Shaun Pollock

[Jacknife]

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

Not sure what consistent has to do with it, you rate who you rate. People from NZ might rate a few of their players more because they got brought up on there watching them more, same with people from SA or wherever. It's just human nature, everyone has some kind of in built bias, just from where they live, team they support etc.

Saying that when you look at the ATG players, they tend to get rated accurately and fairly, whether you agree with them surely that comes down to personal opinion.

I think there's a big difference between players getting column inches in their media and SA, NZ, SL players being underrated by people, can't see it personally.

Out of interest who from Aus, England and India get rated higher than they deserve?

 

[unam]

Not sure what consistent has to do with it, you rate who you rate. People from NZ might rate a few of their players more because they got brought up on there watching them more, same with people from SA or wherever. It's just human nature, everyone has some kind of in built bias, just from where they live, team they support etc.

Saying that when you look at the ATG players, they tend to get rated accurately and fairly, whether you agree with them surely that comes down to personal opinion.

I think there's a big difference between players getting column inches in their media and SA, NZ, SL players being underrated by people, can't see it personally.

Out of interest who from Aus, England and India get rated higher than they deserve?

By consistent I mean that people would ignore things for one player and not for other. so if 2 players A and B, both failed against the best team of their era, people would use that against player B and not against player A. Hope it makes it little clear.

 

[archie mac]

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?

When Lillee retired he was the world record holder for Test wickets and was rated by most whom faced him as the best fast bowler in the world. So I think he would have been remembered if he was say a Kiwi

Would he have been as revered as he is now? I agree perhaps not. Although Hadlee is well remembered as an all time great and he was from NZ .

I just find it annoying when people want to base everything on stats. Surely a player who is rated so highly by all those who play with or against him such as Lillee (not to mention by all those who watched him bowl), can not be sentenced to be below another bowler because he average is a couple of points lower? Especially when stats can be bent and distorted without too much effort.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Stats kill the romance of the game. Mark Waugh, to me, was the greatest, most talented Aussie batsman of the last twenty years, but his stats are distinctly average. I'm not saying aesthetics are the be all, but when you're talking about players who've achieved a significant amount over a sustained period of time, the approach needs to be more holistic and not merely cookie-cutter stat-based.

 

[Rasimione]

Stats kill the romance of the game. Mark Waugh, to me, was the greatest, most talented Aussie batsman of the last twenty years, but his stats are distinctly average. I'm not saying aesthetics are the be all, but when you're talking about players who've achieved a significant amount over a sustained period of time, the approach needs to be more holistic and not merely cookie-cutter stat-based.

perhaps they do kill it, but they IMO are the fairest way to judge players. There is a means to an end my friend. Particularly in Test. An example that i have seen that contributed to me making this thread was that If you take a clear look at Botham, his stats are not far off from Pollock as an allrounder, yet he is a legend and PolLy is a nearly man. We all knw Botham declined massively, same with Polly, but his was not so bad i would say. Also if it was a straight shootout with Mcgrath id take Mcgrath, but if i was askf who id take based on what they could offer me id take The young Polly.

 

[Ikki]

People are getting beside the point. It's arguable that on stats Muhammad Yousuf is better than Viv Richards. Even stats need to be taken into account into smaller breakups and as much context as possible. That is why contemporary opinion is a very important aspect of judging players. People don't usually rate a player, on a world-wide consensus to boot, because of stupid or irrelevant reasons.

 

[Rasimione]

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.

A case in point is Andy Flower. Massively underrated. Coincidence? Not likely. He did not a have hype machine backing him. Also its this so called Expert opinion that i dont agree with. Mostly this people look at chinks in players stats and performance, but they want you to disregard everythn else and focus on that. As for Pollock and Kallis, they are suffering for putting out good performances without making a fuss about it. In a few years when Cook retires he will be called a legend even though his modus operandi was similar to kallis. Thats just how it is and has been for a while!

 

[Rasimione]

People are getting beside the point. It's arguable that on stats Muhammad Yousuf is better than Viv Richards. Even stats need to be taken into account into smaller breakups and as much context as possible. That is why contemporary opinion is a very important aspect of judging players. People don't usually rate a player, on a world-wide consensus to boot, because of stupid or irrelevant reasons.

true but the is a difference between fact an oppinion. Fact is Pollock has stats that are comparable to allot of the ATG ie kapil Dev. My argument is that there must be a fair way to judge players without emotion nor favour and stats do that. Opinion is subjective.

 

[Ikki]

true but the is a difference between fact an oppinion. Fact is Pollock has stats that are comparable to allot of the ATG ie kapil Dev. My argument is that there must be a fair way to judge players without emotion nor favour and stats do that. Opinion is subjective.

You keep thinking it an emotive issue; it isn't - well not the grand majority of time I feel. I brought up an example of SA having a team more than worthy of challenging Australia, or at least drawing a series, and even with cricketers like Kallis, Pollock, Donald, et al, they never did. Do you think this is an emotive consideration? I think not. I think that's the kind of thing where people at the time will appreciate whereas people merely looking at stats will not. People want to compare Pollock and Kallis to Imran and Sobers as great cricketers yet I really doubt that if you replaced the former two with the latter two that they'd come off losers against Australia in both formats, like the former two did, almost every time and especially when it counted. Now, you can agree or disagree with that opinion but it is as valid as yours.

And yes, even stats can be subjective in the way people interpret them. So the idea of complete objectivity is a myth.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I think what separates the ATGs/true greats from the very good but eventual also-rans, is the "imposing one's will" quality that S.Waugh talked about. McGrath had it in abundance, so did a lot of the Australians from that era. Sachin, Lara possessed it too. It can do one of two things - either raise previously average players like Langer/Hayden to a whole different level, OR draw a line between the real good ones, ones with similar talent levels - McGrath v. Pollock, for instance.

 

[weldone]

I brought up an example of SA having a team more than worthy of challenging Australia, or at least drawing a series, and even with cricketers like Kallis, Pollock, Donald, et al, they never did.

Probably because a cricket team consists of 11 players, and not 3? Probably because Gilchrist was much better than Boucher, Langer was much better than Gibbs, Ponting was much better than Cronje, Gillespie was infinitely better than Paul Adams etc etc and etc...?

 

[Ikki]

Probably because a cricket team consists of 11 players, and not 3? Probably because Gilchrist was much better than Boucher, Langer was much better than Gibbs, Ponting was much better than Cronje, Gillespie was infinitely better than Paul Adams etc etc and etc...?

You've seemed to ignore my other posts. S.Africa had more than 3 players and especially in the 90s weren't that far off Australia. In ODIs they probably had an even better team than us during that time. I also listed the results of lesser teams than Australia, and of S.Africa, who were able to do something other than lose against us during our reign. So it doesn't quite cut it.

 

[unam]

You've seemed to ignore my other posts. S.Africa had more than 3 players and especially in the 90s weren't that far off Australia. In ODIs they probably had an even better team than us during that time. I also listed the results of lesser teams than Australia, and of S.Africa, who were able to do something other than lose against us during our reign.

South Africa might have not won against Australia with Pollock and Kallis, how does that make Pollock or Kallis not even mentioned in short lists of All time great teams? and there could be many reasons for not winning against Australia, 1st one mentioned above that cricket is between 11 players not 3. 2nd Australia had more all time great players than South Africa during that same time. 3rd Pollock as bowler and Kallis as batsman did peak at same time, by the time Kallis had become the Kallis Pollock had become more of a defensive bowler and wasn't the same force.

 

[Ikki]

They are usually mentioned in terms of all-time teams. Naming them next to Imran or Sobers is another matter though.

1) Australia's team was very good, and SA's comparable during the 90s, so as not to have been a foregone conclusion, every time.
2) Teams with less ATGs beat or drew against Australia. SA never did.
3) Kallis' bowling regressed as he aged whereas Pollock's batting got more reliable so their all-round prowess as a whole didn't change that much. Not that this should be a huge point because of 2).
4) They actually, probably, had better teams in ODIs.

 

[weldone]

You've seemed to ignore my other posts. S.Africa had more than 3 players and especially in the 90s weren't that far off Australia. In ODIs they probably had an even better team than us during that time. I also listed the results of lesser teams than Australia, and of S.Africa, who were able to do something other than lose against us during our reign. So it doesn't quite cut it.

Hmmm, if your point is about South Africa-Australia test series specifically (and not about South Africa being a worse side than Australia in general) then you might have a point. None among Kallis, Pollock and Donald did particularly well against the best team in the world during the Aussie-domination era, agreed. Something some other greats of the era managed - Lara, Tendulkar, Ambrose etc...

 

[unam]

AB de Villiers vs Pieterson is another example. nobody talks about De Villiers yet Pieterson is already in most people's all time IX. I agree with IKKI stats alone can be misleading but accept the fact that players from those three countries are generally rated higher than players from other countries.

 

[unam]

They are usually mentioned in terms of all-time teams. Naming them next to Imran or Sobers is another matter though.

1) Australia's team was very good, and SA's comparable during the 90s, so as not to have been a foregone conclusion, every time.
2) Teams with less ATGs beat or drew against Australia. SA never did.
3) Kallis' bowling regressed as he aged whereas Pollock's batting got more reliable so their all-round prowess as a whole didn't change that much. Not that this should be a huge point because of 2).
4) They actually, probably, had better teams in ODIs.

that is true, I can't remember properly, I think NZ drew a test serious against AUS in early 00s, where as Pak got white washed every time they played Australia from 98 to 2011. does that mean Pak in late 90s and early 00s was worse than NZ?

 

[Ikki]

AB de Villiers vs Pieterson is another example. nobody talks about De Villiers yet Pieterson is already in most people's all time IX. I agree with IKKI stats alone can be misleading but accept the fact that players from those three countries are generally rated higher than players from other countries.

That's news to me. I rate pretty much all comparable SA-Eng players in favour of SA in the last 20 years. I do have a lot of English players in my ATG lists because in the past they were equivalent to the Australians in the last 20 years and the WIndies in the 20 years before that.

De Villiers = Pietersen
Amla = the best of English batsmen during his era
Pollock > Flintoff
Kallis > England
Donald > England
Steyn > England


Pretty one sided IMO.

I am also one who started a thread about Donald being the equal of any bowler during his career, including McGrath. Yet, when I see lists of ATGs being compiled I can see the reasoning behind rating guys like McGrath higher than Donald and as I say, a lot probably has to do with them not beating or even really challenging Australia. People expected players of their talent to do much better and I guess they suffer for not meeting those expectations.

that is true, I can't remember properly, I think NZ drew a test serious against AUS in early 00s, where as Pak got white washed every time they played Australia from 98 to 2011. does that mean Pak in late 90s and early 00s was worse than NZ?

WI drew, Eng won, India won and drew, SL won...also.

We're not talking about sides. My whole point is SA was a much better side than those teams yet they didn't, with strong sides and such strong players, even do as well as them against Australia. In terms of being champions they had a clear mental block. Lots of onlookers will downrate them for that.

 

[smash84]

MoM awards in test cricket

Man-of-the-Match Tables | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[unam]

Hmmm, if your point is about South Africa-Australia test series specifically (and not about South Africa being a worse side than Australia in general) then you might have a point. None among Kallis, Pollock and Donald did particularly well against the best team in the world during the Aussie-domination era, agreed. Something some other greats of the era managed - Lara, Tendulkar, Ambrose etc...

But then Shane Warne failed against India, the best team of playing spin bowling. his record isn't too good against West Indies and Sri lanka either.