Pick FIVE bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

[Richard]

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

Mostly, yep. 10-50-3 is usually a poor spell.

 

[sanga1337]

Mostly, yep. 10-50-3 is usually a poor spell.

You have got to be kidding surely. 15 runs is a small price to pay for 2 extra wickets

 

[Richard]

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.

I've given the reasons, which are not madness, for the exclusion of all. Including Harbhajan and not Warne was an error (should've left both out) and I don't want any bowlers with poor economy-rates, like Shoaib Akhtar, Waqar Younis and Brett Lee. There is a perfectly consistent logic to it - any bowler here must either have a very good economy-rate or be able to bat.

 

[Arjun]

I've chosen-

Bond: For raw pace, as well as accuracy. Not quite the one to last too long, but this is an ideal situation, so Bond makes it. Decent fielder for a bowler so good and also a more than useful lower-order batsman.

McGrath: Water-tight, accurate, smart and very fit. He's also a very effective fielder on the boundary. It sure helps when he's been leading a bowling attack of a World Champion team.

Pollock: Smart swing bowler who gives little away. He'll then come back and plunder a lot of runs with his big hitting in the final overs. Also effective on the field. Possibly one of the most under-rated all-rounders of all time, and surely one of the best strike bowler all-rounders.

Muralitharan: Frontline spinner. Enough said. Did I forget? No Warne in the list.

Flintoff: Not quite strike bowler quality, but capable of playing as one. Bowls fast, gets stifling bounce and can keep a line and length for some time. He's also one of the more responsible, yet powerful batsmen, and excellent in the slips.

Missing out-

Wasim Akram: Actually, he's the one player I don't mind swapping for a bowler I picked- Flintoff. He's surely the best ODI bowler of all time in some circles, and an under-rated lower-order striker. His batting, however, didn't live up to expectations and he wasn't much good on the field- and this is for ODI selection.

Daniel Vettori: Could have been the second spinner, but missed out to Flintoff, who's a better bowler. Of course, when you try to put the pieces together to build a team, Vettori isn't far behind.

Ambrose: He could have made it purely on bowling alone, ahead of McGrath.

Donald: I could have taken out Bond for Donald, since he's more experienced, and equally injury-prone, but then, maybe an oversight. One thing I don't mind changing.

So I'd have Donald and Vettori or even Ambrose on the bench, after the first five.

 

[Richard]

You have got to be kidding surely. 15 runs is a small price to pay for 2 extra wickets

It depends when the 2 wickets come. If they're meaningless middle-overs or end-of-innings wickets, the 15 runs less is far, far better.

If they're all top-order wickets at the start, then we'll talk. But mostly that is not the case.

 

[Matt79]

Haha, gotta laugh at Harbhajan being better than Warne, a guy who pretty much won a world cup off his own bowling and put Australia in the final of another. It's that 0.8 different in economy rate I supposed, as compared to the 10 odd run difference in average and massive gulf in strike rate.

Not going to bother voting in a poll that doesn't including Warne or Lee anyway, given some of the names that are included.

+1

 

[Cevno]

Mostly, yep. 10-50-3 is usually a poor spell.

But what you are forgetting is that most of these were/are top(strike)bowlers for theit respective sides and not support bowlers.Batsmen most of the time could/can have afforded to play their quota of overs for 35-45 runs.
So by mantaining their wickets against strike bowlers they could have easily attacked the second line bowlers or the fill in bowlers who were not top top notch and compensated for top bowlers.This is still standard practice in ODI's.
Thus it is/was important for these bowlers to attack more than defend and make inroads into the opposition batting so they would be under pressure not attack the other defensive bowlers.
Therefore to me it is important for the strike bowlers to pick up 2 more wickets(even by giving 15 more runs)Than to contain those runs and let the batsmen stay.

 

[99*]

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.

Now I understand why people dislike you. You've made a thread asking people to vote for who they think would make the best bowling attack from the years 1990-2008. You didn't say anything about us having to pick based upon your strict standards so of course people are going to pick who they want and not who you think should be there.

 

[Prince EWS]

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

Primarily.

Lots of people disagree though. It's a matter of opinion.

It's perfectly fine to make that argument when voting on a poll, but when actually creating the poll you should include options you think people will vote for. You may think Craig Matthews was better than Warne but did you seriously expect more people to want to vote for him than Warne?

Your specific opinions shouldn't be reflected in the poll options as much as they are.

 

[Richard]

But what you are forgetting is that most of these were/are top(strike)bowlers for theit respective sides and not support bowlers.Batsmen most of the time could/can have afforded to play their quota of overs for 35-45 runs.
So by mantaining their wickets against strike bowlers they could have easily attacked the second line bowlers or the fill in bowlers who were not top top notch and compensated for top bowlers.This is still standard practice in ODI's.
Thus it is/was important for these bowlers to attack more than defend and make inroads into the opposition batting so they would be under pressure not attack the other defensive bowlers.
Therefore to me it is important for the strike bowlers to pick up 2 more wickets(even by giving 15 more runs)Than to contain those runs and let the batsmen stay.

The best bowlers (ie, most on this list) took wickets with great regularity without having high economy-rates.

There is no place for bowlers who cannot keep their economy-rates down in a best-team-available.

 

[Richard]

Lots of people disagree though. It's a matter of opinion.

It's perfectly fine to make that argument when voting on a poll, but when actually creating the poll you should include options you think people will vote for. You may think Craig Matthews was better than Warne but did you seriously expect more people to want to vote for him than Warne?

Your specific opinions shouldn't be reflected in the poll options as much as they are.

Well as I said, the XI is being put together by me. If people want to refuse to vote in protest, that's up to them. There's still been plenty of votes, so it's not a massive problem.

I'd probably have done best not to have included Craig Matthews and Harbhajan Singh if I was going to exclude Warne, though, yeah. Just a load of hassle for no good reason.

 

[Richard]

Now I understand why people dislike you. You've made a thread asking people to vote for who they think would make the best bowling attack from the years 1990-2008. You didn't say anything about us having to pick based upon your strict standards so of course people are going to pick who they want and not who you think should be there.

I mentioned this a long time ago when I first started the idea.

 

[Arjun]

A fantastic debate in such a sad state...

 

[Cevno]

The best bowlers (ie, most on this list) took wickets with great regularity without having high economy-rates.

There is no place for bowlers who cannot keep their economy-rates down in a best-team-available.

But some of those on the list took wickets less regularly than those not on the list with slightly better economy rates.

 

[Richard]

But some of those on the list took wickets less regularly than those not on the list with slightly better economy rates.

Gavin Larsen > Brett Lee and Waqar Younis as a ODI bowler.

And no, nothing will change my stance on that.

 

[Uppercut]

Well as I said, the XI is being put together by me. If people want to refuse to vote in protest, that's up to them. There's still been plenty of votes, so it's not a massive problem.

I'd probably have done best not to have included Craig Matthews and Harbhajan Singh if I was going to exclude Warne, though, yeah. Just a load of hassle for no good reason.

If the XI is being put together by you, why did you make a poll?

 

[Goughy]

Lots of people disagree though. It's a matter of opinion.

TBH, to most people I know and respect in cricketing circles it isnt.

Wickets and economy are both good things.

However, teams are easily (and very often) capable of scoring the same in 40 over matches as in 50 and as in 60.

Economy rate (ie losing a few overs due to tight bowling) doesnt really make a difference. It just stores it up for someone else to take the bashing at a later stage with wickets in hand.

It might look good for the personal stats but it isnt a massive help to the team.

Obviously the best thing is both. Tight wickettaking overs keep the score down and leaves noone else to do the damage at a later date. This is ideal.

Tight bowling on its own means nothing. Wickets, on the other hand, even if expensive, erode a batting teams key resourse. Its hard to attack when players are new to the crease and there isnt much left after them.

 

[Richard]

If the XI is being put together by you, why did you make a poll?

To cast opinion on some matters. I'm not going to go so far as to allow the likes of Waqar Younis and Brett Lee in though.

 

[Prince EWS]

If the XI is being put together by you, why did you make a poll?

My sentiments exactly.

There's no point in the poll if it has been put together with personal biases.

I wouldn't have picked Warne, Waqar or Lee in my five but they were always going to be more likely to be voted for than Matthews, Harbhajan or Larsen. I'm sure Richard knew this so his construction of the poll was horribly biased.

If he wanted to put the team together by himself, a poll wasn't needed.

 

[StumpMic]

Vettori
Pollock
Bond
Ambrose
McGrath

Vettori in for his batting over Murali, I think they would do a similar job with the ball anyway.

Pollock an absolutely fantastic OD bowler, probably the most economic in that list. Bond is impossible to leave out, his record is second to none, and especially when he has destroyed Australia that many times. McGrath speaks for himself and Ambrose can scare people ****less.

Murali is a much better bowler than vettori:

Murali's stats (23 average):




Vettori (32 avg):