Faulkner vs Mike Procter

[Coronis]

Sounds like there is no guarantee he would have ended up as good a bowler as Pollock.

lol. I was being kind to Pollock there. Besides Procter was already at the age then where Pollock’s impact had far far fallen away.

Realistically imo he would’ve been in contention for the top 10. He bettered/matched Imran in county. Had major success in England, South Africa and was good in Australia with mainly offspin of all things.

Twice scored a century before lunch, twice scored a century and a hattrick in the same match, 6 times scored a century and a 5’fer in the same match. Sorry but if we’re looking at overall cricket and not just tests, there’s no way in hell Shaun Pollock compares.

 

[subshakerz]

lol. I was being kind to Pollock there. Besides Procter was already at the age then where Pollock’s impact had far far fallen away.

Realistically imo he would’ve been in contention for the top 10. He bettered/matched Imran in county. Had major success in England, South Africa and was good in Australia with mainly offspin of all things.

Twice scored a century before lunch, twice scored a century and a hattrick in the same match, 6 times scored a century and a 5’fer in the same match. Sorry but if we’re looking at overall cricket and not just tests, there’s no way in hell Shaun Pollock compares.

How much weight do you give to county?

 

[ataraxia]

Faulkner is ancient, and WPM indicates a lower bowling workload.

Complaining about Faulkner's WPM is weird. 3.3 WPM is very high for a batting all-rounder.

 

[Coronis]

How much weight do you give to county?

In the 70’s and 80’s? It was pretty high quality with a constant stream of international players on every team. Not the be all and end all but its a comp where Procter is able to be compared to other players of his time, outside Saffers.

 

[shortpitched713]

Wow. This is just, so bad.

Hadlee played CC alongside Procter. I'm degrading Procter's averages just like Hadlee's degraded in the step up to Test. Do you have good reason to believe Procter is actually better than Hadlee?

They would both be Bradmanesque if gou could simply extrapolate from FC performance. But the more likely outcome turned out to be the case for Hadlee, and I expect the same for Procter as well. Both in all likelihood would have performed ATG level of output if both were given the chance, mind. But it simply didn't happen for Procter.

 

[shortpitched713]

Complaining about Faulkner's WPM is weird. 3.3 WPM is very high for a batting all-rounder.

You're right. I remember his being lower than Shakib's WPM. But it's not that significant of a difference.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee played CC alongside Procter. I'm degrading Procter's averages just like Hadlee's degraded in the step up to Test. Do you have good reason to believe Procter is actually better than Hadlee?

They would both be Bradmanesque if gou could simply extrapolate from FC performance. But the more likely outcome turned out to be the case for Hadlee, and I expect the same for Procter as well. Both in all likelihood would have performed ATG level of output if both were given the chance, mind. But it simply didn't happen for Procter.

He averaged the exact same as Imran in county mate. Hadlee was an extreme outlier there, that’s already been well established.

 

[Bolo.]

Sounds like there is no guarantee he would have ended up as good a bowler as Pollock.

You really think the fact that he averaged 16 by bowling offspin in Australia of all places, at a time when he was injured is an argument against him? That's 12 or 13 years after test debut (just about Pollocks entire test career), and he was already great on debut.

 

[sayon basak]

You really think the fact that he averaged 16 by bowling offspin in Australia of all places, at a time when he was injured is an argument against him? That's 12 or 13 years after test debut (just about Pollocks entire test career), and he was already great on debut.

Tbh being able to put up number like Imran in county and then also being able to average 16 while bowling off spin is just too impressive on it's own, that too being in Australia just adds to that.

 

[subshakerz]

You really think the fact that he averaged 16 by bowling offspin in Australia of all places, at a time when he was injured is an argument against him? That's 12 or 13 years after test debut (just about Pollocks entire test career), and he was already great on debut.

I am not totally against rating intl cricketers based on FC record solely, but I don't see how just FC can get Procter ahead of a possible top 15 bowler who could also bat.

 

[Bolo.]

I am not totally against rating intl cricketers based on FC record solely, but I don't see how just FC can get Procter ahead of a possible top 15 bowler who could also bat.

Perfectly fair to rate Pollock higher on this basis. But your comment was critiquing how Procter did. He's way ahead of Pollock based on the various types of cricket he actually played.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Were Procter and Van der Bijl both fast medium?

 

[kyear2]

Can't believe this is a discussion.

Procter is one of the greatest and most versatile cricketers ever.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think due to his limited Test appearance (in which he slapped hard btw), as a pure bowler I will have Shaun Pollock ahead. Dude averages 20 odd for a good 50 matches. But as an all-rounder, for me it's clearly Procter.

 

[subshakerz]

Perfectly fair to rate Pollock higher on this basis. But your comment was critiquing how Procter did. He's way ahead of Pollock based on the various types of cricket he actually played.

No the essence of my comment was injuries can happen any time, so we can't project how his intl career would be and hence he was less tested and should be rated behind.

 

[subshakerz]

Can't believe this is a discussion.

Procter is one of the greatest and most versatile cricketers ever.

And Faulkner wasn't?

As usual you are treating something as a controversy that nobody is arguing.

 

[sayon basak]

Faulkner and Procter both easily makes it into the top 10 all rounders list, picking either one of them should be good imo.

 

[Bolo.]

No the essence of my comment was injuries can happen any time, so we can't project how his intl career would be and hence he was less tested and should be rated behind.

Any player can get injured at any time. Swap two quicks with full test careers and both of them might end up out injured. WSC shows that Procter was a player who was very capable of dealing with injuries. Test cricket shows that Pollock wasn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Any player can get injured at any time. Swap two quicks with full test careers and both of them might end up out injured. WSC shows that Procter was a player who was very capable of dealing with injuries. Test cricket shows that Pollock wasn't.

Pollock played over 100 tests.

If injuries could happen any time, for all we know Procter could have had a freak injury and have reduced effectiveness the rest of his intl career. Point is we don't have an Intl sample for him, we do for Pollock a proven test great, and we can't elevate Procter over him.

Honestly, what's the point of intl career if you are just going to point to FC stats to prove greatness? Unless we assume some drop off in his FC stats for Procter as an intl cricketer, this is simply saying FC = test cricket. It's just a jump in logic.

 

[ankitj]

1. Barry Richards
2. Graeme Smith
3. Dudley Nourse
4. Graeme Pollock
5. Jacques Kallis
6. AB De Villiers (WK)
7. Mike Proctor
8. Shaun Pollock
9. Allan Donald
10. Dale Steyn
11. Hugh Tayfield

Tayfield was a decent batter. Should bat at #9 and Donald at #11