Flem274*
123/5
Shaun Pollock's bowling definitely gets treated as an also-ran by most on here during ATG rankings chat, me included. I think I rated him a lot higher as a kid than I do now (though child me was more scarred by his ODI batting - if you're kiwi you know the exact over). Maybe it's because he was the bridesmaid bowler of his time playing for the bridesmaid side. Who knows, but I will make a case for him.
He was awesome. He's the third best bowler I've seen the career of, and he maintained his standards through the 2000s homogenous pitch era where every other **** started averaging 50 with the bat. Pollock was one of their few reality checks.
If I am consistent with how and why I rate guys, then I need to boost Pollock up my personal rankings purely as a bowler. I rank McGrath slightly above Marshall as #1 of all time because McGrath did it in the hardest era on record for bowling since at least ancient history. Now I know plenty will disagree with McGrath at #1 and that's fine. The crucial takeaway is most people on CW give some credit to McGrath for doing well during the 2000s when bowling was not much fun, and in ATG discussion they rank him somewhere between 1-10, usually 1-5.
Pollock's statistical peak straddled two eras, lasting from 1998 - 2003 where he took 274 @ 20. From 2000 to the end of his career in 2008 he took 260 @ 24. If we want to indulge some Fab 4 maths and remove good performances, between 2003 - 2008 he took 103 @ 30 from his final 30 tests. That is actually quite serviceable for his era and looking deeper it appears he ran into a brick wall called Australia who broke his average. Without including Australia he took 91 @ 26 during that period, which is phenomenal for the mid 00s.
In case this is confirming the narrative he failed against the best opposition of his time, during his peak he did tour Australia and took 20 wickets in 5 tests at an average of 26. I can't argue with that.
Pollock was exceptional. He is still behind McGrath and others, but he can touch them. I can't hold the final 30 test matches of being ATVG standard (barring the Australian wall) against a guy who delivered 70+ test matches (a full career tbh) of ATG bowling everywhere he went.
In my book, a large part of your greatness is derived from your value and rarity in your era. Our minimum expectations of batsmen correctly rose during the 00s compared to the 80s and 90s because of how common it was for your opposition to have several 40+ or often 50+ averaging batsmen in their side (there is a strong case for reverting our expectations back now which I might make another day). It wasn't good to average 40 now, it was expected.
Pace bowlers who could keep their average well below 30 were very rare, and Shaun Pollock did this comfortably. He, McGrath and a small handful of others were a class apart and so much more valuable to their sides in the first decade of the 2000s than most pace bowlers in history.
Pollock was no condition reliant vampire who disappeared under the hot Australian sun like is sometimes implied, he's got a very strong case for being in the top ten bowlers of all time. Then of course, there are the batting figures...
He was awesome. He's the third best bowler I've seen the career of, and he maintained his standards through the 2000s homogenous pitch era where every other **** started averaging 50 with the bat. Pollock was one of their few reality checks.
If I am consistent with how and why I rate guys, then I need to boost Pollock up my personal rankings purely as a bowler. I rank McGrath slightly above Marshall as #1 of all time because McGrath did it in the hardest era on record for bowling since at least ancient history. Now I know plenty will disagree with McGrath at #1 and that's fine. The crucial takeaway is most people on CW give some credit to McGrath for doing well during the 2000s when bowling was not much fun, and in ATG discussion they rank him somewhere between 1-10, usually 1-5.
Pollock's statistical peak straddled two eras, lasting from 1998 - 2003 where he took 274 @ 20. From 2000 to the end of his career in 2008 he took 260 @ 24. If we want to indulge some Fab 4 maths and remove good performances, between 2003 - 2008 he took 103 @ 30 from his final 30 tests. That is actually quite serviceable for his era and looking deeper it appears he ran into a brick wall called Australia who broke his average. Without including Australia he took 91 @ 26 during that period, which is phenomenal for the mid 00s.
In case this is confirming the narrative he failed against the best opposition of his time, during his peak he did tour Australia and took 20 wickets in 5 tests at an average of 26. I can't argue with that.
Pollock was exceptional. He is still behind McGrath and others, but he can touch them. I can't hold the final 30 test matches of being ATVG standard (barring the Australian wall) against a guy who delivered 70+ test matches (a full career tbh) of ATG bowling everywhere he went.
In my book, a large part of your greatness is derived from your value and rarity in your era. Our minimum expectations of batsmen correctly rose during the 00s compared to the 80s and 90s because of how common it was for your opposition to have several 40+ or often 50+ averaging batsmen in their side (there is a strong case for reverting our expectations back now which I might make another day). It wasn't good to average 40 now, it was expected.
Pace bowlers who could keep their average well below 30 were very rare, and Shaun Pollock did this comfortably. He, McGrath and a small handful of others were a class apart and so much more valuable to their sides in the first decade of the 2000s than most pace bowlers in history.
Pollock was no condition reliant vampire who disappeared under the hot Australian sun like is sometimes implied, he's got a very strong case for being in the top ten bowlers of all time. Then of course, there are the batting figures...
