Ian Botham vs Shaun Pollock

[subshakerz]

Who is the better cricketer?

 

[DrWolverine]

Pollock

 

[DrWolverine]

Shaun Pollock had a great record in his first 8 years.
78 Tests. 318 wickets. Avg of 20.8.
78 Tests. 2858 runs. Avg of 34.85.

 

[subshakerz]

Shaun Pollock had a great record in his first 8 years.
78 Tests. 318 wickets. Avg of 20.8.
78 Tests. 2858 runs. Avg of 34.85.

Yeah but Botham first half was maybe more impressive.

Pollocks runs are incredibly soft IMO.

 

[Srinath P]

I didn't expect Pollock to win these though I rate Pollock ahead of Botham.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but Botham first half was maybe more impressive.

Pollocks runs are incredibly soft IMO.

Pollock's bowling was also significantly harder. First half career, Pollock wins. Overall, Pollock comfortably wins.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah but Botham first half was maybe more impressive.

True

Only cricketer to score 10+ centuries and 10+ fifties and Botham did it in just 50 Tests. A true match winner with both the bat and ball at same time.



Most 5fers for cricketers with 10+ centuries

1. Botham 27
2. Sobers 6
3. Kallis 5

Most centuries for cricketers with 10+ 5fers

1. Botham 14
2. Kapil 8
3. Imran & Vettori 6

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock's bowling was also significantly harder. First half career, Pollock wins. Overall, Pollock comfortably wins.

How was bowling in 90s harder?

Sorry but I don't think you know how good Botham was in the first half.

At 51 tests, Botham averaged 38 with the bat with 10 tons and 231 wickets @23. That's ridiculously good.

If overall career, I will take Botham and for peak.

 

[subshakerz]

Not sure what the case is for Pollock here. He isnt an ATG bowler and his batting is a lot of fluff frankly without key knocks. He shouldn't be ahead of someone with Botham's output.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How was bowling in 90s harder?

Sorry but I don't think you know how good Botham was in the first half.

At 51 tests, Botham averaged 38 with the bat with 10 tons and 231 wickets @23. That's ridiculously good.

If overall career, I will take Botham and for peak.

Harder in the sense better. Pollock is the only bowler to reach 300 wickets @20. Botham was criticised even in his peak for not bowling as good as his numbers suggest. Pollock comfortably for me here.

 

[subshakerz]

Harder in the sense better. Pollock is the only bowler to reach 300 wickets @20. Botham was criticised even in his peak for not bowling as good as his numbers suggest. Pollock comfortably for me here.

Botham was still worldclass as a bowler even if not Pollock level in that phase and on top of that was a full fledge bat to bat in the top 6.

Overall, Pollock was never near good enough a bat and his average is inflated further by the 2000s period and minnows. He has an RPI of 24 and is well below even Kapil level.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Botham was still worldclass as a bowler even if not Pollock level in that phase and on top of that was a full fledge bat to bat in the top 6.

Overall, Pollock was never near good enough a bat and his average is inflated further by the 2000s period and minnows. He has an RPI of 24 and is well below even Kapil level.

Botham and he hardly have much different batting averages. Yes, Botham was a much better batsman over that period, but so was Pollock a bowler. Especially overall, I think Pollock is clearly better here.

 

[Johan]

voted Botham, Pollock easily a superior bowler, Botham easily a superior Batsmen so used their peaks as the tiebreaker.

 

[ataraxia]

voted Pollock, Pollock easily a superior bowler in his peak, Botham easily a superior batsman in his peak, so used the rest of their careers as the tiebreaker.

 

[Johan]

voted Pollock, Pollock easily a superior bowler in his peak, Botham easily a superior batsman in his peak, so used the rest of their careers as the tiebreaker.

why limit those statements to peak, Pollock is a much superior bowler in general and Botham a much better batsmen in general

 

[ataraxia]

why limit those statements to peak, Pollock is a much superior bowler in general and Botham a much better batsmen in general

I used a system that values peak more than you did and yet came to the conclusion that Pollock was better. What it shows is that it's a dumb way to compare players because "easily a superior batsman/bowler" is such a broad category.

 

[Johan]

I used a system that values peak more than you did and yet came to the conclusion that Pollock was better. What it shows is that it's a dumb way to compare players because "easily a superior batsman/bowler" is such a broad category.

I personally think the gap between their bowling is about relative to the gap between their batting.

 

[Thala_0710]

voted Botham, Pollock easily a superior bowler, Botham easily a superior Batsmen so used their peaks as the tiebreaker.

Both of them are bowling All rounders. When comparing as cricketers, primary skill matters much more than secondary skill because of the impact it has (separate discussion for AR). Hence Pollock for me.

 

[Johan]

Both of them are bowling All rounders. When comparing as cricketers, primary skill matters much more than secondary skill because of the impact it has (separate discussion for AR). Hence Pollock for me.

this works when the second skill is almost as minor as Pollock's, not when the other guy has 14 test hundreds and his second skill has quite a bit of impact.

also, don't really count Botham's career after the 1986 rib injury after which he bowled some garbage and got dropped, so he is like 35-27 to me

 

[subshakerz]

Botham and he hardly have much different batting averages. Yes, Botham was a much better batsman over that period, but so was Pollock a bowler. Especially overall, I think Pollock is clearly better here.

The batting averages are entirely misleading. Pollock was never close to a test class bat and his average is super inflated. Botham has a far higher RPI, batted higher and many more tons.

Pollock was a better bowler but Botham at least was worldclass as a pacer for half his career.