Budget Draft: ODI Nations

[Bevab]

VARP Analysis: Shaun Pollock

@Aislabie
8. Shaun Pollock

Cost: 3
Batting VARP (lower order): 49.04%
Bowling VARP (seam): 70.52%

Pick Rating: ★★★★★

One of the very first names on my team sheet, Shaun Pollock has kind of become a forgotten legend in one-day international cricket. With the bat, he scored his runs at an average of 26 and a rate of 5.2 per over; with the ball, wickets came at an average of 24.51 with a frankly ridiculous economy of 3.68. Both are almost obnoxiously better than his contemporaries, and it thoroughly confuses me why he never makes it into the conversation for greatest one-day international players.

I remember seeing a quote recently somewhere that said "Pollock might very well be the greatest ODI cricketer ever but he will never walk into an All-Time Great ODI XI" with the reason being that such an all-time great team wouldn't require the unique balance that Pollock offers and you might be better served by selecting a bowler who would be a level above him.

In my hypothetical side Garner, McGrath and Murali pick themselves easily and the fourth spot is a tussle between Pollock, Akram and Hadlee if you want that role to be for a bowling all-rounder (and if not, you would probably choose a better pure bowler). As already mentioned in your earlier post, Akram's VARP rating is lower due to the skill of his peers and unlike Pollock, Akram's greatness is bound to be higher due to his 1992 World Cup final spell and that makes his inclusion justifiable.

That leaves just the number seven spot and while there is an argument that he could be picked there because of how good the top six would be (alongside his batting average of 29 at seven), you would be better served by just picking Flintoff whose averages are better despite playing for a side that was miles behind other top teams in ODI strategies.

 

[Bevab]

VARP Analysis: AB de Villiers

@Bevab
4. AB de Villiers

Cost: 3
Batting VARP (top order): 82.14%
Batting VARP (middle order): 226.51%

Pick Rating: ★★★★★

Yeah, AB de Villiers can never be anything other than a five-star pick. As a top order batsman, he struck at over 100 while a replacement would be expected to strike at less than 80, and did that while averaging 53. An incontrovertible five-star pick. However, what would have made him a six star pick would have been to slot him into the middle order rather than the top order: in that role, he is a frankly ridiculous 226% better than a replacement player could be expected to achieve. So yeah, you've simultaneously made a five-star pick and missed out.

My other alternatives for number four were

• Ross Taylor
• Greg Chappell
• Mike Hussey
• Mushfiqur Rahim

None of these options are unfortunately as aggressive as AbD was and if I had to pick anyone from the first three, that would mean foregoing one of my pacer picks in addition to missing out on Buttler. In hindsight, I could have gone with Chappell and replaced Starc with Bumrah eventually but that would have been slightly risky given the latter's popularity and it would mean losing Starc who I rate really highly as a left-arm option and will be a legitimate contender in an all-time great XI if he continues on his current path. It ultimately depends on Buttler's own VARP score but I could theoretically compensate partly for AbD's loss in a middle order role with him while still having one of the best options in ODI history at four. It comes down to the age old question of whether you would want your team optimized for balance even at the expense your best player not performing to his full potential or if it is worth risking a slightly unbalanced side if your star's fully optimal performances will compensate for that. In a contemporary team the latter is what occurs (see Kohli at three for India when the number four was a gaping hole for years) but when you have the freedom to pick a potentially great team, I would mostly opt for the former.

 

[Aislabie]

I remember seeing a quote recently somewhere that said "Pollock might very well be the greatest ODI cricketer ever but he will never walk into an All-Time Great ODI XI" with the reason being that such an all-time great team wouldn't require the unique balance that Pollock offers and you might be better served by selecting a bowler who would be a level above him.

In my hypothetical side Garner, McGrath and Murali pick themselves easily and the fourth spot is a tussle between Pollock, Akram and Hadlee if you want that role to be for a bowling all-rounder (and if not, you would probably choose a better pure bowler). As already mentioned in your earlier post, Akram's VARP rating is lower due to the skill of his peers and unlike Pollock, Akram's greatness is bound to be higher due to his 1992 World Cup final spell and that makes his inclusion justifiable.

That leaves just the number seven spot and while there is an argument that he could be picked there because of how good the top six would be (alongside his batting average of 29 at seven), you would be better served by just picking Flintoff whose averages are better despite playing for a side that was miles behind other top teams in ODI strategies.

That is a really interesting viewpoint, and I think there's a lot of credence to it. With Pollock in your ranks, you'd never have a weak team. Like you could take a mediocre Kenyan team, stick Pollock in there, and suddenly it looks stronger, and more balanced.

Spoiler: That Kenyan team I was talking about

Kennedy Obuya
David Obuya
Ravi Shah
Steve Tikolo
Tanmay Mishra
Collins Obuya
Shaun Pollock
Thomas Odoyo
Nehemiah Odhiambo
Peter Ongondo
Hiren Varaiya

But there's this preconception that he doesn't add as much to a good team; that seems pretty reasonable if you're trying to build the best team you can according to who has the scariest reputations, but if you're picking the team according to roles then I still think he gets in as one of the two best stock bowlers, and a valuable dual role player as a firefighting batsman. I think this would be something like my all-time ODI XI of choice:

Rohit Sharma or Sachin Tendulkar ( HIT)
Adam Gilchrist ( HIT / WKT)
Virat Kohli ( ACC)
Viv Richards ( HIT)
Michael Bevan ( ACC)
Mike Procter ( HIT / EXP)
Shaun Pollock ( FFT / SSM)
Wasim Akram ( HIT / DTH)
Joel Garner ( ASM)
Muttiah Muralitharan ( ASP)
Glenn McGrath ( SSM)

Of course you have the fact that Procter never played an ODI, and that the 6-7-8 could arguably use another batsman, but fortunately it's my team and not anyone else's.

My other alternatives for number four were

Yeah, your approach to picking de Villiers where you did was absolutely fair, and there's certainly no way for me to say that you did anything other than what was best for the team you had in mind; the way I've just picked my All-Time XI a few sentences ago certainly speaks more of picking the best available players for the roles that need to be filled than it does of picking the best eleven players then assigning them to roles.

 

[qpeedore]

My hypothetical team for @Yash. is wildly different from the one @Aislabie came up with.

Tamim Iqbal

Bangladesh's greatest batsman is one of the best players one could have picked in the silver bracket and he was unfortunate to not get picked earlier. His relatively low strike-rate can be explained by his team playing on predominantly bowler-friendly, old-school ODIs where his role is to simply bat through and make a big contribution. While he is not in the same class as that of a certain Indian opener for becoming increasingly dangerous the longer he stays at the crease, his playing style means that Kohli can look forward to having a poor man's Rohit to partner him.

Mohammad Shahzad

You've got a slow starter in Tamim and a player who prefers to rotate strike rather than go for boundaries until he is settled. The best player to complement this duo will be Shahzad whose ODI numbers do not reflect his true talent due to Afghanistan requiring him to bat more consistently. Free from such burdens in this lineup though, Shahzad will do his best impression of a 2015 McCullum and approach ODIs like he does in T20s and T10s to give more breathing room for the rest of the top order.

Andrew Symonds

Time for the big guns. First up is Symonds who was the best middle order batsman in the 2000s and for a period the best ODI cricketer Australia had. Imagine the carnage he could cause in a modern ODI where he has complete license to go big. His bowling is more than adequate should he be required too.

Imran Khan

The closest someone can come to Flintoff's record is Pakistan's greatest all-rounder who shall also be the captain of this team. Expect to see him frequently get promoted ahead of Symonds if the team needs a more steady presence or even up to three should Shahzad lose his wicket almost immediately and Kohli needs to be protected from an early dismissal. Even down at six, in a more batting friendly era he has the ability to score quickly with his ability to hit sixes. While he wasn't as good as in tests, his bowling is still world-class and is only bettered by Hadlee in the quartet of all-rounders.

Gerrie Snyman

Judging Snyman from the five games he played in the 2003 World Cup as a fresh twenty-one year old would do one of the greatest associate talents a huge disservice. His talents are far better shown by his List A record as every single game of his after 2003 could not merit ODI status due to his nation's status. Starting out as an opening pacer who could bat a bit, Snyman blossomed into one of the most devastating middle-order all-rounders in associate cricket who could also bowl decent seam and occasionally off-breaks too.

Rusty Theron

@qpeedore dropped his name in one of his posts if I'm correct and I did expect him to get snapped up after that. While his record for the USA could be better the current version of him is nowhere near close to the bowler who got an IPL contract and played for South Africa. That version had retired in 2015 after persistent injuries and if you had the opportunity to pick a Proteas pacer with a good record for just one point, you would jump at it.

Imran Tahir

Tahir is arguably the most outstanding spinner in white ball cricket over this decade. He has the consistency and longevity besides games versus quality opposition that his competitors don't have and in a trade where your effectiveness drops once your variations are 'figured out', his excellence for so long is something to applaud and all of this is despite him having a late start to his South African career. To make this inclusion even more effective, Shahzad is already well used to keeping to another wrist-spinner who bowls extremely quickly and loves his googlies and should have no problem adapting to Tahir.


This gives a playing XI of

1. Tamim Iqbal
2. Mohammad Shahzad
3. Virat Kohli
4. Ryan ten Doeschate
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Imran Khan
7. Gerrie Snyman
8. Thomas Odoyo
9. Rusty Theron
10. Joel Garner
11. Imran Tahir

So how does it compare with the other team? The opening is a definite downgrade even if this duo would work well together. In exchange for that however, Kohli wouldn't have to suffer PTSD with a relatively weak middle-order yet again and you get an extra bowling option while gaining a definite upgrade in the spin department. All of the five all-rounders offer tremendous depth in both batting and bowling and good luck trying to score runs from Imran's reverse-swinging and Garner's pinpoint yorkers at the death. Tendo is in his favoured position and role while you have three dangerously explosive players to tee off from the platform that Iqbal and Kohli will build. The only other flaw I can point out is Shahzad's inexperience with keeping to real quality pace as he has kept to only one truly fiery pacer before.

Yeah, I did sort of name-drop, or at least initial-drop him (Juan "Rusty" Theron). I was rather surprised to see that he wasn't picked, I've seen the guy bowl and he was great before the injuries. I like Tamim at the top, but I don't like Shahzad behind the wicket, even if he is a good batsman. I'd give Symonds a sort of average rating, I think his personality was bigger than his skill. I think in this team, Imran is batting one too high. My opinion, I haven't checked his stats at 6 and 7. But as with my team, you've got a bit of a 9, 10, Jack situation, and I can also see 5-8 in a collapse. Khan might be able to mind the tail, but I don't expect much wagging.

Then again, with Garner, Theron at his best, and Tahir...they could probably defend even a low total.

@Aislabie has raised something interesting here. Do you (in general, not just him) pick a team by roles, or do you pick your best eleven and then assign roles to them?