Ian Botham v Shaun Pollock

[Anil]

either would be selected as an all-rounder regardless of where they slot into the batting order and i am saying my choice would be botham in most scenarios...

 

[trundler]

Yeah but as mentioned that period is a fraction of his entire career, 70% of the time he was absolutely worldclass. That's where he leaps ahead of Botham.

I was talking about Pollock as an ATG bowler. He still averages 25 with a higher strike rate of 65 away from home overall.

 

[Bolo.]

How is Pollock underrated? Everyone brings him up as a guy that's underrated that he ends up being rated appropriately. Why would he be as highly rated as the guy who was better than him for like a decade? He's viewed as broadly being on par with Walsh and that's accurate imo. I doubt you guys have him in the top 12 of all time. What people mean when they say he's underrated is that he's in the top handful that ever played without being as good as the very best so he's not brought up as one of the best ever.. which he wasn't so he isn't. Is Dravid underrated?

His record against Australia isn't a problem really. He had some good series and a bad one as an old man. Fine if you ask me. The problem is that he became a lot less penetrative by ATG standards when he got older and lost pace. He averaged 31 away after 2003 with a strike rate of 70. Now that's a problem. We know how spicy SA pitches are as a rule and Pollock became a containing bowler towards the end, which IMO is a limitation by ATG standards.That's obviously going to affect his ranking which is fair IMO.

He wasn't McGrath though, was he?

That's only one bad injury hit year plus 2 extra series, both of which he averaged 60+ with the bat in.

I reckon he is perfectly fairly placed in the pecking order as a bowler. In general, the gap between the best ATGs and the others is probably not as big as stated, even though it is clear.

His batting/role as an AR is definitely underrated. You are fairly knocking him for home/away discrepancy in bowling record, but not giving the reciprocal credit to his batting. He has the away bowling record of Imran/Miller, but averages more than them with the bat.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

He is up there with Walsh, Steyn, and Marshall as the best foreign pacers in the SC.

Plus Hadlee, Wes Hall, Gillespie, Roberts, Davidson, McKenzie, Southee, and Donald

 

[Gob]

Pollock was never good enough to make in to the team as a top seven. Botham was certainly the better all rounder and for a good period, almost as good a bowler as Pollock.

 

[a massive zebra]

Actually selection in an XI makes Pollock's case easier since he naturally will go at 7/8 and take a bowler's spot, whereas Botham doesnt quite fit in the top six nor in the bowler's spots, assuming you want to pick the best specialists in the respective positions.

During his peak period, Botham definitely did fit in the top 6. He averaged 37.61 for his first 64 Tests with 13 centuries, perfectly respectable for a number 6. It's only his overall stats which might suggest Botham doesn't quite fit the top 6, but at almost no time in his career was he actually at the level of his overall stats. He was essentially ATG+ for about 5 years, barely test class for a couple of years and then embarrassing for the last 5 years of his career.

 

[a massive zebra]

Plus Hadlee, Wes Hall, Gillespie, Roberts, Davidson, McKenzie, Southee, and Donald

I think part of the reason Hall and McKenzie have great stats in Asia is because the Asian teams were not quite as strong in their era, rather than because they were ATG Asian conditions fast bowlers.

Before someone mentions Davidson played around the same time, he actually proved himself against world class opposition all over the world.

 

[a massive zebra]

considering their peaks, botham easily...pollock was obviously more consistent and didn't have as steep a decline but stats aside, if i had to choose between one or the other in an xi, would still choose botham most times...i am a great admirer of pollock and botham is a prize dickhead as a person but he also had that undeniable x factor, that edge, that match-turning/winning ability with bat and ball that shaun never really had...

I was about to explain why I voted Botham but I see Anil has already done it. So thanks for saving me the job, Anil.

During his five year peak, Botham was probably the most complete all rounder ever. A far better bowler than Sobers or Kallis, a more impactful bowler than Miller, a better batsman than Imran.

 

[Migara]

Pollock was never good enough to make in to the team as a top seven. Botham was certainly the better all rounder and for a good period, almost as good a bowler as Pollock.

No

 

[Migara]

I was about to explain why I voted Botham but I see Anil has already done it. So thanks for saving me the job, Anil.

During his five year peak, Botham was probably the most complete all rounder ever. A far better bowler than Sobers or Kallis, a more impactful bowler than Miller, a better batsman than Imran.

Still No. There was a time period where Imran averaged 20 with the ball and 45 with the bat. People hugely overrate Botham and Kapil because of their flamboyancy. But Imran was far more flambouyant with the ball than either of them. And I don't even need to comment on Sobers and Miller. Hadlee and Pollock are exteremly consistent bowlers, and due to the fact they are underrated massively.

 

[subshakerz]

Plus Hadlee, Wes Hall, Gillespie, Roberts, Davidson, McKenzie, Southee, and Donald

Pollock was better than all of those in the SC.

 

[subshakerz]

Still No. There was a time period where Imran averaged 20 with the ball and 45 with the bat. People hugely overrate Botham and Kapil because of their flamboyancy. But Imran was far more flambouyant with the ball than either of them. And I don't even need to comment on Sobers and Miller. Hadlee and Pollock are exteremly consistent bowlers, and due to the fact they are underrated massively.

Botham also famously sucked against WI with both bat and ball, including during his peak, which calls to question how great he really was.

 

[trundler]

Pollock averaged 23 with 60 wickets in Asia. McGrath averaged 23 with 72 wickets. Weird thing to hang on to.

 

[trundler]

That's only one bad injury hit year plus 2 extra series, both of which he averaged 60+ with the bat in.

I reckon he is perfectly fairly placed in the pecking order as a bowler. In general, the gap between the best ATGs and the others is probably not as big as stated, even though it is clear.

His batting/role as an AR is definitely underrated. You are fairly knocking him for home/away discrepancy in bowling record, but not giving the reciprocal credit to his batting. He has the away bowling record of Imran/Miller, but averages more than them with the bat.

He did become more of a containing bowler as he aged though. Strike rate went up and he was still drying runs but not picking up a lot of wickets. That's kind of lame for an ATG pacer. Like Anderson away of late. Good but not super threatening.

I have a hard time rating his batting because he came in so low. Tend to think of him as a moderate upgrade on Ashwin.

 

[subshakerz]

During his peak period, Botham definitely did fit in the top 6. He averaged 37.61 for his first 64 Tests with 13 centuries, perfectly respectable for a number 6. It's only his overall stats which might suggest Botham doesn't quite fit the top 6, but at almost no time in his career was he actually at the level of his overall stats. He was essentially ATG+ for about 5 years, barely test class for a couple of years and then embarrassing for the last 5 years of his career.

ATG+ until 81 and then declining returns for a decade after that was Botham's career.

The thing is you have to give an overall value for Botham as a cricketer and basing it largely off the peak which is just a minority of his career is misleading. Overall you get a mid-30s bat capable of some surprising knocks but in most strong XIs he wouldnt be considered good enough to bat no.6 alone.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock averaged 23 with 60 wickets in Asia. McGrath averaged 23 with 72 wickets. Weird thing to hang on to.

Raw stats can be misleading.

McGrath was great in India in 2001 and 2004 and then had an easy series haul in the UAE against a substandard Pakistani lineup. But prior to that he had three fairly average series in Pakistan and SL. Pollock made more of an impact IMO. Pollock had two quality series each in Pakistan and SL and one in India.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock was never good enough to make in to the team as a top seven. Botham was certainly the better all rounder and for a good period, almost as good a bowler as Pollock.

The good period as a bowler was only 40 percent of Botham's career.

The question is who was the greater cricketer. Botham in the final analysis was a decent bat and decent bowler, whereas Pollock was a handy bat and a great bowler.

 

[trundler]

Raw stats can be misleading.

McGrath was great in India in 2001 and 2004 and then had an easy series haul in the UAE against a substandard Pakistani lineup. But prior to that he had three fairly average series in Pakistan and SL. Pollock made more of an impact IMO. Pollock had two quality series each in Pakistan and SL and one in India.

Pakistan wasn't substandard. McGrath could just get the Pakistani batsmen out with a tomato.

 

[subshakerz]

Pakistan wasn't substandard. McGrath could just get the Pakistani batsmen out with a tomato.

That lineup in 2002/3 was. No Inzi, Anwar or Yousuf. Younis and Misbah just starting out. Really poor.

 

[a massive zebra]

Still No. There was a time period where Imran averaged 20 with the ball and 45 with the bat. People hugely overrate Botham and Kapil because of their flamboyancy. But Imran was far more flambouyant with the ball than either of them. And I don't even need to comment on Sobers and Miller. Hadlee and Pollock are exteremly consistent bowlers, and due to the fact they are underrated massively.

Averages are not the only stat that matters. Centuries, 5fors and wickets per match all give a better indication of the impactfulness of an allrounder than mere averages. I'm fairly certain peak era Botham achieved all of these more frequently than Imran during his 45/20 average period.

I wouldn't necessarily say peak era Botham was a better cricketer than Sobers, but he probably was a more complete allrounder, as Botham would have made the England side both as a batsman and as a bowler, whilst Sobers might not have made the WI side as a bowler. Miller doesn't compare to peak Botham as he bowled far less and took far fewer big hauls (just look at their respective number of 5 wicket innings). Hadlee and Pollock were nowhere near as complete in the all rounder steaks as peak Botham because they only made a couple of centuries in their entire career compared to 13 centuries in just his first 64 Tests for Botham.