Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[capt_Luffy]

Pollock I believe was the better batsman, the one I will take while making a team and would rank higher if asked to rank batsmen.
Rahul Dravid had the greater Test career. No amount of mental gymnastics is really making that 23 Test matches a full career.

 

[kyear2]

20 something tests vs 150 something tests

Dravid had a seven year period where he was better than Polloccks whole career

the fact that this is even a discussion highlights people willingness to back an old white guy because they are old and white

This is the same Anderson argument. Being good for a long doesn't make you great in that scenario or better in this one.

But yeah, it's because he's white

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is the same Anderson argument. Being good for a long doesn't make you great in that scenario or better in this one.

But yeah, it's because he's white

Leaving the rascist part aside, Dravid had a much better Test career, where he 52+ over 160+ matches..... Dravid isn't Anderson. Pollock can be better, but really doesn't have much of an argument to be a greater "Test" Batsman.

 

[Migara]

What's the sample size cut-off? Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests compared to Pollock's 23. No one brings up former's sample size.

27 tests in 1920s and 23 tests in 1970s is not comparable at all.

 

[Bolo.]

27 tests in 1920s and 23 tests in 1970s is not comparable at all.

It's essentially all the tests their team played for a similar period of time, and is a fairly similar overall number. So pretty comparable.

I don't think the wickets and runs tallies are that comparable though. I'd be more confident in O'reilly maintaining his record over more games.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's essentially all the tests their team played for a similar period of time, and is a fairly similar overall number. So pretty comparable.

I don't think the wickets and runs tallies are that comparable though. I'd be more confident in O'reilly maintaining his record over more games.

I think another factor is just that bowlers on average plays fewer matches than batsmen

 

[subshakerz]

No one said that but the fact remains that people are grossly selective when it comes to validity assigned to sample sizes.

There has to be some consistency.

There doesn't have to be consistency. We recognize exceptions for pre-WSC cricketers when it comes to sample size.

 

[subshakerz]

There is no real question around his skill ftr, he was smashing around test quality fast bowlers at age 40+ in FC games. But I do think players of older eras get away with far less scrutiny around the context of their runs in a way modern players don't (especially because you've watched modern players day in day out with their strengths and flaws on display) . Older players also benefit from having less visible 'warts' in their records due to a smaller variety of opposition/conditions and sometimes only playing tests at their absolute peak. So I've made it my new obnoxious agenda to point out this whenever possible especially in a comparison with a modern player.

Which is fine. They end up getting rated behind top tier ATGs like Gavaskar but ahead of ATVGs like Dravid.

 

[Coronis]

27 tests in 1920s and 23 tests in 1970s is not comparable at all.

1930s*

Yeah it kind of is. South Africa were still only playing that same small amount of tests.

 

[Dendarii]

1930s*

And adding to that correction, Pollock played in the 60s.

 

[subshakerz]

27 tests in 1920s and 23 tests in 1970s is not comparable at all.

1960s.

 

[ma1978]

Dravid > Gavaskar

I also find Gavaskar wildly overrated

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Gavaskar > Dravid > Pollock

 

[Socerer 01]

Which is fine. They end up getting rated behind top tier ATGs like Gavaskar but ahead of ATVGs like Dravid.

no its not and im tired of pretending like it is

 

[Arachnodouche]

Yea Pollock and Barry very unlucky but it's immensely disrespectful to rate them above the sheer mass of work put in by the guy with 150+ Tests and who came out the other side with an average above 50.

 

[subshakerz]

Yea Pollock and Barry very unlucky but it's immensely disrespectful to rate them above the sheer mass of work put in by the guy with 150+ Tests and who came out the other side with an average above 50.

Nah. We know Dravid ended up well short of even Ponting level.

Pollock was rated with Sobers. If we dock points for lack of career length then he still ends up ahead of Dravid.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah. We know Dravid ended up well short of even Ponting level.

Pollock was rated with Sobers. If we dock points for lack of career length then he still ends up ahead of Dravid.

No way. Pollock wasn't closer to Sobers than Dravid was to Ponting. That's silly imo. And as I said previously, Pollock was probably the better batsman, but didn't had enough of a career to be greater than one 17 years long with 150+ Tests and an average of 52

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Pollock was the 3rd best lefthander of all time behind Sobers and Lara so better than Sangakkara and Border both of whom were at least as good (probably better) than Dravid.

 

[subshakerz]

No way. Pollock wasn't closer to Sobers than Dravid was to Ponting. That's silly imo. And as I said previously, Pollock was probably the better batsman, but didn't had enough of a career to be greater than one 17 years long with 150+ Tests and an average of 52

I said Pollock was rated next to Sobers. And then he played seven years with yes little tests in which he averaged 60.

Is that enough to put him ahead of Dravid who never was rated that high? I think so. The question is how many points to dock Pollock.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I said Pollock was rated next to Sobers. And then he played seven years with yes little tests in which he averaged 60.

Is that enough to put him ahead of Dravid who never was rated that high? I think so. The question is how many points to dock Pollock.

The questions is how many points to give Pollock really for solely his Test career, and given that he played in only 23 Test matches, I don't think nearly enough to be greater than Dravid.