What's new

Shaun Pollock the best all-rounder ever?

emclub

emclub

T20I Debutant
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Runs
6,608
from cricinfo

7000 + 700

Shaun Pollock is the only player in history to have a double of more than 7000 runs + more than 700 wickets in international cricket (7386/829)

6000 + 600

Daniel Vettori 6831 runs and 681) Kapil Dev (9031 runs and 687 wickets), Wasim Akram (6615/916)

5000 + 500

Jacques Kallis (25,292/570), Ian Botham (7313 runs and 528 wickets), Imran Khan (7516/544) and Chaminda Vaas (5147/761).
 
Afridi has 7000 runs and 358 wickets, does that make him the best ODI allrounder ever?
 
No, as a bowler he is a league below "the big ones" along with Walsh. Hint: strike rate and 10fers.
 
Last edited:
No. Not good enough to be picked as a batter alone, therefore not a true test all-rounder.
 
In the bowling scheme of things he was good but in batting he massively under achieved. I think he should have been averaging around 36-38 as a batsmen. He had a pretty good technique. massively underated, and you still have people telling us flintoff was a legend.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
No. Not good enough to be picked as a batter alone, therefore not a true test all-rounder.
Click to expand...

Was Sobers good enough to be selected on his bowling alone ? Let's be consistent when applying the criterion.
 
By from what I have heard Imran Khan looks to be the best.

The only flaw is that his sample size (in terms of runs) isn't high which makes you doubt the authenticity of him being a 50 average batsman.

If you look at bowling allrounders, then its Imran.
If you look at batting allrounders, then its Sobers.

I haven't seen them in action, but I would choose Imran.
 
ATG bowler who underachieved with the bat. Similar to Hadlee in that regard, which is why they're overshadowed by more prominent players of their respective eras.
 
Robert said:
No. Not good enough to be picked as a batter alone, therefore not a true test all-rounder.
Click to expand...

Agreed but for some reason, everyone rates Kallis and Sobers, both of whom were/are mediocre bowlers at best. I'm not saying Pollock should be recognized as such too, I think Kallis and Sobers, great batsmen that they are, are far too bad with the ball(the batting equivalent would be Hadlee) to be ranked alongside the best of the best allrounders.
 
Not the greatest but severely under rated IMO.

A capable batman and a tremendous bowler. The only chink being his high bowling average in and against Australia, since they were the best team in the world for most of his career.

Pollock vs Kallis would make for an interesting debate, since i am a bit biased towards bowling all rounders in tests.
 
Jo_Don said:
ATG bowler who underachieved with the bat. Similar to Hadlee in that regard, which is why they're overshadowed by more prominent players of their respective eras.
Click to expand...

Disagree, saw Pollock bat plenty of times, yeah he hoiked a few big shots every now and then but you could see he was a very limited batsmen, if any I feel he over achieved with the bat...
 
tanzeel said:
Agreed but for some reason, everyone rates Kallis and Sobers, both of whom were/are mediocre bowlers at best. I'm not saying Pollock should be recognized as such too, I think Kallis and Sobers, great batsmen that they are, are far too bad with the ball(the batting equivalent would be Hadlee) to be ranked alongside the best of the best allrounders.
Click to expand...

You have to seperate Sobers' figures into his three bowling styles. He was not a good wrist-spinner, a moderate SLA, but a left-arm quick good enough to get the new ball ahead of Griffith at times. Someone published figures suggesting that his fast left-arm average is 26, which is comparable to the great Hall and very good for the ultra-flat decks of the 1960s.
 
Robert said:
You have to seperate Sobers' figures into his three bowling styles. He was not a good wrist-spinner, a moderate SLA, but a left-arm quick good enough to get the new ball ahead of Griffith at times. Someone published figures suggesting that his fast left-arm average is 26, which is comparable to the great Hall and very good for the ultra-flat decks of the 1960s.
Click to expand...
No you don't, players are assessed on their overall careers. If he was so good at bowling fast, then why did he stop bowling it? You might argue that he bowled to the conditions, but it obviously didn't work so then why stick to something that obviously wasn't working. And if the pitches were that "ultra flat" then it would suggest an inflated batting average.
 
Robert said:
You have to seperate Sobers' figures into his three bowling styles. He was not a good wrist-spinner, a moderate SLA, but a left-arm quick good enough to get the new ball ahead of Griffith at times. Someone published figures suggesting that his fast left-arm average is 26, which is comparable to the great Hall and very good for the ultra-flat decks of the 1960s.
Click to expand...

Players are judged by what they do over their careers, not in short bursts or Waqar and Imran in their respective peaks would be untouchable and up there with Bradman as the greatest bowler and all rounder, respectively, of all time.
 
Jo_Don said:
No you don't, players are assessed on their overall careers. If he was so good at bowling fast, then why did he stop bowling it? You might argue that he bowled to the conditions, but it obviously didn't work so then why stick to something that obviously wasn't working. And if the pitches were that "ultra flat" then it would suggest an inflated batting average.
Click to expand...
BEcause he was not selfish as some cricketers. Most of the time Sobers bowled pace when the wicket took spin, allowing the additional spinner (who is better than him) to be included. When wicket was pacy, he bowled apin, allowing an additional pace bowler (better than him) to be included. Absolute legend he was, and almost all of his bowling stats can be taken as stats on non-helpful pitches.
 
Jo_Don said:
No you don't, players are assessed on their overall careers. If he was so good at bowling fast, then why did he stop bowling it?
Click to expand...

He bowled what the team required. He could open the bowling with Hall, or he could come on first change, or he could bowl wrist-spin or SLA later on depending on the situation.
 
Robert said:
He bowled what the team required. He could open the bowling with Hall, or he could come on first change, or he could bowl wrist-spin or SLA later on depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
Already addressed that response in my post, which you edited out...
 
tanzeel said:
Players are judged by what they do over their careers, not in short bursts or Waqar and Imran in their respective peaks would be untouchable and up there with Bradman as the greatest bowler and all rounder, respectively, of all time.
Click to expand...

I'm not considering short bursts. Sobey was unique in cricket history in that he could bowl three different styles to test standard (one very well; two mediocre). This bears further analysis.

The only other time I am aware of this was when Botham started bowling off-spin in a test against after his FM swing stuff was collared. (He got a fivefer with the slow stuff.)
 
Jo_Don said:
Already addressed that response in my post, which you edited out...
Click to expand...


Because you put an incorrect slant on it. IcedEarth has explained this better than I did.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Because you put an incorrect slant on it.
Click to expand...
Nope, the point stands. If he was good at bowling fast, then it means he was mediocre at anything else for his overall stats to end up at what they are. If the team needed a spin bowler on a slow pitch, he obviously didn't deliver. So your point is irrelevant...
 
Jo_Don said:
Nope, the point stands. If he was good at bowling fast, then it means he was mediocre at anything else for his overall stats to end up at what they are. If the team needed a spin bowler on a slow pitch, he obviously didn't deliver. So your point is irrelevant...
Click to expand...
You are miles off the point. And I am bit skeptical of the average of 26 stuff TBH. Sobers bowled fast on pitches taking spin, allowing additional spinner to come in. He rarely bowled spin on spinning tracks. Indtead kept banging it in and taking the sine off for the spinners. When track was pacy, he bowled spin closing up one end so pacemen can work around batsman.

Sobers was not a great bowler, but merely a good one. But he was one hell of a batsman to cover up deficiencies with the ball.
 
Robert said:
I'm not considering short bursts. Sobey was unique in cricket history in that he could bowl three different styles to test standard (one very well; two mediocre). This bears further analysis.

The only other time I am aware of this was when Botham started bowling off-spin in a test against after his FM swing stuff was collared. (He got a fivefer with the slow stuff.)
Click to expand...

It was a short burst if, despite averaging 26 when bowling a particular way as you said earlier, he ended up averaging 35 over his career with a strike rate of 94. It's a good indication that he was a fairly poor bowler if, more often than not, he averaged close to 40 with the ball. Having 20 different variations is useless if you're no good with any of them(case in point, Kaneria and Shahid Afridi) and if he did switch his style according to the team's needs, he was obviously doing so to the team's detriment judging by his results as a bowler.
 
A very underrated player. His knee injuries made him become a medium pace bowler with a nagging line and length.
He was a great bowler when he 1st burst in international cricket.
 
Sobers was a rubbish bowler there is no escaping that. People try to come up with clever connotations but that does not work and they end up losing credibility. We need to have a general consensus and thus have consistency in our posts.
If conditions were tough to bat in during the 60's then bowling conditions were friendly. There is no two ways about that.
If conditions are flat these days making batting "easy" then bowling is damn hard.
A strike rate of 95 is garbage really, Sobers is overrated IMO.
 
^^^

Absolutely , Sobers would never walk into a Team as a bowler. He was at most a part time bowler.

Pollock is very good all rounder. Not best ever but a better bowler than :kallis
 
He doesn't have to. He walks in as a batsman, which any other all roinder fail to do except Kallis may be.
 
Regarding Sobers's ability with the ball, am I right in thinking Lance Gibbs would have played a significant amount of cricket with Sobers? If so, he took more wickets, at a lower average, but I would guess his SR wouldn't be too dissimilar to Sobers. Which either adds weight to the argument that Sobers was a good bowler if his record was pretty close to someone who had the World record for test wickets or goes against Sobers if Gibbs wasn't actually that good.
 
amax said:
No, as a bowler he is a league below "the big ones" along with Walsh. Hint: strike rate and 10fers.
Click to expand...

Longevity negates that to an extent, doesn't it? Had very good bowlers around him including 'White Lightening', can't be penalised for that surely?

Was a shadow of his former self towards the end of his career much like Ponting and Tendulkar. He had 250 odd wickets at an average of 20 and a SR of 53 at one point.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative
 
Gigii said:
Regarding Sobers's ability with the ball, am I right in thinking Lance Gibbs would have played a significant amount of cricket with Sobers? If so, he took more wickets, at a lower average, but I would guess his SR wouldn't be too dissimilar to Sobers. Which either adds weight to the argument that Sobers was a good bowler if his record was pretty close to someone who had the World record for test wickets or goes against Sobers if Gibbs wasn't actually that good.
Click to expand...

Gibbs took his wickets at 29, Hall at 26, Griffith at 28. It follows that Sobers was as effective a fast bowler as Hall and a better one that Griffith, and a less effective spinner than Gibbs.

tanzeel said:
It was a short burst if, despite averaging 26 when bowling a particular way as you said earlier, he ended up averaging 35 over his career with a strike rate of 94. It's a good indication that he was a fairly poor bowler if, more often than not, he averaged close to 40 with the ball. Having 20 different variations is useless if you're no good with any of them(case in point, Kaneria and Shahid Afridi) and if he did switch his style according to the team's needs, he was obviously doing so to the team's detriment judging by his results as a bowler.
Click to expand...

If the figures I saw are correct then Sobers was a really good fast left armer, and not a very good spinner in either of his two styles.
 
Last edited:
Changa.banda said:
Longevity negates that to an extent, doesn't it? Had very good bowlers around him including 'White Lightening', can't be penalised for that surely?

Was a shadow of his former self towards the end of his career much like Ponting and Tendulkar. He had 250 odd wickets at an average of 20 and a SR of 53 at one point.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative
Click to expand...

Lots of great bowlers have had many other great bowlers around their teams in a period of time. So there's that argument why a certain bowler didn't take as many wickets or had as good as a record as they could have done.

But who did Pollock have around him? Allan Donald and...? Lots of other talented bowlers like Schultz, Fanie de Villiers, Terbugge but they hardly played a huge amount of international cricket.
 
tanzeel said:
Longevity is never a substitute for quality.
Click to expand...
He's an ATG bowler, on par with McGrath for most of his career but had a poor couple of years at the end. He's quality. Nobody remembers Ponting for the end of his career, but how he played throughout it. The fact that Pollock could wield the willow was a big bonus. As said earlier, he's similar to Hadlee in that regard.
 
Changa.banda said:
Longevity negates that to an extent, doesn't it? Had very good bowlers around him including 'White Lightening', can't be penalised for that surely?

Was a shadow of his former self towards the end of his career much like Ponting and Tendulkar. He had 250 odd wickets at an average of 20 and a SR of 53 at one point.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative
Click to expand...

My point is, I rate him just below the league "The ATG" fast/fast medium bowlers(Although we are not spoiled by choices in this category).
As to your point of playing with Donald; Wasim and Waqar played together at their respective peaks but both have good amount of 10fers, just 1 10fer shows the lack of ability to completely destroy a side (TBH he played considerable amount of matches when Donald was past his prime). To give a little perspective of my classification; he can be grouped with walsh.
 
Last edited:
amax said:
My point is, I rate him just below the league "The ATG" fast/fast medium bowlers(Although we are not spoiled by choices in this category).
As to your point of playing with Donald; Wasim and Waqar played together at their respective peaks but they have good amount of 10fers, just 1 10fer shows the lack of ability to completely destroy a side (TBH he played considerable amount of matches when Donald was past his prime). To give a little perspective of my classification, he can be grouped with walsh.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, fair enough Amax. I guess we rate players a little differently. Out of curiosity, how do you rate Garner?
 
amax said:
My point is, I rate him just below the league "The ATG" fast/fast medium bowlers(Although we are not spoiled by choices in this category).
As to your point of playing with Donald; Wasim and Waqar played together at their respective peaks but both have good amount of 10fers, just 1 10fer shows the lack of ability to completely destroy a side (TBH he played considerable amount of matches when Donald was past his prime). To give a little perspective of my classification; he can be grouped with walsh.
Click to expand...
10-fers don't mean much to me, it's like judging a batsman by the amount of times they scored a hundred in both innings. 5-fers are a better indicator of impact. The fact that Joel Garner never took a 10-fer illustrates this point.
 
Jo_Don said:
10-fers don't mean much to me, it's like judging a batsman by the amount of times they scored a hundred in both innings. 5-fers are a better indicator of impact. The fact that Joel Garner never took a 10-fer illustrates this point.
Click to expand...

You may be right. But, I think the top echelon should be a very elite group therefore for me Marshal and Ambrose from Windies qualify (It depends a lot on ones definition of Legend/ATG etc, after all there are people who call Jeff Thompson/Shoaib ATGs)
 
Robert said:
He bowled what the team required. He could open the bowling with Hall, or he could come on first change, or he could bowl wrist-spin or SLA later on depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

kallis bowls what the team requires from him. ie break partnerships and give the express fast men a rest. why is this always held against him yet Sobers did the same? I did not see Sobers, but i saw Pollock play and i genuienly believe with the bat he under achieved. Most of his dismisals were as a result of him giving his wicket away. Just taking a look at his stats reminds me of what i have always believed, that South africans never get their due simply because they have no one blowing their trumpet. imagine if Pollock was Australian, Indian or Pakistani, we would be hearing relentlesly of his remarkable achievements.
 
Last edited:
emclub said:
from cricinfo

7000 + 700

Shaun Pollock is the only player in history to have a double of more than 7000 runs + more than 700 wickets in international cricket (7386/829)

6000 + 600

Daniel Vettori 6831 runs and 681) Kapil Dev (9031 runs and 687 wickets), Wasim Akram (6615/916)

5000 + 500

Jacques Kallis (25,292/570), Ian Botham (7313 runs and 528 wickets), Imran Khan (7516/544) and Chaminda Vaas (5147/761).
Click to expand...
How about also adding the number of matches/innings that each one played to achieve those numbers.

Here, let me start you off.

Sean Pollock 423 matches ( 108 tests, 303 ODI's and 12 T20's)
Imran Khan 263 matches (88 Tests, 175 ODI's).

I'm sure even you will agree that an all-rounder who's played 423 matches is likely to score more runs, and take more wickets, than one who's only played 263 matches.

So Imran Khans's 7516 runs/544 wickets from 263 matches played is far superior than Sean Pollocks 7386 runs/ 829 wickets from 423 matches.
 
Jo_Don said:
10-fers don't mean much to me, it's like judging a batsman by the amount of times they scored a hundred in both innings. 5-fers are a better indicator of impact. The fact that Joel Garner never took a 10-fer illustrates this point.
Click to expand...

Garner was too overrated
 
Dark Magician said:
imagine if Pollock was Australian, Indian or Pakistani, we would be hearing relentlesly of his remarkable achievements.
Click to expand...
What baffles me is why the English will almost always try to undermine the performance of a South African when they produce such players once in a generation, if ever in the case of Kallis or Pollock. It's always a case of how you must be able to be chosen for either batting or bowling, or how you should be able to contribute with both bat and ball in the same match, or or or. And when flaws are shown in this reasoning, then its a case of being able to do a job for their team. There is always some excuse.

Then we'll hear about how Botham won some arb Ashes test once upon a time with both bat and ball, and that made him one of the best all rounders ever. And even he averaged close to 30 with the ball in what is widely regarded to have been a bowling era. When was the last time an English bowler averaged less than 25?
 
Last edited:
Surprised to see how massively under rated Pollock is , as a bowler , on these forums. In my opinion, he deserves to be called an ATG bowler. Has amazing stats in both tests and ODI's.

Definitely under achieved with the bat. But still more than a useful batsman who could be play according to the situation. Through out his career, I always felt he could have done much better had he played up the order. Number 6 would have been the ideal position for him. IIRC, he played a few handy knocks at the top of the order near the end of his career.
 
Jo_Don said:
What baffles me is why the English will almost always try to undermine the performance of a South African when they produce such players once in a generation, if ever in the case of Kallis or Pollock. It's always a case of how you must be able to be chosen for either batting or bowling, or how you should be able to contribute with both bat and ball in the same match, or or or. And when flaws are shown in this reasoning, then its a case of being able to do a job for their team. There is always some excuse.

Then we'll hear about how Botham won some arb Ashes test once upon a time with both bat and ball, and that made him one of the best all rounders ever. And even he averaged close to 30 with the ball in what is widely regarded to have been a bowling era. When was the last time an English bowler averaged less than 25?
Click to expand...
you left out "charisma" which "can never be quantified through stats". thats my favourite.

To answer your question, for anyone who has taken 200 wickets only 1 meets the criteria and thats Trueman
 
Shoaib Akhtar's Fan said:
Surprised to see how massively under rated Pollock is , as a bowler , on these forums. In my opinion, he deserves to be called an ATG bowler. Has amazing stats in both tests and ODI's.

Definitely under achieved with the bat. But still more than a useful batsman who could be play according to the situation. Through out his career, I always felt he could have done much better had he played up the order. Number 6 would have been the ideal position for him. IIRC, he played a few handy knocks at the top of the order near the end of his career.
Click to expand...

he made an 80 odd opening the bat in Pakistan and won us that ODI series through his batting. I'm suprised no one remembers that. Or is that a matter of selective memory? Lets pick and choose what to remember, thats always the case when South Africans are involved i guess. People started watching South African cricket in recent years
 
soso_killer said:
Garner was too overrated
Click to expand...

Heh heh heh heh - he was not. I saw a lot of Big Bird. Super-accurate, nearly unhittable and painful to face. It was like watching a grown man bowling at schoolboys.
 
Dark Magician said:
kallis bowls what the team requires from him. ie break partnerships and give the express fast men a rest. why is this always held against him yet Sobers did the same?
Click to expand...

I would call Kallis a capable test match fourth seamer. His stats are inflated a bit by bowling at ZIM and BANG, if you look. But his value to SA is that he blocks an end up and allows the strike bowlers to come in harder for longer as you say. And he still gets good batters out, too.
 
Robert said:
I would call Kallis a capable test match fourth seamer. His stats are inflated a bit by bowling at ZIM and BANG, if you look. But his value to SA is that he blocks an end up and allows the strike bowlers to come in harder for longer as you say. And he still gets good batters out, too.
Click to expand...

wow Rob, shocking when you consider his best bowling figures are against England. Has a good record in that counstry with the ball especialy in won matches. Selective memory?
 
Pollock was a quality player but as good as Imran Khan erm haha lol no etc.
 
Jo_Don said:
What baffles me is why the English will almost always try to undermine the performance of a South African when they produce such players once in a generation, if ever in the case of Kallis or Pollock. It's always a case of how you must be able to be chosen for either batting or bowling, or how you should be able to contribute with both bat and ball in the same match, or or or. And when flaws are shown in this reasoning, then its a case of being able to do a job for their team. There is always some excuse.

Then we'll hear about how Botham won some arb Ashes test once upon a time with both bat and ball, and that made him one of the best all rounders ever. And even he averaged close to 30 with the ball in what is widely regarded to have been a bowling era. When was the last time an English bowler averaged less than 25?
Click to expand...

zzz...Now this is an impressive amount of straw man to cram into two paragraphs, I think the barn just collapsed.
 
soso_killer said:
but you started watching cricket in 99, so what would you know?
Unless you are here to troll, no?
Click to expand...

Oh right the 20something card. Another ad hominem just as useless as whatever the last one was
 
soso_killer said:
but you started watching cricket in 99, so what would you know?
Unless you are here to troll, no?
Click to expand...

Did Pollock averaged 50+ with the bat & 22 odd with ball for whole decade like :ik ? If yes then I will admitt that he is as good as :ik...
 
SA fans are ultra-defensive I've noticed, would be interested in a theoretical discussion as to why.
 
James said:
zzz...Now this is an impressive amount of straw man to cram into two paragraphs, I think the barn just collapsed.
Click to expand...

well.. the criminal is always the creative artist; the detective only the critic.

So JD has a good point
 
Eye_Done said:
Did Pollock averaged 50+ with the bat & 22 odd with ball for whole decade like :ik ? If yes then I will admitt that he is as good as :ik...
Click to expand...

it's actually less thn 20 with the ball...
 
There's an argument for pollock being better than donald and if kallis can be classified as an allrounder and rarely balls nowadays, pollock can be too

The best all rounder this generation is a toss up between flintoff and pollock.
 
James said:
Oh right the 20something card. Another ad hominem just as useless as whatever the last one was
Click to expand...

no, i dont mind you thinking player X is better than player Y even if you never watched them play. But your tone was a bit condescending really.

If asked who was better between Hammond and Bradman will your reaction be lol blah blah..
Or "based on stats and what i've read and seen on videos i consider player X better"?
 
soso_killer said:
no, i dont mind you thinking player X is better than player Y even if you never watched them play. But your tone was a bit condescending really.

If asked who was better between Hammond and Bradman will your reaction be lol blah blah..
Or "based on stats and what i've read and seen on videos i consider player X better"?
Click to expand...

Eh I'm condescending apparently yet I have to sit through irrelevant walls of embittered slurry like Jo Don's post above and then you also tried to undermine my position by citing my age. I rate Imran higher than any all-rounder, always have. Not going to waste my time in this thread I don't think...
 
chacha kashmiri said:
There's an argument for pollock being better than donald and if kallis can be classified as an allrounder and rarely balls nowadays, pollock can be too

The best all rounder this generation is a toss up between flintoff and pollock.
Click to expand...

lol that name again :yk
 
James said:
Eh I'm condescending apparently yet I have to sit through irrelevant walls of embittered slurry like Jo Don's post above and then you also tried to undermine my position by *citing my age*. I rate Imran higher than any all-rounder, always have. Not going to waste my time in this thread I don't think...
Click to expand...

how can i undermine you when i dont even know your age? You told me that you started watching cricket in 99 (NOT! your age), hence i was rather perplexed by your reaction.
There is nothing lol worthy about comparing IK and Pollock.
Flintoff on the other hand?
 
James said:
zzz...Now this is an impressive amount of straw man to cram into two paragraphs, I think the barn just collapsed.
Click to expand...

One just needs to look at some of the English posters' contributions on this forum to know that it's not. Yours included. How about you guys form an opinion when you stop overrating your own players?
 
soso_killer said:
lol that name again :yk
Click to expand...

Shahid afridi has better test averages than flintoff but at his peak for around 2 years he was lethal with ball and bat

Other all rounders in modern era you could include cairns, robin singh, heath streak and razzaq but noone of them were particularly good in the longer format
 
James said:
SA fans are ultra-defensive I've noticed, would be interested in a theoretical discussion as to why.
Click to expand...
No South African in this thread claimed Pollock to be better than Imran. You're quick to go on the offensive but cry that South Africans get defensive.
 
chacha kashmiri said:
There's an argument for pollock being better than donald and if kallis can be classified as an allrounder and rarely balls nowadays, pollock can be too

The best all rounder this generation is a toss up between flintoff and pollock.
Click to expand...
Please, just no. Flintoff? Lol...
 
Pollock was a good all round player, but Imran khan was a great one what imran khan achieved for/gave to pakistan cricket is difficult to emulate. I say that because as well as being a quality all rounder he was a leader and a warrior and the perfect example is winning the world cup when the chips were down.

Pakistan cricket in general hasnt changed much since its early days but the period in which imran was captain he brought discipline to the team, he got the players to give 100 percent on the field and most importantly he introduced some of the biggest stars to world such as wasim, waqar and inzi. He was the first bowler to reverse swing the ball at high speed and then later passed this art to his juniors. If pollock has given as much as that to his country then he is better, but i leave that for you to decide
 
Jo_Don said:
One just needs to look at some of the English posters' contributions on this forum to know that it's not. Yours included. How about you guys form an opinion when you stop overrating your own players?
Click to expand...

Hang on so you are having a go at the English because they rate Sobers and Imran above Shaun Pollock. That's all I can see from English contribution to this thread. So can you help me with some other examples that are in any way relatable? Or you could just concede that your post was abstract, spurious and bizarre. It's the Internet - calm down.
 
James said:
Eh I'm condescending apparently yet I have to sit through irrelevant walls of embittered slurry like Jo Don's post above and then you also tried to undermine my position by citing my age. I rate Imran higher than any all-rounder, always have. Not going to waste my time in this thread I don't think...
Click to expand...
Make of it what you will, the truth obviously hurts. I don't mind engaging in debate, but things need to be kept consistent. I don't like different sets of criteria being applied to different players to suit ones argument at a particular point in time.
 
James said:
Hang on so you are having a go at the English because they rate Sobers and Imran above Shaun Pollock. That's all I can see from English contribution to this thread. So can you help me with some other examples that are in any way relatable? Or you could just concede that your post was abstract, spurious and bizarre. It's the Internet - calm down.
Click to expand...

who said Pollock is better than IK in the 1st place James?
 
chacha kashmiri said:
Shahid afridi has better test averages than flintoff but at his peak for around 2 years he was lethal with ball and bat

Other all rounders in modern era you could include cairns, robin singh, heath streak and razzaq but noone of them were particularly good in the longer format
Click to expand...

oh no! i could come up with plenty of arbitrary 2 year dates but i wont
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unbiased-Fan
Best Test XI for each country since 2000
Replies
39
Views
3K
Unbiased-Fan
Unbiased-Fan
Unbiased-Fan
Best ODI XI for each country since 2000
Replies
33
Views
2K
Unbiased-Fan
Unbiased-Fan
Unbiased-Fan
Best Non Asia Test XI to travel to Asia since 2000
Replies
45
Views
4K
Cricfan4eva
Cricfan4eva
The Viper
  • Poll
10 ODI teams from hypothetical diversity draft - vote for your best team
Replies
20
Views
993
Rayyman
Rayyman
T
Drafts return with the diversity draft
2 3 4
Replies
277
Views
12K
Last Monetarist
Last Monetarist
Back
Top