Pollock Retires

eowyn wrote:

Dello wrote:

lardbucket wrote:182 members and growing (though about 40 have never posted - presumably still browsing)

Some will probably be 'extra' IDs from a couple of forummers who want to test my patience, but yes, by and large we're ticking along okay.

I know some who registered 'extras' but now daren't use them

Perhaps I should employ a "shop a forummer" programme?

or maybe it's time to clear out the cobwebs

You could but I'd never tell, no matter how hard you applied the thumb screws.

lardbucket wrote:or maybe it's time to clear out the cobwebs

Have you got a bessom, Dello?

Ho! What do I here behold? Were you brushing the cobwebs off a few quims'?

Roebuck is the quimtessential Englishman ...

lardbucket wrote:Ho! What do I here behold? Were you brushing the cobwebs off a few quims'?

Roebuck is the quimtessential Englishman ...

Ya what, pardon......

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Makaveli wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:What a great player he's been. One of the best. Capital G great.

Could have passed 500 wickets and 4,000 runs if he'd played on. What a shame.

Aye great player, can't complain really had a long successful career everyone hates to see a great player go but it has to happen one day.

LLL you seen "no country for old men"?, great film dissapointed with the ending though.

Yeah, what was wrong with it?

I know the film had deeper meanings but did they really have to kill off Llewelyn? i was gutted.

Dello wrote:

eowyn wrote:But what if you've never experienced the bails magic? How do you know what you're missing?

Take a chance. What have you got to lose?

I don't think you'd survive here if you were some prissy try-before-you-buy type anyway.

YEH...Flaming Bails...the cricket forum for REAL MEN!!!!!!!!!.............and women

Makaveli wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Makaveli wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:What a great player he's been. One of the best. Capital G great.

Could have passed 500 wickets and 4,000 runs if he'd played on. What a shame.

Aye great player, can't complain really had a long successful career everyone hates to see a great player go but it has to happen one day.

LLL you seen "no country for old men"?, great film dissapointed with the ending though.

Yeah, what was wrong with it?

I know the film had deeper meanings but did they really have to kill off Llewelyn? i was gutted.

Better than the usual Hollywood ending where he kills the baddie, keeps the money and rides off into the sunset with the girl.

I think that was part of the point - that Chirghurh or however you spell his name, was unstoppable. Whoever he came up against was likely to die, without him feeling any regret, even Woody Harrelson, who's a god damn legend and wasn't in it for long enough.

Average of 32 with the bat, and 23 with the ball. Statistically right up there with the great all rounders of all time. In fact those all round stats are better than Ian Botham, Wasim Akram, and Kapil Dev. I always thought he could have been even better with the bat if he'd taken it more seriously. Great career. Great cricketer.

One of the more underrated greats of all time if that makes sense.

A highly respected opponent and a credit to the game.

Anyway, going back to Shaun Pollock - where does he stand in terms of greatness now that his career is just about over?

He can definitely be called an allrounder with a batting average of 32 and a bowling average of 23. I'd say he's a better allrounder than Benaud, Hadlee, Kallis, and possibly Flintoff and Dev.

I'd also say, that in terms of bowling, and when you look at both of their careers in full, he's probably just as good a bowler as Donald. Maybe Donald is slightly ahead.

People will look at his stats in 20 years and shudder at his average of 36 against Aus but it's only his last 2 series' against them, (when he was past his best) that did him in. He was terrible in both of them but at one point, just before those two series', after 8 Tests against Australia he had 28 wickets at 27 vs them. Which is excellent against a team like Australia. There won't be many bowlers with a better average than that vs the 90s and 00s Aus team. He also took 16 wickets at 21 vs Aus in the 97/98 series so he proved that he could do it against the very best.

Apart from that Australia average, everything else on his bowling record is exemplary. His next highest average is 23.74 vs England!!!!!

vs Aus - 53 wickets at 36.85
vs England - 91 wickets at 23.84
vs India - 52 wickets at 19.63
vs NZ - 43 wickets at 21.93
vs Pak - 45 wickets at 21.36
vs Sri Lanka - 48 wickets at 22.33
vs Windies - 69 wickets at 22.61

and around 15 against Bang and Zim.

Just about all of them are McGrath-esque. I have a feeling that McGrath would have averaged considerably higher than his career average against Aus too. His record against India, Pak and England is particularly phenomenal.

His home/away average is 234 wickets at 20.97 at home and 186 wickets at 25.69 away. Again, his away average would drop significantly were it not for that dreadful series away to Australia.

As for his batting - Sixteen 50s and 2 (should be 3) centuries as well as a 99*, a 92 and quite a lot of times when he was stranded in the 60s and 70s not out. But more than that, he often accelerated the scoring rate and stuck around with better batsman, things that are unquantifiable.

What a great, great, underrated player. What does everybody else think? Where does he rank in the all time lists? Is he better than Donald (as a bowler) and Dev(as an all rounder)?

Gah. Trev's just said what I've said much more concisely while I was writing the above.

I always feel sorry for him when I see him.
Dunno why.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Anyway, going back to Sean Pollock........What does everybody else think?

Shaun Pollock.

Please don't edit my posts.

Edit: No wonder the British conquered India.

Between 1998 and 2002, he was probably the best fast bowler in the world along with Mcgrath. His record in the Sub Continent is outstanding, and I think it really hurt him when he was dropped in Pakistan, considering his record in those conditions. At one stage he had a bowling average of 19 after 60 tests. His batting was all about eye and talent. Great timer of the ball. Probably could have batted in the top 6 if he had really worked at it, but most of the great all rounders say that one skill was their job, and the other their hobby. Batting was his hobby.

For consistency over his whole career in both forms of the game, Id be inclined to have him above Botham and Kapil, but below Imran and Sobers.

He might go down as an underrated great along with Ken Barrington and George Lohmann.

furriner wrote:

Edit: No wonder the British conquered India.

We did that because you didn't have a flag.

(Eddie Izzard reference you might not get!)

JKLever wrote:

furriner wrote:

Edit: No wonder the British conquered India.

We did that because you didn't have a flag.

(Eddie Izzard reference you might not get!)

Dude, like, I luurv Eddie Izzard. And I know precisely what you mean. Cunning British with their flags.

I have always liked Pollock.I thought it sad the way the board treated him.If they want a player to retire they should tell him privately.

He is nowhere near retirement age, this is a tragedy for Cricket. What a mess SACB have made cricket into in that country.

Why are cricketing boards around the world so farkin incompetent.

While I am sorry to see him go, I think it is the correct decision.

Too many players try to hold on too long. It's better to get out at the top, because that is ho you will be remembered

Great bowler on his day - and a decent bat at times.
Agree though - He probably knows that to get out now, whilst he's at the top, is probably best - as AD did.
Anyway, I'm sure a lucrative TV contract looms with Sky!

Shame - was looking forward to seeing him bowl against us this summer....