Shaun Pollock

[NUFAN]

We're not comparing him to Sherwin Campbell though nor Herschelle Gibbs.

It seems counter-intuitive to me to laud a country/team with several great players who in your opinion need to be rated highly, yet that same team with many good to great players never drew against the best Team around, nevermind beat them. A feat most of the other teams managed.

FTR, I am slightly playing devil's advocate. I think this is a legitimate point; how much weight you want to put on it is upto you obviously.

Actually I was saying Pollock and Kallis are slightly overrated on this forum.

I'm just simply disagreeing that team series results mean that much when judging an individual. I prefer looking at how the individual actually played against the best team.

 

[Ikki]

I didn't mean you, the general 'you'.

 

[Sparkley]

I have seen couple of all time England IX on cricketweb with Pieterson in them.

Oh ok, so your gripe basically is that Pietersen makes all time England XI's more often than De Villiers. Makes sense.

 

[archie mac]

Stats kill the romance of the game. Mark Waugh, to me, was the greatest, most talented Aussie batsman of the last twenty years, but his stats are distinctly average. I'm not saying aesthetics are the be all, but when you're talking about players who've achieved a significant amount over a sustained period of time, the approach needs to be more holistic and not merely cookie-cutter stat-based.

Top post, I agree with the sentiment as well as the facts. MW was the best batsman to watch and cleary had the most talent

 

[Cricketismylife]

Stats kill the romance of the game. Mark Waugh, to me, was the greatest, most talented Aussie batsman of the last twenty years, but his stats are distinctly average. I'm not saying aesthetics are the be all, but when you're talking about players who've achieved a significant amount over a sustained period of time, the approach needs to be more holistic and not merely cookie-cutter stat-based.

I agree completely that stats kill the romance of the game. But I am trying to judge a player purely on effectiveness and not aesthetics or watchability. I would rather watch Damien Martyn bat than Ricky Ponting, but there is no way I can argue that Martyn is the better batsman. Similarly, I'd rather watch Mark Waugh than Steve, but there is no way one can argue that Mark was the better test batsman.

Your mention of the "romance" of the game backs up my earlier point even further. The series with the most romance is England-Australia, which is completely fine by me. What I don't agree with is using the excuse of romance to rate certain players higher than others, because that is biased towards certain teams. One or 2 people here have just agreed with me that had Lillee played for NZ his rating would be lower because they are not a romantic side.

So to conclude, how entertaining or "romantic" Shaun Pollock's career is is debatable, what is not debatable is that he was a world class bowler (that's the only way you can take 400 wickets at 23 without minnow bashing at all) and a more than useful batsman. As a combination there arent many players who can beat that.

 

[MW1304]

Top post, I agree with the sentiment as well as the facts. MW was the best batsman to watch and cleary had the most talent

Aw shucks.

 

[Debris]

Top post, I agree with the sentiment as well as the facts. MW was the best batsman to watch and cleary had the most talent

It depends what you meant by talent. He had a very good technique and obviously fantastic hand-eye co-ordination. He suffered a lot from lapses in concentration and poor shot selection. Does that make him less talented? Maybe his technique was not suited to succeed at test cricket.

Steve Waugh is a case in point. When you (the royal you) watch Steve Waugh early in his career, he is a very attractive and fluent batsman a bit like Mark Waugh. He could have kept that technique and averaged in the early 40s. Instead, he recrafted his technique to be more suited to test cricket and averages in the mid 50's for the rest of his career. He looked very ugly at times but the results were much better.

It is a really interesting comparison as to who made the better decision and it really comes down to a personal preference as to what you like to watch.

 

[archie mac]

It depends what you meant by talent. He had a very good technique and obviously fantastic hand-eye co-ordination. He suffered a lot from lapses in concentration and poor shot selection. Does that make him less talented? Maybe his technique was not suited to succeed at test cricket.

Steve Waugh is a case in point. When you (the royal you) watch Steve Waugh early in his career, he is a very attractive and fluent batsman a bit like Mark Waugh. He could have kept that technique and averaged in the early 40s. Instead, he recrafted his technique to be more suited to test cricket and averages in the mid 50's for the rest of his career. He looked very ugly at times but the results were much better.

It is a really interesting comparison as to who made the better decision and it really comes down to a personal preference as to what you like to watch.

I agree he did not perform as well as his talent suggested. Interestingly this is confirmed by his higher FC average compared to his brother. I don't think you could say he was not suited to succeed at Test cricket. He did pretty well and scored some fine tons.

Never thought he was attractive as Mark even in 1989, just didn't have the grace imo, but full marks for his career.

Struggle to think anyone would rather watch Steve bat compared to Mark, as Chappelli said if you see one Steve Waugh innings you have seen them all.

 

[Jacknife]

I have seen couple of all time England IX on cricketweb with Pieterson in them.

What has that to do with AbV not being in a SA one, surely its a measure of the players in front of him in the lists, you're argument makes no sense at all imo.

As for Ab, for the first part of his career up to 2009 he averaged around 43 and was a a decent player no more and at home he was pretty ordinary averaged about 35, he's improved the last two years or so and as become a world class batsman but it wasn't always that way. KP for all his career has averaged around 50, maybe it's why some rate him more.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Don't know what the current context is here but one look at De Villiers today and you just feel he's going to end up a complete monster. He's got an intangible something which also makes me think he'll be top captain in the game along with Clarke. I hope we get to see more series between the two sides..same ages too

 

[akilana]

AB started his current run of form in early 2008 with the double ton in India.. was awesome in England and Australia in the same year.. since that he kept up his game.
His ODI record is unbelievable, average 49 and SR in excess of 90.

 

[weldone]

I agree completely that stats kill the romance of the game. But I am trying to judge a player purely on effectiveness and not aesthetics or watchability. I would rather watch Damien Martyn bat than Ricky Ponting, but there is no way I can argue that Martyn is the better batsman. Similarly, I'd rather watch Mark Waugh than Steve, but there is no way one can argue that Mark was the better test batsman.

Your mention of the "romance" of the game backs up my earlier point even further. The series with the most romance is England-Australia, which is completely fine by me. What I don't agree with is using the excuse of romance to rate certain players higher than others, because that is biased towards certain teams. One or 2 people here have just agreed with me that had Lillee played for NZ his rating would be lower because they are not a romantic side.

So to conclude, how entertaining or "romantic" Shaun Pollock's career is is debatable, what is not debatable is that he was a world class bowler (that's the only way you can take 400 wickets at 23 without minnow bashing at all) and a more than useful batsman. As a combination there arent many players who can beat that.

Good post