Your squads for possible charity match

[Ernest]

LOL Rachael, get me the tickets, I would pay for that!!!.

Vaas
Pollock
Flintoff
Murali,
Take some living with, therefore giving the B team the edge.

Tresco opening with Jayasuria, could come really good.

middle order of,
Sarwan
Youhana
Flintoff
Not many will back against this team.

Danger from the A team,

Hayden
Gayle
These two need removing.

Depite "Lara,"
Lara
Flemming
Gilchrist

I give the middle order to the B team.

A team bowling a bit thin,

Oram
Gillespie
McGrath = This is the weakness, not much more, Kallis?

Verdict a cracker, did not have to mention Kallis or Symonds or Atapattu or Sangakkara.

[Rachael]

The way I see it.. Hayden, Kallis, Ponting, Lara and Gilchrist give the "A" team a far classier batting line up than the "B" team.. who only really have Tendulkar in that class.. and with McGrath and Gillespie backed by Oram, Symonds, Gayle AND Kallis... there's more than enough bowling.

The "B" team batting is much more ODI slogging oriented... but with a line up of so many of them... and such depth to the batting... I don't hink it matters. I'd agree, though, that Pollock plus Vaas to open and close the innings, with Flintoff and Murali seeing you through the middle overs, and with Jayasuria, Tendulkar, Tresco, and Sarwan available to be fiddled with for the extra 10 overs... the "B" bowling is very very strong.

The interesting thing is that I took the players purely on the basis of PWC ratings. I think we should be able to agree that on the basis of this.. PWC are getting SOMETHING right: there aren't any glaring omissions there.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The interesting thing is that I took the players purely on the basis of PWC ratings. I think we should be able to agree that on the basis of this.. PWC are getting SOMETHING right: there aren't any glaring omissions there.

There are; Inzamam is ranked 7 places below Youhana. Inexplicable, both in terms of the recent form of the two (Inzamam has been scoring much more than Yoyo in the past year or two), and overall class (Inzi is arguably one of the all-time greats in ODIs, Yoyo is not and will never be).

It's silly really to see the likes of Symonds (a one-dimensional slogger) or Atapttu (a one-dimensional blocker) ranked higher than Inzi for one-days, when Inzi can block as well as Atapattu, slog as well as Symonds, and often builds the whole Pakistan innings around himself, especially when chasing.

My personal belief is that the ODI ratings are a lot less reliable than the Test ratings, since they do adjust for many "subjective" factors, and maybe do not adjust enough for some others.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The interesting thing is that I took the players purely on the basis of PWC ratings. I think we should be able to agree that on the basis of this.. PWC are getting SOMETHING right: there aren't any glaring omissions there

Yes but you grouped the players into the possitions, and teams of your choice, I take your point on this occasion though.

I doubt you are surprised I have found nothing contemptuous, in your 2 post though.

PS. Is Harmison at no 4, not a glaring omission?.

[Maranello]

Ern, Harmison is at no.4 in the Test ratings. In one-dayers he is no.25, which sounds about right. Even Akhtar is at #19 in the ODI ratings, seems okay.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

There are; Inzamam

That's the one I thought of.. but he's close to selection: Dravid's at 17, Graeme Smith is at 18 and Inzi is at 19.. and I only took the top 16. On his career best ODI rating (788 vs New Zealand, Wellington 1995) Inzi would currently TOP the world ODI ratings... and it's worth noting that he was in the world's elite group from Feb 93 to Sept 96 and from May 1999 (with one blip) until August 2002. The thing is that he then sank out of the world's top 30.. and even, momentarily, at the start of last year, out of the world's top 40.

Sure, Inzi has shown, this year, that he's ready to apply for re-admission to the elite group.. but he's had to undo the damage to his credibility that came with his slump... and he's also struggling within an inconsistent side: one thing that's probably kept him out of the top 16 has almost certainly been the lack of "win bonuses" - PWC give greater returns for matchwinning knocks than for great innings in a losing cause.

Originally Posted by Ernest 31159

PS. Is Harmison at no 4, not a glaring omission?.

No... remember we're talking ODI cricket here.. and I'm sure that even you would acknowledge that there are many better ODI bowlers around.

Harmison's rated 25th in ODI cricket and has 638 points. That's compared to Flintoff, who's rated 7th (almost qualified for my squad twice) and has 751 points.. and with Pollock and Vaas who are up around the 850 mark :-)

[Maranello]

Good research Rachael. I had not realised Inzi had fallen that far down the ODI ratings during his slump. But yes, he started the year rated around #40. To jump 22 odd places over 12 months to his current #19 spot is good going, but his overall ranking is still pulled down by his poor returns in 2002 and early 2003. The ratings do give proportionally much higher weighting to "recent" performances, so his two lean years (2001/02, 2002/03) count for much more than his 10 productive years at the top before that (1991/92-2001).

He will need to have a very strong 2005 to get into the ODI Top 10 again, simply because of the increased competition in the past 2/3 years. There are plenty of guys out there with better 2002 and 2003 records, and hence are ranked higher than him, even though they have none of his class, technique or temperament. Fair enough, that is how the ratings are defined, and they are a useful analytical tool.

It's interesting that his rating did not slump so dramatically in Tests, where he was till last week no.7. This could be due to many reasons, eg {a} different measurement bases between Tests and ODIs so more weighting given to true class, {b} the smaller "slump" in Inzi's Test form, {c} the infrequent Tests played by Pakistan, hence a lot more time for an out-of-form player to rediscover his rythm, etc. I like to believe it also has a lot to do with {d}: Test matches are proper 'tests' of class, and hence only the very best, the cream, rises to the top of the rankings tree, whereas in ODIs some decidedly average cricketers often have a top 15 ranking.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Ern, Harmison is at no.4 in the Test ratings. In one-dayers he is no.25, which sounds about right. Even Akhtar is at #19 in the ODI ratings, seems okay.

I stand corrected Maranello.

Originally Posted by Rachael 31163

No... remember we're talking ODI cricket here.. and I'm sure that even you would acknowledge that there are many better ODI bowlers around.

My mistake Rachael, Well you know I dont think of Harmison as a one day player anyway, nor Flintoff for that matter, but as we are going of ratings, I will come to the party.

[Mr Kiwi]

my understanding is that the teams are to be made up from IND, PAK, SL vs AUS, NZL, WI (with ZIM, BAN, RSA, ENG unavailable at the moment)

with the west indies in the mix picking a 'rest of world' team isn't so easy as taking the few kiwis who may pass as class and trying to slot them into the aus line up (thank god they're playing ODI's or there'd be no kiwi's at all . . .). given that it is a charity game and things like team balance are normally forgotten in favour of spectacle i'd go for something like:

gilchrist
gayle
lara (c)
ponting
symonds
cairns
oram
lee
vettori
gillespie
mcgrath

the openers are there to belt the first 15 overs out of the park, lara - as stated above - has to be there for bums on seats reasons if nothing else (and it's not like he not good enough). then i've got three all rounders - again this is for the spectacle of the thing, share the bowling round and give it a bit of heave ho with the bat. (this does mean i've opened myself up to the possibility of the heave-hoers getting bolwed out in the 23rd over . . .) lee is in there 'cause he has to have a head to head battle with akhtar and a speed gun. the rest isn't too controversial - though i am short a windies bowler, maybe one of these young guns could come in in place of gillespie, or even an all rounder (three all rounders - what was i thinking!?)

12th man would be relaxed to some sort of 'back yard' type rules allowing each team to have two or three specialist catchers/divers and runner-outers.

[Rachael]

It's harsh on Flemingand Sarwan that you leave them out considering the list of eligible batsmen reads:

4  +12   Ramnaresh Sarwan  WI  738 47.80 753 vs Pakistan, The Rose Bowl 2004  
5  +1   Ricky Ponting  AUS  735 41.70 796 vs South Africa, Sydney 2002  
8  -5   Chris Gayle  WI  723 39.72 803 vs Zimbabwe, Harare 2003  
9  +12   Stephen Fleming  NZ  719 32.53 725 vs West Indies, Lord's 2004  
11  -2   Matthew Hayden  AUS  702 41.47 835 vs India, Centurion 2003  
13  +11   Andrew Symonds  AUS  685 36.89 738 vs New Zealand, The Oval 2004  
16  -6   Brian Lara  WI  668 42.28 921 vs Pakistan, Port-of-Spain 1993  
20  -3   Damien Martyn  AUS  635 40.91 705 vs India, Mumbai 2003  
27  +10   Chris Cairns  NZ  579 29.48 634 vs West Indies, Taupo 2000  
29  +7   Darren Lehmann  AUS  574 39.33 733 vs West Indies, Port-of-Spain 1999  
30  -1   Shivnarine Chanderpaul  WI  573 35.62 753 vs South Africa, Durban 1999

ON the bowling front.. I don't think you can go for McGrath, Gillespie, Oram, Vettori, Symonds, Cairns and Gayle and STILL make a case for Lee: that initial lot should more than do.

Taking the celebrity thing a stage fursther though... would you be asking Shane Warne to play? He's "retired" from ODI but would be a far huger draw than Vettori. Hard on Vettori though: better ODI bowler than Harbhajan and he'd be overlooked.

4  +4   Jason Gillespie  AUS  832 23.52 855 vs Pakistan, Lord's 2004  
 5    Glenn McGrath  AUS  777 22.69 925 vs South Africa, Bloemfontein 2002  
 6  +3   Jacob Oram  NZ  759 28.58 803 vs Australia, The Oval 2004  
 9  -6   Brett Lee  AUS  727 22.59 836 vs India, Sydney 2004  
 11  +13   Daniel Vettori  NZ  705 34.36 713 vs Australia, Sydney 2004  
 12    Heath Streak  ZIM  691 29.46 750 vs Bangladesh, Harare 2004  
 13  +3   Daryl Tuffey  NZ  686 28.63 725 vs India, Cuttack 2003  
 21  +4   Bradley Hogg  AUS  649 31.07 669 vs Sri Lanka, Colombo (RPS) 2004  
 22  +32   Chris Cairns  NZ  646 31.60 676 vs Australia, Auckland 2000  
 23  -1   Chris Gayle  WI  642 28.73 688 vs England, Bridgetown 2004  
 24  -5   Mervyn Dillon  WI  640 31.90 695 vs India, Toronto 1999  
 28  +4   Scott Styris  NZ  622 30.55 626 vs Australia, Sydney 2004  
 29  +7   Kyle Mills  NZ  620 29.62 620 vs Sri Lanka, Auckland 2004

Accomodating 3 WI, 3 NZ and 4 Aus... and going for star names... Gayle, Fleming, Ponting, Lara, Sarwan, Symonds, Gilchrist, Oram, Vettori, Gillespie, McGrath.