Poll 1: Opening bowlers for the Best ODI XI from the Tendulkar Era

[bagapath]

Choose two from these fast bowlers who opened the bowling in at least 75 games for their teams between '89 and '12.

• 
  SE Bond (NZ) 2002-2010 80 80 715.5 88 3070 147 6/19 20.88 4.28 29.2 7 4
  GD McGrath (Aus/ICC) 1993-2007 209 209 1818.4 258 6844 325 7/15 21.05 3.76 33.5 9 6
  B Lee (Aus) 2000-2012 179 179 1539.4 119 7252 317 5/22 22.87 4.71 29.1 11 8
  Wasim Akram (Pak) 1989-2003 269 269 2328.5 181 9112 387 5/15 23.54 3.91 36.1 14 4
  NW Bracken (Aus) 2001-2009 99 99 825.2 77 3643 152 5/47 23.96 4.41 32.5 5 2
  SL Malinga (SL) 2004-2012 101 101 854.0 50 4240 173 6/38 24.50 4.96 29.6 5 5
  M Ntini (ICC/SA) 2002-2009 120 120 1032.0 94 4800 195 6/22 24.61 4.65 31.7 7 3
  SM Pollock (Afr/ICC/SA) 1996-2008 292 292 2573.1 308 9442 383 6/35 24.65 3.66 40.3 10 5
  Waqar Younis (Pak) 1990-2002 187 187 1544.4 110 7249 288 7/36 25.17 4.69 32.1 9 7
  D Gough (Eng/ICC) 1994-2006 133 133 1197.2 110 5304 205 5/44 25.87 4.42 35.0 9 1
  KD Mills (NZ) 2001-2012 130 130 1079.4 98 5098 196 5/25 26.01 4.72 33.0 7 1
  DW Fleming (Aus) 1994-2001 79 79 692.1 57 3083 118 5/36 26.12 4.45 35.1 3 1
  CEL Ambrose (WI) 1990-2000 119 119 1058.5 140 3575 136 5/53 26.28 3.37 46.7 3 1
  IK Pathan (India) 2004-2012 80 80 670.4 46 3431 128 5/27 26.80 5.11 31.4 4 1
  AB Agarkar (India) 1998-2007 123 123 1068.0 73 5380 198 6/42 27.17 5.03 32.3 7 2
  M Prabhakar (India) 1989-1996 96 96 820.0 54 3588 131 5/33 27.38 4.37 37.5 3 2
  Shoaib Akhtar (Asia/ICC/Pak) 1998-2011 121 121 991.5 74 4798 175 5/54 27.41 4.83 34.0 5 1
  WPUJC Vaas (Asia/SL) 1994-2008 320 320 2629.1 279 11014 400 8/19 27.53 4.18 39.4 9 4
  PS de Villiers (SA) 1992-1997 81 81 727.1 86 2601 94 4/27 27.67 3.57 46.4 2 0
  Z Khan (Asia/India) 2000-2012 170 170 1451.4 109 7075 255 5/42 27.74 4.87 34.1 7 1

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Brett Lee

Wasim Akram

 

[Teja.]

Akram
McGrath

 

[bagapath]

but where is garner on this list???

 

[NUFAN]

I went with McGrath and Wasim, Lee was very close. Any particular reason why Donald wasn't named? More of a first change bowler in ODI's?

 

[smash84]

chose Akram and McG

 

[bagapath]

I went with McGrath and Wasim, Lee was very close. Any particular reason why Donald wasn't named? More of a first change bowler in ODI's?

didnt take the new ball in 75 innings, the minimum cut-off point we are sticking to

 

[bagapath]

went for akram and mcgrath.

 

[NUFAN]

didnt take the new ball in 75 innings, the minimum cut-off point we are sticking to

Fair enough, I wouldn't have picked him anyway - just asking.

 

[SJS]

What !! No Donald ???

• 272 wkts
• at 21.8 each
• st rt 31.5
• 13 4-fors

Better figure than every South African on that list and, I suspect almost every one else as well !!

 

[ankitj]

Akram and McGrath.

Will choose as the third pacer. And yes, Donald was gun in ODIs, one of thebprofilic wicket taker like Waqar and Saqlain.

 

[Howe_zat]

Akram and McGrath

That block of numbers is rather unreadable

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

McGrath and Akram

Would love Donald in there

 

[SJS]

That block of numbers is rather unreadable

Okay let me try to make it a bit simpler for everyone to make sense of the stats. I have below the 13 new ball bowlers who top the list of those who played during this period. Donald is the only one from outside the list in the poll table which is an error clearly for his entire career coincided with Sachins.

My take is that one can not take just one stat to make this choice. It has to be a combination. This is to say that the economy rate alone can not be the criteria for the limited overs version, wicket taking is equally important. So here goes . . .

1. Wickets per match
This is an important criteria in both Test and odi formats. The top three bowlers in this list will take, on average 5.5 wickets every match. This is a massive boost for any side wanting to be the dominant force around the cricketing world. Unfortunately, it is not often used by fans. Longevity is responsible for some of the aggregate records but if the "per Test" performance suffers inordinately then it is not necessarily a good thing be it bowling or batting.

[B]Bowler	Matches	Wkts	W/Match[/B]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Bond[/COLOR]	81	147	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]1.8[/B]1[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Lee[/COLOR]	221	380	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]1.72[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Donald[/COLOR]	164	272	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]1.66[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Waqar[/COLOR]	254	409	[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]1.61[/B][/COLOR]

McGrath	250	381	[B]1.52[/B]
Ntini	173	265	[B]1.53[/B]
Steyn	66	96	[B]1.45[/B]
Wasim	274	389	[B]1.42[/B]
Shoaib	163	217	[B]1.33[/B]
Pollock	303	387	[B]1.28[/B] 

Bishop	73	80	1.10
Ambrose	151	164	1.09
Walsh	122	130	1.07

2. Matches per 4 for
This like centuries is what often identifies match defining performances. Bowlers who take five fors and four fors more regularly are most likely to help sides win more often. Of course a player could play a couple of hundred more games and have more such hauls - hence Matches per four for . . .

[B]Bowler	M/4for[/B]

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Bond	7.4
Waqar	9.4
Lee	9.6
Donald	12.6[/COLOR][/B]

[B]Ntini	14.4
Bishop	14.6
Wasim	15.2
McGrath	15.6
Shoaib	16.3
Steyn	16.5
Pollock	17.8[/B]

Ambrose	30.2
Walsh	61.0

3. Strike Rate (Balls/wkt)

This is a vital criteria for strike bowlers. The ones the captain relies upon to get wickets quickly and in clusters as well. This criteria is even more important for the quicker bowlers. The greatest of fast bowlers have had lower strike rates. This invariably comes at the cost of a few more runs but if they help dismiss batsmen who could go on to get big runs, these bowlers are worth their weight in gold. The criteria is much more important in the longer version of the game but is not to be underestimated in odis since the best way to check run rates is to take wickets and, where possible, bundle out sides in less than their full quota of overs.

[B]Bowler	St Rt[/B]

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Bond	29.2
Lee	29.5
Shoaib	30.1
Waqar	30.2[/COLOR][/B]

[B]Donald	31.5
Ntini	32.8
Steyn	33.6
McGrath	34.0
Wasim	36.2[/B]

Bishop	39.8
Pollock	39.9
Ambrose	45.4
Walsh	48.6

4. Economy Rate (Runs/Over)

The criteria most used by fans for the shorter formats for deciding their best sides. But it can be exaggerated as a virtue. Wicket taking ability has to be combined with reasonable economy rates for the strike bowlers. The very tight bowlers are more to be used in tandem with the strike bowlers. A team of the tightest bowlers in history who were not great strike bowlers might end up second best more often than not.

[B]Bowler	Eco Rt

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Ambrose	3.43
Pollock	3.66
Walsh	3.86
McGrath	3.88
Wasim	3.91[/COLOR][/B]

[B]Donald	4.15
Bond	4.29
Bishop	4.46
Ntini	4.48[/B]

Shoaib	4.68
Waqar	4.71
Lee	4.75
Steyn	5.04

5. Avg (Runs/wkt)

[B]Bowler	Avg[/B]

Finally the criteria most used for bowling particularly in the shorter format. It is really a combination of the economy rate and the strike rate and is thus a happy medium to use for all bowling particularly if seen alongwith wickets per match

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Bond	20.9
Donald	21.8
McGrath	22.0
[/COLOR][/B]
	
[B]Lee	23.4
Shoaib	23.5
Wasim	23.6
Waqar	23.7[/B]
	
Pollock	24.3
Ntini	24.5
Ambrose	26.0
Steyn	28.2
Bishop	29.6
Walsh	31.2

As can be seen I have divided the ranks for each criteria in clusters headed by the best with the least impressive (relatively) at the bottom.

I am sure these figures will come as some surprise to those who have already made up their minds. For me, it confirms my opinion that Bond and Donald are two of the finest odi bowlers of this era and Pollock is probably the most under-rated.

PS : I suspect some people may be leaving out Bond for not having played enough but just look at Steyn. He has played so few he fails to qualify for the 75 game criteria set in the thread opener.

 

[Howe_zat]

Bowling stats in ODIs are so hard to make proper conclusions about. Even compared to Test stats, which are flawed at the best of times, number-cruching for the pyjama cricket leaves a lot to be desired.

The value of a wicket and a maiden changes in Test cricket depending on the match situation, but those are relatively rare circumstances, and a bowler's primary job is always to take wickets. Not so in one-dayers, where the changes happen at the same time in every match.

I wish we could see strike rates and economy rates for each period of the innings.

These bowlers will have two jobs - take wickets at the top of the innings and save runs at the death. Batsmen will be naturally more keen to play themselves in and set up a platform against the new ball, and in the last half a dozen overs wickets are bound to fall in pursuit of quick runs.

If a bowler - particularly these bowlers - takes 0/14 off his first 5 overs, we can't look at that economy of 2.8 and applaud him because the oppo were probably just seeing him off. And now the change bowlers have to try and manufacture a wicket with the field spread. If he takes 4/40 off his final 5 overs, who cares about the 4-for? He's conceded eight runs an over while a few lower-order players hole out off him.

If the spells were the other way around, it's an amazing performance. Both cases go down as 4-54, an average scorebook entry, but it could be brilliant and it could be awful.

This is all before we get into the likes of trying to work out which ODIs actually matter. In Tests you say quite confidently that almost every match had the best team the selectors thought available playing and the fans cared about it. Maybe if you're a harsher man than me you'll skim over performances against minnow teams or early tours that didn't at the time count as Tests, but in both cases you're making a minor adjustment.

Not so in one-dayers. The schedules are full of matches were first team players are rested. There are post-Test matches at the end of a long tour where the drive and contest just isn't present. There are matches where potential Test targets are picked to see how they go in internationals despite the difference in format, and worst of all there are matches that include Jade Dernbach.

You could focus on World Cup games, as the only games where everyone involved genuinely gives a ****, but then half your games are against Canada or Namibia. We're losing matches at a rate of knots here and we're only left with a fraction of the data we started with.

So it's my view that, while ODI stats are a okay guideline for identifying the top echelon of players - such as everyone mentioned in the OP plus Donald - past that the specifics just aren't there. I don't think there's any real difference in a few points of strike rate or a few tenths of a run per over, not least because those two things are often cancelled out anyway.

I guess the only way to really form the best opinion on the finest ODI players is just to watch as much ODI cricket as there is, all over the world, all the time.

Ah, ****.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

What stats are you working off for McGrath, SJS?

 

[harsh.ag]

I would have McGrath and Bond first up. Strategy wise, they would be explosive and containing at the same time. Plus, they will take bucketloads of wickets. I was tempted to go with Bond and Lee/Waqar though.

My first change would be either Wasim, Waqar, Donald or Lee. Must think.

 

[harsh.ag]

What stats are you working off for McGrath, SJS?

McGrath's SR was 34, and average was 22.

 

[L Trumper]

Bowling stats in ODIs are so hard to make proper conclusions about. Even compared to Test stats, which are flawed at the best of times, number-cruching for the pyjama cricket leaves a lot to be desired.

The value of a wicket and a maiden changes in Test cricket depending on the match situation, but those are relatively rare circumstances, and a bowler's primary job is always to take wickets. Not so in one-dayers, where the changes happen at the same time in every match.

I wish we could see strike rates and economy rates for each period of the innings.

These bowlers will have two jobs - take wickets at the top of the innings and save runs at the death. Batsmen will be naturally more keen to play themselves in and set up a platform against the new ball, and in the last half a dozen overs wickets are bound to fall in pursuit of quick runs.

If a bowler - particularly these bowlers - takes 0/14 off his first 5 overs, we can't look at that economy of 2.8 and applaud him because the oppo were probably just seeing him off. And now the change bowlers have to try and manufacture a wicket with the field spread. If he takes 4/40 off his final 5 overs, who cares about the 4-for? He's conceded eight runs an over while a few lower-order players hole out off him.

If the spells were the other way around, it's an amazing performance. Both cases go down as 4-54, an average scorebook entry, but it could be brilliant and it could be awful.

This is all before we get into the likes of trying to work out which ODIs actually matter. In Tests you say quite confidently that almost every match had the best team the selectors thought available playing and the fans cared about it. Maybe if you're a harsher man than me you'll skim over performances against minnow teams or early tours that didn't at the time count as Tests, but in both cases you're making a minor adjustment.

Not so in one-dayers. The schedules are full of matches were first team players are rested. There are post-Test matches at the end of a long tour where the drive and contest just isn't present. There are matches where potential Test targets are picked to see how they go in internationals despite the difference in format, and worst of all there are matches that include Jade Dernbach.

You could focus on World Cup games, as the only games where everyone involved genuinely gives a ****, but then half your games are against Canada or Namibia. We're losing matches at a rate of knots here and we're only left with a fraction of the data we started with.

So it's my view that, while ODI stats are a okay guideline for identifying the top echelon of players - such as everyone mentioned in the OP plus Donald - past that the specifics just aren't there. I don't think there's any real difference in a few points of strike rate or a few tenths of a run per over, not least because those two things are often cancelled out anyway.

I guess the only way to really form the best opinion on the finest ODI players is just to watch as much ODI cricket as there is, all over the world, all the time.

Ah, ****.

Great post! or The greatest post ever!

 

[hendrix]

Bond and Ambrose