ODI : Glen McGrath vs Shaun Pollock

[Randomfan]

Pollock has a soft record.

Can you tell me tournament finals where he won MOM or really performed well?

Why does his WC record stink?

Despite all his skills, Mcgrath may or may not won a single WC with average team. An Average team normaly does not make it to finals. Talking about finals where McGrath was playing with ATG team is meanigless in context of this thread.

Pollock will fall behind McGrath as a ODI bowler. Question is how low he should be rated. You seems to think that his soft record in WC makes him get rated too low to make his runs irrelevant in entire career. I disagree with that.

Collectitive performance in tournament finals: I intentionally trying to highlight Wasim with Pollock here to make my point because he was another very good ODI bowler without having benefit of ATG team.



I rate Wasim higher than Pollock as bowler in ODI, simply trying to make a point that ODI games were not just about WC in those days. If that's the case then Wasim's WC avg against non-minnows is 29 and it makes his collective record in WC ordinary. It includes his good and bad WCs. A team can get to final and you can bowl a good spell in WC final, but that will be 1-2 games in entire career.

No one is saying that Pollock was best ODI bowler. Question is - how low we are rating him? Is it low enough to totally ignore his 3K+ runs at SR of 85 for an average team when comparing with McGrath? I don't think he is that low specially when McGrath had 115 career runs in ODI.

We just have to agree to disagree because I think Pollock was fantastic ODI bowler over his career and his 3K+ runs at SR of 85 is very valuable for an average team. For me, Pollock makes it over McGrath for an average teams in ODI. For ATG ODI teams, I will take McGrath over Pollock. That's how I see utility of both. Thread is not just about pure bowler comparison in ODI.

 

[Randomfan]

That is not a very good excuse to overlook what McGrath has done in the World Cups.

How many average teams will play 3-4 finals in WC? Yes, even if they have Mcgrath playing for them.

Reason is simple, other 10 players will make a huge difference as well. It's not an excuse, it's simply countering the point about winning WC finals. Warne in WC against non-minnows had avg of 20 and ER under 4. Ponting and many bats from Aus had very good WCs. Any average team won't have that luxury. It does not discount what Mcgrath did in WC. It simply highlights that reaching/winning finals is not just about McGrath being present for Aus.

 

[Randomfan]

Think of this way, with career record Pollock has in ODI, if he had no holes in his record then he will make a very strong case for best in ODI. Off course he has holes in his record.

Judgement only comes for, utity of both for an average team. McGrath will be totally useless with 115 career runs in ODI. In ATG teams, it may not matter but it will make a huge difference for an average team. Only question - Was Mcgrath that far ahead in ODI bowling to make Pollock's 3k+ runs at SR of 85 irrelevant for an average team. Mcgrath won't contribute anything in runs and it's a ODI cricket where you win by outbatting your opposition. It's not test where you need to outbowl opposition to win.

 

[shortpitched713]

Mcgrath's impact as a bowler in ODIs was second to none imo.

I take Garner for his bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

Despite all his skills, Mcgrath may or may not won a single WC with average team. An Average team normaly does not make it to finals. Talking about finals where McGrath was playing with ATG team is meanigless in context of this thread.

Pollock will fall behind McGrath as a ODI bowler. Question is how low he should be rated. You seems to think that his soft record in WC makes him get rated too low to make his runs irrelevant in entire career. I disagree with that.

Pollock played four WCs and didn't make a mark in any of them overall, not even a MOM in any of them. Sorry that is a major downgrade as a bowler. Pollock played for a good team too.

 

[Rob Wesley]

South Africans are usually underrated in white ball cricket for this reason. Their performance in World Cups vs top 8 opposition goes downward as a unit. Hence, you will always find them rated lower to their counterparts.

Top 4 fast bowlers in ODIs for me would be McGrath, Wasim, Starc and Garner. World Cup winners and won crunch moments for their team too.

 

[Randomfan]

Pollock played four WCs and didn't make a mark in any of them overall, not even a MOM in any of them. Sorry that is a major downgrade as a bowler. Pollock played for a good team too.

He was surely not that great in WC, but he had some very good contributions in WC.

Semi finals against Aus. 20(14) with bat & 36/5 with ball. If SA had won that ,match, we all would have hailed it as one of the best all around contribution in WC history. SA lost so it became useless.

Against Eng - 16/2 in 8 overs spell
Against SL - 10/2 8 overs spell
Over all he batted 20 times in WC, 7 times 20 plus runs with 4 not outs.

I don't think Bevan won any MOM in WC as well. I personally don't hold it against Bevan.

 

[subshakerz]

He was surely not that great in WC, but he had some very good contributions in WC.

Semi finals against Aus. 20(14) with bat & 36/5 with ball. If SA had won that ,match, we all would have hailed it as one of the best all around contribution in WC history. SA lost so it became useless.

Against Eng - 16/2 in 8 overs spell
Against SL - 10/2 8 overs spell
Over all he batted 20 times in WC, 7 times 20 plus runs with 4 not outs.

I gave credit to Pollock in this thread for the 5/36 but overall a poor WC.

And bringing up two-fers doesn't impress anyone.

Just accept he underperformed as a bowler overall in WCs and we should downgrade him for it.

I don't think Bevan won any MOM in WC as well. I personally don't hold it against Bevan.

Red herring.

McGrath has two MOMs in WCs in key games. So he has a definite advantage over chockers.

 

[Randomfan]

South Africans are usually underrated in white ball cricket for this reason. Their performance in World Cups vs top 8 opposition goes downward as a unit. Hence, you will always find them rated lower to their counterparts.

Top 4 fast bowlers in ODIs for me would be McGrath, Wasim, Starc and Garner. World Cup winners and won crunch moments for their team too.

Top 4 is fair enough. I don't think I was making a case for Pollock to be beter than McGrath in bowling. I was ,makign a case that Mcgrath with 115 career runs in ODI would be a huge liability for an avearge team. That won't be the case for an ATG team. I will take McGrath over Pollock for an ATG team, but for an average team I will take Pollock. It's perfectly fine if many feel otherwise.

Most arguments have been simply about why Pollock was worse than Mcgrath as bowler. That's hardly needs to be argued. Pollock having ER of 3.6 should catch enough attention with his close to 400 ODI wickets to not get rated too low as bowler to simply ignore Mcgrath having 115 career runs and Pollock contributting with bat at SR of 85 for any average team. That was the point I was making. Many rate Pollock too low despite being the hardest bowler to hit in decades. Oppositions not able to score for 10 overs is huge in ODI format.

 

[Randomfan]

I gave credit to Pollock in this thread for the 5/36 but overall a poor WC.

And bringing up two-fers doesn't impress anyone.

Just accept he underperformed as a bowler overall in WCs and we should downgrade him for it.


Red herring.

McGrath has two MOMs in WCs in key games. So he has a definite advantage over chockers.

Case of selective reading perhaps? My post started with acknowledging that Pollock was not that great in WC.

You are talking about not winning single MOM in WC means player should be rated very low due to that in ODI, right? No one does that for Bevan and same way no one does that for Pollock. Bevan was a great ODI player despite not winning any MOM in WC and the same holds true for Pollock.

 

[sayon basak]

He was surely not that great in WC, but he had some very good contributions in WC.

Semi finals against Aus. 20(14) with bat & 36/5 with ball. If SA had won that ,match, we all would have hailed it as one of the best all around contribution in WC history. SA lost so it became useless.

Against Eng - 16/2 in 8 overs spell
Against SL - 10/2 8 overs spell
Over all he batted 20 times in WC, 7 times 20 plus runs with 4 not outs.

I don't think Bevan won any MOM in WC as well. I personally don't hold it against Bevan.

Sachin/Shakib has way better all round performances than that.

 

[Randomfan]

Sachin/Shakib has way better all round performances than that.

Not sure I get the point.

Why that will disqualify Pollock's performance in semi finals as one of the best in WC history? I wasn't sayng his all around contribution was the best.

 

[sayon basak]

Not sure I get the point.

Why that will disqualify Pollock's performance in semi finals as one of the best in WC history? I wasn't sayng his all around contribution was the best.

The point is, the performance is not as impressive as you claim it to be. If he had scored 30+ runs, I'd get it.

And 2'fers don't cut it. The fact is, McGrath took 71 wickets @18.19 in 39 matches in the WC, while Pollock took 31 wickets @31.29 in 31 matches, And you pretty much agree that Pollock was poor in WC, and McGrath is arguable the greatest bowler in WC. While rating players based on ODI's, WC is regarded very highly, which hurts Pollocks cause.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

In ODI, here are all bowlers who bowled at the same time.

Given his ER and Avg, how low do you think he should be rated in ODI format?

Imagine having 3 pacers like that in one team. 30 overs by pacers giving 110 runs and those 3 pacers can add 45-60 runs at a very good SR.

View attachment 45325

By putting this at 200 wickets it eliminates other economical bowlers of that era such as Ambrose (more economical than Pollock), as well as Larsen and Walsh (more economical than McGrath but slightly more expensive than Pollock). This makes Pollock look better.

 

[Randomfan]

By putting this at 200 wickets it eliminates other economical bowlers of that era such as Ambrose (more economical than Pollock), as well as Larsen and Walsh (more economical than McGrath but slightly more expensive than Pollock). This makes Pollock look better.

You can change 200 wickets to 100 wickets.

It's best to see if anyone had reasonable amount of wickets when pollock bowled and had a great ER.

Total 40 pacers had 100 plus wickets including pacers like McGrath, Wasim, Bond, Vaas, Donald and yet he comes on top. If we start going back in time, I am sure we will find pacers with lower ER, but that won't be apple to apple due to ODI games evolving a lot with every 5-7 years.






Here is entire history of ODI with 150 wickets.




Pollock simply stands out in ER not because he was lowest here. Everyone else started in 70s and 80s in this list. Pollock played majority of games in 00s. ODI games kept evolving. If a pacer has ER of 4.6 in current era with 200 wickets, I will say that bowler is also rigth up there in hard to hit.



You can see the entire list of pacers in 00s with 100 plus wickets, Only Pollock and McGrath had lower than 4 ER. It starts climbing quickly. Just between best(3.6) and 3rd best(4.1), it's a massive difference in ER.

 

[Randomfan]

The point is, the performance is not as impressive as you claim it to be. If he had scored 30+ runs, I'd get it.

You were commenting about specific match, semi final, performance not being one of the best in WC by citing 2 other performances. I did not get that point.

I already know that Pollock wasn't all that great WC. If Pollock was also great in WC then this debate would have been totally one sided. Pollock not being that great in WC is the reason we are still debating it.

 

[DrWolverine]

1977-1987


1988-2000


1995-2008


2009-2015


2016-2024

 

[DrWolverine]

Fast bowlers with best economy rates
1977-1987 : Joel Garner
1988-2000 : Curtly Ambrose
1995-2008 : Shaun Pollock
2009-2015 : Dale Steyn
2016-2024 : Jasprit Bumrah

 

[subshakerz]

Bevan was a great ODI player despite not winning any MOM in WC and the same holds true for Pollock.

Bevan has a good WC record. Pollock does not.

 

[Randomfan]

Joel Garner
Curtly Ambrose
Shaun Pollock
Jasprit Bumrah

The toughest bowlers in their era to score runs against

Yah, that's fair enough and easy to see in their ER.

ER is not everything but in ODI/T20 you win by not allowing opposition to outscore you.. You don't need to pick 10 wickets to win. Many posters think 2 wickets at 10 runs in 8 overs is not that great. I think if those 2 wickets are not tails then it's simply fantastic performance in ODI. It's not like you can win many games by blasting oppositions. Most greats don't pick even 2 wickets per match on average in ODI. I was dreading Bumrah's last few overs in last T20 WC final because I knew on normal days, he is very hard to score even run a ball. SA still had wickets left and yet lost the game. If you make 20% of overs very hard to score in limited overs then it makes the job of opposition very hard. Get 2 bowlers like that and you leave opposition a mountain to climb.

Yes, picking 4-5 wickets can win games as well by bowling out opposition despite being expensive, but that will happen less frequently. On average, it seems fans under rate low ER in limited overs.