Pick FIVE bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

[Julian87]

Views such as "Warne is too expensive" may be shared by some posters, but not by others. Let The People decide!

All well and good until he lumped a fella with a higher economy rate in there.

 

[Richard]

What crap. Your hatred of Australian cricketers esp. successful ones is absolutely absurd.

Your cluelessness on my mindset is absolutely absurd. I have no hatred of Australian or successful cricketers. Warne's simply not the first bowler who comes to my mind - or even close - when good ODI bowlers are concerned.

That said, I should've left Harbhajan Singh out and would've done if I'd known about this ridiculous fuss. I simply tend to include Harbhajan wherever I include Saqlain, as the two are extremely similar.

 

[Uppercut]

Your cluelessness on my mindset is absolutely absurd. I have no hatred of Australian or successful cricketers. Warne's simply not the first bowler who comes to my mind - or even close - when good ODI bowlers are concerned.

That said, I should've left Harbhajan Singh out and would've done if I'd known about this ridiculous fuss. I simply tend to include Harbhajan wherever I include Saqlain, as the two are extremely similar.

Nevertheless, Warne>Saqlain>>>>>>Harbhajan. In ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Haha, such a ridiculous poll, I fail to see how even you could try and justify not having Warne there Richard. Oh, and no Lee, what a surprise

Any reason why Brett Lee wasn't on the poll?

Because he's not good enough and never has been. It may be hard for some people to accept, but there are a good number of better ODI bowlers than Brett Lee.

Warne's non-inclusion is perfectly justifiable for reasons already mentioned.

 

[Richard]

Saqlain 4.29 RPO
Vettori 4.17 RPO
Harbhajan 4.17 RPO
Warne 4.25 RPO

You are a deadset clown nominating Vettori and Harbhajan in front of Warne Richard. This isn't mentioning that Warne has more wickets than any of the spinner you listed and a MUCH better average and strike rate than Singh and Vettori.

Inferiority complex in this case IMO.

Well you're wrong, because I don't do this inferiority complex crap. And as mentioned, Vettori wouldn't be nominated at all if he couldn't bat, pretty well.

 

[TT Boy]

Your cluelessness on my mindset is absolutely absurd. I have no hatred of Australian or successful cricketers. Warne's simply not the first bowler who comes to my mind - or even close - when good ODI bowlers are concerned.

That said, I should've left Harbhajan Singh out and would've done if I'd known about this ridiculous fuss. I simply tend to include Harbhajan wherever I include Saqlain, as the two are extremely similar.

Not really, one was a great ODI bowler and the other was decent to good.

 

[Uppercut]

Because he's not good enough and never has been. It may be hard for some people to accept, but there are a good number of better ODI bowlers than Brett Lee.

...and noone has a right to disagree? These aren't Soviet Union elections you know...

 

[TT Boy]

Because he's not good enough and never has been. It may be hard for some people to accept, but there are a good number of better ODI bowlers than Brett Lee.

Warne's non-inclusion is perfectly justifiable for reasons already mentioned.

His good enough to take over 300 ODI wickets, be the second quickest man to 200 ODI wickets, take the third most 5 wickets haul in ODI cricket and have the third best strike rate in ODI cricket. That's good enough for me.

 

[Richard]

No, I do want variety. I want an attack which can deal with all conditions and with all batsmen, which doesn't allow batsmen to get set, which is attacking and which will be enjoyable to watch.

I'm more aiming for the best side than that which will be enjoyable to watch. ODI cricket - at least, in bowling - is more about defence than attack, and you can only afford to attack as a ODI bowler if your attacking methods also aid defence.

Waqar at his peak was one of the greatest fast bowlers ever to play the game. I really don't care whether it's an ODI or a Test match, although IMO you seriously under-rate him as an ODI bowler. He was the ultimate shock bowler. He had absolutely searing pace. He got outswing with the new ball, if needed - although I'd have Waqar and Pollock opening in my team. He famously bowled lethal inswinging yorkers with the old ball. And if his economy rate is a little higher than others', I would bet that this is because (a) he was such an attacking bowler, for which no apology is needed and (b) he would regularly bowl at the death when to keep it to 5 per over is a much more remarkable achievement than in the middle overs.

Waqar actually wasn't a very good death bowler. There are several others on this list (Donald, de Villiers, McGrath, his partner Wasim, Murali, Saqlain) who also bowled regularly at the death yet had much superior economy-rates.

Yes I know that Waqar at his best was possibly the most lethal seam-bowler to play the game. Mark my words, there are many who underestimate him on this forum far more than me. However, Waqar was always a bowler to whom attack was the only thing. He just wasn't a defensive bowler - every ball was bowled to try and take a wicket.

In ODIs this is not the mindset you should be looking for. All the bowlers on this list were either superlative defenders or excellent at both attack and defence. There is no place for bowlers whose only use is attack in a ODI.

p.s. Excellent poll Richard. However I do think that you've allowed your (somewhat controversial) views of some players to artificially restrict the options. Views such as "Warne is too expensive" may be shared by some posters, but not by others. Let The People decide!

I should probably have simply not picked some names if I was going to exclude Warne - there's absolutely no way Brett Lee deserves to be in there, and nor does Waqar, for the reasons mentioned. Though the fact I've excluded both shows how stupid the Australians who think I've left Lee out simply because he's Australian are being.

 

[Richard]

His good enough to take over 300 ODI wickets, be the second quickest man to 200 ODI wickets, take the third most 5 wickets haul in ODI cricket and have the third best strike rate in ODI cricket. That's good enough for me.

Not good enough for me. ODIs are about economy-rates, not wicket-taking.

Primarily.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

 

[Richard]

...and noone has a right to disagree? These aren't Soviet Union elections you know...

Well - they are my polls, and the idea is mine. It's a side I'm trying to construct. If people, like Fuller, are going to refuse to vote because they think Lee is better than almost all of the above (an idea I regard as absurd, and nothing less) that's their prerogative.

There are a fair few on the above list (including all the spinners, incidentally) who I'd never pick in a best five or even really consider, but I've given the choice there. I'm not going to go to ridiculous lengths though, and allowing Lee to get so much as 1 vote would be going to ridiculous lengths, for my money.

 

[Richard]

Unsuccessful Smith is unsuccessful... again.

 

[TT Boy]

Not good enough for me. ODIs are about economy-rates, not wicket-taking.

Primarily.

That's just gay TBH.

 

[Cevno]

I think a bit too much importance has been given to economy rates when selecting this list.
A case could be made for having waqar,brett lee,shane warne and even shohaib akthar in the candidates atleast.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Unsuccessful Smith is unsuccessful... again.

It is apt here.

You constantly repostrepostrepostrepostrepostrepostrepost your views on 3 players in particular (MacGill, Lee, Hayden) to rope more people into these ridiculous debates. This is just a thread to do the same.

It is trolling and shouldn't be stood for.

 

[Cevno]

Not good enough for me. ODIs are about economy-rates, not wicket-taking.

Primarily.

So you would rather have your top bowlers give you 1 for 35 than 3 for 50?

You would make a great captain.

 

[Uppercut]

Well - they are my polls, and the idea is mine. It's a side I'm trying to construct. If people, like Fuller, are going to refuse to vote because they think Lee is better than almost all of the above (an idea I regard as absurd, and nothing less) that's their prerogative.

There are a fair few on the above list (including all the spinners, incidentally) who I'd never pick in a best five or even really consider, but I've given the choice there. I'm not going to go to ridiculous lengths though, and allowing Lee to get so much as 1 vote would be going to ridiculous lengths, for my money.

I might not have made room for Lee tbh. But Warne's a big omission when Harbs and Vettori are there.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah, absolutely.

The easiest thing would have been to say "oops, I forgot Lee and Warne and maybe Waqar. My bad"

Instead this madness is attempted to be justified as if there is a logic to it.

Including Harbhajan and not Warne is simply wrong.

There are also 2 people that have taken a boatload of wickets and have a strike rate of under 30. Lee and Shoaib Akhtar, neither of whom make the list.

To leave Lee off the list (amazing career and still going) makes no sense.

Also Id have Shoaib listed ahead of a few of the guys there.

 

[Richard]

It is apt here.

You constantly repostrepostrepostrepostrepostrepostrepost your views on 3 players in particular (MacGill, Lee, Hayden) to rope more people into these ridiculous debates. This is just a thread to do the same.

It is trolling and shouldn't be stood for.

Rubbish. MacGill, Lee and Hayden are subjects I've tried to steer clear of as I'm sick of the cluelessness of certain people and the ridiculous overrating of them.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Brett Lee - I won't be having him in a best ODI team that has anything to do with me. If people want him in, they don't really understand how ODI cricket works IMO.

(BTW, just to clarify for anyone of reasonable mind who might be reading this - the top paragraph of this post is 100% deliberate stupid patronising comment in reply to another deliberate stupid patronising comment)