Shaun Pollock's poor record in World Cups

[Majestic]

I was surprised to know but Shaun Pollock's performance in World Cup was pretty poor.

He played 31 matches in World Cups and has taken only 31 wickets at a bowling average of 31.

He played 4 World Cups but only had one notable performance i.e. in WC semifinal 1999 where he took 5/36 vs Australia but Donald bottled in the end. Apart from that inning, he doesn't have any notable performance against any opponent, minnow or not, in World cup.

Pollock is widely rated as ATG. So, does performance in World Cup really matters as much or it is just a misleading propoganda?

Discuss!

 

[Mercurial]

I am not sure about his ATG status. So far, Kallis and De Villiers are the two ATGs from RSA (among those whom I have watched play).

 

[SLcric123]

World Cup performance is not everything. It is a misleading propoganda.

 

[shaz619]

He performed in a high profile semi-final in the WC and that's more then enough for me and much better then bashing the likes of Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh

 

[Ab Fan]

The performance against Australia in semis in 1999 was an ATG performance.

So, he has an ATG performance in a WC knockout against the team that went on to become world champions. It is true that South Africa lost that match but he had no fault in that.

WC performance matters but not as much as posters bring out in PP.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

WC achievment is overrated as hell on PP. Smoth won't be a better ODI bat than Mike Hussey even though Smith has scored some WC runs. Overall ODI career matters most. Anyone's purple patch can coincide with WC. Mahmudullah isn't better ODI batsman than Mushfiqur or Tamim.

 

[Ab Fan]

I am not sure about his ATG status. So far, Kallis and De Villiers are the two ATGs from RSA (among those whom I have watched play).

He is an ATG in both formats and is widely regarded.

 

[Hasan123]

An ATG no doubt. If he performed more in WCs, he could have been rated higher.

 

[The_Odd_One]

What was his ER in those matches?

If it was under 4 then he did his job.

 

[Ab Fan]

What was his ER in those matches?

If it was under 4 then he did his job.

Pollock is generally rated higher than Donald in odis due to keeping things tight. I think in WC, it is 3.6 or something.

Donald, however, used to leak runs at times though but took more wickets than Pollock.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Pollock is generally rated higher than Donald in odis due to keeping things tight. I think in WC, it is 3.6 or something.

Donald, however, used to leak runs at times though but took more wickets than Pollock.

That's an unbelievable ER considering he played until 2007.

 

[sshakir411]

WC achievment is overrated as hell on PP. Smoth won't be a better ODI bat than Mike Hussey even though Smith has scored some WC runs. Overall ODI career matters most. Anyone's purple patch can coincide with WC. Mahmudullah isn't better ODI batsman than Mushfiqur or Tamim.

There's only one reason why so much weight is given to WC wins and why WC performance is brought up over and over again.....doesn't take a genius to figure it out if you've gone through a few threads

 

[Buffet]

I was surprised to know but Shaun Pollock's performance in World Cup was pretty poor.

He played 31 matches in World Cups and has taken only 31 wickets at a bowling average of 31.

Discuss!

Since 1995, All bowlers with 31 or higher wickets in WC



Number 1 bowler sorted by ER which is equally important as average if not more in ODI. Second best pacer in ER was McGrath near 4 ER. Not arguing that Pollock's performance was better than McGrath in WC, but putting pretty poor performance of Pollock in perspective here.

 

[Gubol123]

Since 1995, All bowlers with 31 or higher wickets in WC

View attachment 81162

Number 1 bowler sorted by ER which is equally important as average if not more in ODI. Second best pacer in ER was McGrath near 4 ER. Not arguing that Pollock's performance was better than McGrath in WC, but putting pretty poor performance of Pollock in perspective here.

it is pretty poor.. SA in his time was a great fielding side and conceded minimal runs in first few overs.. being an opening bowler he had to strike consistently. as can be see in the list you have provided he has the worst strike rate. It is even worse when you compare to players who had huge impact like Warne, Murali Vass, Kumble and of course Mcgrath. Opening bolwers like Zak, Vaas, Mcgrath, southee, malinga, etc struck nearly twice often as Pollock and their sides progressed well in the WCs. Most of these players took their teams to finals compared to Pollock who struggled to get any wickets.. His strike rate also looks good because of one very good outing. Otherwise it is even more bad with an average of around 36 and a strike rate of 60. that is pathetic for a front line bowler by any standard

 

[Buffet]

it is pretty poor.. SA in his time was a great fielding side and conceded minimal runs in first few overs.. being an opening bowler he had to strike consistently. as can be see in the list you have provided he has the worst strike rate. It is even worse when you compare to players who had huge impact like Warne, Murali Vass, Kumble and of course Mcgrath. Opening bolwers like Zak, Vaas, Mcgrath, southee, malinga, etc struck nearly twice often as Pollock and their sides progressed well in the WCs. Most of these players took their teams to finals compared to Pollock who struggled to get any wickets.. His strike rate also looks good because of one very good outing. Otherwise it is even more bad with an average of around 36 and a strike rate of 60. that is pathetic for a front line bowler by any standard

Off course his SR is poor otherwise with a good SR he would have been the best ODI bowler in WC history by a land slide with his ER. When all said and done, he gave 36 runs in 10 overs in WC. That's golden for a bowler playing till 2007. Criticizing him for not striking is one thing and totally ignoring runs in 10 overs is another.

You can surely say that he was not up to his usual standards and did worse than his career, but to call the best ER bowler as pretty poor because he averaged 31 instead of 26 doesn't look right to me. If he has averaging 26 instead of 31 with ER of 3.6, most will take it as a very good performance.

There is something between pretty good and pretty poor. Different fans may put him in different scale, but I don't see how he was pretty poor.