subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
You can leave out Garner. Forget Dev. Polly is fine at no.7
-
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 : Glen McGrath vs Shaun Pollock
- Thread starter DrWolverine
- Start date
Thala_0710
State Vice-Captain
Tendulkar
Rohit
Viv
Kohli
Abd
Dhoni*+
Klusener
Akram
Garner
Mcgrath
Murali
Rohit
Viv
Kohli
Abd
Dhoni*+
Klusener
Akram
Garner
Mcgrath
Murali
DrWolverine
International Debutant
@sayon basak Why are you shocked? It looks good
sayon basak
International Captain
Wow≠Shock
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah I generally agree but great openers are rarer. Most people seem to pick either an allrounder or a keeper to open, and the only time CW didn't, we picked Lara to do it.
I think in time Rohit will be more respected as an option. It's just hard to love the guy right now.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
No that's literally what wow means, unless it's sarcastic.
Kenneth Viljoen
International Regular
I chose Pollock because of the question posed.
For an average team you always pick the all rounder for the balance ..
In White ball cricket you do not need to outbowl the opposition, you just need to restrict them or post a total your bowlers can defend.
Well balanced teams that bat deep with good strike rates , excellent fielding and variety in bowling can beat teams with more accomplished batsmen and bowlers.
So in an average team Pollock with his all round game would be more beneficial imo.
sayon basak
International Captain
I thought wow means being amazed. "Shocked" sounds a bit negative to me.
That's a good point in building XI.
True, but that won't work if entire bowling line up is filled with very hard to hit bowlers. You can't simply see them off.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Very rare for that to be the case. The point is emphasizing ER only in ODIs is mistaken. You need wickettaking.
capt_Luffy
International Coach
Nah Polly isn't fine at 7 in an ATG XI. If Garner comes then he goes to bench and Kapil is replaced by Zulu
Not emphasizing only ER but giving it more weight. To make my point more clear, let's look at the two sets I was citing. You are pointing out wicket taking as if the first set is going to blast oppositions.
First set : Best 4 pacers in ODI rated by many.
Wasim - Avg 23.5 ( 1.4 wickets per match)
McGrath - Avg 22 ( 1.5 wickets per match)
Starc - avg 23.4 ( 1.9 wickets per match )
Garner - Avg - 18.8 ( leaving him out because he is common in both sets )
Second set : Hardest pacers to hit in their eras as rated by many.
Ambrose - Avg 24.1 ( 1.3 wickets per match )
Bumrah - Avg 23.5 ( 1.7 wickets per match )
Pollock - Avg 24.5 ( 1.3 wickets per match )
Garner - Avg 18.8
Many are making wrong assumptions that the first set will simply roll over oppositions despite being expensive but Avg and wickets per match does not indicate that.
Both sets are not likely to bowl opposition out, but the second set is harder to score and likely to give less runs in those 40 overs. Even with slightly less wicket picking ability, they may simply give same runs as the first set. That's why I was trying to say that lot of us don't put enough emahpsis on ER despite being far more important in limited overs.
Now if bowlers are pickig wickets 3 wickets per match then it's a different situation and you are talking about bowling out oppositions. But with 1.4 or 1.5 kind of rate, it will be 1 wicket in one match and 2 wickets in another. If it's 3 in one match then it will zero in other. Taken together they won't bowl out oppositions too many times so having 4 hardest bowlers to hit will ensure that you are chasing/defending less runs. And then hardest bowlers to hit are not really that far behind in picking wickets or avg.
I don't think ER itself can decide the best combination, but I am not sure that 4 hardest pacers taken together will be less effective than the 4 best pacers over a long period in limited formats. Individually seond 4 may not be the best pacers but due to nature of limited overs, having the lowest ER with no escape may make them as effective as the best 4 pacers conbination. Just thinking aloud here.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Giving ER more importance than actual wickets is completely wrong and is opposed to how the game is actually played.
And please don't confuse things but using WPM for wickettaking ability when we can easily refer to the respective SRs, for which Pollock is well behind the rest.
Actual nnumber of wikets in 10 overs are not high enough to make much difference.
You missed the point totally. If 4 pacers together are not able to bowl opposition out ( you can take SR or wickets per match, it will come down to same thing) then lower ER means you are going to have less total to defend/chase. Point was not about Pollock, point was 4 hardest bowlers bowling together. Anyway, sinced you are still stuck on Pollock, never mind.
Migara
International Coach
Klusener / Pollock / Kapil Dev where 2 out of three is a fair competition. Kapil and Pollock are good bats, Kapil and Pollock are very economical bowlers. Klusener is a good bowler while extra explosive batsman.
I would still go for
Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Richards, Kohli, ABD, Dhoni, Kapil, Akram, Murali, Garner, McGrath line up.
Migara
International Coach
Jayasuriya is a better ODI player than Gilchrist. Similar batsmen, similar second disciplines, but Jaya was an ATG fielder and a very good captain.
Migara
International Coach
Throw in TM Dilshan, Hashim Amla and Shane Watson.