England's Greatest ODI XI

[Aurelius]

I hope this hasn't been discussed already, but I'm not going to bother searching something like 1,150 threads. Anyway, I've given a bit of thought to this subject, as Greatest XI's are one of my more obsessive cricketing interests, so here's my team.

1. Alec Stewart (w)
2. Marcus Trescothick
3. Graeme Hick
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Allan Lamb
6. Paul Collingwood
7. Andrew Flintoff
8. Ian Botham
9. John Embury
10. Darren Gough
11. Bob Willis (c)

12. Robin Smith

Does anyone notice anything interesting about nos. 3, 4 and 5?

[sanketh84]

yeah that they weren't born in england. they were born in south africa or zimbabwe.

[greg]

No way should Lamb be in it and where are Thorpe and Fairbother?

[Rachael]

On a quick, search I found a team I'd discussed earlier..

Gooch
Knight (short leg)
Hick (gully, slip when Botham / Flintoff bowling)
Gower
Fairbrother (point)
Botham (1st slip)
Flintoff (2nd slip)
Knott / Taylor ('keeper)
Hendrick (short extra cover)
Willis
Underwood

From that thread...

Originally Posted by Milo

The problem with a lot of these exercises is compounded in LOI matches when you start comparing statistics (and there is a hell of a lot of talk about S/Rs and economy rates here) from different era. There is just no way one can compare Willis' strike rate with any player who played since the power plays and fiedling regulations. You can't assess players simply because they have a relatively good statistical record from a game that was played like first class cricket with bouncers and wide deliveries allowed (hence scores of 230 from 60 overs).

Fact remains, there is probably no England player (with the exception of Botham) that is a cert for this side. Unlike other countries, we have produced a load of players who are of the same standard. Of course, it then comes down once again (as with most all time sides) to favourites.

http://world-a-team.com/icc-world-cu...l-time-xi.html

[Aurelius]

No way should Lamb be in it and where are Thorpe and Fairbother?

Well, I've got their respective figures right here, with the best stat highlighted:
M Inn. N/O Runs Av. H/S S/R
Lamb: 122 118 16 4010 39.31 118 75.54
F'brother: 75 71 18 2091 39.47 113 72.06
Thorpe: 82 77 13 2380 37.18 89 71.17

So to me, it looks like Lamb comes clear out on top against Fairbrother and Graeme Thorpe. The go-to guy when quick runs are needed at the bottom of the innings. The other twp are more nudgers and nurdlers, and I've already got Paul Collingwood for that.

[Aurelius]

Yes, that's a good team Rachael. However, I should clarify that for my teams I have a minimum of 50 ODIs, therefore Knott, Taylor and possibly Hendrick don't qualify. Therefore Stewart gets in by default (although he could probably get in anyway, as he was a pretty good opener). Therefore, as his SR is around 68 or 69, the other opener has to score a little more quickly than that, therefore Gooch (61) and Knight (71) are too slow for my likely. Trescothick (85) is capable of getting any team in the world off to a flyer, plus he averages around 37, which is excellent.

Finally, about Willis, you can only judge someone's quality against those he plays with. Therefore, if his ER was lower than many of his compatriots from the 70s and 80s, then I think that says a lot. Plus his bowling average is only 24, the same as Pollock and Ambrose, so I think he's a shoe-in, and I really don't understand how Mike Selvy overlooked him in favour of Craig White.

[Rachael]

You can forget stats for this excercise: they are a questionable basis for distinguishing betweem Test players, and in ODI cricket they generally mean nothing.

Knight towers over the other potential ODI openers: he's a certainty. The reason? Principally his ability to judge the pitch, judge the conditions, judge the bowling and ensure the opening partnership found the right ways of scoring for the situation (and took the right risks).

Knight was fantastic between the wickets (and with someone like Fairbrother the other end would rotate the strike in a way that would see Gooch and Stewart couldn't even envision). He was also the best short leg fielder in world cricket.

That said... the best ODI batsman in the history of English pyjama cricket was Fairbrother: unlike Lamb, he realised that the team was better served by looking to score in a low-risk manner off nearly every ball rather than by trying to open his shoulders (increasing both the dot-ball count and the chances of getting out).

Fairbrother was also the best point fielder of his era.

Lamb? No way. This side is already burdened with agricultural batsmen in Botham and Flintoff... and if you were to let Stewart take the gloves would become worryingly incapable of anything other than blast or block!

I've no objection to having Collingwood in the side... but that would have to be at the expense of someone other than Knight, Hick and Fairbrother. That said... the only reason for including him would be for his bits-n-pieces value (OK bat, decent occasional bowler, great fielder): this side is better served by 5 top bowlers and 5 top batsmen.

[Aurelius]

That said... the best ODI batsman in the history of English pyjama cricket was Fairbrother: unlike Lamb, he realised that the team was better served by looking to score in a low-risk manner off nearly every ball rather than by trying to open his shoulders (increasing both the dot-ball count and the chances of getting out).

Well, despite what you say about stats, I still put a bit of stock in them. I consider them to generally be a fairly good indicator of performance. And while Fairbrother might have had a very good average, a quarter of his innings were not-outs, suggesting to me that he wasn't as effective as he appeared on paper; that in fact he often appeared at the very end of innings and stayed not out. Plus he only played 75 games- and the greatest batsman that you've ever produced should have played a lot more.

Lamb? No way. This side is already burdened with agricultural batsmen in Botham and Flintoff... and if you were to let Stewart take the gloves would become worryingly incapable of anything other than blast or block!

Not at all. First off, I don't think you can call anyone who was capable of scoring 20 runs in the last over to win a match a "burden." Secondly, my batting team includes Stewart, Hick and Collingwood- three players who I'd say are eminently capable of playing a good innings without doing either. Besides which, when chasing a big total, "blasters" like Lamb, Flintoff and Botham are really very handy.

I've no objection to having Collingwood in the side... but that would have to be at the expense of someone other than Knight, Hick and Fairbrother.

No way am I getting rid of Hick- the greatest No. 3 that England's ever had, averaging 44 in that position. I might consider replacing Trescothickwith Knight, but as a package Trescothick was quite something. As for Fairbrother- well, I've already gone into that. 2nd XI, certainly, 12th Man in this one, possibly, nut in the First XI itself? Not in my team.

[greg]

As far as i am concerned there are 3 players who are absolute certainties for this team and they are Hick,Botham and Flintoff.

You could make a good case for Gooch,Trescothick,Stewart and Knight at the top of the order so any 2 from those 4 would do and if you wanted Stewart to keep wicket then at least he adds balance.As for the other batting roles i would go for KP,Thorpe and Fairbrother at 4,5 and 6 as they Thorpe and Fairbrother were capable of upping the tempo when needed but could hold it together also and with Botham and Flintoff to come after them you don't need another blaster like Lamb.

The spinner role is a difficult one as we have never really had a decent one in one day cricket so Embers would reluctantly get the nod.As for the remaining pace bowlers Gough is a decent shout to bowl at the death with Freddie and Willis record stands up.

I would probably go with this

Stewart (wkt)
Trescothick
Hick
Pietersen
Thorpe
Fairbrother
Botham
Flintoff
Emburey
Gough
Willis (capt)

Not too much of a difference from Aurelius side but i think Thorpe and Fairbrother are better than Colly and Lamb for my team as you already have Hick for the 6th bowler role.

[Rachael]

What worries me is the thought of Stewart standing up to Botham and Gough (or Hendrick if he were preferred): the wicket keeper should be expected to do it at some point... in fact, almost every time England encountered a slow and low track when the conditions ruled out swing - and the thought of Stewart trying to effect stumpings off that pair doesn't really bear contemplating.

I'd rate Mustard's chances of coping better than Stewart's chances of coping... though given that Mustard has yet to be really tested I'd really prefer Taylor, Russell or Knott (probably in that order of preference).

That leaves me with:

1. Knight (automatic)
2. Tresco/Gooch (former perhaps brought more to the party)
3. Hick (automatic)
4. Gower / Thorpe / Pietersen
5. Fairbrother (automatic)
6. Botham (automatic)
7. Flintoff (automic)
8. Taylor/Russell/Knott
9. Embury
10. Hendrick/Gough
11. Willis

12th man: Randall / Penny / Collingwood

I could see an argument for alternatives to Gower... but I see Knight and Fairbrother as the cornerstone of the batting and he strikes me as the obvious partner for them. Thorpe might be my next choice, with Pietersen a distant 3rd... but if either were preferred to Gower I'd move Fairbrother to 4 in the batting order.

The only concern with the line-up is the reliance of braun in the lower-middle order: Botham and Flintoff would be great coming in for the final 2-3 overs... but wouldn't inspire confidence if the opposition made serious inroads in the opening 25 overs!