X-Factor ... who would you pick.

[TazzX]

Im trying to settle an arguement with a friend(idiot).

Out of these players who would you guys pick as the ones most capable of turning a game on its head.

Pollock/Boucher/Gibbs vs. Oram/Vincent/McCullum

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Given that Pollock is by far the best bowler of the 6, I'd choose the South African trio. More room to do so.

 

[Fiery]

The South African guys have done it more often than the kiwi trio so I would say them but both sets of trios are equally dangerous players on their day

 

[oz_fan]

Definately the South African trio. Pollock is the only quality bowler of the six and Gibbs and Boucher would also be two of the most destructive batsmen on their day (both have ODI scores of around 150). The NZ trio have shown in recent times what they're capable of but they haven't done it for as long or with the consistency of the South African trio.

 

[Natman20]

NZ pitches hamper everyones averages here but I think that SA trio are much more consistent although they all have entertainment values.

 

[age_master]

I would back the South Africans more often, but the Kiwi's are very very dangerous also.

 

[Arjun]

We're talking of an X factor here, so the less fancied the player is, the more dangerous they are. While the South Africans are obviously better on reputation, the Kiwi trio can spring up a major surprise. This comparison isn't equal, unless you take everything into consideration, inclding batting, bowling and fielding of all in question.

 

[thierry henry]

South Africans by far. Boucher>McCullum, Pollock>>>>Oram, Gibbs>>>>>>>>>>>>Vincent.

 

[Jono]

I assume you're referring to test cricket?

Because if so, SA by a fair bit. ODIs its a little closer, but still SA.

 

[thierry henry]

For some reason I assumed he was referring to ODIs. Cos NZ doesn't play tests....

 

[Fiery]

For some reason I assumed he was referring to ODIs. Cos NZ doesn't play tests....

It's pretty obvious he was referring to ODIs. I think Jono is being facetious

 

[Jono]

Haha, I just find it weird that people mainly link the term "turn the match on its head" with ODI cricket. It happens in test cricket too.

 

[Richard]

Well yeah but ODIs turn on their heads more often than Tests.

 

[Goughy]

By a distance

Pollock/Boucher/Gibbs

 

[pup11]

Yeah in the Odi games you can turn things now and again, but when you have to do it more consistently then thats where talent and skill matters and thats where the South African trio are way ahead of the Kiwi trio

 

[silentstriker]

In ODI you can turn the games quicky cause all it requires is a little luck and you're back in it. In Tests, the luck factor is mitigated by the fact that even if you get luckly, you still need to peform for a long period to come out ahead.

 

[StumpMic]

Boucher. He's the most gutsy cricketer in the world.

 

[Richard]

In ODI you can turn the games quicky cause all it requires is a little luck and you're back in it.

Requires a hell of a lot more than that, pal.

 

[silentstriker]

Requires a hell of a lot more than that, pal.

Nah, thats why Bangladesh can beat Australia in ODIs but even if they manage to get ahead for a bit, find the same feat much much more difficult in Tests.

 

[Richard]

I might remind you that Bangladesh damn near beat Australia in a "Test", too...

The reason for both is that Bangladesh, incredibly, actually played better than Australia for a short period. Eventually, it had to happen. Luck had little impact on either.