Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[ma1978]

Also I note certain posters parse out peoples records across countries extensively - but ignore that Pollock didn’t play in half the cricketing world

 

[Socerer 01]

not another thread where someone gets

E X P O S E D
X
P
O
S
E
D

exposed

 

[Coronis]

Um so yeah not sure why Bumrah and Kapil would be brought up when arguing for Pollock here.

I think we can all agree the gap (talent wise) between Pollock and Dravid as batsmen is easily closer than Bumrah and Kapil. So arguing Pollock based on quality and then saying Bumrah needs more longevity on Kapil seems an odd position to take.

Considering Bumrah also has ridiculous peer rating, and Pollock/Bumrah and Dravid/Kapil all have similar length careers.

 

[subshakerz]

Peer ratings only comes when it suits.....
Or else surely, Lillee>Imran as bowlers

No because we have understood that Lillee built his reputation at a time when he didn't really have peers of comparable quality in the 70s.

 

[subshakerz]

Also I note certain posters parse out peoples records across countries extensively - but ignore that Pollock didn’t play in half the cricketing world

Doesn't need to because Dravid has relatively poor records in SL, Aus and SA.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No because we have understood that Lillee built his reputation at a time when he didn't really have peers of comparable quality in the 70s.

Posting also built his reputation by an early pick.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Doesn't need to because Dravid has relatively poor records in SL, Aus and SA.

His Australian record being poor is really a stretch I am not comfortable to make.... and he had his moments in SL and SA also; unlike Ponting in India

 

[OverratedSanity]

Doesn't need to because Dravid has relatively poor records in SL, Aus and SA.

Pollock could've sucked in several places too if he'd had to play in them. Not sure I'm willing to give any benefit of the doubt in cases like this where modern batsmen are nitpicked to death.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also I note certain posters parse out peoples records across countries extensively - but ignore that Pollock didn’t play in half the cricketing world

Doesn't need to because Dravid has relatively poor records in SL, Aus and SA.

Batsman A was a great player who averaged 50+ over 15 years, but was a bit subpar against 2-3 countries therefore he was worse than Batsman B only played 3 teams but did well against all of them.

I can't be the only one seeing how ridiculous that seems right? There's enough reasons to rate Pollock higher if you want to, but the above is just so low IQ. Essentially assuming Pollock would have done well if he'd had to play in 10 different countries with zero evidence.

 

[Bolo.]

Pollock could've sucked in several places too if he'd had to play in them. Not sure I'm willing to give any benefit of the doubt in cases like this where modern batsmen are nitpicked to death.

I think I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt... to some extent. He was supposedly really good against spin.

And I think, for all the justified criticism that he played in a weak era, he did not face weak bowling attacks. One match against NZ. The rest was England and Aus, who had consistently good attacks, even if lacking ATGs.

PAK and India were weak in his era. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he averaged a zillion against them. Point of comparison, Sobers. He averaged 48 when excluding them. Both of them missed out on playing RSA and WI, the other two decent attacks.

Benefit of the doubt and proven record are two very different things FTR.

 

[subshakerz]

Batsman A was a great player who averaged 50+ over 15 years, but was a bit subpar against 2-3 countries therefore he was worse than Batsman B only played 3 teams but did well against all of them.

I can't be the only one seeing how ridiculous that seems right? There's enough reasons to rate Pollock higher if you want to, but the above is just so low IQ. Essentially assuming Pollock would have done well if he'd had to play in 10 different countries with zero evidence.

As has been pointed, India and Pak were weak minnow teams in his time. Raising questions on how he would have performed against them doesn't make sense. WI ok.

The countries Dravid was subpar against away were consistently the most difficult places to tour.

So realistically trying to present Dravid as the one more proven across conditions doesnt really work. I was responding to that argument.

 

[subshakerz]

His Australian record being poor is really a stretch I am not comfortable to make.... and he had his moments in SL and SA also; unlike Ponting in India

Dravid's Australian record is subpar. He only really had one standout tour on flat tracks in 2003-4 out of four tours there. Failed against McWarne abysmally. On top of that, he averaged sub 40 against Aus overall.

Ponting in India is beyond poor. He is an outright failure.

 

[OverratedSanity]

PAK and India were weak in his era. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he averaged a zillion against them. Point of comparison, Sobers. He averaged 48 when excluding them. Both of them missed out on playing RSA and WI, the other two decent attacks.

As has been pointed, India and Pak were weak minnow teams in his time. Raising questions on how he would have performed against them doesn't make sense. WI ok.

The countries Dravid was subpar against away were consistently the most difficult places to tour.

So realistically trying to present Dravid as the one more proven across conditions doesnt really work.

You both have your timelines completely wrong here. Sobers and Pollock did not play in exactly the same time period. Sobers' prime was in the 60s when India and Pakistan were poor (though Sobers did tour later when the quartet was formed). Pollock was 8 years younger and the bulk of his career would have been in the 70s when India and Pakistan had enough good to great bowlers that success against them would hardly have been guaranteed. Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Prasanna, Sarfaraz, a young Imran, Qadir etc. The idea that they were minnows against whom he was guaranteed to average a zillion is not true at all. Particularly when these would have been foreign pitch conditions. Pakistan got stronger in the 80s when Imran hit his peak, but were hardly a minnow here.

This isn't even getting to the obvious fact that he would've had to face the 70s Windies quicks and Lillee/Thomson too. Basically every country's bowling attacks got better in the period after he stopped playing tests. I flat out refuse to believe Pollock wouldn't have been subpar against a few of these opposition, it's just the nature of sport, bound to have it. I don't think Pollock was more proven, nor do I think giving him such a generous benefit of doubt here is in any way rational.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Dravid's Australian record is subpar. He only really had one standout tour on flat tracks in 2003-4 out of four tours there. Failed against McWarne abysmally. On top of that, he averaged sub 40 against Aus overall.

Ponting in India is beyond poor. He is an outright failure.

He was India's standout batsman in one of the only two drawn series of that Australia team at home..... I think that makes up somewhat for the other series there.

 

[Socerer 01]

Pollock could've sucked in several places too if he'd had to play in them. Not sure I'm willing to give any benefit of the doubt in cases like this where modern batsmen are nitpicked to death.

OS awakening more and more to the fact that nostalgia jerk game on this forum is strong af

 

[subshakerz]

You both have your timelines completely wrong here. Sobers and Pollock did not play in exactly the same time period. Sobers' prime was in the 60s when India and Pakistan were poor (though Sobers did tour later when the quartet was formed). Pollock was 8 years younger and the bulk of his career would have been in the 70s when India and Pakistan had enough good to great bowlers that success against them would hardly have been guaranteed. Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Prasanna, Sarfaraz, a young Imran, Qadir etc. The idea that they were minnows against whom he was guaranteed to average a zillion is not true at all. Particularly when these would have been foreign pitch conditions. Pakistan got stronger in the 80s when Imran hit his peak, but were hardly a minnow here.

This isn't even getting to the obvious fact that he would've had to face the 70s Windies quicks and Lillee/Thomson too. Basically every country's bowling attacks got better in the period after he stopped playing tests. I flat out refuse to believe Pollock wouldn't have been subpar against a few of these opposition, it's just the nature of sport, bound to have it. I don't think Pollock was more proven, nor do I think giving him such a generous benefit of doubt here is in any way rational.

Yeah so then we are getting into mid late 70s and assuming his career would have lasted until then, all speculative.

To be clear, I didn't claim Pollock was more 'proven', but I don't think Dravid with his weaknesses abroad can make that claim definitively either. It would be a different matter if he had stellar records in the most consistently difficult places to tour.

 

[subshakerz]

He was India's standout batsman in one of the only two drawn series of that Australia team at home..... I think that makes up somewhat for the other series there.

That was a batting fest and McWarne weren't around. It was a very good performance but almost every bat was cashing it in that series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah so then we are getting into mid late 70s and assuming his career would have lasted until then, all speculative.

Pollock would have been 30 years old in 1974/75. He played FC cricket into his 40s. There is no way he just randomly retires without facing all the bowlers I named. I've literally disproven your previous post completely with facts. Have some humility and admit you didn't look up the timeline properly.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock would have been 30 years old in 1974/75. He played FC cricket into his 40s. There is no way he just randomly retires without facing all the bowlers I named. I've literally disproven your previous post completely with facts. Have some humility and admit you didn't look up the timeline properly.

Sure, I will grant your point he would have likely played a portion of his later career against non-minnow versions in those countries. Fair enough.

Except my whole point is that I am not trying to claim Pollock is more proven across countries. I am just saying using this point in a comparison with Dravid who was sub par in and against the top countries doesn't work.

 

[Bolo.]

You both have your timelines completely wrong here. Sobers and Pollock did not play in exactly the same time period. Sobers' prime was in the 60s when India and Pakistan were poor (though Sobers did tour later when the quartet was formed). Pollock was 8 years younger and the bulk of his career would have been in the 70s when India and Pakistan had enough good to great bowlers that success against them would hardly have been guaranteed. Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Prasanna, Sarfaraz, a young Imran, Qadir etc. The idea that they were minnows against whom he was guaranteed to average a zillion is not true at all. Particularly when these would have been foreign pitch conditions. Pakistan got stronger in the 80s when Imran hit his peak, but were hardly a minnow here.

This isn't even getting to the obvious fact that he would've had to face the 70s Windies quicks and Lillee/Thomson too. Basically every country's bowling attacks got better in the period after he stopped playing tests. I flat out refuse to believe Pollock wouldn't have been subpar against a few of these opposition, it's just the nature of sport, bound to have it. I don't think Pollock was more proven, nor do I think giving him such a generous benefit of doubt here is in any way rational.

Im talking about when he actually played tests, as per the thread OP.

As I said, soft era. And I would prefer someone more proven against more challenges. But I'm not sure if it makes sense to grill him for averaging 61 against the better teams of the era if we are giving Sobers a pass for averaging 48 (with home roads).