Rahul Dravid vs Shaun Pollock

[PlayerComparisons]

Two ATGs with similar styles

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Dravid in a heartbeat.

 

[sayon basak]

Pollock

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think

Dravid’s batting = Pollock’s bowling
Pollock’s batting > Dravid’s bowling

 

[kyear2]

I think

Dravid’s batting = Pollock’s bowling
Pollock’s batting > Dravid’s bowling

See this illustrates the paradigm shift that's required on the forum.

Dravid's batting = Pollock's bowling
Pollock's batting = Dravid's catching

Both probably a little underrated, but I'll go Dravid here.

 

[Coronis]

See this illustrates the paradigm shift that's required on the forum.

Dravid's batting = Pollock's bowling
Pollock's batting = Dravid's catching

Both probably a bit understated, but I'll go Dravid here.

Pollock’s catching > Dravid’s bowling

Pay attention please.

 

[sayon basak]

Pollock’s catching > Dravid’s bowling

Pay attention please.

But,
Dravid's average> Pollock's age

 

[Bolo.]

See this illustrates the paradigm shift that's required on the forum.

Dravid's batting = Pollock's bowling
Pollock's batting = Dravid's catching

Both probably a bit understated, but I'll go Dravid here.

You liked a posted that had some paper napkin math that showed that this wasn't the case at all.

 

[kyear2]

You liked a posted that had some paper napkin math that showed that this wasn't the case at all.

Ahhhhh, oh ok.....

I just liked one of your posts where I only agreed with half of it as well, what's your point exactly?

You can agree with the premise without fully embracing the entire post.

We just watched a match where both first innings centurions were dropped early on, how much did that cost?

 

[Bolo.]

Ahhhhh, oh ok.....

I just liked one of your posts where I only agreed with half of it as well, what's your point exactly?

You can agree with the premise without fully embracing the entire post.

We just watched a match where both first innings centurions were dropped early on, how much did that cost?

No my post. It was about Simpson saving 1X runs a game. Someone else posted a calculation that suggested simlar value at the same time. You didn't seem to have an issue with the numbers. Which are lower than the numbers a bowling AR is bringing.

 

[kyear2]

No my post. It was about Simpson saving 1X runs a game. Someone else posted a calculation that suggested simlar value at the same time. You didn't seem to have an issue with the numbers. Which are lower than the numbers a bowling AR is bringing.

As I said, I also liked one of your posts this morning where I only agreed with half of the point. It happens.

I don't have a clue how much runs each drop contributes, but I do know it's a wicket literally missed. As I mentioned in the previous post, how much runs did those drop off Hodge and Pope cost?

I'm also not only directly speaking of value, though it exists, I'm speaking of skill and mastery of same. As a catcher Dravid was one of the best ever, Pollock was merely a below average test batsman, though viable nor a no. 8.

 

[Bolo.]

As I said, I also liked one of your posts this morning where I only agreed with half of the point. It happens.

I don't have a clue how much runs each drop contributes, but I do know it's a wicket literally missed. As I mentioned in the previous post, how much runs did those drop off Hodge and Pope cost?

I'm also not only directly speaking of value, though it exists, I'm speaking of skill and mastery of same. As a catcher Dravid was one of the best ever, Pollock was merely a below average test batsman, though viable nor a no. 8.

I think saying eveyone else is underestimating the value without providing and estimation of value yourself is a cop out. Those calculations seem reasonable to me, which would mean people are sleeping some value. But not to the degree some people are sleeping on the value of lower order batting.

Some drops cost a lot and some don't. It's why we have averages.

Sure, Dravid is a better slip than Pollock is a bat. But the disciplines are not comparable. A slip is closer to a long stop than a bat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pollock was great but I feel like he was significantly less impactful than dravid when it comes to important wins for their countries. It is a bit of a biased perspective of mine though.

 

[Bolo.]

Pollock was great but I feel like he was significantly less impactful than dravid when it comes to important wins for their countries. It is a bit of a biased perspective of mine though.

Dravid was more rocks and diamonds. There's a tendency to consider this kind of player more impactful. When they contribute big, it's more apparent. When they fail big, there is a temptation to say that team success depends on them. And we almost never call a performance match losing, even if a consistently good player would have taken them home.

That said, there is also the possibility that Dravid timed his quality performances better. IDK.

 

[kyear2]

I think saying eveyone else is underestimating the value without providing and estimation of value yourself is a cop out. Those calculations seem reasonable to me, which would mean people are sleeping some value. But not to the degree some people are sleeping on the value of lower order batting.

Some drops cost a lot and some don't. It's why we have averages.

Sure, Dravid is a better slip than Pollock is a bat. But the disciplines are not comparable. A slip is closer to a long stop than a bat.

For the genuine life of me, I don't see how that statement can be made.

Having a strong cordon is as, if not more important to a team as having a strong tail.

But putting that aside for just a moment, if we're comparing the value of two players and they are tied on primary skills and one is decent and one elite, that doesn't matter?

I don't know where this argument that lower order batting or even reserve bowling is so much important than having a strong cordon has come from. And I don't know how you can watch any test match and the value isn't immediately evident.

When building a team all three factors to varying degrees have to be factored in, one is literally built in the the team format with an batting all rounder slot for an additional bowler. No one wants a totally useless tail, with some resistance being welcomed to assist with building totals. Re the cordon, each innings starts with 3 slips and a gully, and most of fast bowler's and a healthy amount of spinner's wickets comes from catches taken behind the wicket and is immeasurably vital to most bowlers success.

So this not comparable argument is so very far off is crazy.

And I don't care who it annoys, but let's have this discussion again.

1. Team success.
If we did a couple lists of the best teams since WW2, there's a few things they all have in common were aggressive middle orders, really fast and skilled bowlers and elite catching. Conversely there's never been a correlation between "great" lower orders and elite teams, partially because teams that have heavily relied on their lower order tends not to be very good, at least not having a reliable middle order. I will continue to ask if those great Australian or WI teams would have traded out their elite cordons for a Pollock or Imran quality bat in the tail. Not saying they wouldn't have taken both, but wouldn't trade their elite cordon for it. I can with confidence say that neither team would have been successful without those guys they have in the cordon.

Bowlers success.
2. Your pacers, especially in SENAW are ultimately only as successful as their collective cordon. Look back at the careers of Lillee, Hadlee, the Quartet, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn, and it's obvious how much they benefitted from having elite guys back there. All of them had elite cordons with specialists at 2nd slip, the premier position. I would like to single out one of them to say how elite their support was, but all of them were well stacked. Guys like Chappell, Coney, Greenidge, Hooper, Waugh / Ponting, Kallis consistently converted half chances and were worth their weight in gold.

From my perspective, I don't see how there's any argument to positional value and how the roles aren't comparable.

Even with regards to Dravid, he was key to two spinners success as well, as was Taylor / Waugh / Hayden to Warne and Jayawardene to Murali, equally as vital for the spinners. Those 210 catches are all direct wickets, each dropped one a missed opportunity.

 

[capt_Luffy]

For the genuine life of me, I don't see how that statement can be made.

Having a strong cordon is as, if not more important to a team as having a strong tail.

But putting that aside for just a moment, if we're comparing the value of two players and they are tied on primary skills and one is decent and one elite, that doesn't matter?

I don't know where this argument that lower order batting or even reserve bowling is so much important than having a strong cordon has come from. And I don't know how you can watch any test match and the value isn't immediately evident.

When building a team all three factors to varying degrees have to be factored in, one is literally built in the the team format with an batting all rounder slot for an additional bowler. No one wants a totally useless tail, with some resistance being welcomed to assist with building totals. Re the cordon, each innings starts with 3 slips and a gully, and most of fast bowler's and a healthy amount of spinner's wickets comes from catches taken behind the wicket and is immeasurably vital to most bowlers success.

So this not comparable argument is so very far off is crazy.

And I don't care who it annoys, but let's have this discussion again.

1. Team success.
If we did a couple lists of the best teams since WW2, there's a few things they all have in common were aggressive middle orders, really fast and skilled bowlers and elite catching. Conversely there's never been a correlation between "great" lower orders and elite teams, partially because teams that have heavily relied on their lower order tends not to be very good, at least not having a reliable middle order. I will continue to ask if those great Australian or WI teams would have traded out their elite cordons for a Pollock or Imran quality bat in the tail. Not saying they wouldn't have taken both, but wouldn't trade their elite cordon for it. I can with confidence say that neither team would have been successful without those guys they have in the cordon.

Bowlers success.
2. Your pacers, especially in SENAW are ultimately only as successful as their collective cordon. Look back at the careers of Lillee, Hadlee, the Quartet, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn, and it's obvious how much they benefitted from having elite guys back there. All of them had elite cordons with specialists at 2nd slip, the premier position. I would like to single out one of them to say how elite their support was, but all of them were well stacked. Guys like Chappell, Coney, Greenidge, Hooper, Waugh / Ponting, Kallis consistently converted half chances and were worth their weight in gold.

From my perspective, I don't see how there's any argument to positional value and how the roles aren't comparable.

Even with regards to Dravid, he was key to two spinners success as well, as was Taylor / Waugh / Hayden to Warne and Jayawardene to Murali, equally as vital for the spinners. Those 210 catches are all direct wickets, each dropped one a missed opportunity.

That statement can be made because literally no one else thinks a fielder is more valuable than a 30+ averaging bat..... You're hardly going to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[kyear2]

That statement can be made because literally no one else thinks a fielder is more valuable than a 30+ averaging bat..... You're hardly going to convince anyone otherwise.

To the point of not being comparable?

And a 30 plus averaging bat who averaged around 35 rpm and 24 rpi? Gentleman has more not outs than Sachin. He has 2 test hundreds, which from memory was scored the same year.

I've seen dropped catches cost teams matches and series. Australia nor the West Indies are as successful without their cordons, and those are the greatest two teams ever.
Again, lower order batting has never been proven to be a necessity for winning... again there isn't a team with a elite cordon that would swap that for a stronger tail.

Come on... You're avoiding all context and value...

 

[capt_Luffy]

To the point of not being comparable?

And a 30 plus averaging bat who averaged around 35 rpm and 24 rpi? Gentleman has more not outs than Sachin. He has 2 test hundreds, which from memory was scored the same year.

I've seen dropped catches cost teams matches and series. Australia nor the West Indies are as successful without their cordons, and those are the greatest two teams ever.
Again, lower order batting has never been proven to be a necessity for winning... again there isn't a team with a elite cordon that would swap that for a stronger tail.

Come on... You're avoiding all context and value...

You have a borderline obsessive liking to slip fielding..... Not even fielding in general, which I find fascinating. The facts you bring like those Aussie and WI teams having good slip fielders also applies to fielding in general. They had the winning body language. It was there overall fielding what made them great not just the slips.

Re fielding, it's definitely very important, but not really as much as batting. An average 35 extra runs per match and the additional runs any top order batsman would make in that partnership is without a shadow of doubt more important to me. Unless you are dropping catches left and right, you would really expect 90% of Test class fielders to get most of them.

 

[shortpitched713]

A slip catch does not equal a whole wicket worth of value that is being given, the bowler should obviously also be getting credit, and imo a lion's share of it.

Then that doesn't take into account the replace-ability of one slip catcher to the next, and that difference of a really top tier slipper being less than that between two batsmen ( even in the lower order ) being of different quality. Ultimately it's tough to gauge, especially as only one of those two tends to have hard numbers behind it ( the batting differences ), but the intuition of almost everyone besides 1 poster on this forum seems to be that the batting differences at most positions would be of greater value.

Just don't carry team fielding like Pakistan's has been historically, as this is all assuming a baseline level of professional competence which applies to almost all the Test teams.

 

[kyear2]

You have a borderline obsessive liking to slip fielding..... Not even fielding in general, which I find fascinating. The facts you bring like those Aussie and WI teams having good slip fielders also applies to fielding in general. They had the winning body language. It was there overall fielding what made them great not just the slips.

Re fielding, it's definitely very important, but not really as much as batting. An average 35 extra runs per match and the additional runs any top order batsman would make in that partnership is without a shadow of doubt more important to me. Unless you are dropping catches left and right, you would really expect 90% of Test class fielders to get most of them.

In the recently concluded test match both first innings centurions were dropped (I want to say in their 30's) how mu h did that cost?

Yes, all fielding is important, no doubt, but the same way all batting is important, your no. 3 and 4 are more important than your 10 & 11. Slip fielding is very much a specialist position and where the vast majority of opportunities for wickets go. There's no comparison.

I'm not saying his runs aren't important, I'm saying to say it ain't comparable is ridiculous.

A team cannot consistently win without a great cordon, not to it's full potential, many teams have managed to without a guy averaging 35 runs a match in the the tail.

That's not even touching on the fact that the reason these guys are lower order batsmen are because they aren't as consistent as their top order counterparts, and not nearly as reliable.

Oh, and what Ponting and Kallis didn't isn't replicable by 90'% of test fielders, that's just not true.