DingDong, NZTailender and metallics2005....It was 100% for McGrath a few hours ago. Anyone who did not vote for McGrath will be banned from this site.
Goodbye Dingdong, metallics2006 and NZTailender.It was 100% for McGrath a few hours ago. Anyone who did not vote for McGrath will be banned from this site.
And Pollock was good for how long?McGrath & Pollock. Akhtar suffers from "Bond syndrome" in this regard - he didn't play enough. Steyn only was good for 3 years.
Haa. Actually metallics2006 reasoning i pretty fair. Bond/Akhtar at their peaks is the scariest duo possible.Goodbye Dingdong, metallics2006 and NZTailender.
He was very good for 4 years and was still pretty decent for 2 years. Pretty much lies.And Pollock was good for how long?
Pollock's legacy as a great fast bowler of his era is largely down to his performances in the 90s.
Who's going to bowl in the second innings?Bond and Akhtar.
Stats and injuries be damned.
Dingdong and NZTailender had voted for mark richardson in the other thread which sounds quite logical to me. same way, i am sure they have their reasons for not voting for mcgrath here.Goodbye Dingdong, metallics2006 and NZTailender.
Yeah this is pretty much why I went for Steyn over Pollock, am also assuming that he will get in later on.McGrath and Steyn for me. Two reasons why Steyn edged out Pollock- firstly, the Pollock of this period and McGrath are a bit similar. Secondly, Steyn's strike rate gets me every time. The difference between a strike rate of 40.4 and one of 61.7 is pretty statistically significant. When you throw the ball to Pollock he's over 50% less likely to get you a breakthrough than Steyn is.
Although depending on the makeup of the team, Polly's batting might give him the edge in the end. It's a very close call.