Shaun Pollock the best all-rounder ever?

[Jo_Don]

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.

No I was having a go at the drivel spouted in the name of worshipping at the altar that is Sobers, yet the same criteria is rarely used to rate Kallis. It's always the case whenever a South African player is compared in some hypothetical scenario - there's always some reason or excuse why somebody else was better.

 

[Haroon786]

Thread is getting derailed, the op shouldn't have used such a subjective stat as the one he did, but just have shown Pollock's career stats and then rambled on about how he ie underrated and so on.

 

[James]

No I was having a go at the drivel spouted in the name of worshipping at the altar that is Sobers, yet the same criteria is rarely used to rate Kallis. It's always the case whenever a South African player is compared in some hypothetical scenario - there's always some reason or excuse why somebody else was better.

Maybe that is just that person's opinion? Visit the other cricket nations and their grounds, speak to fans and tour guides. Many people from across the globe rate Sobers highly, perhaps even the highest of all. It isn't a conspiracy against South Africa. Sobers is generally considered a legend of cricket.

 

[amax]

OP asked a question answer to that is No, because Pollock is not as good as Kallis, Imran, Sobers, Hadlee in his "main thing". A great all rounder Yes.

 

[James]

Pollock is just a diet Hadlee or Hadlee light so to speak.

Agreed. Interestingly the Aussies never really rated Pollock, because they were the best team at the time and when Pollock came up against them he was never really up to the task. If you look at his career bowling stats, his performance reduced enormously against the Aussies. And to be the best, you have to beat the best. That is ultimately what it comes down to.

 

[WebGuru]

Agreed. Interestingly the Aussies never really rated Pollock, because they were the best team at the time and when Pollock came up against them he was never really up to the task. If you look at his career bowling stats, his performance reduced enormously against the Aussies. And to be the best, you have to beat the best. That is ultimately what it comes down to.

soso_killer is not going to agree with you he rejected this argument from me in another thread where i mentioned that Kallis performance against the #1 Test team of his era was not that good when you compare it to IK performance against the #1 Test team of his era...

 

[Jo_Don]

Maybe that is just that person's opinion? Visit the other cricket nations and their grounds, speak to fans and tour guides. Many people from across the globe rate Sobers highly, perhaps even the highest of all. It isn't a conspiracy against South Africa. Sobers is generally considered a legend of cricket.

Because his name is generally thrown about. People are often sheep who lack the ability to think for themselves.

Nobody is claiming a conspiracy against South Africa, just that English people, on this forum at least, won't hesitate to pick the other guy, and then come up with various different criteria to suit their particular argument.

 

[Jo_Don]

soso_killer is not going to agree with you he rejected this argument from me in another thread where i mentioned that Kallis performance against the #1 Test team of his era was not that good when you compare it to IK performance against the #1 Test team of his era...

This particular argument fails because if you are the best, then what criteria is used to measure your performance? How do we measure guys like Warne, McGrath, Viv and Marshall? They each had a bogey country, but that doesn't diminish their stature.

 

[WebGuru]

This particular argument fails because if you are the best, then what criteria is used to measure your performance? How do we measure guys like Warne, McGrath, Viv and Marshall? They each had a bogey country, but that doesn't diminish their stature.

Why more value is given when you perform against the top bowling/batting attack of that era? For example against Australia...If a batsman can survive and score against the combination of Mcgrath+Warne+Gillispie/Lee is it equal to the performance against all other bowling attacks of that era?

 

[soso_killer]

soso_killer is not going to agree with you he rejected this argument from me in another thread where i mentioned that Kallis performance against the #1 Test team of his era was not that good when you compare it to IK performance against the #1 Test team of his era...

Kallis still averaged 48 with the bat in Australia between 95 and 06 (when the likes of McGrath were playing) so i'm not sure whats your point.
This line of argument is also flawed because for a number 1 side in the world there will be a deputy i.e. the best opposition the #1 side can play against and South Africa were pretty much #2. McGrath was ordinary against us. Does that mean we should not rate him. What about Warne? India were the best players of spin and had a woeful record there.
So when do we stop exacty?

 

[WebGuru]

Kallis still averaged 48 with the bat in Australia between 95 and 06 (when the likes of McGrath were playing) so i'm not sure whats your point.
This line of argument is also flawed because for a number 1 side in the world there will be a deputy i.e. the best opposition the #1 side can play against and South Africa were pretty much #2. McGrath was ordinary against us. Does that mean we should not rate him. What about Warne? India were the best players of spin and had a woeful record there.
So when do we stop exacty?

We are discussing all rounder abilities here so what about Kallis bowling average of 42 against Australia in Australia? His best figures in Australia are 3/82 in a match SR 80 and that too after bowling in 22 test innings got 21 wickets. I think for you every other method got flaws except one which you used (calculating runs and wickets in won matches no matter which era it is for you draws don't count) if we use this method thn Ponting is one of the greatest match winner in the history of cricket with his 68%+ runs in won matches while Gavaskar got only 17% runs in won matches.

 

[soso_killer]

We are discussing all rounder abilities here so what about Kallis bowling average of 42 against Australia in Australia? His best figures in Australia are 3/82 in a match SR 80 and that too after bowling in 22 test innings got 21 wickets. I think for you every other method got flaws except one which you used (calculating runs and wickets in won matches no matter which era it is for you draws don't count) if we use this method thn Ponting is one of the greatest match winner in the history of cricket with his 68%+ runs in won matches while Gavaskar got only 17% runs in won matches.

i still dont get your point though. Its not as if IK was averaging in the 50's with the bat against the Windies either. An average of 27 is nothing really. So what is your point?
For argument sake lets say IK averaged 60 against the Windies with the bat and 15 with the ball. Now if he was mediocre against everyone else do his performances against 1 side make up for it?
I just dont get this line of argument and makes zero sense to me

 

[WebGuru]

i still dont get your point though. Its not as if IK was averaging in the 50's with the bat against the Windies either. An average of 27 is nothing really. So what is your point?
For argument sake lets say IK averaged 60 against the Windies with the bat and 15 with the ball. Now if he was mediocre against everyone else do his performances against 1 side make up for it?
I just dont get this line of argument and makes zero sense to me

just like i don't understand your argument of wickets and runs in won matches it is only degrading many high quality batsmen of 80s because most of their runs are in draws.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

[soso_killer]

just like i don't understand your argument of wickets and runs in won matches it is only degrading many high quality batsmen of 80s because most of their runs are in draws.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

it makes more sense than a performance against a single opposition.
If you have 60% of your wickets and 47% of runs in wins you are simply a clutch player.
A draw can be admirable dont get me wrong, but it lives to many questions in mind, was it a flat pitch and what not. Look at Faf's innings in Australia a very good knock under pressure too, which altered the course of a series. But a cynic could argue that any quality bat with good mental character should have been able to apply themselves on that surface. I think Australia were 550 all out, thats 55 runs per wicket. And then South Africa were bowled out for 380 IIRC, thats 38 runs per wicket. So that was not a low scoring game either. How many draws have we had when both teams we bowled out under 200 in their 1st innings for example?
A win on any surface is incredible. Now when you take into account that we keep on getting told pitches are flat as pancakes these days then we should admire the current generation for winning games in such circumstances.
Look at the Oval pitch last year between South Africa and England for example, the pitch was literaly an international airport. So for South Africa to pull a victory in such conditions against that quaility side is commendable, and i'm sure this English team would be in the top 3 in the 80's even Holding has said numerous times that this is the best English side since that of 71. So we cant accuse them of being weak either.

 

[bill_123]

I don't rate Pollock dat highly...seen him play a lot and never found him special or anything...he was very good at best for me

 

[WebGuru]

it makes more sense than a performance against a single opposition.
If you have 60% of your wickets and 47% of runs in wins you are simply a clutch player.
A draw can be admirable dont get me wrong, but it lives to many questions in mind, was it a flat pitch and what not. Look at Faf's innings in Australia a very good knock under pressure too, which altered the course of a series. But a cynic could argue that any quality bat with good mental character should have been able to apply themselves on that surface. I think Australia were 550 all out, thats 55 runs per wicket. And then South Africa were bowled out for 380 IIRC, thats 38 runs per wicket. So that was not a low scoring game either. How many draws have we had when both teams we bowled out under 200 in their 1st innings for example?
A win on any surface is incredible. Now when you take into account that we keep on getting told pitches are flat as pancakes these days then we should admire the current generation for winning games in such circumstances.
Look at the Oval pitch last year between South Africa and England for example, the pitch was literaly an international airport. So for South Africa to pull a victory in such conditions against that quaility side is commendable, and i'm sure this English team would be in the top 3 in the 80's even Holding has said numerous times that this is the best English side since that of 71. So we cant accuse them of being weak either.

I respect your opinion and you got some good points about pitches but even if we leave batsmen of 80s and apply it to batsmen who batted in 00s or 90s it's still looking unfair for example because Australia was winning most of the Test match while WI was losing most the matches so Martyn with his 69% runs in won matches looks better thn Lara with his 25% runs in won matches...

 

[soso_killer]

I respect your opinion and you got some good points about pitches but even if we leave batsmen of 80s and apply it to batsmen who batted in 00s or 90s it's still looking unfair for example because Australia was winning most of the Test match while WI was losing most the matches so Martyn with his 69% runs in won matches looks better thn Lara with his 25% runs in won matches...

no we cant compare Australia and the Windies, common sense surely has to prevail. Australia were the best side in the world and Windies were in a decline. Pakistan was the number 2 side in the 80's and so was South Africa for most part of Kallis' career.
I dont mind coming up with a few adjustments here and there, but your line of arguments have been all over the place, it was draws, then performances against the best side of your era, and now Windies and Australia. You've been clutching at straws really.

I said from the begging in the other thread that comparison between these two does not make any sense as they are different type of players with different roles. To say one can not be mentioned in the same breath as the other is out of joint, which was what made me reply in that thread in the 1st place.
Stats show that Kallis is a match winner atleast no one will ever take that away from him.

 

[WebGuru]

I said from the begging in the other thread that comparison between these two does not make any sense as they are different type of players with different roles. To say one can not be mentioned in the same breath as the other is out of joint, which was what made me reply in that thread in the 1st place.
Stats show that Kallis is a match winner atleast no one will ever take that away from him.

I also mentioned same in that thread that we can't compare them because 2 different eras 2 different type of allrounders...But thn there was your posts with that less thn 1000 runs argument from which this debate started:

That's the point i think we can't compare them because both are different type all rounders...

About your other point that IK didn't score more thn 1000 runs in won matches you also need to realize that only 657 of his runs are in lost matches which means with his bat he also helped in saving matches and as a Test fan all of us know that in some situations a draw is equal to win...

 

[Yossarian]

No I was having a go at the drivel spouted in the name of worshipping at the altar that is Sobers, yet the same criteria is rarely used to rate Kallis. It's always the case whenever a South African player is compared in some hypothetical scenario - there's always some reason or excuse why somebody else was better.

What a load of tripe.

For what it's worth, I reckon that Mike Procter would have been amongst the great all-rounders had his career not been curtailed due to Apartheid.

He took 41 wickets and scored 226 runs in only 7 Test matches, all against the might Australians.

Similarly, Barry Richards one of the most elegant batsmen I have ever seen (on tv in county games), would have been amongst the all-time greats. He only played 4 Tests, all against Australia, and scored over 500 runs at an average of over 72.

And don't forget Sean Pollocks uncle, Graeme Pollock, who scored 2250 run in only 23 matches, at an average of over 60, with all matches played only against Australia or England.

 

[Robert]

Hadlee-lite seems appropriate for Pollock.

Still really good, though.

 

[Robert]

Because his name is generally thrown about. People are often sheep who lack the ability to think for themselves.

Nobody is claiming a conspiracy against South Africa, just that English people, on this forum at least, won't hesitate to pick the other guy, and then come up with various different criteria to suit their particular argument.

Only when we think "the other guy" is better.

Our perception is that Sobers was champion of champions, murdered all-comers, took games by the scruff and shook them until their teeth rattled, while Kallis has been a sort of ghost in the SA side who merely accumulates statistics without having any real impact on games.

 

[Jo_Don]

What a load of tripe.

For what it's worth, I reckon that Mike Procter would have been amongst the great all-rounders had his career not been curtailed due to Apartheid.

He took 41 wickets and scored 226 runs in only 7 Test matches, all against the might Australians.

Similarly, Barry Richards one of the most elegant batsmen I have ever seen (on tv in county games), would have been amongst the all-time greats. He only played 4 Tests, all against Australia, and scored over 500 runs at an average of over 72.

And don't forget Sean Pollocks uncle, Graeme Pollock, who scored 2250 run in only 23 matches, at an average of over 60, with all matches played only against Australia or England.

No need to get defensive, I wasn't referring to you, Pakistanis or Indians in general.

 

[Jo_Don]

Only when we think "the other guy" is better.

Our perception is that Sobers was champion of champions, murdered all-comers, took games by the scruff and shook them until their teeth rattled, while Kallis has been a sort of ghost in the SA side who merely accumulates statistics without having any real impact on games.

Well then it's simply a perception as you say, as you haven't followed enough of his career until arguably recent times. But then by this criteria, how much of Sobers have you seen live? Especially when his bowling has been called into question? This is the sort of double standard that I'm referring to - stats and word of mouth are suitable when it suits one side of the argument, but not the other side.

 

[soso_killer]

Only when we think "the other guy" is better.

Our perception is that Sobers was champion of champions, murdered all-comers, took games by the scruff and shook them until their teeth rattled, while Kallis has been a sort of *ghost* in the SA side who merely *accumulates statistics without having any real impact on games*.

seriously? Did you watch Kallis in 98 against Ambrore, Walsh and Dillon? What about in India 2000?

Its funny how Kallis is a copy and paste type player. Its like his numbers come from a spreadsheet or something.

And i see you always run away regarding Kallis' bowling. His best figures are against your lot, and i'm sure you wont start to reply now either as that kills your argument.

 

[Robert]

Well then it's simply a perception as you say, as you haven't followed enough of his career until arguably recent times. But then by this criteria, how much of Sobers have you seen live? Especially when his bowling has been called into question? This is the sort of double standard that I'm referring to - stats and word of mouth are suitable when it suits one side of the argument, but not the other side.

Sobey retired about seven years before I started watching cricket. My mate can remember him making Snow and Underwood look rubbish in county matches.

It's interesting that his bowling has only recently been called into question, by the Imranistas and Kallistines. In the eighties, the four great allrounders all considered him the champ, even Imran.

Kallis is most directly comparable with Hammond and Sobers - all averaged 50-odd with the bat, all were competent change bowlers, all brilliant slip-catchers. Of the three I'd say the bowling pecking order goes Sobers (left arm fast) > Kallis > Hammond.

Of the three I'd always pick the Bajan because he was the most dominating batter, and gave the most flexibility with the ball, opening the bowling or acting as second spinner to Valentine and Gibbs.

seriously? Did you watch Kallis in 98 against Ambrore, Walsh and Dillon? What about in India 2000?

No. Tell me about that.

Its funny how Kallis is a copy and paste type player. Its like his numbers come from a spreadsheet or something.

And i see you always run away regarding Kallis' bowling. His best figures are against your lot, and i'm sure you wont start to reply now either as that kills your argument.

No I don't - I called him a competent test fourth seamer just yesterday.

And not at all. Anyone would expect him to do well in the home of swing and seam. But if you take out his minnowbashing stats, those big overall numbers don't look so big. Sobers on the other hand couldn't be bothered against the minnows of his day.

 

[Jo_Don]

Sobey retired about seven years before I started watching cricket. My mate can remember him making Snow and Underwood look rubbish in county matches.

It's interesting that his bowling has only recently been called into question, by the Imranistas and Kallistines. In the eighties, the four great allrounders all considered him the champ, even Imran.

Kallis is most directly comparable with Hammond and Sobers - all averaged 50-odd with the bat, all were competent change bowlers, all brilliant slip-catchers. Of the three I'd say the bowling pecking order goes Sobers (left arm fast) > Kallis > Hammond.

Of the three I'd always pick the Bajan because he was the most dominating batter, and gave the most flexibility with the ball, opening the bowling or acting as second spinner to Valentine and Gibbs.

Well then you're going on word of mouth and applying two different sets of criteria to two different players. I would hardly call that enough to form an informed opinion. The best answer is either I don't know because I've never seen Player X play, or Player Y is the best I've seen play.

You can't call one a stats monster, but at the same time try and use stats to prove your point for another. Even you would have to agree with this.

 

[soso_killer]

No. Tell me about that.

why should i bother? you've clearly shown that you've been posting on stuff you have zero knowledge of.

No I don't - I called him a competent test fourth seamer just yesterday.

And not at all. Anyone would expect him to do well in the home of swing and seam. But if you take out his minnowbashing stats, those big overall numbers don't look so big. Sobers on the other hand couldn't be bothered against the minnows of his day.

thats funny coz India were rubbish during his era, go take a look at his numbers against them.

 

[James]

No need to get defensive, I wasn't referring to you, Pakistanis or Indians in general.

Aha, so when a third party destabilises your redundant hypotheses then you back off without a reply.

 

[majiz]

lol no way.

maybe the third best all-rounder born in SA, ever.

 

[Random Aussie]

Interested to see this thread have two pages....

To the OP. No. Nowhere near it.

 

[Torborg]

I never thought as highly about Pollock as his stats suggested. I'd see him beat up on the weaker teams, then pose little threat against the Australians in their prime. Overrated IMO.

 

[Dark Magician]

Wow kallistines? I for one acknowledge that Imran, Botham, Sobers, Kapil and Hadlee were very good players. But why is it that when it is south african players excuses are made to belitle their achievements? You have people calling Kallis a stats monster yet in this generation not a single player has achieved what he has even by playing selfishly as we are led to believe. As for Pollock, not a single South African will shoot of their mouth and say he was the best there was but we sure do appreciate his overral contribution to South Africa.

Often stats are used to raise a profile of others and deminish those that are defenceless on forums such as this one. Arguments such as saying that kallis and Pollock failed against Australia have holes that are waved away by their proponents. Warne was not world class against the indians does that make him not an ATG?

 

[Scrolln]

Wow kallistines? I for one acknowledge that Imran, Botham, Sobers, Kapil and Hadlee were very good players. But why is it that when it is south african players excuses are made to belitle their achievements? You have people calling Kallis a stats monster yet in this generation not a single player has achieved what he has even by playing selfishly as we are led to believe. As for Pollock, not a single South African will shoot of their mouth and say he was the best there was but we sure do appreciate his overral contribution to South Africa.

Often stats are used to raise a profile of others and deminish those that are defenceless on forums such as this one. Arguments such as saying that kallis and Pollock failed against Australia have holes that are waved away by their proponents. Warne was not world class against the aussies does that make him not an ATG?

Warne has an extremely poor record against India, who were the best players of spin during most of his playing years.

I have always believed that had Kallis been Indian, Pakistani, Aussie or English, people would already be talking about him as the greatest player since Bradman, or even better.

 

[Dark Magician]

Warne has an extremely poor record against India, who were the best players of spin during most of his playing years.

I have always believed that had Kallis been Indian, Pakistani, Aussie or English, people would already be talking about him as the greatest player since Bradman, or even better.

exactly my point. No one would dare say Warne was not an ATG yet we all know how he fared against the INDIANS. everyone has favourate players sure, but let us not take our personal beliefs and make them fact.

 

[Random Aussie]

exactly my point. No one would dare say Warne was not an ATG yet we all know how he fared against the INDIANS. everyone has favourate players sure, but let us not take our personal beliefs and make them fact.

You are missing the point by a fair way. Its not that Pollock failed against Australia specifically, it is that when his team was playing off to be the best in the world (which happened to be against Australia) he was not able to raise his game and win the matches that matter for his team.

And that is why Imran, Botham, Kapil, Sobers, Hadlee are rated higher than him and rightly so.

It has nothing to do with Australia, so the Warne analogy is not correct. Before us was the WI who Imran took on, who Kapil took on, Hadlee dragged a minnow cricket team up to beating the major cricket nations, Botham almost singlehandedly won an Ashes for England, Sobers feats are well known. What did Pollock do? Bowled a foot outside off stump whe the heat was on.

 

[vicky_iisc]

You are missing the point by a fair way. Its not that Pollock failed against Australia specifically, it is that when his team was playing off to be the best in the world (which happened to be against Australia) he was not able to raise his game and win the matches that matter for his team.

What do you have to say about Warne analogy.. wasn't his team looking to conquer the final frontier India ? India was certainly an inferior side than Aus.. but still that was a job unfinished. A spinner is to be judged against the best players of spin.

Now don't jump on me that I brought India into it..

 

[Dark Magician]

You are missing the point by a fair way. Its not that Pollock failed against Australia specifically, it is that when his team was playing off to be the best in the world (which happened to be against Australia) he was not able to raise his game and win the matches that matter for his team.

And that is why Imran, Botham, Kapil, Sobers, Hadlee are rated higher than him and rightly so.

It has nothing to do with Australia, so the Warne analogy is not correct. Before us was the WI who Imran took on, who Kapil took on, Hadlee dragged a minnow cricket team up to beating the major cricket nations, Botham almost singlehandedly won an Ashes for England Sobers feats are well known. What did Pollock do? Bowled a foot outside off stump whe the heat was on.

I hear your point but then why is it not the same as Warne being tamed by the best players of spin? The Indians were not the best team in that period but they were very good against spin and warne's record is ordinary. but for mine he is an ATG. Pollock did well against all the other teams did he not? but anyway let us agree to disagree. To answer the OP no, Pollock is not the best allrounder ever.IMO.

 

[Random Aussie]

What do you have to say about Warne analogy.. wasn't his team looking to conquer the final frontier India ? India was certainly an inferior side than Aus.. but still that was a job unfinished. A spinner is to be judged against the best players of spin.

Now don't jump on me that I brought India into it..

We did conquer the final frontier and Warne was there, he bowled well in that series.

India put a lot of time into combating Warne, and they came out on top. Kudos to them.

 

[Random Aussie]

I hear your point but then why is it not the same as Warne being tamed by the best players of spin? The Indians were not the best team in that period but they were very good against spin and warne's record is ordinary. but for mine he is an ATG. Pollock did well against all the other teams did he not? but anyway let us agree to disagree. To answer the OP no, Pollock is not the best allrounder ever.IMO.

Well Warne was a major part of us being the top side, and won us countless games when it mattered. India got the better of him, no doubt. Its similar but its not the same.

 

[vicky_iisc]

We did conquer the final frontier and Warne was there, he bowled well in that series.

India put a lot of time into combating Warne, and they came out on top. Kudos to them.

Do not want to get started with India here, but I don't think India put lot of time to get on top of Warne, I feel Indians play leg spin well naturally, Lax, Tendulkar both are masters at it, and others weren't far behind.

Anyway, this is about Pollock and not India.

 

[Robert]

Wow kallistines? I for one acknowledge that Imran, Botham, Sobers, Kapil and Hadlee were very good players. But why is it that when it is south african players excuses are made to belitle their achievements?

Don't generalise without need. Not "South African players" - just Kallis. And not "excuses" - analyses. All the allrounders have dents in their figures. Botham did little against WI, for instance.

But the Tribe of Kallistines are unwilling to accept critical thought about their man - it's akin to religious fervour.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Don't generalise without need. Not "South African players" - just Kallis. And not "excuses" - analyses. All the allrounders have dents in their figures. Botham did little against WI, for instance.

But the Tribe of Kallistines are unwilling to accept critical thought about their man - it's akin to religious fervour.

Robert, since when have you been watching cricket closely ? Must be more than 30 years?

As an aside, how do you rate Chris Cairns as an allrounder ?

 

[Jo_Don]

Don't generalise without need. Not "South African players" - just Kallis. And not "excuses" - analyses. All the allrounders have dents in their figures. Botham did little against WI, for instance.

But the Tribe of Kallistines are unwilling to accept critical thought about their man - it's akin to religious fervour.

Sorry bud, but all i see here is another excuse. On the one hand Kallis is criticised for not having been at his best against the best team of his era, but on the other it's ok that Botham didn't. Because well, Botham almost won an Ashes series singlehandedly, against an average Aussie team. Just another double standard.

 

[Dark Magician]

Don't generalise without need. Not "South African players" - just Kallis. And not "excuses" - analyses. All the allrounders have dents in their figures. Botham did little against WI, for instance.

But the Tribe of Kallistines are unwilling to accept critical thought about their man - it's akin to religious fervour.

nonsense is not analyses especially when its sprouted willy nilly. i stand by my point that if Kallis or Pollock were Australian, English, indian or Pakistani, they would be more respected for their perfomances. And for the record i really don't care if Kallis is rated highly by you or anyone for that matter, my issue is when people cherry pick stats to suit their arguments and when that does not work they come with stuff such as charisma, captaincy material, flair and that stuff. As for calling people kallistines? wow that is classy eh?SMH

 

[Dark Magician]

Sorry bud, but all i see here is another excuse. On the one hand Kallis is criticised for not having been at his best against the best team of his era, but on the other it's ok that Botham didn't. Because well, Botham almost won an Ashes series singlehandedly, against an average Aussie team. Just another double standard.

Botham is English hence Robert is willing to "analyse" his perfomances differently. simple as that.

 

[saeedhk]

Kallis>>>>>>>>Pollock.

 

[soso_killer]

Well Warne was a major part of us being the top side, and won us countless games when it mattered. India got the better of him, no doubt. Its similar but its not the same.

no this is nonsense, Pollock "was a major part of us being the #2 side". Its easy to forget that South Africa never had the middle order to compete with that Aussie team. What is Warne's excuses against India? Australia had the line up to pile the runs, and a bowling attack to bowl sides out in any conditions.
So judging by your logic you cant rate Warne as he failed against the best players of spin, or McGrath who was pretty much mediocre against South Africa with a strike rate of 70.

 

[Buffet]

Pollock was a very good all rounder but certainly not the best. Kallis is better so he is not even the best in SA.

 

[Robert]

Sorry bud, but all i see here is another excuse. On the one hand Kallis is criticised for not having been at his best against the best team of his era, but on the other it's ok that Botham didn't. Because well, Botham almost won an Ashes series singlehandedly, against an average Aussie team. Just another double standard.

JD, I just made a criticism of Botham's record, so there is quite plainly no double standard being upheld.

 

[Random Aussie]

Do not want to get started with India here, but I don't think India put lot of time to get on top of Warne, I feel Indians play leg spin well naturally, Lax, Tendulkar both are masters at it, and others weren't far behind.

Anyway, this is about Pollock and not India.

You should check the old articles about the preparation Tendulkar put in prior to the 1998series. They do play leg spin well anyway but its not like they just rocked up, had a look at a few balls from Warne and then belted him. But yes, your point is taken about the thread

 

[Random Aussie]

no this is nonsense, Pollock "was a major part of us being the #2 side". Its easy to forget that South Africa never had the middle order to compete with that Aussie team. What is Warne's excuses against India? Australia had the line up to pile the runs, and a bowling attack to bowl sides out in any conditions.
So judging by your logic you cant rate Warne as he failed against the best players of spin, or McGrath who was pretty much mediocre against South Africa with a strike rate of 70.

Perhaps one day you might learn to have a civilised debate with someone else. I look forward to chatting with you when that day comes. Saffers in general need to chill out, way too aggressive.

 

[Random Aussie]

nonsense is not analyses especially when its sprouted willy nilly. i stand by my point that if Kallis or Pollock were Australian, English, indian or Pakistani, they would be more respected for their perfomances. And for the record i really don't care if Kallis is rated highly by you or anyone for that matter, my issue is when people cherry pick stats to suit their arguments and when that does not work they come with stuff such as charisma, captaincy material, flair and that stuff. As for calling people kallistines? wow that is classy eh?SMH

Thats just South African insecurity. Kallis is rightfully lauded as one of the greatest players of all time, and so is Dale Steyn. So was Allan Donald. And so are Barry Richards and Peter Pollock.

Pollock is not because the stats flatter his impact on games.

 

[justarslan]

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.



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.

Was not his action suspect?

 

[Anfield]

Took only 2 five wicket hauls in latter part of his career. From 2002 to 2008 there were only 2 five wickets hauls which came in 2003. Shows he didn't run through the sides. His numbers are still very good though.

 

[Robert]

Was not his action suspect?

Some said that he pinged the ball.

 

[amax]

many Pakistanis rate Kallis on par with Imran. This is a public forum so you will see different views.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Shaun Pollock is certainly one of the best allrounders, but certainly not the best.my problem with him is he was not an impact player, i mean it we take his batting, he just contributed some useful runs in the company of lower order in a consistant manner . his str: rate shows this.but not some body who could turn the tide completely in his teams favour when the chips were down.his bowling too bears similarity to his batting.i also feel Allan Donald 's mammoth presence helped him immensely.Had Donald not been there to company him in bowling, i doubt he would have the bowling figures , as it actually turned out to be.this is one main point why i feel a bowler like Pollock is slightly over rated where as some one like Kapil Dev is under rated. but i would definitely give marks to his longevity though.another point is as earlier pointed out he was relatively poor against the best team of his era.this is not a huge draw back in itself, but it certainly is one factor that stands against him like Ian botham. Definitely some one who falls in the fab four category from the 80s.

 

[IcedEarth]

You should check the old articles about the preparation Tendulkar put in prior to the 1998series. They do play leg spin well anyway but its not like they just rocked up, had a look at a few balls from Warne and then belted him. But yes, your point is taken about the thread

As I heard, the onus of belting Warne out of the attack was with Sidhu and Azhar. Sidhu's style was to run down the wicket nd play against spin, while Azar's was to flick Warne through midwicket. Then came SRTs and others. Sidhu and Azhar took Warne off the scruff of the neck, that dented his confidence for next one and half decades.

 

[Buffet]

As I heard, the onus of belting Warne out of the attack was with Sidhu and Azhar. Sidhu's style was to run down the wicket nd play against spin, while Azar's was to flick Warne through midwicket. Then came SRTs and others. Sidhu and Azhar took Warne off the scruff of the neck, that dented his confidence for next one and half decades.

Actually, SRT prepared a lot for Warne and dominated him. I don't think Warne confidence was dented. Indians play spin better anyway and in this case they had extra plans for Warne.

 

[amax]

As I heard, the onus of belting Warne out of the attack was with Sidhu and Azhar. Sidhu's style was to run down the wicket nd play against spin, while Azar's was to flick Warne through midwicket. Then came SRTs and others. Sidhu and Azhar took Warne off the scruff of the neck, that dented his confidence for next one and half decades.

This seems an overstatement if Saleem Malik's innings at rawalpindi 1994(rated by wisden as top 20 of all time) cannot dent his confidence than nothing can.

 

[Scrolln]

This seems an overstatement if Saleem Malik's innings at rawalpindi 1994(rated by wisden as top 20 of all time) cannot dent his confidence than nothing can.

Although Salim Malik's innings was a gem, Warne bowled pretty decently during that match, finishing at 56-0 in 25 overs at an econ of 2.24. Whereas in the Australia tour of India in 1998, Warne ended up with figures like 122-1 in Chennai where Sachin took on him and 0-147 in Bangalore where Azhar scored a brilliant hundred.

 

[vicky_iisc]

You should check the old articles about the preparation Tendulkar put in prior to the 1998series. They do play leg spin well anyway but its not like they just rocked up, had a look at a few balls from Warne and then belted him. But yes, your point is taken about the thread

That's true.. however it was the first time he was playing Warne in a Test series, so naturally he would prepare well..

I am saying in general Indians didn't lose sleep over Warne .. they did against McGrath and Gillespie.

 

[Scrolln]

That's true.. however it was the first time he was playing Warne in a Test series at home, so naturally he would prepare well..

I am saying in general Indians didn't lose sleep over Warne .. they did against McGrath and Gillespie.

Fixed

I think they came face to face in Sydney 1992, where Sachin and Ravi Shastri scored tons.

Of course, Warne wasn't a superstar then.

 

[Justcrazy]

Pollock is a far better bowler than

Pollock bowling is better than Kapil / Bottham.

His batting is effective down the order but not having the impact of Kapil / bottham.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Fixed

I think they came face to face in Sydney 1992, where Sachin and Ravi Shastri scored tons.

Of course, Warne wasn't a superstar then.

Yes.. he was playing Warne the star for the first time.. .. in 92, he wouldn't have even known or seen him play coz he debuted in the series itself.. so no point mentioning that..

Thanks for fixing the sentence, though I knew it but didn't mention 92 intentionally, o/w it would have created another angle, that Warne wasn't in the scene then.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I always wonder why Shaun Pollock is so criminally underrated by fans and experts. His stats are pretty terrific for a bowling allrounder. Actually as a bowler alone, he should be up there and when you consider his leadership qualities and batting performances at crucial moments, he's probably been even more valuable than Kallis to RSA and stands alongside some of the finest cricketers ever.

 

[Energetic]

Current players right now that look likely to beat it:-

Afridi - 10447 runs and 503 wickets - only need another 197 wickets
Jadeja - 1978 runs and 177 wickets - only 25 years old
Shakib - 6865 runs and 337 wickets - only 27 years old

 

[Bhaijaan]

^

All 3 of them combined don't make a Shaun Pollock.

 

[Energetic]

^

All 3 of them combined don't make a Shaun Pollock.

Pollock was a rubbish ODI batsman.

 

[Robert]

I always wonder why Shaun Pollock is so criminally underrated by fans and experts.

He was in the shadow of the more charismatic and scary Donald.

The Aussies don't rate him because he was less effective in their country but most players have a dip against someone.

I think he was a top player and could have carried on longer than he did. He might have worked harder on his batting as he lost a yard of pace.

 

[soso_killer]

Lol, was about to post not even the best South African "ever".
But it seems i participated a lot in this thread (after a few strolls down the page) previously and I don't even recollect.

 

[Buffet]

Pollock was a rubbish ODI batsman.

Not rubbish for an all rounder. He occupied the top 3 spot as an all rounder pretty much his entire career.

 

[Mamoon]

Pollock is very underrated on this forum which is surprising because majority of the PPers have watched him play.

Terrific cricketer.

 

[mussu-100]

I recall Pollock and Vaas being my two favourite medium pacers while growing up, and Pollock is one of the greatest bowlers ever produced by South Africa.

But the answer is no. He may have a million runs to his name, but his impact as a batsman was never enough.

For me, Pollock was just a sublime bowler who could bat.

 

[Straight_Drive]

I recall Pollock and Vaas being my two favourite medium pacers while growing up, and Pollock is one of the greatest bowlers ever produced by South Africa.

But the answer is no. He may have a million runs to his name, but his impact as a batsman was never enough.

For me, Pollock was just a sublime bowler who could bat.

same was the case with imran khan....mediocre with the bat

 

[Anfield]

Pollock is underrated probably because he for 4-5 years he couldn't get a single 5-for. lost the ability to run through a side.

 

[Buffet]

Pollock is underrated probably because he for 4-5 years he couldn't get a single 5-for. lost the ability to run through a side.

That's a fair observation. He was a lot more penetrative earlier.

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah, fair point. Still an excellent bowler though, his control was probably third only to McGrath and Ambrose.

 

[Energetic]

Not rubbish for an all rounder. He occupied the top 3 spot as an all rounder pretty much his entire career.

Don't forget he bats way low down. Its no secret that the first 5 positions are the toughest to bat in Cricket due to fresh bowlers and newish ball. Whereas batsman from 6-11 face tired bowlers, old worn ball and no pressure since batting is not their job.

 

[Slog]

I think Pollock overachieved with the bat