It might sound preposterous, but we should be rating the South African allrounder a lot higher than we do

Saurabh Somani22-Jul-2020Come to Think of itWhen cricket’s greatest allrounders are discussed, some names are always part of the conversation. Garry Sobers, Jacques Kallis, Imran Khan and Keith Miller have the standout numbers. Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev always find a mention, courtesy their membership of the fabled ’80s quartet.Shaun Pollock doesn’t often feature. By any reasonable measure, though, he shouldn’t just be part of the discussion but counted among the elite.Take the difference between batting and bowling averages. Among allrounders who have played at least 50 Tests and taken at least 100 wickets, Pollock is in the top five. He’s second only to Khan among those who have done the double of 3000 runs and 300 wickets.ALSO READ: Osman Samiuddin: Forget the aesthetics, remember Ijaz Ahmed’s effectiveness“Second only to Imran” could well be the title of the Pollock biopic. And even that might be underselling his case, because, leaving the intangibles of captaincy aside, Pollock is more Khan’s equal than in second place to him.Before you shut this page in disgust, hear this out.Both were bowling allrounders, in the sense that while they were capable batsmen, they didn’t usually bat in the top order. Khan took 362 wickets in 88 Tests at an average of 22.81. Pollock finished with 421 wickets in 108 Tests at 23.11. Park those numbers in your head, because we’ll come back to them.With the bat, Khan made 3807 runs at 37.69, while Pollock made 3781 at 32.31. Pollock comes off slightly worse on the surface, but only on the surface. Khan batted 28 times in the top six in Test cricket – while playing as a specialist batsman in a number of these games – and Pollock only five times. Pollock batted at No. 9 on 20 occasions, and Khan on just four. Khan’s most frequent batting spot was No. 7 (63 innings) while Pollock’s was No. 8 (79 innings).In innings where they batted at No. 7 or lower, Khan averaged 32.33 and Pollock 32.59.Their final batting numbers, therefore, reflect the kind of batsmen they had to be. In a South Africa team filled with allrounders, Pollock spent nearly two-thirds of his career at Nos. 8 and 9. He’s the only batsman to score more than one century from No. 9 (and that doesn’t include his unbeaten 113 against India in the Centurion Test of 2001, which was deemed unofficial in the fallout from the Mike Denness affair). At No. 9, Pollock averaged an absurd 41.07. Only one other No. 9 (with at least 500 runs in that position) has averaged above 30.