Mike Procter vs Aubrey Faulkner

[sayon basak]

Who's the better South African all rounder?

 

[capt_Luffy]

If Test only, then Faulkner by default.

Overall, Procter easily.

 

[sayon basak]

If Test only, then Faulkner by default.

Overall, Procter easily.

Who do you you think was a more balanced all rounder? (not necessarily better) And whom would you pick first if you were to make an all time South African XI?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Who do you you think was a more balanced all rounder? (not necessarily better) And whom would you pick first if you were to make an all time South African XI?

Faulkner more balanced, arguably the most balanced top tier allrounder.

Procter will be the 3rd name in that team.

 

[Coronis]

His batting seems a bit underrated. Ignoring his last test (42, hadn’t played FC for 3 years)

pre-war, a batting average of 41.87 puts him right up there as one of the best (behind Hobbs) (Another pre war bat who probs gets underrated cos of his post war career - Warren Bardsley, was averaging 47 pre war - same age as Faulkner but continued on too long) Bowling average of 25 I could see being roughly equivalent to a Kapil/Botham level bowler in those days, but an easily superior bat.

You could probably argue that Faulkner’s batting was equivalent to Procter’s bowling and vice versa. Both were also quality fieldsman.

Its really too bad he moved to England, a duel between him and Barnes in his famous 49 wicket series would’ve been something to watch.

 

[capt_Luffy]

His batting seems a bit underrated. Ignoring his last test (42, hadn’t played FC for 3 years)

pre-war, a batting average of 41.87 puts him right up there as one of the best (behind Hobbs) (Another pre war bat who probs gets underrated cos of his post war career - Warren Bardsley, was averaging 47 pre war - same age as Faulkner but continued on too long) Bowling average of 25 I could see being roughly equivalent to a Kapil/Botham level bowler in those days, but an easily superior bat.

You could probably argue that Faulkner’s batting was equivalent to Procter’s bowling and vice versa. Both were also quality fieldsman.

Its really too bad he moved to England, a duel between him and Barnes in his famous 49 wicket series would’ve been something to watch.

I think you are overrating Faulkner's bowling here. He averaged 26.6 with the ball; both Vogler and Schwarz did better. And if by Kapil level bowler you meant worse than Terry Alderman, then you probably are about right.

 

[sayon basak]

He averaged 26.6 with the ball; both Vogler and Schwarz did better.

A quick Question. How much importance do you give to wicket per innings? Would you regard a bowler to be better if his bowling average is around the same but has a better WPM or WPI?

 

[capt_Luffy]

A quick Question. How much importance do you give to wicket per innings? Would you regard a bowler to be better if his bowling average is around the same but has a better WPM or WPI?

It would be idiotic not to, imo. Of course there are several factors like if the bowler was used for holding role and has great Economy, etc; but still generally, definitely.

 

[kyear2]

Procter. You get a tip tier quality bowler, no. 7/ 8 level bat capable of big innings and a pretty good slip fielder.

 

[reyrey]

Procter. You get a tip tier quality bowler, no. 7/ 8 level bat capable of big innings and a pretty good slip fielder.

He was also really good at bowling over the wicket at right handers and could bowl spin if needed. You get so much potential variety with him. He really should have been called the white Sobers.

 

[Bolo.]

He was also really good at bowling over the wicket at right handers and could bowl spin if needed. You get so much potential variety with him. He really should have been called the white Sobers.

Why has right arm over the wicket to right handers fallen so out of vogue? Not just for the oddities like Proctor who preferred it, but as a means of switching things up.

 

[ataraxia]

Procter. You get a tip tier quality bowler, no. 7/ 8 level bat capable of big innings and a pretty good slip fielder.

That doesn't exactly seem to square with your viewpoint on every other all-rounder comparison in history. Faulkner's generally considered the better and is the batting all-rounder here.

 

[Coronis]

That doesn't exactly seem to square with your viewpoint on every other all-rounder comparison in history. Faulkner's generally considered the better and is the batting all-rounder here.

I’m not sure this is true at all.