• 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.

Who would u want in ur team, Mcgrath or Pollock?

dinu23

International Debutant
I was wodering who I would rather have in my team if I had to chose between Mcgrath and Pollock. Watching Pollock in action in the Afro-Asian cup, he still hasn't lost the touch. I would rate him just behind Mcgrath if only bowling was considered.
But because of Pollocks' batting ability, he'll get in my team before Mcgrath.

ur thoughts? :)
 

C_C

International Captain
Tough ask really.
Pollock is an excellent bowler but needs one like Alan Donald to provide the fire for him to capitalise on....McGrath on the other hand is the best of his generation.....Pollock's batting abilities are vastly superior too......i would have to see who the other players are before i make up my mind.
:p
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
In the mid to late 90s I'd go for Pollock. But today, McGrath. The reason is that while McGrath was always a slightly better bowler Pollock's batting made the difference. But now, McGrath is a far better bowler, and averaging 30 with the bat doesn't make up for that. But, as C_C said, if you already had a lethal bowling attack and just wanted someone to keep it quiet and build pressure, Pollock's batting would get him in the team again. If you want a strike bowler though, it's no contest.
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
Never really rated Pollock as a batsman, maybe 'cos he's never done it consistently against England (which is where I've seen him most). I'd take McGrath who is more likely to win a game for his bowling alone, against Pollock's hit-or-miss batting and decent bowling.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
How weird, I just phrased a question like this in a different context in another thread (only it wasn't about McGrath), and I hadn't even seen this one. Serendipity I suppose.

McGrath, fairly comfortably.
 

Run like Inzy

U19 12th Man
Mcgrath simply because Pollock has lost some venom as a bowler and his batting is not based on a solid technique. Mcgrath is atleast still a big force with the ball and has just been better than Pollock. Also he just broke Walsh's record of 553 runs at No.11 and also managed his first 50 this year.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
In the mid to late 90s I'd go for Pollock. But today, McGrath. The reason is that while McGrath was always a slightly better bowler Pollock's batting made the difference. But now, McGrath is a far better bowler, and averaging 30 with the bat doesn't make up for that. But, as C_C said, if you already had a lethal bowling attack and just wanted someone to keep it quiet and build pressure, Pollock's batting would get him in the team again. If you want a strike bowler though, it's no contest.
well said top post.....
 

dinu23

International Debutant
FaaipDeOiad said:
In the mid to late 90s I'd go for Pollock. But today, McGrath. The reason is that while McGrath was always a slightly better bowler Pollock's batting made the difference. But now, McGrath is a far better bowler, and averaging 30 with the bat doesn't make up for that. But, as C_C said, if you already had a lethal bowling attack and just wanted someone to keep it quiet and build pressure, Pollock's batting would get him in the team again. If you want a strike bowler though, it's no contest.
why don't u consider Pollock as a strike bowler? he has 377 test wickets and 321 ODI wickets.
And I don't think the gap between Mcgrath and Pollock is that big. I admit Mcgrath is the best fast bowler going around these days, but Pollock is only slightly behind I think.
 

Top