A tribute to Pollock

[gibbsnsmith]

i kinda think that Pollock has underachieved with the bat...i used to be a HUGE fan of SA[kinda still am] i used to a sad little 10yr old watching videos of sa players and building up a rather good accounts on them, and ive seen pollock bat loadsa times and he is definetely gareme pollocks nephew as he has his talent [well not all of it but atleast some of it]

Pollock does have a very good challenge in Jacques Kallis and soon maybe from Freddy when his luck with the ball begins to change in tests

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think Flintoff still has a long way to go before we can start mentioning him with Pollock.

Kallis is a different type of allrounder to Pollock. Pollock is essentially a bowling allrounder - an excellent bowler and a more than useful batsman - whereas Kallis is a batting allrounder - an excellent batsman and a more than useful bowler. Therefore, we cannot really compare the two in terms of who is the better allrounder.

 

[Neil Pickup]

First few years of his career, yep he underachieved a little - but 2001-present he's averaging 60+ so I think he's going fine there.

 

[marc71178]

I think Flintoff still has a long way to go before we can start mentioning him with Pollock.

The thing is, what do we class Flintoff as?

Is he a batting allrounder (suggesting he'd make the team on his batting) or a bowling allrounder (suggesting he'd make it as a bowler)

To be honest, looking at the performances he's served up in this series, I'd he's neither, but more a genuine all rounder.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The thing is, what do we class Flintoff as?

Is he a batting allrounder (suggesting he'd make the team on his batting) or a bowling allrounder (suggesting he'd make it as a bowler)

To be honest, looking at the performances he's served up in this series, I'd he's neither, but more a genuine all rounder.

I'd just call him an England allrounder, because he's more of a "the best we have" allrounder. Before this series, he had alot to prove and IMO was in the team because he was the only decent allround option which England had. However, he's done superbly and has really taken steps toward reaching the level of world-class.

 

[Eclipse]

That is a case off changing your opinions if there is ever one.

No it's a case of me maybe not making myself 100% clear in the first place.

And you not reading my post properly.

Why would I change my opinion I cant think of any reason why I would do that.

 

[Eclipse]

We're used to it Craig.

Some people on here just cannot possibly accept that the rest of the Cricketing Countries produce good cricketers.

Pollock is the World's best seam bowler at the moment, and there's nothing anyone can say that will change that!

I cant rate him as high as some players because I have not personaly seen him perform against top players with my own eyes. I have not seen alot of Pollock so the chances are that I am wrong but I still have a right to express my opinion.

Having said that I still rate him as one off the top 3 seam bowlers in the world so I certainly rate him all be it not quite as high as most.


Any way marc what is you problem with me you allways critersize. I do rate alot of players that dont play for Australia. I know more about Aussie players so I rate the ones I know to be good as good were as you may question that because you dont know them as well as me.

You are the one with the problem marc you are wrong about me and it ****es me off because you know nothing about me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Calling Pollock the best seam bowler in the world is a little arrogant. Glenn McGrath and him would be somewhere on the same plane but as far as I'm concerned, inseperable. Pollock had a lull for a while there (especially against the Aussies) but everyone does. I mean, Glenn McGrath is going through one right now. It happens.

And Marc, you're a fine one to talk about bias against countries! When was the last time you said something positive about an Aussie cricketer?

 

[Eclipse]

And Marc, you're a fine one to talk about bias against countries! When was the last time you said something positive about an Aussie cricketer?

Exactly your as bad as the rest of us.
At least we will admit it and I dont think there is anything wrong with it mind you Because we are all passionate about our Country's.

Your problem is you do it then just pretend like you did nothing and then bag somone like me who was giving an honest opinion.

 

[Tim]

Here we go again...I don't think calling Pollock the best seamer in the world is arrogant.

If someone outside of South Africa suggests Pollock is the best then so be it, its their personal choice & in no way showing bias or being arrogant.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

I dont think there needs to be any bias, no one disputes the quality of Mcgrath..if you compare him and pollock-
economy is more or less the same, accuracy is more or less the same, pace is more or less the same. So maybe people [including myslef] were too hasty in calling Pollock the best seamer, but i doubt there was any bias against australians, i mean in a topic for the best batsman in the world, i and surely many others would bring up the names of Hayden and Ponting and not just stay with the likes of Tendulkar and Lara

 

[marc71178]

And Marc, you're a fine one to talk about bias against countries! When was the last time you said something positive about an Aussie cricketer?

I regularly quote the Aussie team as what England should aspire to.

 

[marc71178]

PwC:




1 Shaun Pollock SA 867 20.71 910 vs England, Johannesburg 1999

2 Muttiah Muralitharan SL 861 23.55 915 vs Pakistan, Lahore 2002

3 Glenn McGrath AUS 848 21.72 914 vs England, The Oval 2001



And in ODIs:





1 Muttiah Muralitharan SL 893 22.32 934 vs New Zealand, Sharjah 2002

2 Shaun Pollock SA 883 23.15 915 vs Bangladesh, Bloemfontein 2003

3 Glenn McGrath AUS 871 22.38 925 vs South Africa, Bloemfontein 2002

 

[Top_Cat]

I regularly quote the Aussie team as what England should aspire to.

Indeed you do. On a totally unrelated topic, I think they shouldn't bother. When Australia was aspiring to emulate the West Indies, they kept getting hammered by them. When they went their own way, they beat them. England have strengths which are different to Australia's and should be playing with them in mind. For example, England have a world-class all-rounder whereas Australia do not.

 

[marc71178]

Unfortunately of the rest of the side, almost all the Aussies are better than the English!

That said though, if only Flintoff had been fit for the Ashes, I think it might have been a lot closer...

 

[Tim]

again, another interesting comment.

 

[Top_Cat]

That said though, if only Flintoff had been fit for the Ashes, I think it might have been a lot closer...

You bet. England lost the series on the back of their 'third seamer' option and lower-order batting. Gee, who do you think could have bolstered both those roles??

 

[Rik]

And Marc, you're a fine one to talk about bias against countries! When was the last time you said something positive about an Aussie cricketer?

Well, I have to back Marc up here, even though Pollock has not had much luck this tour, from what I've seen he out-bowled McGrath when he toured England 2 years ago. Since I watched every day of every Test in both series I think you can rule out bias. Pollock has been seriously unluck this tour but also he been unplayable many a time this series, Ntini has taken most of the wickets yet it's mainly been because of Pollock's accuracy. Ntini's series average of 33 or so yet with the most wickets on either side shows that if Pollock had not played in this series SA would have been in serious trouble.

 

[Eclipse]

I am probably totaly wrong here Rik but McGrath took about 35 wickets when he last toured England for the ashes series.

I have not looked to see how many Pollock has taken but to me it does not look like he has over 30.

Or am I wrong cos I have not cheeked up on the stat's of Pollock this series :P

 

[luckyeddie]

Can't see where you reached that conclusion from, Rik - McGrath was absolutely superb last time (and the time before). I thought that it might be that the wickets were a little less bowler-friendly for the most part this time but looking at the comparable scores between the two series that isn't borne out either.