Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[OverratedSanity]

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).

They weren't the better teams of his era though, right? He didn't get to play them when they became great. His era wasn't really soft, it was specifically soft in the time he played tests, and would go on to become quite a bit harder in the 70s when he would have played a lot more (though not as tough as the 80s/90s)

 

[h_hurricane]

I guess I'm different. I don't see Kapil as an ATG bowler or batsman, so don't see how you can be an ATG overall.

Never been a fan of the jack of all trades, master of none players.

Calling Kapil Dev a jack of all trades is very disrespectful and takes you a notch down as a poster in my estimate.
He played in an era of ATG bowlers and ended up with more wickets than all of them, which means he had one quality which others did not have, i.e. endurance. That is even before considering that he was an all rounder, the most durable and over worked bowling all rounder in history.

 

[subshakerz]

Calling Kapil Dev a jack of all trades is very disrespectful and takes you a notch down as a poster in my estimate.
He played in an era of ATG bowlers and ended up with more wickets than all of them, which means he had one quality which others did not have, i.e. endurance. That is even before considering that he was an all rounder, the most durable and over worked bowling all rounder in history.

Unfortunate bias still exists against SC pacers among a few.

Kapil was a fine bowler and would have been recognized as such if he played for England.

 

[kyear2]

And Weekes, Harvey, Worrell, Walcott all averaged in low 30s.

Pretty sure Worrell averaged in the mid 40's in England.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pretty sure Worrell averaged in the mid 40's in England.

Oh yeah, my bad; his struggle was more against Australia. But I believe I am pretty spot on on the rest.

 

[Bolo.]

They weren't the better teams of his era though, right? He didn't get to play them when they became great. His era wasn't really soft, it was specifically soft in the time he played tests, and would go on to become quite a bit harder in the 70s when he would have played a lot more (though not as tough as the 80s/90s)

The good attacks of the the Sobers/Pollock test era were Eng, AUS, RSA, and WI. The others were mostly poor. Ya?

I don't think Pollock ever faced a great attack. He just faced consistently good attacks. without checking scorecards, there is a good chance Sobers faced a significantly better attack or 2 in the 50s, but the average quality of attack he faced (and home pitches) was probably a significant step down.

What Pollock would have done in the 70s and 80s against better opposition is pretty speculative. His eyes went twice. Temporary problem in about 71 and permanent problem from the early 80s.

 

[kyear2]

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.

30 tests in the modern era over 7 years isn't quite good enough is it. You know, context and all.

One has had the odd injury issues while the other had their career truncated.

Taken wise, Bumrah is already India's best bowler ever, don't think anyone disputes that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

30 tests in the modern era over 7 years isn't quite good enough is it. You know, context and all.

One has had the odd injury issues while the other had their career truncated.

Taken wise, Bumrah is already India's best bowler ever, don't think anyone disputes that.

Even with context and Bumrah's injury issues, it's quite disingenuous to say Kapil might be the better bowler than him but Dravid isn't better than Pollock; especially given that both of them played for similar length of careers and Bumrah actually have played more Tests. What could had happened is speculative and doesn't belongs in this discussion really.

 

[kyear2]

Calling Kapil Dev a jack of all trades is very disrespectful and takes you a notch down as a poster in my estimate.
He played in an era of ATG bowlers and ended up with more wickets than all of them, which means he had one quality which others did not have, i.e. endurance. That is even before considering that he was an all rounder, the most durable and over worked bowling all rounder in history.

Unfortunate bias still exists against SC pacers among a few.

Kapil was a fine bowler and would have been recognized as such if he played for England.

Yes he has longevity, but for me that doesn't elevate guys like Walsh and Anderson and definely Walsh was better than he was.

He averaged 30, where's the implicit bias? What's the bias?

Kapil was a fine bowler, he wasn't an ATG one.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes he has longevity, but for me that doesn't elevate guys like Walsh and Anderson and definely Walsh was better than he was.

He averaged 30, where's the implicit bias? What's the bias?

Kapil was a fine bowler, he wasn't an ATG one.

'Jack of all trades'...

 

[OverratedSanity]

What Pollock would have done in the 70s and 80s against better opposition is pretty speculative.

That's kind of what I'm getting at

 

[kyear2]

Even with context and Bumrah's injury issues, it's quite disingenuous to say Kapil might be the better bowler than him but Dravid isn't better than Pollock; especially given that both of them played for similar length of careers and Bumrah actually have played more Tests. What could had happened is speculative and doesn't belongs in this discussion really.

Wow, I have ever said Kapil was better than him. That's just crazy.

Let me be clear as one of the 43% who voted for Pollock. Yes near half, so let's not pretend it's just me.

Bumrah is easily better than Kapil, it's not close.

Dravid, as I've said from the first post had a better career than Pollock, that can't be questioned. From the eye test, and the reasons I clearly articulated I prefer Pollock.

I also said I don't rate Pollock as high as some others do, and definely below BR.

Two different scenarios are being conflated.

 

[kyear2]

'Jack of all trades'...

Could have phrased that better, wasn't meant to be disrespectful.

There are batting all rounders, good to great bats that could hold their place with that alone, Sobers, Kallis, Worrell

Bowling ones the same, Imran, Hadlee, Pollock.

Then there are the guys that fall under the genuine all rounders that didn't fall into the other two.

I personally prefer the other two designations, that's all I meant. Kapil wasn't nearly the bowler Hadlee nor Imran was.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wow, I have ever said Kapil was better than him. That's just crazy.

Let me be clear as one of the 43% who voted for Pollock. Yes near half, so let's not pretend it's just me.

Bumrah is easily better than Kapil, it's not close.

Dravid, as I've said from the first post had a better career than Pollock, that can't be questioned. From the eye test, and the reasons I clearly articulated I prefer Pollock.

I also said I don't rate Pollock as high as some others do, and definely below BR.

Two different scenarios are being conflated.

I can neither really understand why will you rate Barry Richards higher than Pollock nor can I see why Ponting is a direct ATG but Dravid isn't even borderline one.....

 

[Coronis]

I can neither really understand why will you rate Barry Richards higher than Pollock nor can I see why Ponting is a direct ATG but Dravid isn't even borderline one.....

Don’t forget strike rate.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I guess I'm different. I don't see Kapil as an ATG bowler or batsman, so don't see how you can be an ATG overall.

Never been a fan of the jack of all trades, master of none players.

Kapil, Botham, Miller and Gilly are ATG cricketers.

Bradman, Murali, Lillee, Gavaskar, Lara.. Etc are not ATGs Because they are practically useless half the time.. Only Multi Dimensional players should be rated ATGs.

How about that?

 

[subshakerz]

That's kind of what I'm getting at

We agree.

 

[subshakerz]

I can neither really understand why will you rate Barry Richards higher than Pollock nor can I see why Ponting is a direct ATG but Dravid isn't even borderline one.....

Apples and oranges

 

[Bolo.]

That's kind of what I'm getting at

Almost nobody in this thread disagrees with this.

You and I have exactly the same opinion about the answer to to the OP...just details.

 

[kyear2]

I can neither really understand why will you rate Barry Richards higher than Pollock nor can I see why Ponting is a direct ATG but Dravid isn't even borderline one.....

I rate Barry as a top 10 batsman of all time (didn't say the T word), he batted all over the world, showed more than adequate longevity, and played in tough conditions against varied and quality opponents. His performances in WSC was also dominant and special and it's harder for a batsman to just be popped into situations and always perform the way he did. Everyone who saw him bat, from journalists, peers and more importantly.posters here I trust, says that he was one of the very best. One saying he was one of the top 4 batsmen he's ever seen, Lillee ranks him with Viv and Sobers.

Ponting over Dravid is easier. There was a point, of quite substantial length actually where I believed that Ponting had more than a decent chance to be the best after Bradman, he was scoring like a machine and in dominant fashion. He was like Djoker where he made a dominant Dua a trio, he was that dominant.

He could destroy and attacks and change the course of a match in a session, he and Barry could, and yes, that matters to me.