Graeme Pollock vs Sangakarra

[subshakerz]

Who is the greater bat?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Pollock

 

[kyear2]

Graeme Pollock

 

[DrWolverine]

Pollock played just 23 Tests

Sanga has played 134 Tests

 

[Johan]

yeah but Pollock played them over 10 years and was gun every single year, he can't really control how many he gets to play

 

[Coronis]

yeah but Pollock played them over 10 years and was gun every single year, he can't really control how many he gets to play

7 years, actually. His is just really not a large enough sample size to rate him alongside the top batsmen, where he probably should’ve ended up.

Thats why I have him and Headley right at the end/just outside my top 20, they had the talent but not the career. In fact I think the next batsmen in terms of tests I have rated ahead of them is Bradman with 52.

 

[Johan]

7 years, actually.

Fair. I wonder about the Rebel tours.

 

[Bolo.]

Fair. I wonder about the Rebel tours.

Rebel tours were a level below tests.

 

[Migara]

Sangakkara. The number of tests and the varied conditions he played takes him.

It is the very reason Sobers would be rated over Pollock, despite having similar average as Sanga.

 

[Coronis]

Pollock might have been the better bat. Sangakkara was the greater bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock might have been the better bat. Sangakkara was the greater bat.

Lol.

 

[Coronis]

Lol.

Pollock may have been more skilled, Sangakkara was more accomplished. I don’t think this is a controversial take.

That’s how I define better/greater.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock may have been more skilled, Sangakkara was more accomplished. I don’t think this is a controversial take.

That’s how I define better/greater.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[h_hurricane]

Players who unfortunately couldn't play a lot of tests due to circumstances beyond their control need to be categorized in a different list. It is a bit unfair to rate Pollock over Sanga(given the test career that he had).

Pollock was a marvelous batsman to watch though even when he crossed 50. Would have been a top tier batsman but that shouldn't prevent us from rating him on what he actually did.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Players who unfortunately couldn't play a lot of tests due to circumstances beyond their control need to be categorized in a different list. It is a bit unfair to rate Pollock over Sanga(given the test career that he had).

Pollock was a marvelous batsman to watch though even when he crossed 50. Would have been a top tier batsman but that shouldn't prevent us from rating him on what he actually did.

Right

 

[govinda indian fan]

Went for sanga as i saw him

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Sanga

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kumar

 

[kyear2]

Quality is quality.

Not to pick on Kapil for instance.

But if anyone had to choose one to play tomorrow between Kapil and Procter is anyone selecting Kapil because he played longer?

You can say that one had a more decorated or accomplished career, but that doesn't make them better or greater.

 

[Coronis]

Quality is quality.

Not to pick on Kapil for instance.

But if anyone had to choose one to play tomorrow between Kapil and Procter is anyone selecting Kapil because he played longer?

You can say that one had a more decorated or accomplished career, but that doesn't make them better or greater.

I’d probably pick Kapil. Its hard to play cricket from beyond the grave.