Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[The Waugh Twins]

I'm lost for words, but I see Sussex isn't.

Not much of a counter argument

ha,ha and you summed it up right there Sussex. All you ever seem to do on here is vent to people you don't even know. Yes I like a good rant now and again, but when it's constant it becomes tedious.

You know he'll find an argument for that Mark.

[sussexpob]

I'm lost for words, but I see Sussex isn't.

Not much of a counter argument

ha,ha and you summed it up right there Sussex. All you ever seem to do on here is vent to people you don't even know. Yes I like a good rant now and again, but when it's constant it becomes tedious.

You know he'll find an argument for that Mark.

Indeed, I did sum it up..... I asked for your counter argument, and you answered with a personal remark rather then enter into the debate. Im glad you joined in....

Was Mark using the joint brain cell when you wrote this?

[Arthur Crabtree]

The modern bats aren't heavy. They have a lot of wood in them but they aren't pressed. I think in the eighties, players used heavy bats. I'm not sure it works to say old time batters couldn't have used them. Clearly plenty could have, it just wasn't an option for them.

Leg theory wasn't practiced after bodyline, but are you saying bouncers weren't bowled until the fifties. I'd never heard that.

[meninblue]

The modern bats aren't heavy. They have a lot of wood in them but they aren't pressed. I think in the eighties, players used heavy bats. I'm not sure it works to say old time batters couldn't have used them. Clearly plenty could have, it just wasn't an option for them.

Leg theory wasn't practiced after bodyline, but are you saying bouncers weren't bowled until the fifties. I'd never heard that.

Modern bats are pressed and hence they have good stroke. The other reason for machine pressing is avoiding trouble of hand knocking.one more reason for pressing bat is to remove air within wood.Now pressed bats are also cheap.Many club cricketers also using it.

[sussexpob]

Leg theory wasn't practiced after bodyline, but are you saying bouncers weren't bowled until the fifties. I'd never heard that.

No, I said that the English bowlers were basically told not to bowl them and that anyone who did was disgraced, but Bradman captaining the Aussies in 46 and 48 instructed his bowlers to barrage England, who did not respond in kind, as Walter Hammond was rigidly sticking to these series being "goodwill" series while both teams recovered from the war years, and any political strife from Bodyline and questions about the Empire petered out.

David Firth wrote the book "Bodyline Autopsy" discusses the legacy of the series. I cant obviously find a copy of the book but an extra of the book on Cricinfo.....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 55228.html

But the cost to England's image was catastrophic. Here was the revered Mother Country playing dirty. At that time the intimidation and the concentrated field setting were both within the letter of the Laws. But as even some of the English players privately recognised, they were contrary to the spirit of the game. The tourists won four of the Tests, losing only the second, on a slow Melbourne pitch where Bradman coupled a duck with a splendid, hardworking century.

It took a long time to heal the injured feelings, which had even concerned the governments of both countries. Subtle unwritten pledges were extracted that the Australians would not be subjected to Bodyline during the 1934 tour, and in due course the Laws were tightened in an effort to prevent any repetition - though not soon enough to spare India from assault by other England fast bowlers under Jardine's control in 1933-34.

Thereafter, bouncers were widely regarded as unsporting and unwanted - until, that is, the Second World War changed everything. In the late 1940s Bradman had Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller at his disposal, and the bouncers flew again. Yet even those blistering sessions were but an attenuated preamble to what happened in the late 1970s and the 1980s

[sussexpob]

The change actually is attributed to Frank Tyson in the 1954-55 Ashes in Australia. Ray Lindwall bowled short and quick to Tyson when batting, knocking Tyson on the head and out the game. He returned later with a golf ball sized lump on his head, and tore into the Aussies with some shock and awe style intimidation of his own..... other teams after followed suit after that, and the bouncer became acceptable once more, but before that, only Australia had used the tactic.

It still wasn't that much of a done thing until the Windies made it their own decades later though....

[The Waugh Twins]

Reminds me of getting off the coach back in the 80's half way between Adelaide and Darwin. No sooner were you out the door walking across to the roadhouse and our backs were covered in flies. No matter how many times you swatted those pesky things away they were right back where they started.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Thanks for the quote Sussex. I really should read that book.

And thanks for the bat info Adi. You used to often hear from the Botham/Kapil Dev era how heavy the bats were. Usually from an ex player picking up a present player's bat. But no one ever says that anymore, people comment on how big the bats are.

I think the notion of those old timers playing ODIs was intended to be whimsical. But it isn't always easy to tell.

[Albondiga]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

[rich1uk]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

I agree with you in principle albondiga

still don't see how you can pick marshall for an ODI team in front of garner , they played a similar numbers of ODIs, during roughly the same time frame, and garner has a significantly better record in the format

[Making_Splinters]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

I dont think you can argue that players "would adapt" to a format they never played.

[GarlicJam]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

I agree with you in principle albondiga

still don't see how you can pick marshall for an ODI team in front of garner , they played a similar numbers of ODIs, during roughly the same time frame, and garner has a significantly better record in the format

Certainly more of an argument for Marshall over Garner in a test team, but imo, Garner over anyone in ODI's.

[Gingerfinch]

Murali and Saqlain over Warne in ODI's is a very good argument.

[sussexpob]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

I love the double standards of this old era v new era thing. We have to hear about how these old legends batted on pitches that were uncovered, with helmets, etc.....

Sidney Barnes played in an era where no Australia who played more than 3 matches averaged over 40. Poor pitches, no helmets and poor batting quality seem to have twisted the statistics from this era.... a list of pre-WWI bowlers as follows:

GA Lohmann..... 112 wickets at 10....
J Ferris.... 61 wickets at 12
W Barnes....51 wickets at 15
CTB Turner...101 wickets at 16
R Briggs... 118 wickets at 16
R Peel...101 wickets at 17
R SPotforth... 68 wickets at 18
C Blythe...100 wickets at 18


The average wicket in these days dropped nearly 10 runs per wicket less, so bowling in Sidney Barnes day was like shooting fish in a barrel compared to nowadays. If Kallis isnt as good as Sobers because of X,Y and Z, for the same reason we should ignore Sidney Barnes in any debate.

[sussexpob]

"The greats of an era would be greats in any era"

I believe any ODI side or any other longer form of the game ( I don't include 20/20 because I don't see it as a game for professionals ) should contain BRADMAN SOBERS HOBBS S F BARNES WARNE AKRAM MARSHALL.


It does not matter if they have not played ODI's as we know them now as they would soon adapt.

I dont think you can argue that players "would adapt" to a format they never played.

Indeed. Maybe we should change the debate to "best long distance runners of all time"......

In the hypothetical world of a 4 x 10,000m relay, my squad would be thus....

Carl Lewis
Linford Christie
Usain Bolt
Asafa Powell


I would have picked Mo Farah, Seb Coe or Garesallase, but I dont think they were anywhere near as quick as those boys.