Fanie de Villiers
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
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.
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.
"Talent is nothing without opportunity"
"You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"
Twenty20 used to be boring.
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.
Last edited by 99*; 29-10-2008 at 06:32 AM.
Originally Posted by Burgey
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.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
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.
A fantastic debate in such a sad state...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)