Shaun Pollock

[NUFAN]

Kallis and Pollock are not underrated. They both finished within the top 50 of our draft and Pollock has so much love as evident in this thread any many others.

Graeme, Peter and even Jackson are more underrated than Shaun.

 

[Valer]

Yep; the fact that those blokes all have 400 Test wickets at an average of 23 speaks volumes about how uninspiring such a feat really is.

Missing my point, that being that things look more impresive when people are not doing them right now. I made no claim on the length of time...

 

[Cricketismylife]

The real reason without a shadow of doubt. The English and the Aussies overhype their players, hence we hear how good Flintoff was everytime!

Not sure it applies to everything! I see it as more of a general trend. For example, ESPN legends of cricket implies that Lillee was a better player than say Richard Hadlee or Imran Khan. How can that be the case? Even on pure bowling ability alone Hadlee/ Imran are equal if not better than Lillee statistically, and those 2 are much better bats. The reason this happened in this case is that Lillee was more aggressive than say Hadlee, and was a more explosive bowler, so was seen as more watchable. The second reason is that Hadlee played for a much smaller team than Lillee, and didn't have the same media attention on his matches as Lillee did. Lillee's, (fantastic bowler that he was) reputation certainly benefited from playing for Aus.
With Imran it's slightly different; he wasnt exactly media shy, but again the amount of public and general media that watched and took into account, test performances in Pakistan would have been far less than those in England and Australia.

Also the fact is it takes much longer for players outside these 2 countries and now India to become well known. Imagine if Vernon Philander was from any of these countries! After his performances, everyone would be talking about him. I'm surprised how little he is mentioned considering what he has done.

Why is Philip Hughes a household name but Tharanga Paranavitana not? Why are Warne's wickets against England who are poor players of spin seen as so special, but Murali's wickets at home often dismissed as easy home wickets? Why are there so many articles of cricinfo about Virat Kohli, but hardly any on Dinesh Chandimal? How did Ricky Ponting win player of the decade ahead of Jacques Kallis?

It may sound controversial, but it is clear that cricketers are not rated purely on performances, but on performances plus entertainment factor and media attention (which is heavily affected by the country that that player is from).

 

[unam]

Not sure it applies to everything! I see it as more of a general trend. For example, ESPN legends of cricket implies that Lillee was a better player than say Richard Hadlee or Imran Khan. How can that be the case? Even on pure bowling ability alone Hadlee/ Imran are equal if not better than Lillee statistically, and those 2 are much better bats. The reason this happened in this case is that Lillee was more aggressive than say Hadlee, and was a more explosive bowler, so was seen as more watchable. The second reason is that Hadlee played for a much smaller team than Lillee, and didn't have the same media attention on his matches as Lillee did. Lillee's, (fantastic bowler that he was) reputation certainly benefited from playing for Aus.
With Imran it's slightly different; he wasnt exactly media shy, but again the amount of public and general media that watched and took into account, test performances in Pakistan would have been far less than those in England and Australia.

Also the fact is it takes much longer for players outside these 2 countries and now India to become well known. Imagine if Vernon Philander was from any of these countries! After his performances, everyone would be talking about him. I'm surprised how little he is mentioned considering what he has done.

Why is Philip Hughes a household name but Tharanga Paranavitana not? Why are Warne's wickets against England who are poor players of spin seen as so special, but Murali's wickets at home often dismissed as easy home wickets? Why are there so many articles of cricinfo about Virat Kohli, but hardly any on Dinesh Chandimal? How did Ricky Ponting win player of the decade ahead of Jacques Kallis?

It may sound controversial, but it is clear that cricketers are not rated purely on performances, but on performances plus entertainment factor and media attention (which is heavily affected by the country that that player is from).

awta... really good points there buddy.. I was thinking about same things when I asked in the other thread " Why was Shane Warne chosen as one of the cricketers of the century?"

 

[Debris]

awta... really good points there buddy.. I was thinking about same things when I asked in the other thread " Why was Shane Warne chosen as one of the cricketers of the century?"

And my thought was "What is wrong with that?". Entertaining the public is the primary reason for a cricketer's existence. Performance is merely a means to that end.

 

[unam]

And my thought was "What is wrong with that?". Entertaining the public is the primary reason for a cricketer's existence. Performance is merely a means to that end.

based on above.. how about Shahid Afridi as cricketer of the century? or at least cricketer of the decade?

 

[Pup Clarke]

Afridi is an example of a cricketer, though, who is the opposite of 'sustained entertainment'.

 

[bagapath]

I want to ignore Shaun's nauseatingly self-righteous tweets and judge him only on his cricketing ability.

As a huge admirer of his bang-on bowling line, my only issue with it was that he was not running through batting line-ups as muc..... err.... cant get those stupid tweets out of my mind....

Walking away shaking my head in disappointment.....

 

[marc71178]

Even on pure bowling ability alone Hadlee/ Imran are equal if not better than Lillee statistically,

FFS, stats are not the same as ability, something a lot of people on here seem incapable of understanding.

 

[marc71178]

based on above.. how about Shahid Afridi as cricketer of the century? or at least cricketer of the decade?

Because slogging and being an idiot are not entertaining.

 

[unam]

Afridi is an example of a cricketer, though, who is the opposite of 'sustained entertainment'.

really harsh on Afridi .... this guy tried his best to entertain public through out his career. If he failed with the bat, he entertained with bowl, if he failed with bowl, he entertained with other stuff.

 

[unam]

I want to ignore Shaun's nauseatingly self-righteous tweets and judge him only on his cricketing ability.

As a huge admirer of his bang-on bowling line, my only issue with it was that he was not running through batting line-ups as muc..... err.... cant get those stupid tweets out of my mind....

Walking away shaking my head in disappointment.....

before 2002 he was as good of a bowler as Mcgrath. After that he became more of a defensive bowler than attacking,

 

[vic_orthdox]

South Africa had so many bowling options that there were times where Pollock could hide a bit, especially in that earlier part of his career, when things weren't going his way. Mind you, that early Pollock also was a bloody good bowler, was prepared to ruffle a few feathers and then go fuller to try and get a wicket, just had beautiful seam presentation.

 

[Ikki]

Shaun Pollock did it over much much longer period and in different era. The main reason is mentioned by cricketismylife. if he had played for England, Australia or India, people would be comparing him with players like Imran Khan and Gary Sobers etc. and the reason Kallis is so underrated is same.

I think it's rubbish frankly. I do too feel that some of the S.Africans are underrated and at other times I feel it is their own fault. People are saying Pollock was as good as Imran and Kallis as good as Sobers; and they were complimented by other players in their team and S.Africa have always been strong...yet even with all that talent they weren't #1. It goes to show that whilst stats often make for good reading, they hide valuable insights to those players.

I think statistically you could argue that as all-rounders those are their matches but in terms of rating them as great cricketers I'd agree with the votes - that neither Kallis deserved to be near Sobers nor Pollock near Imran. You're essentially saying they had 2 cricketers who were arguablly in the top 5 of ALL time and you excuse the fact that they were never a dominant team.

 

[Rasimione]

I think it's rubbish frankly. I do too feel that some of the S.Africans are underrated and at other times I feel it is their own fault. People are saying Pollock was as good as Imran and Kallis as good as Sobers; and they were complimented by other players in their team and S.Africa have always been strong...yet even with all that talent they weren't #1. It goes to show that whilst stats often make for good reading, they hide valuable insights to those players.

I think statistically you could argue that as all-rounders those are their matches but in terms of rating them as great cricketers I'd agree with the votes - that neither Kallis deserved to be near Sobers nor Pollock near Imran. You're essentially saying they had 2 cricketers who were arguablly in the top 5 of ALL time and you excuse the fact that they were never a dominant team.

what a load of rubbish. Fact is people do not like him because his bowling style was boring. But Mcgrath did the same and was considered a legend. His stats were mostly compiled against the best teams. And as for style over substance, the continued putting down of players because they did not "dominate" their peers is stupid, ditto for those advancing that argument. I agree stats can be misleading, but when people have played over 108 tests, those stats cannot be a fluke. IMO it just boils down to a media campaign that is pro English, Aussies and Indians.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

what a load of rubbish. Fact is people do not like him because his bowling style was boring.

How did you come to that conclusion, friend? What may be boring for some people may really tickle someone else's fancy. Between you and I, there are very few things I enjoyed in cricket as much as the visual experience of seeing Shaun Pollock bowl. Coming in with the shining red cherry, landing it on a very good spot and nipping it both ways off the seam - joy to behold. Maybe people discern based on merit and some reckon that Pollock wasn't an ATG on those grounds.

 

[Sparkley]

FFS, stats are not the same as ability, something a lot of people on here seem incapable of understanding.

May not be the case in Lillee vs Imran vs Hadlee per se but generally your numbers are as good as your performances and your performances and ability are very closely linked.

 

[Ikki]

what a load of rubbish. Fact is people do not like him because his bowling style was boring. But Mcgrath did the same and was considered a legend. His stats were mostly compiled against the best teams. And as for style over substance, the continued putting down of players because they did not "dominate" their peers is stupid, ditto for those advancing that argument. I agree stats can be misleading, but when people have played over 108 tests, those stats cannot be a fluke. IMO it just boils down to a media campaign that is pro English, Aussies and Indians.

I am not sure where your aesthetics argument comes from since I don't mention it but I find it humorous that you bring up McGrath as a comparison because people tend to dismiss him because of how he got wickets as well - particularly when talking about his speed.

Anyway, you missed my point I feel. The touted point is that these two are underrated and should be spoken alongside Sobers and Imran. Purely in terms of dollars and cents, their stats, they should be. In terms of being great cricketers like the aforementioned I disagree a lot. SA were a very strong side and with, as is being argued, 2 players comparable to the top 5 in cricket history they have a lot to answer for; for never being #1 or really troubling the #1 of their time. This is when I mean people are taking their stats too far. If they were as good as is being argued then getting to the top should have been a realisable target. They didn't and hence they are appropriately rated IMO.

 

[Sparkley]

to be fair to RSA, the number one side of the period in which Kallis and Pollock played had way too many great players for any team to consistently challenge them.

 

[unam]

I am not sure where your aesthetics argument comes from since I don't mention it but I find it humorous that you bring up McGrath as a comparison because people tend to dismiss him because of how he got wickets as well - particularly when talking about his speed.

Anyway, you missed my point I feel. The touted point is that these two are underrated and should be spoken alongside Sobers and Imran. Purely in terms of dollars and cents, their stats, they should be. In terms of being great cricketers like the aforementioned I disagree a lot. SA were a very strong side and with, as is being argued, 2 players comparable to the top 5 in cricket history they have a lot to answer for; for never being #1 or really troubling the #1 of their time. This is when I mean people are taking their stats too far. If they were as good as is being argued then getting to the top should have been a realisable target. They didn't and hence they are appropriately rated IMO.

In late 90s Pakistan, Australia and South Africa were pretty much equal. Even in early 00s the difference wasn't as much as people think between South Africa and Australia. Also keep in mind that Australia had at least 5 players during that time who would be considered all time greats and would probably walk into any XI.

As far as the 2 players playing together goes, Pollock and Kallis played together for approx 10 years, but you can divide that 10 years into 2 stages. 1) when Pollock was the real force as a bowler but Kallis wasn't the same Kallis, 2) when Kallis became runs machine but Pollock wasn't the same force that he used to be.