PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Shaun Pollock vs Courtney Walsh
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
This is a good one. Walsh served a similar role to Ambrose than Pollock did for Donald.
I am going with Pollock.
What makes this difficult is the late 30 or so tests of each of their careers. Walsh blossomed while Pollock faded.
However, before that, for the majority of their careers, Pollock was simply more consistently worldclass than Walsh, who I think was cushioned a bit for the 80s by being 3rd or 4th seamer a lot of the time while Marshall, Ambrose and Bishop doing much of the upfront damage.
I am going with Pollock.
What makes this difficult is the late 30 or so tests of each of their careers. Walsh blossomed while Pollock faded.
However, before that, for the majority of their careers, Pollock was simply more consistently worldclass than Walsh, who I think was cushioned a bit for the 80s by being 3rd or 4th seamer a lot of the time while Marshall, Ambrose and Bishop doing much of the upfront damage.
BazBall21
International Captain
During the first half of his career Walsh was sub-3.5 WPM.
Slifer
International Captain
I think it's pretty obvious why this was the case.
Slifer
International Captain
Kinda too close to call. Both played second fiddle top shelf bowlers. Both were outstanding everywhere but struggled vs Australia (Walsh in Australia). Both were particularly great in Asia. I'll probably give Pollock the edge because for much of the 90s, Pollock was on the same level more or less to the Mcgraths, Akrams and Ambroses. Walsh was slightly below that rung.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Each of them had two phases in their careers.
Pollock had his peak phase from debut to 2003, in which he took 310 wicket in 76 matches at 20.73. Quite amazing.
After that, he declined and took 111 wickets in his remaining 32 games at 30.
stats.espncricinfo.com
Walsh had his main part of his career from debut to 96/97, in which he had flashes of excellence but was largely bolstering Ambrose and the rest. He took 339 wickets in 93 games in this time at 26, basically Gillespie-esque.
Walsh late career peak began in 1997 in the famous series in Pakistan when they were whitewashed and Ambrose was hammered. He took 180 wickets in his remaining 39 games at 21, overtaking Ambrose as their lead bowler.
stats.espncricinfo.com
Based on the above, it is pretty clear Pollock was a more quality and lead bowler for a much longer stretch of their careers regardless how their overall stats look close.
Pollock had his peak phase from debut to 2003, in which he took 310 wicket in 76 matches at 20.73. Quite amazing.
After that, he declined and took 111 wickets in his remaining 32 games at 30.
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Walsh had his main part of his career from debut to 96/97, in which he had flashes of excellence but was largely bolstering Ambrose and the rest. He took 339 wickets in 93 games in this time at 26, basically Gillespie-esque.
Walsh late career peak began in 1997 in the famous series in Pakistan when they were whitewashed and Ambrose was hammered. He took 180 wickets in his remaining 39 games at 21, overtaking Ambrose as their lead bowler.
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Based on the above, it is pretty clear Pollock was a more quality and lead bowler for a much longer stretch of their careers regardless how their overall stats look close.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think based on stats and actual match performances, it is hard to say that Pollock played second fiddle to Donald. He frequently outshined him, especially in the subcontinent. Yes, Donald was widely perceived as a better bowler, but Pollock was taking 4 plus wickets a match at a lower average than him. It was more like Wasim and Waqar than McGrath and Gillespie.
Pollock gets underrated in CW as much as Kallis is overrated.
Last edited:
Slifer
International Captain
At the end of my post I did admit that Pollock was up there with the 90s bowlers but career wise, he comes in just below Donald and the other 90s greats : McGrath, Ambrose and Akran
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes agreed. But if he had retired in 2003 it would be an interesting question where he should be ranked.
Coronis
International Coach
If there’s one thing all the Kallis threads have taught us, its definitely this…
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah. Pollock was considered understudy to Donald probably for style, pace, aggression etc. But in that early phase of his career he was arguably more effective. 300+ wickets at >4 wpm at average better than Marshall's and most importantly picked top order wickets at rate similar to McGrath and Ambrose.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
So is Pollock.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
They are both adequately rated as great bowlers who weren't quite top tier. We don't need to suck every players dick pretending people didn't give them credit and how we're all so smart for recognizing their genius ffs.
Also ,Pollock was better because he didn't chuck.
Also ,Pollock was better because he didn't chuck.
Slifer
International Captain
That is absurd. Walsh didn't chuck either. Nor has he ever been called for it in his career.
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Underrated post.
Kenneth Viljoen
International Regular
Shaun Pollock was the better cricketer , it's something that can't be ignored even when limiting the debate to just the bowling , daylight in fielding ability and daylight in batting ability , the difference in bowling ability isn't great enough for me to say I'd pick Walsh over Pollock in a team cause Pollock can do the job Walsh can with the ball without a drop in quality.. For that reason I have to go with Pollock.