Historical Discussion- Best batting all-rounders after Sobers and Kallis

[bagapath]

Botham seems to be Bags' favourite. Fair enough but you're using stats to justify that his stats don't really measure up to others. Again that's fair enough, because it means Beefy (like others) was more than just stats.
Personally my favourite is Miller.

I liked him, yeah. But I never believed in stats alone to rate a player. If that were the case samaraweera and viv richards would be bunched together. I am just reminding everyone that only a giant of a bowler can take 27 fivefers and 4 tenfers. How many more in history have got there?

Botham had two careers. For 8 years he was in the running for the greatest cricketer ever tag. Then he was ****e for six years. I want us to not forget how he got his first 3000 runs and 250 wickets. Imran never batted like that. And pollock rarely bowled like that.

 

[akilana]

I liked him, yeah. But I never believed in stats alone to rate a player. If that were the case samaraweera and viv richards would be bunched together. I am just reminding everyone that only a giant of a bowler can take 27 fivefers and 4 tenfers. How many more in history have got there?

Botham had two careers. For 8 years he was in the running for the greatest cricketer ever tag. Then he was ****e for six years. I want us to not forget how he got his first 3000 runs and 250 wickets. Imran never batted like that. And pollock rarely bowled like that.

Pollock got his first 200 wickets at an average of 18 by being outstanding. When he got 300 wickets, he was averaging 21 or something. His decline started in 2003. Overall he still took 4 wickets per match at an average of 23. He was definitely the better bowler of the two.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah Pollock was definitely a better bowler for me... considerably.

 

[ankitj]

Pollock had the best average of anyone who took more wickets than Sydney Barnes for a long long time.

 

[Migara]

I liked him, yeah. But I never believed in stats alone to rate a player. If that were the case samaraweera and viv richards would be bunched together. I am just reminding everyone that only a giant of a bowler can take 27 fivefers and 4 tenfers. How many more in history have got there?

Botham had two careers. For 8 years he was in the running for the greatest cricketer ever tag. Then he was ****e for six years. I want us to not forget how he got his first 3000 runs and 250 wickets. Imran never batted like that. And pollock rarely bowled like that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Botham was no match to Pollock in full cry with the ball. He demolished batting line ups with jaffa after jaffa, not by bowling shyte that some how hit to a fielder on the full.

 

[bagapath]

Sorry to disappoint you, but Botham was no match to Pollock in full cry with the ball. He demolished batting line ups with jaffa after jaffa, not by bowling shyte that some how hit to a fielder on the full.

I am not disappointed. So don't be sorry, dude. You are fine to hold on to your opinion. I will hold on to mine. This is no big deal.

 

[watson]

Here is Botham taking 8 for 103 against the West Indies in 1984. At least 7 of the 8 batsman were out to genuinely good balls.

 

[bagapath]

Nobody takes 27 fivefers bowling crap.

 

[harsh.ag]

Think Pollock's a better bowler. But Botham was great in the first half of his career as well. I have never understood Kapil's bad record in England, even discounting his last horrendous series in 1990. His record in India and against the Windies is marvelous though, and I place him just above Botham for those reasons. He didn't have the highs that Botham did, but 23 5-fers and 17 4-fers are all very close overall.

 

[kyear2]

Pollock just isn't gold tier for me. 16 five for ' s from 108 tests, strike rate of 57 doesn't scream elite for me. WPM on the low side as well. Just my opinion of course.

 

[bagapath]

Pollock just isn't gold tier for me. 16 five for ' s from 108 tests, strike rate of 57 doesn't scream elite for me. WPM on the low side as well. Just my opinion of course.

he is a marginally superior version of bob willis. not good enough to be deemed better than beefy or andy roberts or mitchel johnson just because they average more than him.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

So of those, Miller's the allrounder who fits in after Kallis and Sobers? Doesn't feel right but most others who are better batsmen don't bowl often or well enough to be considered AR's

 

[akilana]

Pollock just isn't gold tier for me. 16 five for ' s from 108 tests, strike rate of 57 doesn't scream elite for me. WPM on the low side as well. Just my opinion of course.

I don't think anybody was arguing that. He is in the Walsh league and they are both better than Botham. Pollock's wicket per match ratio and SR compare well with Akram's and Ambrose.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think anybody was arguing that. He is in the Walsh league and they are both better than Botham. Pollock's wicket per match ratio and SR compare well with Akram's and Ambrose.

Heh, yeah I've noticed kyear is always quick to slag of Pollock and Akram for their wpm when Ambrose's is pretty similar. No consistency at all.

 

[Migara]

That's how the bot is programmed.

 

[Valer]

Heh, yeah I've noticed kyear is always quick to slag of Pollock and Akram for their wpm when Ambrose's is pretty similar. No consistency at all.

He has the 2nd worst SR amongst SA quicks since readmission (Qual 100 wickets).

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

For the click impaired worse SRs are from Nel (and Kallis).
Better from M Morkel, M Ntini, AA Donald, VD Philander, DW Steyn.

For WPM he slides slightly ahead of Morkel and Ntini

For hauls he's behind Ntini again but ahead of Morkel.

 

[Valer]

Pollock got his first 200 wickets at an average of 18 by being outstanding. When he got 300 wickets, he was averaging 21 or something. His decline started in 2003. Overall he still took 4 wickets per match at an average of 23. He was definitely the better bowler of the two.

What?
After 48/49 matches.
48 84 1759.5 540 4038 198 7/87 9/103 20.39 2.29 53.3 10 0 v New Zealand 8 Dec 2000 Test # 1522
49 86 1796.3 552 4113 203 7/87 9/103 20.26 2.28 53.0 10 0 v Sri Lanka 26 Dec 2000 Test # 1526
4.14 WPM (49M)
(300 point for completeness)
73 134 2690.0 847 6129 299 7/87 10/147 20.49 2.27 53.9 15 1 v England 14 Aug 2003 Test # 1654
74 136 2735.0 857 6255 302 7/87 10/147 20.71 2.28 54.3 15 1 v England 4 Sep 2003 Test # 1659
4.08 WPM (74M)

The 03 split

Before 273@20.81 SR 54.5 14 5fer 1 10fer 4.07WPM
Cricinfo
After 148@27.37 SR 63.8 2 5Fer 0 10fer 3.61 WPM
Cricinfo

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Botham won more games with the ball than Pollock. Even in his fat **** stage he still ripped through sides occasionally.

In contrast Pollock lags behind, great on a seamer and no doubt a great partner to Donald, but he was never quite quick enough, or accurate enough, and he never found enough movement consistently to even approach Sir Richard Hadlee who he modelled his action on. A great bowler for sure, but one feels he's in the same boat as Akram, remembered for their ODI exploits more than their test performances.

 

[kyear2]

Heh, yeah I've noticed kyear is always quick to slag of Pollock and Akram for their wpm when Ambrose's is pretty similar. No consistency at all.

Are you suggesting that Pollock is in the Ambrose class as match winner or even bowler?

Akram is someone I have admitted to being conflicted about, just don't think he is first XI ATG that some do.

 

[kyear2]

That's how the bot is programmed.

Thanks for the contribution.