Is Jacques Kallis Ken Barrington of modern age?

[Chrish]

I think Pollock loses out because he played in a tougher era for batsmen/an era with a lot of great bowlers.

Steyn pretty much stands out alone from his peers in being an exceptional bowler in the current era.

Pollock looses out because he lacked venom and aggressiveness that is associated with pacer. Moreover, he lacked the ability to run through line-ups like Donald/ Steyn as pointed out earlier.

@Migara, you are undermining destructiveness of a bowler.. It's only because of Steyn pulling out demonic spell of 5/23 in 08 and 7/51 in 2010 against India, SA managed to draw two back to back series in India; something very few teams have managed. Had he been one of your consistent bowlers, I doubt it any of this would have happened. 5fer and 10fer along with average are a gold standard to judge a bowler for a reason.

As for some Aussies not rating Donald highly, I have read that before as well and it's not surprising. It's just like some Indians don't rate Warne at all. It's hard to respect someone who hasn't preformed against your favorite team (although Donald wasn't as bad as Warne who was completely abysmal against one team)

 

[SeamUp]

We mention it but wow we were lucky to watch the cricketers we did in the 90's. We can sit here an knit pick Shaun Pollock but **** me did I enjoy watching him bowl and bat in both ODI and test cricket and he did rip teams apart with both.

Sometimes it can be deemed less flashy but I suppose bowling in partnerships is what brings success and that is what made Donald & Pollock so great.

 

[cnerd123]

Pollock looses out because he lacked venom and aggressiveness that is associated with pacer. Moreover, he lacked the ability to run through line-ups like Donald/ Steyn as pointed out earlier.

Maybe to the casual fan, but I doubt that's an issue here on CW. For example, we rate other unflashy players like McGrath, Kaliis, Younis Khan, etc pretty highley.

Its just that we the conversation about great fast bowlers of the 90s/00s comes up, Pollock falls behind the likes of McGrath, Ambrose and Wasim, but when you talk about great fast bowlers of the 00/10 era, Steyn is far ahead of the other names in the list.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yup, Pollock is Anderson on steroids.

 

[kingkallis]

We mention it but wow we were lucky to watch the cricketers we did in the 90's. We can sit here an knit pick Shaun Pollock but **** me did I enjoy watching him bowl and bat in both ODI and test cricket and he did rip teams apart with both.

Sometimes it can be deemed less flashy but I suppose bowling in partnerships is what brings success and that is what made Donald & Pollock so great.

In 1998, Donald took 80 and Pollock took 69 wickets in one single calendar year so yeah they bowled very well in partnership.

 

[Red]

Pollock a better bowler than Anderson by a considerable margin.

Shaun Pollock is a massively underrated cricketer in my opinion, and should be included in the conversations based around Kapil, Hadlee, Botham and Imran.

 

[smash84]

Pollock was a better bowler than Botham and Kapil and in terms of batting he was better than Hadlee.

so yeah he probably belongs in the conversation but the problem is that he probably has less high impact performances than all of them

 

[Black_Warrior]

Maybe to the casual fan, but I doubt that's an issue here on CW. For example, we rate other unflashy players like McGrath, Kaliis, Younis Khan, etc pretty highley.

.

McGrath is anything but 'unflashy'

 

[Black_Warrior]

Pollock is a tremendous bowler and a record to be proud of, but if you're comparing him with the likes of Steyn, he falls short not so much because of his own ability but more because of the absolutely incredible and out of this world achievements of someone like Steyn. Pollock headed the bowling attack from 2002-2007 almost and it was during this time that South Africa fielded one of it's weakest bowling attacks (by it's own high standards). South Africa lost at home to England and lost in India in 04, lost in Pakistan in 03, lost in Sri Lanka in 06.

Now look at the difference Steyn made with his emergence in 07-08.
South Africa beat Australia in Australia in 08 and became number 1 team.
South Africa drew 1-1 twice in India when India were at their peak, making fools of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Dhoni etc.
South Africa beat Pakistan in 07
South Africa beat Sri Lanka in 14
South Africa beat England in 12.

So yes while their average might not be that different, if you break down those numbers, the gulf between them would be clear.

 

[Gob]

Pollock was as good as McGrath in the 90's but unlike McGrath he fell off quickly towards the end. Never forget him bowling off spin in Sri Lanka

Best OD bowler I've seen though

 

[SeamUp]

I get the argument but consistency is what makes players great.

With Shaun Pollock, you knew what you were getting. Basically the same with Jacques Kallis. Consistent excellence.

With Allan Donald for example, he let the team down far more than Pollock. Same with Ntini. Ntini/Donald big hauls and won us games but was disappointing more often. Pollock also got big hauls though. 16 5-fors in 102 test was it ? But also 23 4-fors to go with that.

Always a tough debate though. What you take as more important.

The funny thing with Kallis and Pollock was that their 2nd best skill set could be viewed as having more x-factor than their major skill set.

 

[Migara]

The funny thing with Kallis and Pollock was that their 2nd best skill set could be viewed as having more x-factor than their major skill set.

Or even the third given that the catches they have pulled off with ridiculous ease.

 

[Marius]

The funny thing with Kallis and Pollock was that their 2nd best skill set could be viewed as having more x-factor than their major skill set.

If they'd both worked on their second skills set, both could have been proper, genuine all-rounders.

Pollock really looked great batting sometimes and probably deserved more than two Test hundreds.

 

[harsh.ag]

Pollock's helmet always looked too big for his head somehow

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pollock's helmet always looked too big for his head somehow

So true. Almost as annoying to look at as Dravid's inability to properly do his helmet's chin strap. Was a disgrace.

 

[smash84]

Pollock's helmet always looked too big for his head somehow

so true. I thought I was the only who noticed that since it never got mentioned.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I get the argument but consistency is what makes players great.

With Shaun Pollock, you knew what you were getting. Basically the same with Jacques Kallis. Consistent excellence.

.

I think Kallis acheived more as a batsman than Pollock did as a bowler.

 

[Red]

I think Kallis acheived more as a batsman than Pollock did as a bowler.

Why?

 

[Red]

Pollock probably could've averaged 40+ with the bat as a pure batsman who didn't have a bowling workload.

Kallis might've played a few years as one of the three seamers in his team even without his batting. But he'd have been up against some pretty good SA bowlers for a spot.

 

[Camo999]

Interesting re Kallis and Pollock. 2 great players for sure with super stats but could they have been utilised better for SA from a team perspective?

Kallis has been criticised in some quarters for not being quite as dynamic with the bat as some of his contemporaries. It would have been interesting had he been given a chance to open the batting which might have suited his style a bit more. He and Smith may have formed the best combo of all time! Pollock I always thought was very good with the bat but seemed to bat very low in the order. Perhaps they could have got more out of him if he came in earlier.