• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Non-Spamming Thread on the announcement of the greatest Aussie ODI team

C_C

International Captain
O'Donnell above Steve Waugh OR Hussey? Unusual selection... :huh:
Nah. I want balance to the side.
Critical to ODIs i believe is having a longish tail and six bowlers who can bowl decently, to cover the possibility of a minimum 1 bowler having a bad day.

Gilly to Symonds is already a formidable enough lineup batting-wise. Probably only challenged/matched by a similar alltime WI or India batting six.
Including Hussey or Waugh ( i dont think waugh should make it - his average/strike rate are way too down for this sort of alltime odi XIs) would make the batting unecessarily strong but leave four frontline bowlers + mark waugh and Symonds to make up the overs. The latter two are part timers imo and an alltime team can never go in a match with only four frontline bowlers.
O'Donell seemed the best fit - he was a lusty lower order hitter and a bowler reliable enough to do 5-6 overs a match ( basically Mark Waugh, Symonds and O'Donell make up 10-15 overs and the four frontliners make up 35-40 overs.)

I think perhas Australia's biggest weakeness in an alltime ODI XI is the lack of any genuine ODI allrounders. WI have the same problem imo though Hooper was a better bowler significantly than Mark Waugh or Symonds and can almost be considered a decent ODI allrounder.
 

Fiery

Banned
Haha - I used to play for an Indoor team called the Glenn Trimble All-Stars! Told my boss one day, adding "because he was crap - its a bit of a joke", only to get a tirade about how Trimble was underrated, and was simply unlucky with the opportunities he got...
He's a bit of an icon in NZ. Played in a couple of games in the Tri-Series of '86 against us. 1st game he played, forgot completely how to bowl, suffered serious yips (of the Tuffey's 14-ball over variety), got smacked for 32 in 4 overs and got taken off. Then scored 0*. He was given another chance in the 2nd game, scored 4 runs and "wasn't required" to bowl, in what was probably one of Australia's most humiliating losses. He was swiftly given the axe. Poor guy is now quite famous in NZ and his name pops up on those rare occasions that Aussie aren't kicking our butts, e.g, someone might point and laugh at the TV and say "oh, he's had a Glenn Trimble!"
 
Last edited:

Matt79

Global Moderator
Nah. I want balance to the side.
Critical to ODIs i believe is having a longish tail and six bowlers who can bowl decently, to cover the possibility of a minimum 1 bowler having a bad day.

Gilly to Symonds is already a formidable enough lineup batting-wise. Probably only challenged/matched by a similar alltime WI or India batting six.
Including Hussey or Waugh ( i dont think waugh should make it - his average/strike rate are way too down for this sort of alltime odi XIs) would make the batting unecessarily strong but leave four frontline bowlers + mark waugh and Symonds to make up the overs. The latter two are part timers imo and an alltime team can never go in a match with only four frontline bowlers.
O'Donell seemed the best fit - he was a lusty lower order hitter and a bowler reliable enough to do 5-6 overs a match ( basically Mark Waugh, Symonds and O'Donell make up 10-15 overs and the four frontliners make up 35-40 overs.)

I think perhas Australia's biggest weakeness in an alltime ODI XI is the lack of any genuine ODI allrounders. WI have the same problem imo though Hooper was a better bowler significantly than Mark Waugh or Symonds and can almost be considered a decent ODI allrounder.
Ignoring the fact that Waugh was basically the best bowler in the 87 World Cup and is still considered one of the best 'death' bowlers to have played the game? Ponting would kill for a death bowler as capable as the young Steve Waugh...
 

C_C

International Captain
Ignoring the fact that Waugh was basically the best bowler in the 87 World Cup and is still considered one of the best 'death' bowlers to have played the game? Ponting would kill for a death bowler as capable as the young Steve Waugh...
Waugh was an underrated bowler but anybody who gets in at #7 has to be a better bowler than Waugh and a much faster scorer in my books - thats the role of a #7. And i just can't tihnk of anybody i'd drop in the top six to accomodate Tugga.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Interesting that people are picking Lillee - IMO he wasnt a particularly good one day bowler but benefitted immensely from the naive tactics employed in that era.

Were he to be playing today, he would have to change lines and lengths dramatically to be successful plus he had no slower ball to speak of.

A guy like Gary Gilmour would've been a much better pick from that era - swung the ball prodigiously at good pace, big hitter and brilliant field. Unfortunately, his career was cut short by injury and off-field excess.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Waugh was an underrated bowler but anybody who gets in at #7 has to be a better bowler than Waugh and a much faster scorer in my books - thats the role of a #7. And i just can't tihnk of anybody i'd drop in the top six to accomodate Tugga.
O'Donnell might've been a better hitter but was inferior in every other sense (batting, bowling and fielding)
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Waugh was an underrated bowler but anybody who gets in at #7 has to be a better bowler than Waugh and a much faster scorer in my books - thats the role of a #7. And i just can't tihnk of anybody i'd drop in the top six to accomodate Tugga.
It's true he's no #7. I'd slot him in at 5 and move Symonds and Bevan down - ultimately however, I went for Hussey at 7, and would rely on Symonds and M. Waugh, and maybe Bevo or Hussey if I wanted to get tonked, to produce 10 between them...
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Changing the topic a bit, Michael Clarke might justifiably feel a little wronged to have not made it into the top 30. I don't think he's done enough yet to merit inclusion in the final XI, but if you look at his stats he's been a great finisher for the team, and also adds to the team balance with his little spinners and his fielding...
 

C_C

International Captain
It's true he's no #7. I'd slot him in at 5 and move Symonds and Bevan down - ultimately however, I went for Hussey at 7, and would rely on Symonds and M. Waugh, and maybe Bevo or Hussey if I wanted to get tonked, to produce 10 between them...
I wouldn't. That'd leave Australia with only four frontline bowlers - one of whom (Lee) already has a penchant for being expensive. If McGrath or Warney has a bad day, OZ goose would be cooked very well indeed. Especially when you compare and see that WI bowling is probably going to be stronger than AUS, Pak will probably be slightly better too and RSA will sport a lot of depth, all of a sudden, Australia's bowling becomes the key. I don't think australia would need a big name like Symonds or Husey at #7 - not when they don't have a bonafide allrounder in ODIs. The top six is already good enough as anyone probably, its the bowling that needs a bit more options.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
For comparisons sake, courtesy of Stats Spider, the 5th bowling options for Australia that have been mentioned:

Symonds (bat avg 38.81@92.04)
M W BB Avg E/R S/R 4W 5W
161 121 5/18 37.38 4.97 45.07 2 1

S.Waugh (bat avg. 32.90@75.91)
M W BB Avg E/R S/R 4W 5W
325 195 4/33 34.67 4.56 45.55 3 0

M. Waugh (bat avg 39.35 @ 76.83)
M W BB Avg E/R S/R 4W 5W
244 85 5/24 34.56 4.78 43.37 1 1

O’Donnell (bat avg 25.34 @ 80.96)
M W BB Avg E/R S/R 4W 5W
87 108 5/13 28.72 4.27 40.27 5 1
 

Swervy

International Captain
Interesting that people are picking Lillee - IMO he wasnt a particularly good one day bowler but benefitted immensely from the naive tactics employed in that era.

Were he to be playing today, he would have to change lines and lengths dramatically to be successful plus he had no slower ball to speak of.
Lillee had more variation than probably any other fast bowler of the 70's and early 80s. If anyone could develop a slower ball (he ceratinly new how to use the off break and leg break, that in itself ,from memory, would probably involved some element of pace variation), it would be Lillee.

Even later on in his career, it would be safe to say that Lillee was top5 in the world in ODI, there is no real reason to say that wouldnt be the case if he were playing now as well
 

Fiery

Banned
Lillee had more variation than probably any other fast bowler of the 70's and early 80s. If anyone could develop a slower ball (he ceratinly new how to use the off break and leg break, that in itself ,from memory, would probably involved some element of pace variation), it would be Lillee.

Even later on in his career, it would be safe to say that Lillee was top5 in the world in ODI, there is no real reason to say that wouldnt be the case if he were playing now as well
Yeah, great bowler was Lillee. He was Hadlee's role-model which says a lot
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
One day Craig, you might make a sensible suggestion for an award.

But I won't hold my breath about it happening anytime soon.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
He's certainly not a test allrounder, but he fits the criteria well enough in ODI terms - he'll reliably produce 10 overs for a decent economy rate and bob up with a wicket or two from time to time. His spin is at least as effective as Gayle or Jayasuriya (well, almost), and the team bank on him delivering the bulk of the 'fifth bowler's' overs. Add to that the fact he can bowl decent medium pacers and he fits the allrounder tag for ODIs in my book.
I don't believe Symonds is anywhere near accurate enough to be a viable bowler. His record is poor and he usually goes for plenty - especially in more recent times.

He's no Jayasuriya and he's certainly no Gayle IMO.
 

Craig

World Traveller
One day Craig, you might make a sensible suggestion for an award.

But I won't hold my breath about it happening anytime soon.
Well that is your opinion Marc, so how about I won't post then in CC then?

Happy you ego-filled manic? Your just as bad as when Andre used to be be around... :dry:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
A bt harsh too, TBH.

I remember those days of yore and Mr. Maddocks, though... ah, and Rik, and Rich Twyman posting regularly... and when Reuben and Sudeep used to post on CC... those were the days. :cool:
 

Top