Ian Botham vs Shaun Pollock

[Migara]

Botham in his first career half was better than Pollock overall career.

And Botham is a much better bat.

I'd take Pollock only for his bowling over Botham.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd take Pollock only for his bowling over Botham.

My friend thats overdoing it. He was a regular no.6, 14 tons including a double and an ATG knock.

As a bowler he has more fifers and tenfers than Pollock in less tests.

 

[Migara]

My friend thats overdoing it. He was a regular no.6, 14 tons including a double and an ATG knock.

As a bowler he has more fifers and tenfers than Pollock in less tests.

Pollock shared his wickets with Donald and Steyn. And against bestside of the era, Pollock has done way better. The"soft" performamcea if there were any, applies to Botham more, because he was a total flop against WI. Pollock on other hand evwn single handedly bowled SAFto victories against Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock shared his wickets with Donald and Steyn. And against bestside of the era, Pollock has done way better. The"soft" performamcea if there were any, applies to Botham more, because he was a total flop against WI. Pollock on other hand evwn single handedly bowled SAFto victories against Australia.

Dude we agree Pollock is better as a bowler but I think you are underselling Bothams sheer AR volume of achievements a bit

 

[Migara]

Dude we agree Pollock is better as a bowler but I think you are underselling Bothams sheer AR volume of achievements a bit

I tend to look at the career level. I don't believe in peaks, because length of a peak can be defined to suit the argument. I can define peak as single game, and show that Mushtaq Moahmmed's 9 fer and 150 odd runs against a rampaging WI to beat them is the ultimate peak performance.

Even with peaks, he didn't have the best for the era. Imran had a next level peak compared to Botham.

For me Botham is 33-27 player. Pollock is a 32-22 one. Bowlers averaging 22 is platinum level. That settles the argument for me.

 

[subshakerz]

I tend to look at the career level. I don't believe in peaks, because length of a peak can be defined to suit the argument. I can define peak as single game, and show that Mushtaq Moahmmed's 9 fer and 150 odd runs against a rampaging WI to beat them is the ultimate peak performance.

Even with peaks, he didn't have the best for the era. Imran had a next level peak compared to Botham.

For me Botham is 33-27 player. Pollock is a 32-22 one. Bowlers averaging 22 is platinum level. That settles the argument for me.

I tend to look at career phases. Botham basically until the sharp end decline was a worldclass cricketer.

There is a misconception that Botham was just crap his last career half.



The first half he averaged 39 with the bat and 23 with the ball. ATG numbers.



The next 37 tests were less consistent with 31 with the bat and 135 wickets @33. Now for an off peak phase for an AR I would argue that is still quite good, near Kapil numbers.



He was only complete trash his last 14 tests from 87 onwards.

 

[Coronis]

I tend to look at the career level. I don't believe in peaks, because length of a peak can be defined to suit the argument. I can define peak as single game, and show that Mushtaq Moahmmed's 9 fer and 150 odd runs against a rampaging WI to beat them is the ultimate peak performance.

Even with peaks, he didn't have the best for the era. Imran had a next level peak compared to Botham.

For me Botham is 33-27 player. Pollock is a 32-22 one. Bowlers averaging 22 is platinum level. That settles the argument for me.

Ok

 

[Migara]

^^ Who is this?

 

[Coronis]

^^ Who is this?

Good one mate.

 

[akilana]

Botham in his first career half was better than Pollock overall career.

And Botham is a much better bat.

Botham in his first career half was better than Imran overall career as well.

 

[subshakerz]

Botham in his first career half was better than Imran overall career as well.

Debatable but arguably true.

 

[Johan]

Debatable but arguably true.

wut

 

[subshakerz]

wut

What's the issue?