S Pollock Vs Ponting

[Jumno]

Who is the better cricketer?

Ponting's batting

Or

Pollock's bowling

 

[kyear2]

Pollock had his batting, Ponting his insane catching

I rate Punter higher.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Primary skill only: Pollock just
Overall: Pollock very easily

He ofcourse wasn't a tailender averaging sub 20 that Ponting's fielding can be compared with his batting.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Primary skill: Ponting
Overall: Pollock

 

[kyear2]

Primary skill only: Pollock just
Overall: Pollock very easily

He ofcourse wasn't a tailender averaging sub 20 that Ponting's fielding can be compared with his batting.

We will continue to strenuously disagree.

There's about 10 or so forum members that consistently state that bowling all rounders are the most valuable position in the game, with never as much as a hint of historical relevance or reference to support it.

We apparently just like numbers

 

[capt_Luffy]

We will continue to strenuously disagree.

There's about 10 or so forum members that consistently state that bowling all rounders are the most valuable position in the game, with never as much as a hint of historical relevance or reference to support it.

We apparently just like numbers

Yes Kyear, we are stat nerds and definitely like numbers. You don't have to be a mathematician to see the value a bowler averaging 30 has over one 10. Hint of historical relevance is some solid bullshit.

 

[kyear2]

Yes Kyear, we are stat nerds and definitely like numbers. You don't have to be a mathematician to see the value a bowler averaging 30 has over one 10. Hint of historical relevance is some solid bull****.

Just also want to give a succinct response..

If there's no historical relevance, how are we basing the statement that they are and have been more valuable...

Where have they shown the value.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Just also want to give a succinct response..

If there's no historical relevance, how are we basing the statement that they are and have been more valuable...

Where have they shown the value.

@Bolo. Has talked with you plenty on this topic, the exceptional value Pollock and other SA all-rounders provided with a long tail. Your main logic is World's two strongest teams lacked such an all-rounder, guess what, The Invincibles had Miller and Lindwall.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Pollock was an amazing cricketer. Still greatly overrated on this forum though

 

[kyear2]

@Bolo. Has talked with you plenty on this topic, the exceptional value Pollock and other SA all-rounders provided with a long tail. Your main logic is World's two strongest teams lacked such an all-rounder, guess what, The Invincibles had Miller and Lindwall.

Ok...

Miller was a batting all rounders and Lindwall and been stated to not have the quality to be an all rounder.

I disagreed on Pollock.

For you to claim that a position or role is critical or easily the most important, you need to either show that

1) most of, if not all of the great teams would have had them as keeps parts to their success...

2. The teams that had them, would have been elevated to the best in the game, based on their relevance alone.

Since the 70's we've had

Australia
West Indies
Australia
South Africa

That's stood out as great teams home and away. And they did have some stuff in common.

At least one good / very good opener, an ATG middle order batsman, and a great one, at least one ATG and one great bowler, a good wicketkeeper batsman and a ATG cordon.

Every single one of them...

So it wasn't a necessity to greats, nor the lack of one an impediment to same.

Did Hadlee's barring elevate NZ, no, his bowling did.

I get that it probably adds a little to their personally value for the stats guys, but it wasn't critical to team success in any way. Not as much as the other factors mentioned.

Rickey Ponting and his cordon mates were just as, if not more important to victories than SA's tail.

 

[sayon basak]

Ponting