View Poll Results: Five bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Curtley Ambrose

    22 48.89%
  • Fanie de Villiers

    5 11.11%
  • Craig McDermott

    3 6.67%
  • Shaun Pollock

    33 73.33%
  • Gavin Larsen

    6 13.33%
  • Courtney Walsh

    4 8.89%
  • Glenn McGrath

    35 77.78%
  • Craig Matthews

    3 6.67%
  • Wasim Akram

    34 75.56%
  • Allan Donald

    8 17.78%
  • Shane Bond

    28 62.22%
  • Darren Gough

    5 11.11%
  • Jason Gillespie

    3 6.67%
  • Chaminda Vaas

    6 13.33%
  • Nathan Bracken

    8 17.78%
  • Andrew Flintoff

    8 17.78%
  • Muttiah Muralitharan

    28 62.22%
  • Saqlain Mushtaq

    13 28.89%
  • Harbhajan Singh

    4 8.89%
  • Daniel Vettori

    11 24.44%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104

Thread: Pick FIVE bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

  1. #61
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #62
    U19 Captain sanga1337's Avatar
    KickUps Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australian living in Japan
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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

  3. #63
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,367
    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.
    "Talent is nothing without opportunity"
    "You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"

    Twenty20 used to be boring.

    Sponsored...by...nothing!!!


  5. #65
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by sanga1337 View Post
    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.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  7. #67
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    99*
    99* is offline
    International Debutant 99*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 99*; 29-10-2008 at 05:32 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey
    She tells me the thing will flatten out, I say "Like your chest?" Bad mistake.

  9. #69
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  10. #70
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    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.

  11. #71
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  12. #72
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by 99* View Post
    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.

  13. #73
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,367
    A fantastic debate in such a sad state...

  14. #74
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  15. #75
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    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.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pick TWO final Bowlers for the 1920-39 World XI
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 20-01-2007, 09:40 PM
  2. Pick two Opening Bowlers for the 1920-39 World XI
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 19-01-2007, 05:22 AM
  3. Pick TWO opening Bowlers for the 1946-65 World Test XI
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 09:10 AM
  4. Pick TWO opening Bowlers for the 1966-85 World test XI
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 27-10-2006, 01:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •