• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Faulkner vs Mike Procter

Better AR

  • Total voters
    16
B

Bert

Cricket Spectator
There’s a subtle difference between picking an AT XI and a Top 10

An AT XI is the best TEAM, so a player is picked RELATIVE to others in the team

A Top 10 is ABSOLUTE, regardless of other players

e.g. W.G Grace may not make an England AT XI with a surfeit of openers and All-Rounders, but he definitely would make an England Top 10 (similar arguments for Worrell or Benaud)

Thus, S.Pollock would transcend Procter in a S.A Top 10
But Procter may pip S.Pollock in a S.A AT XI, adding variety and firepower (and his wrong footed deliveries to confound batsmen)

It’s a good debate nevertheless
 
Last edited:
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bert said:
Thus, S.Pollock would transcend Procter in a S.A Top 10
But Procter may pip S.Pollock in a S.A AT XI, adding variety and firepower (and his wrong footed deliveries to confound batsmen)

It’s a good debate nevertheless
Click to expand...
I may have both Pollock and Procter in my SA ATG XI.

Smith
Richards
Nourse
Pollock
Kallis
ABD
Procter
Pollock
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald
 
Last edited:
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
It's when some gets caught up in labels, like WSC was a level below. Like why?

The notion that O'Reilly can be rated on 19 ashes tests, that Pollock can be rated on 22 matches and Headley on 19 pre war tests... But Procter can't be rated on 16 test level contests and years of other results, or that Barry can't be, based on 14 test standard matches spread over a decade and consistent performances vs the best of his era, is idiocy.


At some point persons are just trying to be contrary for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
No idiocy is ranking Barry and Procter as ATGs based on super small samples or less than test standard cricket like FC.

If you ranked them regular greats, nobody would have an issue.

Don't bring in OReilly and Headley. They are a different era.

Pollock had a 7 year intl career but he also loses places for a shorter career otherwise would likely be a top ten bat. But all three played more intl cricket.
 
Last edited:
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
kyear2 said:
It's when some gets caught up in labels, like WSC was a level below. Like why?

The notion that O'Reilly can be rated on 19 ashes tests, that Pollock can be rated on 22 matches and Headley on 19 pre war tests... But Procter can't be rated on 16 test level contests and years of other results, or that Barry can't be, based on 14 test standard matches spread over a decade and consistent performances vs the best of his era, is idiocy.


At some point persons are just trying to be contrary for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
This is having cake and eating it too. I don't know what others say, but I'm pretty consistent on all of these players for myself. Very small or no Tests sample size = Can't be rated as a great Test cricketer. All of the above apartheid SA cricketers aren't rated by myself. It's pretty straightforward.

Even though I'll cede WSC was high level, there is a bit of irregularity in the sides which for me makes it more of an exhibition than Tests, although I can understand reasonable people disagreeing. For my mind, I believe both those, and any other World XI exhibitions which were given Tests status, should have that status removed for Test statistics and consideration.

It's unfortunate that apartheid SA cricketers careers were the collateral damage for pressure towards extremely necessary political reform, but I support those actions wholeheartedly, and thems the breaks. No point harping over what may have been, when it wasn't.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
No idiocy is ranking Barry and Procter as ATGs based on super small samples or less than test standard cricket like FC.

If you ranked them regular greats, nobody would have an issue.

Don't bring in OReilly and Headley. They are a different era.

Pollock had a 7 year intl career but he also looses places for a shorter career otherwise would likely be a top ten bat. But all three played more intl cricket.
Click to expand...
I don't care who has an issue though.

And as I illustrated, they are seen as ATGs by the wider cricketing community who rate players little less by spreadsheet a little more based on actually watching them perform
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
I don't care who has an issue though.

And as I illustrated, they are seen as ATGs by the wider cricketing community who rate players little less by spreadsheet a little more based on actually watching them perform
Click to expand...
The problem is you rely on cricket consensus when it suits you.

Is Graeme Pollock as good as Barry? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

Is Imran a great captain? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

Is Marshall a top 3/ top 5 cricketer? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

But it matters when you care about Barry.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
CW mantra is Tests unless otherwise specified, but I see your point too.

Guess I'll bring out Ryan ten Doeschate in the next great all-rounder thread. :p
Click to expand...
Considering the thread is specifically about a player who played a very small sample size, it was obvious it wasn’t just about tests.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
The problem is you rely on cricket consensus when it suits you.

Is Graeme Pollock as good as Barry? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

Is Imran a great captain? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

Is Marshall a top 3/ top 5 cricketer? Then cricket consensus doesn't matter.

But it matters when you care about Barry.
Click to expand...
There is no consensus that Pollock is rated higher than Barry. None.

And my views of Barry is based on my own observations and analysis. His ability, who he scored against and jow. He was capable of things no one else could do.

I have Imran in my top, think it's 8 or 10 captains ever, so again, just stop. I prefer tacticians over being "coach clap" I also don't include my personally opinions about teaching the next generation to cheat, not falling under great captaincy, or character for that matter.

This is where your narrow mindedness comes into play. So try to follow this line of reasoning.

The consensus for Barry has nothing to do with rankings or positioning. The consensus is that he's an ATG batsman and one of the greatest openers to have played the game, at worst top 5.

Regardless of where you rank him, he deserves to be in the conversation. Of that there's a consensus. You want him excluded from said conversation, that is what goes against consensus.

Not to add that you haven't addressed any of my points.

With regards to Marshall, there's a consensus top 2 in cricket. After that it's a mix of Hobbs, Warne and Tendulkar. That's it.

Marshall is seen by many, I would even say a majority or close to consensus as being the greatest bowler ever, even here. How is he then not eligible for a top 5 position of all time?
By consensus he's in the conversation.

Ranking of players is more subjective with regards to what they value, but regards to being ranked as bowler, he's up there.

That's not comparable to you not ranking a player who made the Cricinfo World All Time 2nd XI, along with the likes of Lara, Imran, Hammond, Muralitharan and Gavaskar, a ****ing ATG cricketer. It's idiotic.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
There is no consensus that Pollock is rated higher than Barry. None.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I said the consensus is that Pollock was at least as good, which it was, and you ignore.

kyear2 said:
And my views of Barry is based on my own observations and analysis. His ability, who he scored against and jow. He was capable of things no one else could do.
Click to expand...
.
Did you watch him extensively in country cricket?

kyear2 said:
I have Imran in my top, think it's 8 or 10 captains ever, so again, just stop.
Click to expand...
Where have you stated that before? Every time I call him a great captain you quibble with it.

kyear2 said:
The consensus for Barry has nothing to do with rankings or positioning. The consensus is that he's an ATG batsman and one of the greatest openers to have played the game, at worst top 5.
Click to expand...
You say it has nothing to do with ranking and immediately contradict yourself.

kyear2 said:
Regardless of where you rank him, he deserves to be in the conversation. Of that there's a consensus. You want him excluded from said conversation, that is what goes against consensus.
Click to expand...
Again, you bring up consensus when convenient.

kyear2 said:
With regards to Marshall, there's a consensus top 2 in cricket. After that it's a mix of Hobbs, Warne and Tendulkar. That's it.

Marshall is seen by many, I would even say a majority or close to consensus as being the greatest bowler ever, even here. How is he then not eligible for a top 5 position of all time?
By consensus he's in the conversation.
Click to expand...
This is you picking and choosing. There is no consensus and Marshall is never discussed in such terms in the top 5.

By consensus, Marshall is not a top 10 cricketer, much less top 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top