Select TWO fast bowlers: Best of 00s

[DingDong]

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.

yeah i have my reasons.

 

[bagapath]

yeah i have my reasons.

and what are they?

 

[JBH001]

McGrath and Steyn. Akhtar too unreliable for my taste, all huff and puff and rarely blows anything down.

 

[bagapath]

McGrath & Akhtar. Flintoff would be my 3rd seamer when the team in finally picked for balance, since i would pick both Warne & Murali personally in the team of the decade.

good call. but u may have to, like me, be happy with a final lineup of mcgrath, pollock, flintoff/kallis, warne and murali. lets see how it goes.

 

[Zinzan]

I wouldn't have picked Bond. He's as good as anyone when he plays for sure. So much of fast bowling is about how you deal with the strain it puts on your body though, and I'm not personally willing to ignore how dire he was at that.

Well, maybe I am a little . But not enough to pick him ahead of top-class players who did manage to keep in shape.

Well, that's a point of view. Of course in pondering this question it depends entirely what criteria one wishes to consider. Clearly you choose to put a strong weighting on longevity & aggregates, so hardly surprising you'd discount Bond off the bat. On the other hand, it's hardly surprising some would consider Bond if they were more interested in SR's & averages & considering Bond does have the 2nd best bowling SR in Test history (>75 wickets) after George Lohmann.

Have gone with McGrath & Steyn myself - because my qualifier would prob be 100+ wickets (but thats just me), although reckon Bond & Steyn would be one hell of a new-ball attack.

 

[biased indian]

Mcgarth and pollock the obvious choice just went with the records in this case

 

[honestbharani]

McGrath and Akhtar.. perfect combination on almost any surface... Pick up Pollock or Flintoff as my 3rd in the all rounder poll, round it off with Warne and Murali.. As good an attack as one can expect from the 2000s...

 

[Matt79]

McGrath and Pollock.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, that's a point of view. Of course in pondering this question it depends entirely what criteria one wishes to consider. Clearly you choose to put a strong weighting on longevity & aggregates, so hardly surprising you'd discount Bond off the bat. On the other hand, it's hardly surprising some would consider Bond if they were more interested in SR's & averages & considering Bond does have the 2nd best bowling SR in Test history (>75 wickets) after George Lohmann.

Have gone with McGrath & Steyn myself - because my qualifier would prob be 100+ wickets (but thats just me), although reckon Bond & Steyn would be one hell of a new-ball attack.

I don't put that great a weight on longevity really, I picked Steyn after all. But I'm with you, Bond just hasn't really done it enough.

 

[bagapath]

I like Bond. But 18 tests and less than 100 wickets is too short a career to decide anything. Look at what happened to Hussey. He is on his way to becoming a good test batsman. Whereas two years after he started, he was the greatest this world had seen since Bradman. It is always easy to be a short lived wonder than a long standing great. trueman is better than tyson for the same reason.

Yes, Bond is very good. But when you look at the McGraths and Pollocks who were outstanding for many many years, for whom Bond's entire career might just be equal to two years of their 15 year careers, it is very difficult to look past them.

 

[aussie]

good call. but u may have to, like me, be happy with a final lineup of mcgrath, pollock, flintoff/kallis, warne and murali. lets see how it goes.

Yea that wont be an issue.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

McGrath and Steyn. Akhtar was too inconsistent and in any case, I don't want McGrath to get hit with a bat Steyn has been brilliant and is the best fast bowler on show today.Pollock was not at his best in the 2000s;understandable given that his peak was in the 1990s.

 

[roseboy64]

Not that it matters really but why Edwards ahead of Taylor?

 

[bagapath]

steyn? or pollock?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

In the 00s definitely Steyn.

 

[0RI0N]

steyn? or pollock?

steyn.
That ball he bowled to Vaughan at PE 2004.
And Dravid at Ahmedabad 2008.
Jaffa's from hell.
He can bowl the unplayable delivery and he is capable of bowling it 2 or 3 times an innings.
Vote Steyn.Vote now. dial 09009...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Went McGrath and Gillespie as they were two blokes I loved watching bowl. Obviously taking out Gillespie's last series in England where he was sadly ineffective. I remember Nathan Bracken saying he thought he was the most difficult bowler to bat against. Would probably pick Steyn if I'd have seen him bowl more. Gillespie is the emotional choice though. Was a very good bowler when he was fit.

 

[Black_Warrior]

McGrath and Akhtar for me. Pollock has not been as penetrating as these two in my opinion in this decade. I have seen Steyn for just 2 years so now, so will give him more time. Gillespie comes third for me.

 

[Anil]

mcgrath & pollock

 

[Top_Cat]

McG and Akhtar, depending on which Akhtar turns up.