Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[The Waugh Twins]

One thing I do admire about the modern player is that they have impeccable diets and never smoke.

What about Warnie?

Doesn't ring a bell, who ?

[sussexpob]

One thing I do admire about the modern player is that they have impeccable diets and never smoke.

What about Warnie?

Doesn't ring a bell, who ?

"The guy who was banned for using performance enhancing drugs, Steve...... dont you remember, you were captain??? In 2003?? When even Warney said "ah, this ban will actually lengthen my career"....

"oh him, Mark"

[sussexpob]

With helmets, all the extra padding/guards, covered pitches and the new fangled bats, he may well average over 100. Test averages have improved over the years - due to the above points - why wouldn't his?

The best modern batsman's average is 13th on the list of all time (Kallis). Below him, 9 or 10 players of the highest 12 averaging players had a cross over with Bradman's era, and guys like Barnes, Harvey and Arthur Morris average considerably more in their time in the team with Bradman (I think they all averaged in the 70's-80's in Ashes series played with Bradman in the beginning of their career)..... A long list of Englishmen of that era also averaged well over 50, in fact apart from Barrington, all the best English averages came from players who crossed over generally, and no retired player has gone over 50 since Barrington decades ago. Even Compton had an 11 year period in career during his cross over with Bradman where his average was 65.... Worrell averaged over a hundred in his cross over period!! Even a lone New Zealander played over 10 tests with an average of 65!!

Were the pitches that tough then? I think its clear that the professional/amateur distinction made some players have superior records because between the good players (who's averages were made better) there was a lot of dross and cannon fodder that was forgotten. Norman Yardley in the late 40's Ashes went as Captain of the England team and strike bowler, despite an average way above other players........ but the England team still had to be captained by a "Gentleman" by convention.

[meninblue]

From whatever small basics i have about cricket, i guess those days it was easy for bowlers to bowl as the wickets were uncovered. So full marks to batsmen who had high average on those wickets. But even bowlers like Steyn,Mcgrath who bowled on covered wickets have better SR than those of past era who bowled on uncovered wickets. And if Steyn McGrath etc had bowled to batters without helmet. What i mean is this old new debate is never ending.

Still i like to see these 5 because they did so well on uncovered wickets in test matches.

So my ODI ATG 11 squad is like this
Gavaskar
Ravi
Nazar
Tavare
Boycott

Don't take it seriously.

Having said that Viv Richards Yes. definitely he is worth to be considered in ATG ODI 11

I mean if we start picking ATG ODI player Yuvi in test match because what he did in ODI, then that selector should be given "Bharat Ratna" award.

[meninblue]

They havent updated Virat yet in ODI 11. Not even 12th man.

[sussexpob]

Yes he would have averaged well over 100. One thing a lot of people don't know also about Bradman is all the time off he had whilst in his prime. When he came back he was just as good.

Bradman was found out in 1932-33 to a certain extent, the bodyline tactic had him averaging in the 40's versus Voce and Larwood's quick bowling until the fall out of the Adelaide test(I think the warm up games he was also got out cheaply in a game if correct). For political reasons Voce (out for a couple of series- asked MCC not to pick him) and Larwood never saw test cricket again afterwards despite their ridiculously successful records for Notts. He was replaced by Bill Bowes of Yorkshire, a fearsome pace bowler widely criticised for his short bowling after bodyline, and who was picked as a replacement but told not to bowl short (and who was injured in the 1937 Ashes).... I wonder if anyother batting side has been blessed with a political arrangement that made batting much easier.

The longevity of his career is also a bit of a fluke. Hedley Verty (who is known as the best foil Bradman had in his career) bought it in WWII in the Invasion of Italy. Ken Farnes bought in in the RAF in 1941. Bowes was captured by the Germans in the fall of Tobruk and lost 4 stones in weight, only to play one more FC match due to fitness issues. Alec Bedser was suffering still from a stomach issue he contracted in North Africa due to bad diet and this restricted his input for a while as he couldn't bowl. Bill Voce had lost 2-3 stones due to food rationing and had lost all of his pace....a problem for all England's bowlers at the time in fact.

The 1946 Ashes in themselves, to account for this downturn in English crickets fortunes, was considered a glorified friendly by the English team who's squad was selected for a showpiece event by picking established names, some no longer peak test worthy, for fan interest than competitive reasons. When Hammond's team arrived in Australia they were distraught to find out that Bradman's Australia team was picked to win on all accounts, and had been playing NZ in an unofficial test series to blood the youngsters.

Hammond never uttered a word to Bradman all series as he was livid with what he thought was gamesmanship...... Bradman was caught out in the first test for 20 but refused to walk (made 187), and was also on 20 when he refused to walk in the 2nd test (made 287) ... Hammond was distraught, and still playing to the nature of it being a friendly, did not petition the umpire to overrule the gentleman's code (although the Australian dressing room were united in the fact that Bradman had indeed been caught).... in a later test, Barnes also refused to bat when it had rained claiming the light was too bad in order to protect Australia playing the last session on a sticky wicket England had been blasted out, and the next day him and Bradman pilled on the runs on a dried out wicket that had become tame.

The English team in 1948 was still rebuilding from the war years and its fall out, while the Aussies were game to use their advantage to stomp England to the ground. In these "invincible" years the War had heavily disadvantaged England, particularly their bowling attack, and this can be seen in the fact England had competed well in Australia in in both 36/37 (won first two tests) and won in 32/33..... now Australia were coming to be the first side not to lose a tour match in the series, and in 1948 the English bowling was so under primed that Bradman was not the only person to blast them apart..... I think all 6 Aussie regular batsman averaged at least 50 or thereabouts, with 3 averaging between the low 80s and mid 70's.

I wonder how the Australia 2000's team would have coped against England if we killed Shane Warne and Glen McGrath off, told Brett Lee he couldn't play again after hitting Alex Tudor with a bouncer, put Stuart MacGill in a prison camp 4 years before the start of the test match and left Damien Fleming and Stuart Clark with two slices of bread to eat a day before asking them to bowl 30 overs a day..... I am sure you might have found Nasser Hussain averaging well above 30 a series. Mike Atherton for a start might have actually scored Ashes runs.

Not sure how much the fact not wearing a helmet mattered when the first person to get injured seriously by a bouncer resulted in Australia nearly leaving the commonwealth.

[Gingerfinch]

Bradman's worst series (bodyline) saw him average 55 against a type of bowling he'd never seen before. That average alone would see him be classed as a great player. The fact is, he averaged 40 runs per innings more, than any other batter in history. It's impossible to compare era's, but his stats don't lie.

[sussexpob]

Bradman's worst series (bodyline) saw him average 55 against a type of bowling he'd never seen before. That average alone would see him be classed as a great player. The fact is, he averaged 40 runs per innings more, than any other batter in history. It's impossible to compare era's, but his stats don't lie.

His average was about 39-40 after the Adelaide test when the issue became a widespread political disaster and England had to back off the tactic for fear for their own safety.... after that I think he made have made a few scores. Bodyline wasn't a new tactic, and I think it had been used by English and Australian sides before.... in this instance, it was simply the devastating effect of Voce and Larwood that made it noticeable.....

Larwood never played again, so you can make a sound argument that Bradman avoiding England's best test bowler for political reasons contributed to his success.... its a no brainer really, you take the best bowler out a side (he averaged 16 in FC cricket!!!!) and add all the other factors, you come to see how this freak's stats make sense....

Arguably no other batsman, or side, had such things go in their favour!

[Gingerfinch]

I think you're manipulating things, sussex. Why did no other player average 99 over 50 odd tests? Yes, Morris, Harvey etc had sublime years, like players do now, but Bradman sustained it, plus lost arguably his best years thanks to the war. Plus he batted with more pressure than any other player in history, including Tendulkar. For me, he's the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the best sportsman of all time.

[GarlicJam]

You seem to have a major bee in your bonnet, Sussex, over Bradman. As Ginger says, and I said earlier, he was so far ahead of his contempories that he was obviously some extremely special talent. Never said he was a good bloke.

So many of the arguments you put in you post (with the notable excpetion of the devastation that WWII had on the English cricketing stocks) are verging on spurious and are red herrings at best.

[Arthur Crabtree]

But whatever the variables, the Don outscored the others.

During Australia's dominance 1989-05, England practically always took a reserve attack to Australia, but no one allows that to obscure that they would have beaten the best attack. There are always reason why things might have worked in your favour, once they have worked in your favour. A counterfactual history can be written for anything. But Bradman did achieve over a long career. Real runs.

I think Bradman did average ok in the Bodyline series. It is a sign of his preeminence that an opposition team would devise such a controversial strategy. One that batters subsequently haven't had to face.

[meninblue]

Bradman as test match player averaging 99 is no doubt wonderful. Although i have not watched him one thing that 99 average tells me is he middled the ball well. But so many middling test match players like Rahul, VVS who struggled in ODI's in terms of adjusting or switching formats easily. What type Bradman was, one who could switch formats easily like Sachin or one who couldn't like Rahul or VVS.

[dan08]

Bradman never batted in the sub-continent. Only in England and Australia. Would probably have still scored loads of runs though.

[Gingerfinch]

He did hit a ton off of about 20 odd balls, but that was in an unofficial game.

[GarlicJam]

Bradman never batted in the sub-continent. Only in England and Australia. Would probably have still scored loads of runs though.

He did, but not tests. I think Aus played some games on their way to England. Couldn't tell you how he went.