C_C said:
And given that Murali is a superior spinner to Warney, Warney misses the cut.
I'm sure that those who wanted to get into that debate (again) would have picked that up from your teams, let alone you pointing it out like that.
For mine I thought I'd be a bit different and go with a 5-5 split, seeing that you'd back your batting in that side (plus Pollock) to make enough runs to defend, and if you were playing against another Team of the Decade, then you'd want the extra bowler in there for support.
1st XI
Dravid
Langer
Tendulkar
Lara
Waugh*
Gilchrist+
Pollock
Warne
Murali
Ambrose
McGrath
Found it very hard to separate Curtly and Wasim. I think Pollock mid-to-late 90s was a wonderful bowler, not quite as good now, but his record over such a long time deserves recognition, and his batting can come in very handy.
Warney had better keep on batting well, because we're slightly shallow - but I don't think that you can keep out one of the two bowlers who, IMO, have been the two best players over the period described.
I know that we're a little low on opening batsmen, but to facilitate the extra bowler, I wasn't prepared to sacrifice the best batsmen. They're still best equipped to face off the best bowlers than the specialist opening batsmen who were vying for the position, IMO.
2nd XI
Slater
Kirsten
Ponting
Kallis
Ul-Haq
Fleming*
Flower+
Akram
Kumble
Donald
Walsh
Scott Muller stiff to miss out...
In all seriousness, I guess that Fleming is a bit controversial, but as an all-round cricketer (in other words including his captaincy and catching), his contribution throughout the decade has been excellent. Waqar stiff to miss, but as someone pointed out, he was probably at his most devastating pre-1995. Slater's achievements in a time of the better bowlers and tougher wickets outweighs his predecessors in the opening spot for Australia, and Kirsten was a much underrated cricketer IMO.
There's no exact science here, but I just tried to be a little different.