Shaun Pollock

[Cricketismylife]

FFS, stats are not the same as ability, something a lot of people on here seem incapable of understanding.

Yes, but ability and talent is meaningless when comparing players. I don't really care how many runs someone scores in the nets, or looks like scoring in the middle, I only care about how they actually score. Performance is what matters really and performances are measured by stats. Yes stats can be misleading, but they tend not to be over a long career.

What else is there to use apart from stats when comparing Lillee and Hadlee for example? Would you prefer to compare their moustaches or use of sledging vocab? If someone can find a reason for rating Lillee over Hadlee on bowling alone, (for example say Lillee took a much higher quality of wicket than Hadlee) then please tell me. I don't care what the experts say. These are the same experts that would have been watching the Ashes much more intently than NZ matches and hence are biased towards that. Also there are a lot more experts from Eng and Aus than NZ. Would be interesting to see how the ICC rankings rate Hadlee against Lillee, not just their peak rating but how consistent and high they stayed during their careers.

 

[The Sean]

Lillee (among others from the same era) is a tough one to judge on the ICC ratings, as he essentially had to make his climb twice after losing 200-odd points by playing WSC. It's difficult to tell what kind of rating he might have hit, or how his graph would look, if he'd picked up his Test career in '79 with the same rating that he left with in '77.

 

[Cricketismylife]

I am not sure where your aesthetics argument comes from since I don't mention it but I find it humorous that you bring up McGrath as a comparison because people tend to dismiss him because of how he got wickets as well - particularly when talking about his speed.

Anyway, you missed my point I feel. The touted point is that these two are underrated and should be spoken alongside Sobers and Imran. Purely in terms of dollars and cents, their stats, they should be. In terms of being great cricketers like the aforementioned I disagree a lot. SA were a very strong side and with, as is being argued, 2 players comparable to the top 5 in cricket history they have a lot to answer for; for never being #1 or really troubling the #1 of their time. This is when I mean people are taking their stats too far. If they were as good as is being argued then getting to the top should have been a realisable target. They didn't and hence they are appropriately rated IMO.

Not really, because cricket is a team with 11 players, and its obvious that Australia had more worldclass players than SA. We can start off with the fact that Australia had a superb spinner (you may have heard of him), while SA alternated between Symcox, Paul Adams and Nicky Boje.. Kallis and Pollock didnt perform their best against Aus, but still did ok. As has been said a million times, failiure to perform against or in certain countries didnt stop the likes of Warne, Ambrose, Murali and Ponting from being all time greats.

Mcgrath was Australia's best bowler by a clear enough margin, and has some case for being the greatest bowler of all time along with Barnes, Marshall, Ambrose and Murali. However Pollock as a player trumps Mcgrath; he isnt just underrated, he is ludicrously underrated.

Kallis versus Ponting is an even clearer cut case. While its hard to make a case for Pollock being a better bowler than Mcgrath, one could make a case for Kallis being a better batsman than Ponting. I'm still undecided on this one but probably shading Kallis on batting alone. Again once we take them as players Kallis definitely trumps Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

to be fair to RSA, the number one side of the period in which Kallis and Pollock played had way too many great players for any team to consistently challenge them.

I'd agree to an extent when Gilchrist and Hayden came onto the scene. In the 90s they could have done it. They didn't. India beat and drew against Australia; WI drew against Australia; England beat Australia; SL beat Australia; NZ drew against Australia...Kallis and Pollock's SA never even drew against Australia, nevermind beating them and they had better teams than the aforementioned above. I think my point stands.

When it comes to ODIs they have even less of an excuse.

 

[akilana]

I'd agree to an extent when Gilchrist and Hayden came onto the scene. In the 90s they could have done it. They didn't. India beat and drew against Australia; WI drew against Australia; England beat Australia; SL beat Australia; NZ drew against Australia...Kallis and Pollock's SA never even drew against Australia, nevermind beating them and they had better teams than the aforementioned above. I think my point stands.

This is like judging Warne based on his performance against India. Flawed.

 

[archie mac]

Top class but not great, however for a period had claims to being one of the top two bowlers in the world. I thought he could become flustered if the batsman went after him especially in ODIs.

Looked like he should have scored more runs, I seem to remember in scored a ton in a match that was a Test in everything but name against India.

Overall I agree with others that he was a level below the likes of Sobers, Miller and Kallis

 

[DDP]

What else is there to use apart from stats when comparing Lillee and Hadlee for example? Would you prefer to compare their moustaches or use of sledging vocab?.

 

[archie mac]

Yes, but ability and talent is meaningless when comparing players. I don't really care how many runs someone scores in the nets, or looks like scoring in the middle, I only care about how they actually score. Performance is what matters really and performances are measured by stats. Yes stats can be misleading, but they tend not to be over a long career.

What else is there to use apart from stats when comparing Lillee and Hadlee for example? Would you prefer to compare their moustaches or use of sledging vocab? If someone can find a reason for rating Lillee over Hadlee on bowling alone, (for example say Lillee took a much higher quality of wicket than Hadlee) then please tell me. I don't care what the experts say. These are the same experts that would have been watching the Ashes much more intently than NZ matches and hence are biased towards that. Also there are a lot more experts from Eng and Aus than NZ. Would be interesting to see how the ICC rankings rate Hadlee against Lillee, not just their peak rating but how consistent and high they stayed during their careers.

here we go again!

The part in bold says it all for me

 

[Jacknife]

Not sure it applies to everything! I see it as more of a general trend. For example, ESPN legends of cricket implies that Lillee was a better player than say Richard Hadlee or Imran Khan. How can that be the case? Even on pure bowling ability alone Hadlee/ Imran are equal if not better than Lillee statistically, and those 2 are much better bats. The reason this happened in this case is that Lillee was more aggressive than say Hadlee, and was a more explosive bowler, so was seen as more watchable. The second reason is that Hadlee played for a much smaller team than Lillee, and didn't have the same media attention on his matches as Lillee did. Lillee's, (fantastic bowler that he was) reputation certainly benefited from playing for Aus.
With Imran it's slightly different; he wasnt exactly media shy, but again the amount of public and general media that watched and took into account, test performances in Pakistan would have been far less than those in England and Australia.

Also the fact is it takes much longer for players outside these 2 countries and now India to become well known. Imagine if Vernon Philander was from any of these countries! After his performances, everyone would be talking about him. I'm surprised how little he is mentioned considering what he has done.

Why is Philip Hughes a household name but Tharanga Paranavitana not? Why are Warne's wickets against England who are poor players of spin seen as so special, but Murali's wickets at home often dismissed as easy home wickets? Why are there so many articles of cricinfo about Virat Kohli, but hardly any on Dinesh Chandimal? How did Ricky Ponting win player of the decade ahead of Jacques Kallis?

It may sound controversial, but it is clear that cricketers are not rated purely on performances, but on performances plus entertainment factor and media attention (which is heavily affected by the country that that player is from).

Where the bloody hell is Philip Hughes a house hold name, I mean seriously where. At a guess I'd say one is more famous in Australia and the other more famous in Sri Lanka.

There's probably more articles on Kohli than Chandimal because one's got god knows how many one day tons, averages over 50 and has been round quite a while and the others been around 5 minutes, I don't think that one's too hard to get my head round.

Not sure what your talking about as far as Warne and Murali goes, no one's ever said Warne's wickets against England have more value to them or anything like that. The only thing is they were taken in Ashes Series, so they tend to get remembered by the English and Australians and every time a series comes round they get talked about and clips are played on TV etc. The only thing they have going thing more than other wickets is bragging rights and that's because of the history that goes with the series, nothing more.

Why is it hard to understand that media in the Countries that you mention, pump up their own players, it's just the norm, you get it in every sport where there's a large media industry. Why not go and read more SA media and you'll see them hype their own players up as well.

By the way, Lillie's name gets brought up by all the best batmen in that generation he played in, as being the best around, maybe just maybe it isn't down to the media at all and players tend to get rated about right when their career is all done and dusted.

 

[unam]

Where the bloody hell is Philip Hughes a house hold name, I mean seriously where. At a guess I'd say one is more famous in Australia and the other more famous in Sri Lanka.

There's probably more articles on Kohli than Chandimal because one's got god knows how many one day tons, averages over 50 and has been round quite a while and the others been around 5 minutes, I don't think that one's too hard to get my head round.

Not sure what your talking about as far as Warne and Murali goes, no one's ever said Warne's wickets against England have more value to them or anything like that. The only thing is they were taken in Ashes Series, so they tend to get remembered by the English and Australians and every time a series comes round they get talked about and clips are played on TV etc. The only thing they have going thing more than other wickets is bragging rights and that's because of the history that goes with the series, nothing more.

Why is it hard to understand that media in the Countries that you mention, pump up their own players, it's just the norm, you get it in every sport where there's a large media industry. Why not go and read more SA media and you'll see them hype their own players up as well.

By the way, Lillie's name gets brought up by all the best batmen in that generation he played in, as being the best around, maybe just maybe it isn't down to the media at all and players tend to get rated about right when their career is all done and dusted.

Yes it is norm and that is why players like Pollock and Kallis are underrated not because of their ability or performance.

 

[NUFAN]

Yes it is norm and that is why players like Pollock and Kallis are underrated not because of their ability or performance.

For the last time they are not ****ing underrated. They both made the top 40 Cricketers of ALL TIME. Do you know how many Test Cricketers there have been, its an awesome achievement for the pair and they are rated accordingly. Kallis gets compared with the great Garry Sobers, Pollock gets looked upon more favourably than his uncle Graeme who was a helluva player.

If anything, both Pollock and Kallis are slightly overrated particularly on these forums.

 

[ankitj]

here we go again!

The part in bold says it all for me

I hope it does as well so that you won't post anymore smartass one liners and smilies.

Good debate so far IMO. Good points being made by both sides.

 

[vic_orthdox]

For the last time they are not ****ing underrated. They both made the top 40 Cricketers of ALL TIME. Do you know how many Test Cricketers there have been, its an awesome achievement for the pair and they are rated accordingly. Kallis gets compared with the great Garry Sobers, Pollock gets looked upon more favourably than his uncle Graeme who was a helluva player.

If anything, both Pollock and Kallis are slightly overrated particularly on these forums.

Where did Graeme come again, in this current countdown?

 

[NUFAN]

Graeme 38th, Shaun 35th.

 

[unam]

Graeme 38th, Shaun 35th.

who are rated above them?

 

[Arachnodouche]

Warne's better than Murali because he didn't throw the ****ing ball.

Ponting, off the top of my head, has more match-altering, initiative-grabbing innings than Kallis.

Pollock and McGrath may have been "similar" style of bowlers, but I can't be bothered to remember the number of times McGrath absolutely scythed through batting orders, in all conditions. Pollock..I'll get back to you on that.

 

[unam]

Warne's better than Murali because he didn't throw the ****ing ball.

Ponting, off the top of my head, has more match-altering, initiative-grabbing innings than Kallis.

Pollock and McGrath may have been "similar" style of bowlers, but I can't be bothered to remember the number of times McGrath absolutely scythed through batting orders, in all conditions. Pollock..I'll get back to you on that.

Why is Sachin rated so high? how many match-altering, initiative-grabbing innings does he have? and get over Murali throwing stuff, If he chucked he would have been banned by ICC.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Sachin's rated highly because a lot of Indians are jingoistic dickheads clutching at straws to satiate years of collectively repressed self-esteem. We even cite Kalpana Chawla, the American astronaut lady, as one of our own. Doesn't mean Sachin isn't an ATG, just trying to explain the hyperbole around him.

 

[unam]

Sachin's rated highly because a lot of Indians are jingoistic dickheads clutching at straws to satiate years of collectively repressed self-esteem. We even cite Kalpana Chawla, the American astronaut lady, as one of our own. Doesn't mean Sachin isn't an ATG, just trying to explain the hyperbole around him.

so you agree that people are not consistent when rating players?

 

[NUFAN]

who are rated above them?

Check the forum. If you are having troubles, use the search function.

Why is Sachin rated so high? how many match-altering, initiative-grabbing innings does he have? and get over Murali throwing stuff, If he chucked he would have been banned by ICC.

Sachin is still awesome, but you've just nailed the reason why I don't rate him quite as high as most do.

so you agree that people are not consistent when rating players?

Of course people are not always consistent. If everyone was consistent with the ratings we wouldn't bother having discussions, would we.