subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Who is the better AR and who would you select in an SA ATG XI?
If you look at tests, obviously Faulkner. tbh I’d say they’re pretty tight overall in FC. Ofc Faulkner played in a much different era so his bowling numbers are possibly a little misleading. But on the inverse so are his batting numbers. I’d probably just go Procter slightly, perhaps because of a little personal bias, him being my favourite player and all.Who is the better AR and who would you select in an SA ATG XI?
Wow I actually forgot that honestly. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I more or less agree.I’d probably just go Procter slightly, perhaps because of a little personal bias, him being my favourite player and all.
Look at his PFP.Wow I actually forgot that honestly.
I remember looking at it a while ago then forgot.Look at his PFP.
?Proctor fan? the endless Ls of Coronis
Thinking so is actually an L for you.Proctor fan? the endless Ls of Coronis
The endless Ws for Procter - http://cricmash.com/feats/mike-procter-scores-sixth-first-class-hundreds-in-a-rowProctor fan? the endless Ls of Coronis
Wow. This is just, so bad.An ancient dude vs a dude who played an extremely small number of Tests.
My guess is Procter would be something like a poor man's Shaun Pollock. He has gaudy numbers in FC, as a contemporary of Hadlee's, was a step below him as a bowler and a step above as a bat in the same CC competition. Similar to Hadlee I just don't expect his style of farming FC wickets at a less than absolute express speed to translate quite as well at Test level, while still being excellent for a bowling all-rounder.
Something like a ~29 average bat, and 24-25 with ball is what I would expect. Anyway, would take that kind of player over Faulkner.
Equals.Who is the better AR?
Both.who would you select in an SA ATG XI?
Seems excessive. To me either one is making no. 7. How many ARs would you have in the XI?Equals.
Both.
Faulkner wasn't a no.7 batsman.Seems excessive. To me either one is making no. 7. How many ARs would you have in the XI?
Does the name Graeme Pollock mean nothing to you? Dump one Pollock for another imo. Goddard for Smith too for that matter. Steyn/Donald/Procter/Tayfield/Kallis/Faulkner is easily more than enoughFaulkner wasn't a no.7 batsman.
SA XI:-
Barry Richards
Trevor Goddard
Jacques Kallis
Dudley Nourse
AB De Villiers+
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Shaun Pollock
Hugh Tayfield
Dale Steyn
Allan Donald
You don't need six regular bowling options (seven with Kallis,) and should have Nourse there for one of the ARs.Faulkner wasn't a no.7 batsman.
SA XI:-
Barry Richards
Trevor Goddard
Jacques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
AB De Villiers+
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Shaun Pollock
Hugh Tayfield
Dale Steyn
Allan Donald
12th man:- Dudley Nourse
Don't think the number of AR's should be a concern. If a team has a lot of great All rounders, the XI should reflect that.
I don't see how Shaun Pollock is droppable. You need that type of bowler compared to other pacers.Does the name Graeme Pollock mean nothing to you? Dump one Pollock for another imo. Goddard for Smith too for that matter. Steyn/Donald/Procter/Tayfield/Kallis/Faulkner is easily more than enough
Sorry but if you have Steyn, Donald, Procter and Pollock, Pollock is easily the dropI don't see how Shaun Pollock is droppable. You need that type of bowler compared to other pacers.
You rate Procter higher than Pollock as an overall cricketer?Sorry but if you have Steyn, Donald, Procter and Pollock, Pollock is easily the drop