Shaun Pollock

[ankitj]

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.

Haha. I mentioned Kalpana Chawla as well in one of the threads to make the same point

 

[ankitj]

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.

Disagree on Warne and Murali. If ICC allows him to bowl, it's unfair to not rate him.

Between McGrath and Pollock, I will find it hard to rate Pollock higher despite being an all rounder. McGrath was just so much awesome for so long in so many different places and occasions, that I will still keep him ahead. Still feel Pollock is tad underrated.

Ponting and Kallis IMO are close enough as batsman for Kallis' bowling to tilt it in his favour. He is rated about right on this forum though.

 

[Rasimione]

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

Exactly my point all along. if people do not like the way he played the game, so be it, but to say he did not have match winning abilities is absolute nonsense. My argument also has stats as a fair assesment method. People say Lara was an ATG, but what good did it do for the WI? Should we downplay his perfomance because of how **** his mates were? Granted in the era when Polly was gun, the Aussies were the best, but we comparing a player and not the team and on that basis for me he should be mentioned allong the greats. Style of plaY is subjective and dare it say has a touch of biasness.

 

[unam]

Disagree on Warne and Murali. If ICC allows him to bowl, it's unfair to not rate him.

Between McGrath and Pollock, I will find it hard to rate Pollock higher despite being an all rounder. McGrath was just so much awesome for so long in so many different places and occasions, that I will still keep him ahead. Still feel Pollock is tad underrated.

Ponting and Kallis IMO are close enough as batsman for Kallis' bowling to tilt it in his favour. He is rated about right on this forum though.

Most people would rate McGrath higher as a PLAYER but the question is WHY? In test, Pollock has low 20s average against all nations except Australia. In ODI, his economy rate was 3.62 during 2000s when all the other bowlers were going for above 4.5 runs per over.

 

[Rasimione]

Most people would rate McGrath higher as a PLAYER but the question is WHY? In test, Pollock has low 20s average against all nations except Australia. In ODI, his economy rate was 3.62 during 2000s when all the other bowlers were going for above 4.5 runs per over.

This. Add the fact that he could bat and you have a very good case of people using gut feel and personal feelings to downplay the mans perfomances.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but ability and talent is meaningless when comparing players.

Read the bit I quoted, you started by saying compare their ability then said it was clear from stats - the 2 things are different which is what makes this forum a real drag at times, ****ing spreadsheet/statsguru warriors.

 

[archie mac]

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.

What ever

I didn't realise there were only two sides to this debate?

 

[Ruckus]

Disagree on Warne and Murali. If ICC allows him to bowl, it's unfair to not rate him.

.

Na, the ICC isn't the be all and end all in these discussions. There are so many problems that could come up with testing someone off the field, in a controlled environment. I find it hard to believe that people can look at footage and say Murali wasn't a chucker tbh. And I don't have an ulterior motive in saying this either, I don't even really like Warne, but he definately was the better bowler for me.

 

[Spark]

This. Add the fact that he could bat and you have a very good case of people using gut feel and personal feelings to downplay the mans perfomances.

Why is this such a massive problem, given that said people probably watched him play?

 

[Arachnodouche]

This. Add the fact that he could bat and you have a very good case of people using gut feel and personal feelings to downplay the mans perfomances.

I don't know what is "this" about those stats. McGrath took 150 odd wickets more at a lower strike rate and average. Not to mention, nobody in their right minds would pick Pollock ahead of Mcgrath to bowl for them.

 

[smash84]

Here are Pollock's bowling stats before 2004 - Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

318 wickets at under 21 is just phenomenal, and the record is wonderfully complete as well. Tellingly, he didn't take fiver in his next 30 tests post 2004 though.

wow.....that is indeed phenomenal

 

[Debris]

Most people would rate McGrath higher as a PLAYER but the question is WHY? In test, Pollock has low 20s average against all nations except Australia. In ODI, his economy rate was 3.62 during 2000s when all the other bowlers were going for above 4.5 runs per over.

ODIs after 2000

McGrath Average of 20.28 and econ rate of 3.78 and strike rate of 32.1

Pollock Average of 24.98 and econ rate of 3.62 and strike rate of 41.3

So there was at least one other bowler with an average under 4.5 and I would pick him ahead of Pollock based on those figures.

Edit: Muralitharan Econ rate of 3.78, average of 20.92 and strike rate of 33.1 so there is another. Gillespie econ rate of 4.12, Warne 4.39, Akram 4.13

 

[unam]

ODIs after 2000

McGrath Average of 20.28 and econ rate of 3.78 and strike rate of 32.1

Pollock Average of 24.98 and econ rate of 3.62 and strike rate of 41.3

So there was at least one other bowler with an average under 4.5 and I would pick him ahead of Pollock based on those figures.

Edit: Muralitharan Econ rate of 3.78, average of 20.92 and strike rate of 33.1 so there is another. Gillespie econ rate of 4.12, Warne 4.39, Akram 4.13

I am not trying to convince anyone to say that Pollock is better bowler then McGrath. What I am saying is that players from countries other than India, Eng and Aus are underrated. Pollock and Kallis are just examples, you can add Allan Donald too.

A lot of times players from other countries have slimier figures and performances to players from those three countries yet they are not rated as highly as players from those three countries.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha. I mentioned Kalpana Chawla as well in one of the threads to make the same point

I don't think Kalpana Chawla is suited to the point. She's mainly touted by the embarrassment that is the TOI (don't forget Govs Jindal and Haley). I doubt the man on the street has even heard of her.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Read the bit I quoted, you started by saying compare their ability then said it was clear from stats - the 2 things are different which is what makes this forum a real drag at times, ****ing spreadsheet/statsguru warriors.

My mistake. I should have said performances are reflected in stats. Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to assess who was more entertaining or who was better for the game. I'm trying to remove those factors and assess the player purely on how good they were.

 

[marc71178]

By ignoring testimony and any visual evidence and solely looking at stats.

 

[Cricketismylife]

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.

Maybe you should have watched some more tests that SA played especially in the first 2/3rds of his Pollock's career. Pollock didn't get his figures by magic, he just had an understated way of doing things. No arrogance or pre-match talk, no hype, just got on and did the job.

As for Kallis, I cant believe that people keep claiming he doesnt produce as many match-altering innings as Ponting. There are countless times he has set up a victory by making a first innings score/ top scored in a match, it isnt really his fault that you didnt watch or remember those performances. Just because a batsman scores slowly it doesnt necessarily mean he doesnt change a match. Test cricket is 5 days after all.

As for Murali no point arguing about that, no evidence to suggest that he chucks any more than the next man. Been tested many times, worn a cast etc, yes his arm could technically straighten in a match but so could any other bowler, for effort balls, so there's no way of fairly calling him a chucker.

 

[Cricketismylife]

By ignoring testimony and any visual evidence and solely looking at stats.

Well let's take Brian Lara who almost everyone including me loves to watch batting. If there was another player who scored exactly the same number of runs in each test at exactly the same speed as Lara did, but did so in a much less attractive fashion, I can guarantee that that player would be rated as lesser player than Lara.

My argument is that in terms of who is the better player, that hypothetical player and Lara should be equal. Of course everyone would insist Lara was better but in terms of pure performance and value to the team these 2 players are the same. One can only say that Lara is better from a watchability/entertainment point of view.

 

[Cricketismylife]

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.

Agree with bolded part completely, but my point still stands in that cricinfo and general cricket media seems to be dominated by England and Australia and now India more than the pther sides. Hence performances against these sides or between these sides are rated higher.

Phil Hughes is definetely better known and has more references on cricinfo etc than Paranavitana. It's not big issue in itself, its just a reflection of what I'm saying. Australia, England or India get a new opener and cricinfo has articles assessing them, their performances and techniques. For other countries it doesnt tend to happen like that.

You are right that Kohli deserves more analysis but not to that extent. He has had so many articles and attention on him as a future propsect, while I've not seen much on Chandimal at all. Again just an illustration.

As for Lilllee, if he had played for NZ and achieved exactly the same as what he did, he would obviously still be very highly regarded, but do you think it would be to the same level as he is now?

 

[ankitj]

As for Lilllee, if he had played for NZ and achieved exactly the same as what he did, he would obviously still be very highly regarded, but do you think it would be to the same level as he is now?

Pretty damn sure he wouldn't be. People here are oddly loath to acknowledge that possibility. Applies equally to case of Tendulkar if he was a Kiwi or some other nationality. To pretend that "expert opinion" can't be biased is plain wrong. That's "Argument from authority" and is fallacious.