness was that he played to the situation. He could go at a run a ball and more, and when the top order failed he would consolidate. He bought the team home a lot with out resorting to big hitting. He almost always read the situation to perfection. One of the reasons Australia were so successful.