Faulkner vs Mike Procter

[Bolo.]

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.

It's not hard to say a proven test career is greater. You won't get pushback from many people on this. You don't need to use an example showing the opposite to prove this.

Procter is in the same boat as some of the other isolation era players. Worse test career than most, but better player than most. He's just better positioned to be confident in than most of the others as you have 3 disciplines to draw from.

These isolation player era debates can be a bit pointless. Most people at least somewhat agree on the status of their test careers and their quality at the level they played. But disagree on which to prioritise, which is simply speaking different languages. Or on how much extrapolation to tests is possible. Which is more fair, but is very hypothetical.

 

[akilana]

like barry richards, mike procter didn't play enough tests.. either you rate them both or you don't. if you rate one but not the other, its hard to take your arguments seriously.

 

[sayon basak]

like barry richards, mike procter didn't play enough tests.. either you rate them both or you don't. if you rate one but not the other, its hard to take your arguments seriously.

Anybody who rates Procter also rates Richards, don't know what you're getting at.

 

[subshakerz]

These isolation player era debates can be a bit pointless. Most people at least somewhat agree on the status of their test careers and their quality at the level they played. But disagree on which to prioritise, which is simply speaking different languages. Or on how much extrapolation to tests is possible. Which is more fair, but is very hypothetical.

Yes.

My own formula is simple.

Barry and Proctor to me are ATVGs, or national greats. They will make it on their respective national teams. We can assume based on their FC records and reputations that even if they had a drop off in tests, they still would have ended with somewhat worldclass level intl stats.

But we can't consider elites or ATGs (as @kyear2 does), as having a long enough test record where they were tested at the highest level over a career should be a prerequisite for that. To be an ATG isnt simply about talent and ability and FC record. It takes something extra and often being able to recover from bad form and injuries or aging over a stretch which can't be asdumed

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Who is the better AR and who would you select in an SA ATG XI?

Procter - Greatest Cricketer after the 3 freaks ( Sobers, Don, WG )

 

[sayon basak]

Procter - Greatest Cricketer after the 3 freaks ( Sobers, Don, WG )

How is he better than Gavaskar?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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.

Procter > Hadlee > Imran > Kapil > Botham > Shaun "Poor man's Hadlee " Pollock.

Procter - Imran league bowler ( if not better ) + Better Batsman than Botham.

 

[subshakerz]

How is he better than Gavaskar?

Even Barry can be, why not Procter?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

How is he better than Gavaskar?

Rank 4 > Rank 5

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You rate Procter higher than Pollock as an overall cricketer?

As a bowler alone,
Procter > Pollock the cricketer.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

like barry richards, mike procter didn't play enough tests.. either you rate them both or you don't. if you rate one but not the other, its hard to take your arguments seriously.

Mike Procter is a Guaranteed ATG, even if the numbers drop by 10% for Tests, he would still be a Top tier ATG with 32+ batting avg and 21ish avg with ball.

Barry Richards not so much, a 10% drop means 49-50 batting avg.

Anyway i rate Barry Richards amongst top 15 batters alltime and Procter Greatest Cricketer in last 50 years.

 

[subshakerz]

Mike Procter is a Guaranteed ATG, even if the numbers drop by 10% for Tests, he would still be a Top tier ATG with 32+ batting avg and 21ish avg with ball.

Barry Richards not so much, a 10% drop means 49-50 batting avg.

Anyway i rate Barry Richards amongst top 15 batters alltime and Procter Greatest Cricketer in last 50 years.

What about 20 percent drop?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Mike Procter played 16 official and unofficial tests against strong test teams.

10 years, 16 tests.
Scored 700 runs at 33.33
And took 70 wickets at 17.14

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

What about 20 percent drop?

Procter
23 with ball, 29 with bat

Richards
45

 

[Coronis]

I want to clarify, all this is obviously purely hypothetical, but yes Procter was definitely a more talented cricketer than Pollock. Based on everything I know about him and assuming he had a relatively injury free career I would say he had a ceiling of Imran level bowler + Miller level batsman (test Miller). I could argue his basement to be the inverse, but that’s probably closer to say, Kapil level batting and Anderson level bowling is as low as I would go.

I’m not going to put him in my ATG test XI or ATG SA test XI, but he’ll always be in my favourite XI, and if I’m picking a SA XI specifically including FC stats, he’s one of the first names on the teamsheet.

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Hadlee and Imran wre both outliers in an opposite sense. Imran's bowling average saw virtually no change in different FC format, CC, and Test. Most FC players, even successful Test players see some type of decline in their average taking the step to Test level.

It's not crazy to think that Procter would see some decline when going up a level, also. Probably not as much as Hadlee, but likely more than Imran (who had none). Exactly how much, is of course debatable.

 

[shortpitched713]

Mike Procter played 16 official and unofficial tests against strong test teams.

10 years, 16 tests.
Scored 700 runs at 33.33
And took 70 wickets at 17.14

Procter was excellent when he got the opportunity. But let's not buff his sample size up. There's a reason those Tsts were "unofficial". The quality of opposition was not the same.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee and Imran wre both outliers in an opposite sense. Imran's bowling average saw virtually no change in different FC format, CC, and Test. Most FC players, even successful Test players see some type of decline in their average taking the step to Test level.

It's not crazy to think that Procter would see some decline when going up a level, also. Probably not as much as Hadlee, but likely more than Imran (who had none). Exactly how much, is of course debatable.

My bad, I was only looking at Imran’s Sussex stats.

Overall County Cricket (ok matches for their county teams, not all would’ve been actual championship matches)
Imran 173 matches 537 @ 21.08
Procter 259 matches 833 @ 19.56

So Procter was definitely better in county, mb.

 

[kyear2]

Wow. This is just, so bad.

For once I agree.

 

[kyear2]

Equals.

Both.

Procter is the better all rounder imo. Greater player as well.