Rank South Africa's 5 famous pace bowling all-rounders from the 90s

[Bolo]

That's entirely speculative and unfair though. Pollock was probably good enough to bat 7 and who knows how good he may have been if he focused solely on batting. Who knows, really.

I'm sure he would have been better, but I'm not speculating about how good he could have been with this comment, just how good he was.

 

[ankitj]

I wasn't around for much of their careers but Kallis and Pollock look like they were the same combo but in reverse. Kallis was ATG bat + solid bowler. Pollock was the reverse. In test cricket, at least. In ODIs all rounders can fulfill so many different roles.

Is there a minimum age criterion for membership on this website? Do you meet it?

 

[ankitj]

On Pollock and Kallis - hasn't this been the only combo of all time great all rounders playing together for a decade? And they were perfectly complimentary to each other. What a blessing they would be to any side. SA should have achieved more with that kind of quality i.e. Australia level of dominance.

 

[vcs]

On Pollock and Kallis - hasn't this been the only combo of all time great all rounders playing together for a decade? And they were perfectly complimentary to each other. What a blessing they would be to any side. SA should have achieved more with that kind of quality i.e. Australia level of dominance.

Pollock and Kallis have to take some of the blame for that - they both had rather average records against Australia for much of their career, though Kallis compensated somewhat towards the end. In fact, this was also true of the other ATG SA player of that era - Donald, which is why Australia generally dominated them.

They definitely turned it around post 2008 though, and winning thrice in a row in Australia is a hell of an achievement, even though Australia had declined from their dominance by that point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why was tendukar Ponting and Lara better bars than kallis? 55 average batting in one of the hardest countries scoring 13000 runs with the longevity of nearly 20 years whilst also having to bat along with bowling 15+ overs each innings.

A lot easier to win games of cricket when you don't need to bat 2 and a half days to set a score. Quicker you score more time you have to bowl opposition out.

 

[Tom Flint]

A lot easier to win games of cricket when you don't need to bat 2 and a half days to set a score. Quicker you score more time you have to bowl opposition out.

Although it is harder to win games of cricket if your batsmen lose their wickets

 

[ankitj]

Pollock and Kallis have to take some of the blame for that - they both had rather average records against Australia for much of their career, though Kallis compensated somewhat towards the end. In fact, this was also true of the other ATG SA player of that era - Donald, which is why Australia generally dominated them.

They definitely turned it around post 2008 though, and winning thrice in a row in Australia is a hell of an achievement, even though Australia had declined from their dominance by that point.

Hmm, Kallis seems to have done alright against Australia: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Pollock's record to my surprise is quite poor!: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[TheJediBrah]

Although it is harder to win games of cricket if your batsmen lose their wickets

Not if they make the same amount of runs but quicker

Hmm, Kallis seems to have done alright against Australia: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

He averaged 38 with the bat against Aus pre-2008 (when they were good), which while still being pretty decent, is far below his career mark

 

[MrPrez]

That is why I have them together on my list. Both amazing at their main job and class at the other one too. Can't split them but both were so good.

They were both phenomenal but Kallis was better at both his primary and secondary skill than Pollock. Which, rather than being a criticism of Pollock, is proof of how remarkable Kallis was. And one of the more remarkable elements of his game was the fact that he wasn't particularly injury-prone despite being a top-order batsman and a genuine 140+ capable bowler who took on a sizeable workload.

There's a reason Kallis is discussed as competition for Sobers, while Pollock isn't really in the conversation vs Khan/Hadlee/Dev/Botham.

 

[ankitj]

They were both phenomenal but Kallis was better at both his primary and secondary skill than Pollock. Which, rather than being a criticism of Pollock, is proof of how remarkable Kallis was. And one of the more remarkable elements of his game was the fact that he wasn't particularly injury-prone despite being a top-order batsman and a genuine 140+ capable bowler who took on a sizeable workload.

There's a reason Kallis is discussed as competition for Sobers, while Pollock isn't really in the conversation vs Khan/Hadlee/Dev/Botham.

Pollock is certainly in conversation vs. Dev.

 

[MrPrez]

Pollock is certainly in conversation vs. Dev.

Yeah I guess. But usually Pollock isn't really in the discussion for best bowling all-rounder of all time. I've seen Dev included in those discussions although I'm not one who agrees with that. Neither would Botham be in for me, tbh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He averaged 38 with the bat against Aus pre-2008 (when they were good), which while still being pretty decent, is far below his career mark

That's about as good as most great non-lara/Tendulkar batsmen of the era managed Tbf

 

[MrPrez]

That's about as good as most great non-lara/Tendulkar batsmen of the era managed Tbf

Which is why he's rated by most to be below Lara, Tendulkar - which I believe was the original discussion.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh I agree. That, and the fact that those two had more versatility when it came to balancing attack and defense atleast imo(although how valuable that is is subjective).

 

[SeamUp]

There was a thread started on here at the beginning of time with Pollock v Kallis. It seemed Pollock was the favoured one early and then Kallis-ball kicked in.

I think Kallis was a batting maestro and genius who felt less pressure with the ball but could still contribute.

Whereas Pollock was a fast-bowler who got who was relied upon to put in a bowlers work-load (more physically draining) which is why his batting couldn't be appreciated more batting lower down the order then he possibly should have.

My feeling though is that Pollock became a player under-appreciated by some after his career but if you remember the small moments like his ability to get the ball to swing and seam both ways with unbelievable accuracy and his exciting and aesthetically pleasing strokes whilst looking to score fast. He is definitely in the pantheon of great all-rounders and just remebering him bowl brings back goosebumps. S.Pollock was only just pulled in by Steyn as SA's leading test wicket-taker and you got to say he will hold on to the ODI record for quite some time and possibly forever.

 

[StephenZA]

Kallis always gets hard done by when these sort of discussions come up because he did not dominate attacks; but people do forgot that he played in a very different team than that of many other greats. For the first 1/2 of his career, outside G Kirsten there was just about nobody of true quality in the SA batting line-up, that created a scenario that Kallis (and the team) valued his wicket very highly and he took almost no risks because his wickets was just about it in the SA top 6. He also started his career 3 years after SA returned to international cricket.

If you look at his career, his first 5 years (20 -25 age) he avg 40 with a SR of 36. Next 5 years, he avg 67 at SR 48. last 8 years he avg 54 at a SR of 55.

He basically carried the SA batting between 2000 and 2005, which is when the team started building into that great team, largely off the back of his batting and a great bowling attack. You can clearly see how his career and SR followed the teams slow improvement, once he got the experience combined with playing with better quality players in a better rounded team his dominance and contribution just increases.

I would not talk about him being better than Pointing, Lara, Tendulkar but I do wish people would not just consider him selfish because he did not take risks first part of his career. He could not, SA batting could not handle a risk taking Kallis.

 

[MrPrez]

Kallis always gets hard done by when these sort of discussions come up because he did not dominate attacks; but people do forgot that he played in a very different team than of many other greats. For the first 1/2 of his career, outside G Kirsten there was just about nobody of true quality in the SA batting line-up, that created a scenario that Kallis (and the team) valued his wicket very highly and he took almost no risks because his wickets was just about it in the SA top 6.

If you look at his career, his first 5 years (20 -25 age) he avg 40 with a SR of 36. Next 5 years, he avg 67 at SR 48. last 8 years he avg 54 at a SR of 55.

He basically carried the SA batting between 2000 and 2005, which is when the team started building into that great team, largely off the back of his batting and a great bowling attack. You can clearly see how his career and SR followed the teams slow improvement, once he got the experience combined with playing with better quality players in a better rounded team his dominance and contribution just increases.

I would not talk about him being better than Pointing, Lara, Tendulkar but I do wish people would not just consider him selfish because he did not take risks first part of his career. He could not, SA batting could not handle a risk taking Kallis.

I'm a huge Kallis fan and I do understand the context but that doesn't explain how Lara did what he did. Admittedly he had Chanderpaul (but SA outshone WI with the rest of their top 7).

The answer, of course, is that Lara was ridiculous.

 

[StephenZA]

I'm a huge Kallis fan and I do understand the context but that doesn't explain how Lara did what he did. Admittedly he had Chanderpaul (but SA outshone WI with the rest of their top 7).

The answer, of course, is that Lara was ridiculous.

I never said he was better than Lara, but Lara did start in a team that had dominated cricket for 10+ that had huge experience; unfortunately Lara was part of the generation that WI slowly started deteriorating. In the end Kallis avg higher even if his SR was lower. They were different types of players.

 

[MrPrez]

I never said he was better than Lara, but Lara did start in a team that had dominated cricket for 10+ that had huge experience; unfortunately Lara was part of the generation that WI slowly started deteriorating. In the end Kallis avg higher even if his SR was lower. They were different types of players.

Yeah I know, wasn't meaning to imply that you did. Just that despite me being a massive Kallis fanboy, the "anchor of the line-up" argument only goes so far - particularly when you take Lara into consideration.

I do think that Kallis in an Aus/India batting line-up is a fascinating thought experiment. With quality batsmen around him throughout his career, I wonder how his career would have turned out.

 

[Dendarii]

Obviously it's partly down to his longevity and because he fielded at slip, but Kallis has 200 catches to his credit, which is no mean feat.