OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There used to be
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ODI ATG XIs
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bullshit.
You still have to bat or the 50 overs. Every good side in history has had an anchor. Australia during their time of dominance had Bevan and Clarke. The West Indies had Greenidge. Sri Lanka had Ranatunga. India have Dhoni.
The anchor is needed to give the aggressive guys the security to be aggressive. They're there to manage collapses, which happen in the sport. They're there to ensure the team gets to 350 (50) instead of 300 (40).
Every side of note in history has had an anchor player.
This is the general lot of ARs in atg sides. You could more or less make the same post about Imran in test sides.
Pollock is extra unlucky though. He's easily the best AR, and odi teams are picking one, just its typically a batting AR.
Playing Flintoff + pollock would actually make a good combination. Compared to Garner/Mcgrath and a batting AR, Flintoff + pollock gives clearly better bowling and likely similar batting strength.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
When Lara or Ponting or Azhar batting at number 3 , it's not Anchor Role. When Dravid bats at number 3 , suddenly it becomes Anchor Role.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The problem Pollock has is he doesn't add much to an all time side. Klusener is so much better in that role. Pollock was a better bouquet but the 5th bowler doesn't need to be great, they aren't taking the new rock, they're bowling to set batsmen and are trying to sneak through their overs without leaking huge runs. They're not wicket takers and don't need to be.
sunilz
International Regular
The thing that counts most against Bevan is his ability to accelerate in last overs of the game . His batting strike rate in innings involving 50+ score is less than Dravid/Kallis .
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
sunilz
International Regular
Every team has one player who plays the anchor role. Root/Rayudu/Smith/Williamson/Babar azam/ Duplessis/Dhoni all play this role.
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I took out the condition of scoring 50+ in an innings and limited to first innings of a match (to eliminate matching of batting SR with required run rate). Interesting thing is how close to top Dhoni still is in SR despite a prolonged slump.
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Last edited:
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
is this the indian miyagi
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Sachin - Ganguly
Dravid
Azhar
Yuvaraj
Imagine this is your batting line up , Dravid is that "Anchor " here. Now a new option is emerging , Virat Kohli. You need to drop one to select Kohli. Who would be that ?
It has to be Dravid.. because he is the weakest performer.
Now there is no "Anchor " yet batting strength and reliability improved.
Anchoring is a need of situation. Top class Batsmen can manage different situations.
Bevan is an exceptional case just like jonty Rhodes. Kallis or Dravid's slow scoring is a burden most of the times , it's different from Beven way of crisis management.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kohli is better than dravid/Kallis in odis?! Stop the presses.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Imran underrated in ODis imo.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
By that logic , Azhar , Ganguly and Yuvi better than Kohli . Because they are undroppable even when selecting Kohli.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
What if the WK was Nayan Mongia ? And Dhoni does not exist ?
Keeping Dravid , Dropping Azhar. Is a bad idea. Because Azhar is easily a superior batsman.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Disappointed it took this long for someone to point that about regarding Warne. Murali is a far superior ODI bowler by such a huge margin. Picking Warne over him is dumb, especially since Warne did little with the bat in ODIs. Murali>Saqlain>>Warne.
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
In that case you'd just give Dravid the gloves.
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
On averages alone, yes. One thing that hampers Warne is that he didn't have the luxury of being able to revert to bowling darts if need be. Being a leggie, he was more susceptible to being hit due to the necessity of flighting the ball.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
The point is that , there is no need of a specialist Anchor , if there is a better batsman available.
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not so sure that you can definitively say that. Each game is highly situational; a juicy pitch, under floodlights with two new balls may very well call for an anchor in the team. This is why players such as Dravid & Hashan Tillakaratne were valuable in my eyes, cause they could bat in many different positions and be moved up & down the order depending on the match situation.