Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I voted for every single bowler on the list, the temptation was too much to do otherwise.who voted for Bob Willis
I voted for every single bowler on the list, the temptation was too much to do otherwise.who voted for Bob Willis
Personally, I'd ask "why would people want 1 spinner" in a ODI team.What if people want two spinners? It would be completely unfair to not allow that option for the voters.
Yes. Even Brett Lee.I voted for every single bowler on the list
Bastard.I voted for every single bowler on the list, the temptation was too much to do otherwise.
Probably not, but there are some people who like to have a spinner for some variety.Personally, I'd ask "why would people want 1 spinner" in a ODI team.
Even the best spinner of them all, Murali, probably wouldn't be as much use as 5 of the best seamers.
Certainly not in terms of economy, but for wicket taking then yes Bond>Hadlee.Poll suggests Bond > Hadlee....doesnt come out true
Indeed. I argue that what you need is calibre (and I'm not talking about revolver calibre, either). A good bowler is a good bowler - 5 good bowlers are 5 good bowlers. If one of them is a spinner, all well and good. But 5 top-class seamers are just as difficult to score off than 4 top-class seamers and 1 top-class spinner.Probably not, but there are some people who like to have a spinner for some variety.
No doubt, in the end it just comes down to personal preference and whether you want a 'balanced' attack.Indeed. I argue that what you need is calibre (and I'm not talking about revolver calibre, either). A good bowler is a good bowler - 5 good bowlers are 5 good bowlers. If one of them is a spinner, all well and good. But 5 top-class seamers are just as difficult to score off than 4 top-class seamers and 1 top-class spinner.