• 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.

Steyn/Philander vs Donald/Pollock

Better Bowling Pair


  • Total voters
    21

Bolo.

International Captain
I always thought Pollock’s speed was in the low 80s even during his peak (like Anderson)
Na, I remember him bowling an entire over at 144.x in (I think) 1999, and generally looked a bit quicker earlier career. It wasn't memorable for being quick by his standards (I remember him clocked a bit quicker), but cos of how consistent it was. Which means he was bowling within himself.
 

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
People think McGrath was a "medium pacer" too. It nonsense, where people get these perceptions.
Because people have a misconception that faster = better and so if a bowler is not well renowned for their pace its a good way to try and discredit them.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Because people have a misconception that faster = better and so if a bowler is not well renowned for their pace its a good way to try and discredit them.
I mean, at the extremes it's kind of true. You can't bowl 110 kph pies as a seamer at Test level and not get **** on.

But the truth is McGrath just objectively wasn't on the slower end of seam bowlers, which is what "medium pace", or even medium-fast would imply. He wasn't "fast", but "fast-medium". He was clocked at over 140. That's pretty typical for a Test class seamer, but nowhere near "medium pace".
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I mean, at the extremes it's kind of true. You can't bowl 110 kph pies as a seamer at Test level and not get **** on.

But the truth is McGrath just objectively wasn't on the slower end of seam bowlers, which is what "medium pace", or even medium-fast would imply. He wasn't "fast", but "fast-medium". He was clocked at over 140. That's pretty typical for a Test class seamer, but nowhere near "medium pace".
His average was low 130s
 

DrWolverine

International Regular
From what I remember

McGrath bowled mostly in 130s

Pollock bowled in 130s but was touching even high 120s times at the end of his career
 

DrWolverine

International Regular
Because people have a misconception that faster = better
When you think of a fast bowler, you tend to think of aggressive and attacking bowlers and not bowlers who bowls less than 80mph.

I accept that as long as you get wickets it should not matter much but pure pace excites majority of fans.
 

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
When you think of a fast bowler, you tend to think of aggressive and attacking bowlers and not bowlers who bowls less than 80mph.

I accept that as long as you get wickets it should not matter much but pure pace excites majority of fans.
Steyn and Wasim at their peaks were mainly mid 80s who could crank it up.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
McGrath was fast medium, or medium fast at slowest by end of career. About smack dab in the typical middle range of what you'd see for Test class seamers.

He wasn't just some "slow" fox that got everyone out simply by virtue of guile and placement. It was genuinely hard to pick him due to a combination of placement, variation, bounce angle AND pace. Trundler he was not.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Pollock had a greater "range" of speeds throughout career, and got rather slow towards the very end of his career. Overall mostly him and McGrath were very similar pace, although I think the little bit of extra height of McGrath helped him out a bit in retaining longevity.
 

Top