Faulkner vs Mike Procter

[kyear2]

I don't see how Shaun Pollock is droppable. You need that type of bowler compared to other pacers.

Need is a strong word.

He's the least great or good of any of them, and one doesn't need that many bowling options

 

[kyear2]

You rate Procter higher than Pollock as an overall cricketer?

Yes sir.

 

[sayon basak]

Yes sir.

Fair tbh. Where would you rate other SA greats like Bijl, Barlow, Rice?

 

[kyear2]

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.

Interesting.

Fully agree, but interesting.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting.

Fully agree, but interesting.

?

 

[Bolo.]

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

I wouldnt assume Imran/Hadlee quality, but I would either assume an absolute minumum of close to Pollock in quality or abandon the idea of assumptions altogether. Which kinda defeats the purpose of these ATG teams- we need to make assumptions about how people from different eras will perform, and much bigger ones when it comes to someone like Faulkner.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Genuinely, that's nonsense.

He played over 400 first class games. Wasn't as of he was sitting at home protecting his body. He carried quite the work load on his body.

And no FC isn't quite test, it is cricket however and one can extrapolate in these instances how cricketers would have performed.

And Procter was a better cricketer than Pollock, and there can be a clear line of distinction between having a better / longer test career and being the better player.

If I had both up for one position on a cricket team and one position, I'm going Procter all day.

 

[Coronis]

Even when he did have an injury he could still bowl his offies

Uh also @shortpitched713 I noticed you latched onto something suggesting he was medium-fast or something… iirc Procter was quite fast, especially earlier in his career. (late 60’s-early 70’s)

 

[kyear2]

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.

Agree.

 

[subshakerz]

Genuinely, that's nonsense.

He played over 400 first class games. Wasn't as of he was sitting at home protecting his body. He carried quite the work load on his body.

And no FC isn't quite test, it is cricket however and one can extrapolate in these instances how cricketers would have performed.

And Procter was a better cricketer than Pollock, and there can be a clear line of distinction between having a better / longer test career and being the better player.

If I had both up for one position on a cricket team and one position, I'm going Procter all day.

Dude, I wasn't arguing Procter was injury prone but that he doesn't have an intl sample and we can't assume he would perform to an ATG level.

Just saying 'FC is cricket' must be your worst argument yet.

The fact is the player with the better career is rated higher.

Agree.

What about Van Der Bijl? is he an ATG?

 

[sayon basak]

Just saying 'FC is cricket' must be your worst argument yet.

FC is definitely "cricket", don't get how that's controversial.

 

[subshakerz]

I wouldnt assume Imran/Hadlee quality, but I would either assume an absolute minumum of close to Pollock in quality or abandon the idea of assumptions altogether. Which kinda defeats the purpose of these ATG teams- we need to make assumptions about how people from different eras will perform, and much bigger ones when it comes to someone like Faulkner.

I don't mind assuming he would be a great and close to Pollock though I still think Pollock with an actual career should be given preference as the better (proven) cricketer.

 

[subshakerz]

FC is definitely "cricket", don't get how that's controversial.

Of course it is. But that's too general a statement to suggest it's compatible with International Cricket.

 

[kyear2]

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

I want you to note the most important part of your first sentence, and I've highlighted it for you.

"To you"

There's this ridiculous notion that I'm literally the only people who considers Barry Richards to be an ATG, or even elite one.

CMJ has him in his top 30 players of all time, Crowe has him in his 14 elite ATGs from his era and initially called him the greatest post war opener, before slotting him into his second AT team here. David Gower ranks him the 15th best player of all time. ESPN has him included in their legends of cricket and Cricinfo has him in their 2nd AT world team. The Roar also has him in their team to take on a Wisden XI. Mark Nicholas also has him in his first team all time. There's a list of players, pundits and umpires who consider him the greatest player they've seen, period. He was the best batsman in the world for a 6 year period where Chappell, Gavaskar and others were actively playing cricket, and even years later was still one of only 3 batsmen that were able to successfully navigate WSC.

You're also pretending that him and Procter had 5 year careers and never had to deal with work loads or injuries.

The notion that has been adopted here than Barry isn't an ATG is the exception and one that deviates from the external consensus, not the other way around.

@fredfertang has an entire article and thread on the greatness of the man. In terms of pure batsmanahip for players he's seen, @peterhrt ranks him alongside the likes of Sachin and Viv. You don't get more elite than that.

There's very little that's assumed when it comes to Barry, through out his career he proved himself against only the very best of his era.

So no Sir, this isn't a one man crusade for an obscure player, or in the absence of anything close to resembling evidence prove that Flower was an ATG keeper bat, Barry was an ATG, and one of the top 30 or so players of all time to have played the game.

 

[Coronis]

I don't mind assuming he would be a great and close to Pollock though I still think Pollock with an actual career should be given preference as the better (proven) cricketer.

Like I said this is hypothetical but if its not a test specific XI Procter and Richards would definitely make it. They dominated in both County and Currie Cup. van der Bijl is unlucky, Steyn and Donald are already locks and assuming Tayfield is there spinning, you’d much rather have Procter or even Pollock there.

ATG Test SA XI

Mitchell
Smith*
Nourse
Kallis
Pollock
de Villiers
Waite+
Pollock
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald

Alternately, Faulkner can come in and AB can keep, I have no issue with this.

ATG SA XI

Richards
Smith*
Nourse
Kallis
Pollock
de Villiers
Procter
Waite+
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald

Same again with Faulkner.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Like I said this is hypothetical but if its not a test specific XI Procter and Richards would definitely make it. They dominated in both County and Currie Cup. van der Bijl is unlucky, Steyn and Donald are already locks and assuming Tayfield is there spinning, you’d much rather have Procter or even Pollock there.

ATG Test SA XI

Mitchell
Smith*
Nourse
Kallis
Pollock
de Villiers
Waite+
Pollock
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald

Alternately, Faulkner can come in and AB can keep, I have no issue with this.

ATG SA XI

Richards
Smith*
Nourse
Kallis
Pollock
de Villiers
Procter
Waite+
Tayfield
Steyn
Donald

Same again with Faulkner.

How about benching Tayfield and giving both Pollock/van der Bijl a go?? Ofcourse Faulkner plays for Waite and ABD keeps. Think Faulkner as the spinner and Procter with his offies if needed is enough for SA in most situations, especially at home.

 

[kyear2]

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.

The first set of unofficial tests were against the best team in the world and we're official.tesys when they were played.

The rest were either against Australia or WSC, where's the drop off in opposition?

 

[Coronis]

How about benching Tayfield and giving both Pollock/van der Bijl a go?? Ofcourse Faulkner plays for Waite and ABD keeps. Think Faulkner as the spinner and Procter with his offies if needed is enough for SA in most situations, especially at home.

I’m very reluctant to do that. Obviously while Procter was clearly a capable spinner like Sobers it wasn’t his main style of bowling. And Faulkner I don’t think I can trust him necessarily as the #1 spin option. Ignoring his 1924 test for obvious reasons… He averages 25 as a bowler pre-war. He was good on the matting wickets and in England but struggled greatly in Australia. I just don’t think its worth it with Tayfield available.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I’m very reluctant to do that. Obviously while Procter was clearly a capable spinner like Sobers it wasn’t his main style of bowling. And Faulkner I don’t think I can trust him necessarily as the #1 spin option. Ignoring his 1924 test for obvious reasons… He averages 25 as a bowler pre-war. He was good on the matting wickets and in England but struggled greatly in Australia. I just don’t think its worth it with Tayfield available.

Hmmm..... Can see the argument. His Australia record was largely him saying "**** bowling, I will bat" and doing exactly that. According to Peterhrt, he spent a huge amount of time in the nets batting and neglected his bowling totally. IIRC he averaged 70 odd with the bat while only taking 10 wickets for 50. He pretty much was among the top handfuls of best spinners (and to extension, bowlers) though. Averaged 17 in FC and removing his Australian tour, his Test and FC averages kinda converge in a way you would expect them to realistically. Ofcourse Tayfield was a Great bowler, top tier ATVG, but don't think better than van der Bijl or Pollock's all round value, and I want Faulkner in the team.

 

[kyear2]

FC is definitely "cricket", don't get how that's controversial.

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.