JH Kallis v SM Pollock

[Langeveldt]

Ive heard it mentioned, that SM Pollock is the finest all rounder of the current era.. He is a fine cricketer, a gem.. but I rate Kallis a lot more than Pollie as an allrounder..

Just like to hear some opinions on the matter

 

[Sanz]

As a Bowler Pollock is way better than Kallis and is among the best in the world. As a batsman he has done well whenever he has got an opportunity. Kallis isn't impressive as a bowler lately.

So my vote goes to Pollock.

 

[Armadillo]

pollock known to be a fine bowler but its the same with kallis' batting, tough one to call, try the experts

www.cricketratings.com

 

[Langeveldt]

Which reminds me, i should have put a poll up.. oh well..

 

[Tom Halsey]

Erm, the best there is around, but far from the be-all-and-end-all.

This is directed at Adil's post.

 

[Sanz]

pollock known to be a fine bowler but its the same with kallis' batting, tough one to call, try the experts

Well Pollock doesn't get enough opportunities as a batsmen, Whereas Kallis does get to bowl regularly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Pollock is a league ahead of Kallis as a bowler but Kallis is a league ahead of Pollock as a batsman. Thus I rate them equally and I rate South Africa as the most well-rounded team in cricket due to that fact that they possess two of the greatest allrounders in the game IMO.

 

[Langeveldt]

Pollock is a league ahead of Kallis as a bowler but Kallis is a league ahead of Pollock as a batsman. Thus I rate them equally and I rate South Africa as the most well-rounded team in cricket due to that fact that they possess two of the greatest allrounders in the game IMO.

Good post

 

[Anil]

Pollock is a much better bowler and Kallis is a much better batsman right now. IMO, Kallis has had a much better opportunity to develop as a bowler compared to Pollock as a batsman, so we really can't make a sound judgement at this point. What can be said is that both are way ahead of anyone else and SA should consider themselves lucky to have the services of both in the same era.

 

[Mr. P]

Agree with most of the posts here, Kallis way ahead of Pollock's batting, Pollock way ahead of Kallis's bowling.

But I would prefer to have Kallis the bowler in my side then Pollock the batter.

I vote Kallis

 

[Eclipse]

I am yet to be convinced about Kallis batting against quality bowling he typicaly murders the weeker bowling teams.

So I would say Pollock.

 

[Craig]

Beside Australia Eclipse, how many quality bowling line-ups are there? Obviously he doesnt play against South Africa.

I can say that using your logic to apply to many cricketers.

 

[iamdavid]

IMO Kallis's bowling is on par with Pollock's batting in the slightly below test class category.
They are capable of doing a job in that disipline but dont have the consistency to earn a test place on that skill alone.

I also rate Kallis's batting dead even with Pollock's bowling in the world class category.
They would both be superb players on that disipline alone , the added allround ability is just a bonus.

They are also pretty well equal in the feild.

I honestly cant seperate them , they are both wonderful players & the two best allrounders in the world.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I also rate Kallis's bowling dead even with Pollock's bowling in the world class category.
They would both be superb players on that disipline alone , the added allround ability is just a bonus.

Kallis' batting, you mean?

 

[iamdavid]

Kallis' batting, you mean?

Ok at least give me 5 minutes to edit the typo's in my post before you whinge

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ok at least give me 5 minutes to edit the typo's in my post before you whinge

No apostrophe in typos - it's a plural, not a possessive.

 

[thierry henry]

Pollock is a better bowler than Kallis is batsman. Pollock's average of 21 for 300+ wickets means he is quite possibly the best bowler of this era (yes, I know a lot of you won't like this). Kallis on the other hand is a world class batsman, but he is clearly behind Tendulkar, Lara, and quite possibly Hayden, Dravid, and Ponting. However, I think Kallis' bowling, with an average around 30, is slightly better than Pollock's batting, with an average around 34. Kallis' batting average is 20 runs higher than Pollock's, and Pollock's bowling average is 10 runs lower, so I give it narrowly to Kallis (and yes, I realise that working out the differences in averages is a flawed method of determining this).

Also, what about Lance Klusener? I dunno about his test figures, but is he the best ODI all-rounder ever?? He must have taken a host of wickets, and his batting record is phenomenal-averaging 42 and striking at a run a ball.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Pollock is a better bowler than Kallis is batsman. Pollock's average of 21 for 300+ wickets means he is quite possibly the best bowler of this era (yes, I know a lot of you won't like this).

Curtly Ambrose and Glen McGrath have 400+ wickets at around 21. Both have better SRs too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Also, what about Lance Klusener? I dunno about his test figures, but is he the best ODI all-rounder ever?? He must have taken a host of wickets, and his batting record is phenomenal-averaging 42 and striking at a run a ball.

That's a bit over the top. Klusener has 189 wickets and 3433 runs in ODI cricket. I don't see how that can place him ahead of the likes of Kapil Dev 253 and 3783, Imran Khan 182(lower avge than Zulu and lower econ.) and 3709.

The of course there's Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards...

 

[thierry henry]

Agree on Ambrose. I would put him in a slightly different era to Pollock. Ambrose is 90s, Pollock is mid 90s-mid 00s.

As for McGrath, I think he averages 22+? A small but nevertheless important difference.