Imran Khan vs Richard Hadlee

[trundler]

Pollock isn't underrated at all, least of all here. He's not mentioned alongside the top handful because he's not as good and he's rightfully placed in the top dozen odd because he is. It's like saying Dravid is underrated when he's universally loved and rated appropriately.

 

[Flem274*]

Pollock isn't underrated at all, least of all here. He's not mentioned alongside the top handful because he's not as good and he's rightfully placed in the top dozen odd because he is. It's like saying Dravid is underrated when he's universally loved and rated appropriately.

No one thinks he's a top handful bowler. I believe the evidence strongly suggests he is the better cricketer than most of those guys because ATG pacer + batting.

And the hyperbole towards how 'bad' his bowling was compared to the top handful is out the gate.

 

[trundler]

No one thinks he's a top handful bowler. I believe the evidence strongly suggests he is the better cricketer than most of those guys because ATG pacer + batting.

And the hyperbole towards how 'bad' his bowling was compared to the top handful is out the gate.

Yeah but then he's not really underrated is he? Also, he's being compared to McGrath whom he's worse than in every measurable way and doesn't have his X factor. Also, Pollock kinda looks toothless for a third of his career in a way McGrath didn't despite playing longer. It's a slam dunk every way. McGrath reliably taking out Tendulkar or Lara, home or away, most of the time is worth several times more than 20 runs.

 

[Coronis]

Pollock isn't underrated at all, least of all here. He's not mentioned alongside the top handful because he's not as good and he's rightfully placed in the top dozen odd because he is. It's like saying Dravid is underrated when he's universally loved and rated appropriately.

I just like him as a friend…

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah but then he's not really underrated is he? Also, he's being compared to McGrath whom he's worse than in every measurable way and doesn't have his X factor. Also, Pollock kinda looks toothless for a third of his career in a way McGrath didn't despite playing longer. It's a slam dunk every way. McGrath reliably taking out Tendulkar or Lara, home or away, most of the time is worth several times more than 20 runs.

I watched Pollock during the 00s, so not even his 90s peak. The man was a beast. Not as good as McGrath, but an easy #2, and he had x-factor. He was the big dog in the South African attack and the clear second best fast bowler in the world unless maaaaybe a fit Shoaib or Bond were in play.

And McGrath didn't reliably take out Tendulkar or Lara, because both of those guys have superb innings against him. Pollock could also take out ATG batsmen cheap due to being an ATG bowler himself, and contributed 64 runs on average per game which is a pretty measurable way he was better at something (batting) than McGrath.

McGrath is my pick for the best of all time, so being slightly worse than him is no shame. It doesn't make him the outright better player though, because to be close to him as a bowler alone is an incredible achievement and then factor in Pollock is a bowling allrounder...it's pretty straightforward for me. Specialists just lose out to those few special cricketers who combine being an ATG at something and solid at another. Imran, Hadlee and Marshall are better cricketers than McGrath too. Warne is a better cricketer than Murali.

 

[ataraxia]

I agree with Flem mostly here but IMO it's important to take into account that they would be rated by their performance amongst other ATGs. This exaggerates McGrath and Pollock's difference in bowling and de-exaggerates (i dunno i'm tired words goodnight) their difference in batting.

 

[trundler]

I watched Pollock during the 00s, so not even his 90s peak. The man was a beast. Not as good as McGrath, but an easy #2, and he had x-factor. He was the big dog in the South African attack and the clear second best fast bowler in the world unless maaaaybe a fit Shoaib or Bond were in play.

And McGrath didn't reliably take out Tendulkar or Lara, because both of those guys have superb innings against him. Pollock could also take out ATG batsmen cheap due to being an ATG bowler himself, and contributed 64 runs on average per game which is a pretty measurable way he was better at something (batting) than McGrath.

McGrath is my pick for the best of all time, so being slightly worse than him is no shame. It doesn't make him the outright better player though, because to be close to him as a bowler alone is an incredible achievement and then factor in Pollock is a bowling allrounder...it's pretty straightforward for me. Specialists just lose out to those few special cricketers who combine being an ATG at something and solid at another. Imran, Hadlee and Marshall are better cricketers than McGrath too. Warne is a better cricketer than Murali.

Sure but he was successful more often than not. And he had Inzi on a string and Dravid struggled against him too. And I think the gap between their bowling in the 00s, particularly away, is comparable to Cummins and Anderson and that leap in relentless quality has a massive trickle down effect on a team's fortune imo. I really don't like rating specialists in this way and I don't think Pollock is particularly close to McGrath as a bowler.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Even apart from the difference in their bowling, the gap in their batting isn't quite as big as it appears. Pollock averaged one run fewer than Botham but he wasn't close to as impactful a batsman most will agree. A handful of good cameos, but his batting never really stood out with any great innings. If he was actually a Botham level bat, this would be a slam dunk in his favour imo.

Imran actually batted as a proper middle order bat in his later years, so atleast it shows a dimension to his game Hadlee flat out didn't have. He didn't quite do that when he was a top pacer but still.

 

[Godard]

Pollock is not better than McGrath as an overall test cricketer. McGrath is in the first tier of greats, and only in competition with Hadlee and Marshall for the best ever. McGrath is better across most conditions(only place Pollock is convincingly better is in SL). Post 2002, in a time period in both careers greatly suitable for batting, there is a bowling average gap of nearly 7 between(28 for Pollock vs 21 for McGrath). McGrath has a superior record in top order wickets, vs Lara and Tendulkar. To conclude McGrath is in the top of the first tier, Pollock isn’t convincingly even in the second one. The gap between a top 20 and a top 2 bowler is too large to for Pollock’s lower order batting to save. Pollock was one of the best bowlers in the world during his time, quite far behind McGrath tho.

 

[ankitj]

There was a time when Pollock had the best bowling average of any bowler ever with >300 wickets. This despite the fact that he was dismissing top order wickets at the same rate as McGrath and averaging better. Even at that stage he did not have that menacing aura about him. Why was that? There was something about him not taking enough big hauls I guess? Pollock took 16 fivers in 108 tests while Donald took 20 in 72. Or benefitting from playing in helpful conditions in SA? (which brings us to Kallis....)

At the end of his career he deteriorated enough to be ranked about 20th in all time bowling lists compared to McGrath in top 3-4. So rating him above McGrath even after taking into account his batting doesn't make great deal of sense IMHO.

 

[ZK$]

Away from home, McGrath has a bowling strike rate of 48.97, 274 wickets and 18 fifers in 58 matches, and a WPM of 4.7.

Away from home, Pollock has a bowling strike rate of 64.52, 186 wickets and 7 fifers in 49 matches, and a WPM of 3.8.

Pollock was a great bowler. He just wasn’t a strike bowler in the same way Mcgrath and other tier one ATG fast bowlers were. Peak Pollock was similar to peak Anderson.

 

[trundler]

I may be an extremist here. I don't think Imran is necessarily a greater cricketer than McGrath either.

 

[subshakerz]

I watched Pollock during the 00s, so not even his 90s peak. The man was a beast. Not as good as McGrath, but an easy #2, and he had x-factor. He was the big dog in the South African attack and the clear second best fast bowler in the world unless maaaaybe a fit Shoaib or Bond were in play.

And McGrath didn't reliably take out Tendulkar or Lara, because both of those guys have superb innings against him. Pollock could also take out ATG batsmen cheap due to being an ATG bowler himself, and contributed 64 runs on average per game which is a pretty measurable way he was better at something (batting) than McGrath.

McGrath is my pick for the best of all time, so being slightly worse than him is no shame. It doesn't make him the outright better player though, because to be close to him as a bowler alone is an incredible achievement and then factor in Pollock is a bowling allrounder...it's pretty straightforward for me. Specialists just lose out to those few special cricketers who combine being an ATG at something and solid at another. Imran, Hadlee and Marshall are better cricketers than McGrath too. Warne is a better cricketer than Murali.

To me you are going overboard if Marshall and Warnes' runs qualify them as better cricketers than McGrath and Murali.

Handy as those run may be down the order, a minor difference in bowling between these greats means a whole lot more.

 

[BazBall21]

I would consider Hadlee over McGrath in my greatest cricketers of all time list. But not Akram, Lindwall or Pollock.

 

[ankitj]

The level of McGrath worship from subcontinent fans on this forum is almost deserved. But not quite. #BalancedView

 

[subshakerz]

I watched Pollock during the 00s, so not even his 90s peak. The man was a beast. Not as good as McGrath, but an easy #2, and he had x-factor. He was the big dog in the South African attack and the clear second best fast bowler in the world unless maaaaybe a fit Shoaib or Bond were in play.

And McGrath didn't reliably take out Tendulkar or Lara, because both of those guys have superb innings against him. Pollock could also take out ATG batsmen cheap due to being an ATG bowler himself, and contributed 64 runs on average per game which is a pretty measurable way he was better at something (batting) than McGrath.

McGrath is my pick for the best of all time, so being slightly worse than him is no shame. It doesn't make him the outright better player though, because to be close to him as a bowler alone is an incredible achievement and then factor in Pollock is a bowling allrounder...it's pretty straightforward for me. Specialists just lose out to those few special cricketers who combine being an ATG at something and solid at another. Imran, Hadlee and Marshall are better cricketers than McGrath too. Warne is a better cricketer than Murali.

McGrath and Pollock were both consistent, but the big difference is in wicket quantity. McGrath simply had more more series where he had large hauls than Pollock who would end up with a nifty average but less than 4 wickets a game.

Hence my point that over the course of a career, McGrath would win you quite a few more high profile series, think of Ashes 97 or 2001, when he was the main difference between the two sides. and that equates to more impact that Pollock's mostly soft runs at no.8.

 

[Coronis]

To me you are going overboard if Marshall and Warnes' runs qualify them as better cricketers than McGrath and Murali.

Handy as those run may be down the order, a minor difference in bowling between these greats means a whole lot more.

His whole point is that there’s basically nothing to seperate them as bowlers, so when theres a significant gap in their batting it makes them a better cricketer overall.

So ****ing overboard

 

[subshakerz]

Even apart from the difference in their bowling, the gap in their batting isn't quite as big as it appears. Pollock averaged one run fewer than Botham but he wasn't close to as impactful a batsman most will agree. A handful of good cameos, but his batting never really stood out with any great innings. If he was actually a Botham level bat, this would be a slam dunk in his favour imo.

Imran actually batted as a proper middle order bat in his later years, so atleast it shows a dimension to his game Hadlee flat out didn't have. He didn't quite do that when he was a top pacer but still.

Yeah this is the point I think they are missing. Pollock's average flatters him a lot, he wasn't that good. He basically was a luxury for SA.

As for Imran, as his career progressed, he went up the order because his batting improved. He started as a no.8 in the last 70s, then a no.7 in the early to mid 80s, then by the late 80s he was a regular no .6 and even occasional no.5. Overall, a reliable lower order bat.

 

[trundler]

Away from home, McGrath has a bowling strike rate of 48.97, 18 fifers in 58 matches, and a WPM of 4.7.

Away from home, Pollock has a bowling strike rate of 64.52, 7 fifers in 49 matches, and a WPM of 3.8.

Pollock was a great bowler. He just wasn’t a strike bowler in the same way Mcgrath and other tier one ATG fast bowlers were. Peak Pollock was similar to peak Anderson.

I'm mildly annoyed you didn't list their wicket tallies and I had to work that out myself.

 

[subshakerz]

His whole point is that there’s basically nothing to seperate them as bowlers, so when theres a significant gap in their batting it makes them a better cricketer overall.

So ****ing overboard

Yeah but it just seems wrong to say an ATG bowler is a greater cricketer because they were a better tailender.

However a minor difference in bowling should matter way more.

Unless your secondary skill can qualify to the point of all-rounder status, to me it doesn't factor into debates on greatness.