Pick FIVE bowlers for the 1990-2008 ODI XI

[krkode]

I'd probably agree with the more common of the choices and go with this:

Pollock
McGrath
Wasim Akram
Muralitharan
Bond

Pollock and McGrath were incredibly accurate and economical whereas Akram and Bond just have the raw stump-breaking awesomeness you want to see in an ODI strike bowler. Muralitharan, for me is an easy choice for spinner as I am of the opinion that he is the best spinner since the 90s. Ambrose and Donald I had a hard time leaving out but as far as ODIs go, I feel the above setup is the best.

The only reason I would justify taking a bowler like Waqar Younis is he truly had one of the best strike rates in modern cricket. He gave runs, but he was more often than not among the wickets (like Agarkar haha) - I think he may have the most number of 5 wicket hauls among all ODI bowlers - more than Akram and Murali, cuz I checked those. Since then, I suppose, we've had guys like Bond and Lee who are probably a bit better at being the "strike" bowler that Waqar was. Waqar just seems to stick in people's minds... I think he had one of the best-looking yorkers. Who doesn't love a good banana swing!?

On the whole, though, given the nature of ODI cricket, I feel like one slightly more expensive bowler as long as he's a true strike bowler won't kill a team. This is some justification for including guys like Brett Lee and Waqar Younis who may have had economy rates in excess of 4.6 but had strike rates <= 30. When you've got guys like McGrath and Pollock tying the runs down, it doesn't hurt to have a stump-breaker charging in from the other end, I suppose.

 

[Johnners]

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

 

[morgieb]

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

 

[NUFAN]

I totally didn't realize that Lee wasn't there either.

Good to see that not too many of the dire [well dire in comparison] players have polled any votes.

EDIT - There is a chance that Rich just plainly forgot Lee, pretty hard to remember everyone.

 

[Polo23]

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.

 

[Days of Grace]

I didn't think about batting ability, otherwise, I would have gone with Pollock.

Instead, I picked Saqlain and Murali as the spinners, Bond and Wasim as the attacking bowlers, and I needed one other seamer to keep things the runs in check. I went for Ambrose over McGrath and Pollock. Ambrose has the intimidation factor as well as an awesome E/R.

 

[Julian87]

LOL, no Shane Warne. HAhahahahahaha. Andrew Flintoff and Gough.

hahahahahaha and Harbhajan Singh.

OMFG, this has to be a bait thread.

 

[Julian87]

Both too expensive to be worth it IMO,.

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.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

7. Pollock.
8. Vettori.
9. Akram.
10. Bond.
11. McGrath.

Bond and McGrath opening the bowling, with Akram to come in early change for Bond who can be brought back into the attack later on in the innings to pressure new batsmen after a wicket falls, or need to buy one. Vettori to bowl out through the middle after the powerplays, and Akram as main death bowling machine.

Solid ODI lower order batting as well. Pollock can come in at 7, he is wasted at 8 and the tail is by no means long with 8 and 9 being no mugs with the bat and Bond able to hit a few long 6's.

Chose Vettori over other spinners as A) I'm biased. B) He's still world class, troubled world class teams and has had the ODI bowling top spot. C) Murali is another #11 bat and not fantastic in the field, and I'd take Vettori's batting over Warne, Warne has had Aussie bowling attack backing him up, isn't bowling to the Aussie batting, and again I'm biased.

 

[Prince EWS]

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

I can see why Richard's left Warne out - when you compare him to those who have been included purely on their bowling, you could make a good case for him for him being inferior.

However, you could also make a case for him being superior, and the main focus when drafting out a poll is to keep your own influence on the results to a minimum. Richard's just gone ahead and put on all those that he would consider voting for, but I don't for a second believe he'd think that Craig Matthews was likely to get more votes on CW than Warne or Lee. He needs to think this through better.

 

[pasag]

Lol at no Lee.

 

[Precambrian]

Andrew Flintoff
Saqlain Mushtaq
Glenn McGrath
Shaun Pollock
Curtly Ambrose

Ta

 

[Julian87]

I can see why Richard's left Warne out - when you compare him to those who have been included purely on their bowling, you could make a good case for him for him being inferior.

However, you could also make a case for him being superior, and the main focus when drafting out a poll is to keep your own influence on the results to a minimum. Richard's just gone ahead and put on all those that he would consider voting for, but I don't for a second believe he'd think that Craig Matthews was likely to get more votes on CW than Warne or Lee. He needs to think this through better.

There is no way on earth either Vettori or Harbhajan can claim to be better ODI bowlers than Shane Warne. You're having a laugh.

 

[Johnners]

I can see why Richard's left Warne out - when you compare him to those who have been included purely on their bowling, you could make a good case for him for him being inferior.

However, you could also make a case for him being superior, and the main focus when drafting out a poll is to keep your own influence on the results to a minimum. Richard's just gone ahead and put on all those that he would consider voting for, but I don't for a second believe he'd think that Craig Matthews was likely to get more votes on CW than Warne or Lee. He needs to think this through better.

Inferior to HB Singh? No chance for mine. Fair enough to leave him out behind Saqlain & Murali, but Singh? That was a no brainer for mine.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is no way on earth either Vettori or Harbhajan can claim to be better ODI bowlers than Shane Warne. You're having a laugh.

I assume Vettori's in there partly for his batting - as has been mentioned, we're picking five bowlers so batting will be considered for at least one of them.

 

[pup11]

7.Pollock
8.Akram
9.Bracken
10.Muralitharan
11.McGrath

I have named five bowlers from the bowlers listed on the poll, but i can't believe likes of Waqar, Warne, Lee are not there on the list.

 

[James90]

Wasim
Ambrose
Muralitharan
Bond
McGrath

Not great for batting.

 

[Julian87]

I assume Vettori's in there partly for his batting - as has been mentioned, we're picking five bowlers so batting will be considered for at least one of them.

No mention of Singh.

 

[bagapath]

akram
donald
ambrose
pollock
murali

would prefer mcgrath to pollock. but since we are selcting five bowlers in this team, pollock's batting would definitely come in handy

 

[zaremba]

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.

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.

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.

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!