Pick FIVE bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

[Richard]

For me, every ODI team needs five full-time bowlers who can be relied upon, consistently, to bowl 10 overs. Take batting into account to whatever extent you want with your selections (there's several outstanding bowlers out there who could also bat well), as having the tail begin at seven isn't the wisest idea. But we need five of the best bowlers available. Remember, though, that we need bowlers who can bowl both at the start and in the middle and at the death. It's no good just having middle-overs specialists.

 

[manali]

Wasim
Waqar
Pollock
Mcgrath
Ambrose

 

[NZTailender]

Akram
McGrath
Pollock
Bond
Murali

 

[zaremba]

No Warne and no Waqar in the poll options, Richard?

 

[99*]

Bond
Wasim
Lee
Vettori
Warne

Thought about Donald for Lee.

 

[Richard]

No Warne and no Waqar in the poll options, Richard?

Both too expensive to be worth it IMO, given neither were batsmen of much note.

On another note, amazed that already Pollock hasn't got 100% of votes, given not only was he very possibly the best early\mid-overs bowler, but he was also a highly capable batsman.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah no Warne is unfortunate, but I may not have picked him anyways.

Went for:
7 Pollock
8 Akram
9 Saqlain
10 Ambrose
11 McGrath.

Craig Matthews so lucky to get chosen.

 

[Richard]

Matthews was a superb ODI bowler. So easily forgotten (and likewise PSdeV) because their careers occurred before the time of most on this forum.

 

[Bouncer]

Chucker singh, Fanie de Villiers,Nathan Bracken, flintoff and No Waqar Younis, Shane Warne, Srinath??

From list above: Akrem, Ambrose, Donald, Saqlain and either Pollock or Flintoff (as allrounders)

Ideally: Wasim, Waqar, Warne, Ambrose and either Pollock or Flintoff (as allrounders)

 

[zaremba]

Wasim
Waqar
Pollock
Mcgrath
Ambrose

Hard to argue with this. But If I were picking a real team I'd want at least one spinner and possibly two. God knows who I'd leave out to accommodate them. Possibly McGrath for one spinner, and Ambrose for the second, purely because they're fairly similar bowlers to Pollock.

So with an eye to finding an attack rich in variety, I'd pick the following:

Wasim
Waqar
Pollock
Warne
Murali

All top quality bowlers, all very different, and all (with the possible exception of Warne) capable of bowling at any stage in the innings. A pretty decent lower-middle order as well: Pollock at 7, Wasim 8, Warne 9.

 

[ozone]

Flintoff
Pollock
Wasim
Donald
Murali

Went for Flintoff for two reasons. Firstly, and obviously, he provides a good option at number 7, a position that I think would probably be one to high for Pollock in an ideal situation. Secondly, because of his ability to bowl in the middle of the innings. Would love to use him in four over bursts in the middle of the innings.

Also, agree with zaremba, no Waqar or Warne a bit suprising.

 

[Richard]

I'm seriously amazed anyone would want Waqar Younis in a ODI team when you can pick anyone from 1990 to 2008. His economy-rate was poor. Not just not-particularly-brilliant, but out-and-out poor.

 

[Richard]

Chucker singh, Fanie de Villiers,Nathan Bracken, flintoff and No Waqar Younis, Shane Warne, Srinath??

Srinath? Srinath was a wholly average ODI bowler.

Flintoff would not have made the list if he could not bat; Harbhajan Singh was picked purely to fill a "spinner quota" and is IMO a superior bowler to Warne, whatever their deeds in Tests. PS de Villiers as I say is ridiculously underrated as he was awesome both at the start and the end of a ODI innings, and Bracken was a borderline case who I don't really expect to receive any votes, except possibly from Nnanden Patrick.

 

[Richard]

So with an eye to finding an attack rich in variety

And to touch on this... this is ODI cricket. You don't really want variety. You want three bowlers who can bowl again and again at the top of off-stump (and adjust to the batsmen backing away from time to time) and two bowlers who can bowl both at the top of off-stump and bang in Yorkers. And ideally bowlers who can move the ball both in and out to order. And those who can mix-up the pace when they need to.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm seriously amazed anyone would want Waqar Younis in a ODI team when you can pick anyone from 1990 to 2008. His economy-rate was poor. Not just not-particularly-brilliant, but out-and-out poor.

I wouldn't have picked Waqar, but the thing is if you got most people to list a World Team plus 2 XI, 3XI and 4XI, Waqar would be in there.

I liked Fanie De Villiers, I remember him doing well in Australia a couple of times, but yeah, what did he do play around 60 games with an average of 27 and a good economy rate, bit of an interesting selection for mine, but all good.

Awesome to see so far that everyone has picked Wasim!

 

[Nate]

Don't see how you couldn't pick Bracken tbh. Loving that there is no Lee.

 

[Richard]

Well everyone had picked Wasim, until Nnanden Patrick decided to be a contrarion. Wasim, just to mention, for mine is the best pure bowler in the ODI era we've got under consideration. Best death-bowler of them all and one of the best early-overs bowlers ever to boot.

Seriously amazed that Curtley's only got 5 out the 10 voters so far too. And have already expressed my surprise on the Pollock note.

As for Waqar, I reckon yeah I could probably get him in a fourth XI. I'd have all these bowlers in that list ahead of him, plus maybe 1 or 2 others. Seriously flabbergasted that anyone would consider him amongst the best 2 or 3 bowlers (given at least 2 really need to have some ability with the bat so can't be selected purely as bowlers - hence Waqar would be competing only with those who couldn't bat) in the last 2 ODI decades.

Currently we're running with:
7. Pollock
8. Wasim Akram
9. Ambrose
10. Bond
11. McGrath

 

[gwo]

Harbhajan Singh was picked purely to fill a "spinner quota" and is IMO a superior bowler to Warne, whatever their deeds in Tests.

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

I don't know why nobody pulls you up on all the crap you spurt of your ass.

Not that I would pick either...but to even assert that Singh > Warne in ODI is utter ridiculous CRAP.


fyi. McGrath, Wasim, Pollock, Bond, Murali (of the 5 up there)

 

[Uppercut]

Well everyone had picked Wasim, until Nnanden Patrick decided to be a contrarion. Wasim, just to mention, for mine is the best pure bowler in the ODI era we've got under consideration. Best death-bowler of them all and one of the best early-overs bowlers ever to boot.

Seriously amazed that Curtley's only got 5 out the 10 voters so far too. And have already expressed my surprise on the Pollock note.

As for Waqar, I reckon yeah I could probably get him in a fourth XI. I'd have all these bowlers in that list ahead of him, plus maybe 1 or 2 others. Seriously flabbergasted that anyone would consider him amongst the best 2 or 3 bowlers (given at least 2 really need to have some ability with the bat so can't be selected purely as bowlers - hence Waqar would be competing only with those who couldn't bat) in the last 2 ODI decades.

Currently we're running with:
7. Pollock
8. Wasim Akram
9. Ambrose
10. Bond
11. McGrath

Exactly what i picked actually, until i decided i'd rather like a spinner. So i took out McGrath- a bit similar to Pollock, was the only excuse i could find- and went for Vettori, because he's underrated and was the only option that offered much with the bat. But then i realised Akram is in there and changed my mind, Saqlain or Murali are the option.

This is a damn hard question. Should've included Waqar in the poll btw, wouldn't have picked him but he should be a choice. Same with Warne. My god i'd prefer him to Harbhajan in my team.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.