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

[Goughy]

Can't help but think that Pollock is heavily underrated on here. All he did was bowl deceptively quick in the right areas, take wickets, dictate the pace and be able to position the batsman where he wanted in the crease.

He is an ATG. I guess he would be more exciting if he ran on like a mentalist, ****ed a model, dyed his hair blonde or screamed and shouted.

He was an understated genius. No flash but as a cricketer's cricketer he is of the highest level.

 

[Red]

Can't help but think that Pollock is heavily underrated on here. All he did was bowl deceptively quick in the right areas, take wickets, dictate the pace and be able to position the batsman where he wanted in the crease.

He is an ATG. I guess he would be more exciting if he ran on like a mentalist, ****ed a model, dyed his hair blonde or screamed and shouted.

He was an understated genius. No flash but as a cricketer's cricketer he is of the highest level.

All true. Combined with the fact that he was a good batsman (which is also underrated) he's an amazing cricketer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

No, I'm just saying you hold Akram and Ambrose to different standards. One of your main reasons for saying Akram is overrated has been his wpm, but as pointed out, it's pretty much identical to Ambrose's. In fact, if you take wickets/innings instead of wickets/match, Akram comes out marginally ahead. You mention Akram's "low" wpm often but never do the same for Ambrose. That's not consistent.

 

[OverratedSanity]

All true. Combined with the fact that he was a good batsman (which is also underrated) he's an amazing cricketer.

Love Pollock, but his batting was nothing more than mildly useful, tbh. Great cricketer for sure, but as a batsman, even an average of 32 oversells him somewhat

 

[Goughy]

Love Pollock, but his batting was nothing more than mildly useful, tbh. Great cricketer for sure, but as a batsman, even an average of 32 oversells him somewhat

Agreed if he batted higher than 8 but he batted at 8 more than anywhere else and averaging 32 for his career with more than one hundred at 8 or below. He isnt a 6 and he is an average 7 but all worldly at 8 or 9. Great bowler and possibly one of the best 8 or 9s in history. It is all about the roles they played and how well they did it. And Pollock played his role to perfection.

 

[ankitj]

Pollock is awesome and terribly underrated IMO. As someone said, he was Walsh class as a bowler which is not mean achievement. Add to that his batting which was mighty useful, probably level with or better than Hadlee's. He is one of world's greatest ever all-rounders, may be level with Kapil Dev or little better.

 

[ankitj]

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.

Since you care about number of five-fers, SR and WPMs so much, you must think Hadlee is in top tier, no?

 

[bagapath]

All true. Combined with the fact that he was a good batsman (which is also underrated) he's an amazing cricketer.

of course he was. shaun was a once in a generation cricketer and a true contender for the third pacer/ no 7 batter slot in third/fourth ATG XIs. I loved everything about his game; the sharp, dagger like inswingers, those classic leg cutters, the exciting lower order slogs and regular contributions with the bat and his tight fielding.

here we are talking about his effectiveness as a bowler alone in comparison with botham. i believe ian won more matches with the ball, as did wasim and amby, than pollock. i am not getting into their numbers in detail. i brought up the fivefers coz you are a match winning bowler only if you can run through a batting lineup on a regular basis. botham did it more often than shaun. those 27 fivefers prove that.

 

[Valer]

of course he was. shaun was a once in a generation cricketer and a true contender for the third pacer/ no 7 batter slot in third/fourth ATG XIs. I loved everything about his game; the sharp, dagger like inswingers, those classic leg cutters, the exciting lower order slogs and regular contributions with the bat and his tight fielding.

here we are talking about his effectiveness as a bowler alone in comparison with botham. i believe ian won more matches with the ball, as did wasim and amby, than pollock. i am not getting into their numbers in detail. i brought up the fivefers coz you are a match winning bowler only if you can run through a batting lineup on a regular basis. botham did it more often than shaun. those 27 fivefers prove that.

Why is "match winning bowling" more important than actually turning up consistently and not leaking runs? To expand your purely arguing that a different (more "clumpy") distribution of wickets is better as opposed to more wickets.

Ball /M
Pollock 225
Botham 214
SR
Pollock 57.8
Botham 56.9
WPM
Pollock 3.90
Botham 3.75

 

[cnerd123]

here we are talking about his effectiveness as a bowler alone in comparison with botham. i believe ian won more matches with the ball, as did wasim and amby, than pollock. i am not getting into their numbers in detail. i brought up the fivefers coz you are a match winning bowler only if you can run through a batting lineup on a regular basis. botham did it more often than shaun. those 27 fivefers prove that.

Sorry, I need to chime in.

I feel it's wrong to equate being a better 'match-winning' bowler as the same as being a better bowler allround.

It's a bowling attack's job to take wickets, each individual bowler in said attack may have a different role.

Pollock was rarely, if ever, the leading strike bowler in his side. His role was to hold up an end, build pressure, and let the more attacking bowlers seek wickets. That should not be held against him. Nor should it be used as evidence to suggest that he is a less capable bowler.

Similar to how one wouldn't compare batsmen of contrasting styles. Sehwag and Langer both opened the batting and with success, but their methods and their roles in their respective sides means that any comparison of the two would basically be worthless.

You can talk about skills, potential, ability, limitations...but personally I feel if you limit yourself to using WPM/5-fers/SR as indicators of a bowlers quality, then you are doing it wrong. Not all ATG bowlers have to be match-winners. Guys like Donald, Botham, Steyn, Anderson all credit part of their success to good containing bowlers (Pollock, Underwood, Morkel, Swann as some examples) from the other end.

 

[zaremba]

Hadn't seen that footage of Botham in 1984 before (though I suppose I must've seen it at the time). Impressive stuff.

In terms of 5-fers taken, someone like Botham will benefit from being the leader of an otherwise ordinary attack. Pollock, and Garner before him, took somewhat fewer 5-fers. One possible reason for this is that they were bowling alongside other high quality wicket-taking bowlers. Bowling alongside Donald or Marshall might help your bowling average (e.g. by increasing the chances of troublesome batsmen getting out at the other end and generally demoralising the batting team) but it decreases your chances of taking half the wickets available.

 

[Camo999]

Warwick Armstrong would be up there. Bit unfair to judge Grace solely on his test career. I'd have him ahead of Kallis overall.

 

[akilana]

Hadn't seen that footage of Botham in 1984 before (though I suppose I must've seen it at the time). Impressive stuff.

In terms of 5-fers taken, someone like Botham will benefit from being the leader of an otherwise ordinary attack. Pollock, and Garner before him, took somewhat fewer 5-fers. One possible reason for this is that they were bowling alongside other high quality wicket-taking bowlers. Bowling alongside Donald or Marshall might help your bowling average (e.g. by increasing the chances of troublesome batsmen getting out at the other end and generally demoralising the batting team) but it decreases your chances of taking half the wickets available.

alright but Pollock still took more wickets per match than Botham did.

 

[fredfertang]

alright but Pollock still took more wickets per match than Botham did.

different careers though - Pollock was a fine bowler through out his career, whereas Botham was, with the greatest of respect, cannon fodder for the last six or seven years of his career

 

[kyear2]

For me, Pollock like Walsh and Gillespie and to a lesser extent Garner were good number two's. This isn't from stats, it's from watching them play. Donald, Ambrose, McGrath and Marshall were the number one's, the strike bowlers.

I personally, just don't place Pollock up there in that first tier of fast bowlers.

 

[Flem274*]

You could say to have a number one you need a number two.

I think us fans tend to view ranking the best as a pyramid rather than a spectrum, and I'm starting to think we're wrong.

 

[weldone]

For me, Pollock like Walsh and Gillespie and to a lesser extent Garner were good number two's. This isn't from stats, it's from watching them play. Donald, Ambrose, McGrath and Marshall were the number one's, the strike bowlers.

I personally, just don't place Pollock up there in that first tier of fast bowlers.

This is so misleading. Walsh was a no. 2 because Ambrose was in the same team. Walsh would be no. 1 if he was bowling with Jason Gillespie, for example.

 

[weldone]

Btw, the answer to the thread question is surely WG Grace.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Btw, the answer to the thread question is surely WG Grace.

No. The thread is about the best after Sobers and Kallis.

 

[weldone]

Haha, I know.

Actually it's tricky.

On test cricket alone, Grace is not even no. 3. He must be below that.

But on FC Cricket alone, he's clearly better than Kallis and arguably even Sobers.