Agarkar?
Aussie Dave's recent post on Ajit Agarkar got me thinking - why is he selected? He is rather inconsistent, offering jaffas and cafeteria balls in an over and sending down military medium pace in one game then 88 mph thunderbolts in the next. His economy rate is average at just over five and his batting isn't much cop (despite sporadic demonstrations of real talent; take his test century at Lord's in 2002, for example). It seems his real talent lies in taking wickets as he averages 1.56 wickets per ODI, better than Wasim, Murali, Pollock, Warne and several other top bowlers. He's the fastest bowler to 50 ODI wickets, taking just 23 games. Then again he's only bowler in the top 40 ODI wicket takers of all time whose economy rate is over 5.
So Agarkar gets India wickets, but at a price. The Indian selectors clearly feel that the compromise is worth it with Agarkar and justifiably so. But my question is 'What is more important in ODIs: taking wickets or keeping the runs down?' Ideally a captain wants a bowler who can do both, like McGrath or Muralitharan. But suppose you are a selector of a country that lacks such talents (i.e. every country except Sri Lanka) - where does your preference lie? Would you pick a bowler who keeps things tight or one who takes wickets at a price? Would you pick Agarkar?
1 comment:
Hmmm, a very difficult set of questions to answer! If I had a strong batting line up and a good fielding side I'd probably go for wicket-takers. If I knew that 250+ was going to be beyond my batting side I'd probably go for the more economical bowlers.
What I've found interesting about this series is the way that the captain's have handled their "specialist" bowlers versus the "part-timers". Collingwood for example, watched Tremlett go for 40 off 4 overs, but still brought him back to bowl 9 overs in all, despite having himself and Bopara who could have bowled those overs. Dravid is more used to using his part-time bowlers and seems to do so more regularly, but he rarely uses Ganguly, who would seem a good line and length bowler to me. Maybe he feels that's exactly the sort of bowling that appeals to big-hitters in ODIs....
Ideally you'd give your Shaun Tait's a go at taking wickets but get them out of the attack quickly if they don't. Then use them for short spells as and when you need to. Fleming did that brilliantly with Bond, using him to break menacing partnerships mid-innings. But they key thing, for me, is that your expensive wicket-taker doesn't have to bowl all 10 of his overs if he's having an off day.
Post a Comment