Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Pollock competes with Sobers and Lara for the title of Greatest left hand batsman ever.

Dravid competes with Kohli for the title of 3rd greatest Indian batsman.

 

[ma1978]

We’ll never know about Pollock really but it’s not much of a debate when one guy played 150 tests and the other 20

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yeah Pollock was a gun but don’t think he should be rated higher than guys with significantly longer careers like Dravid/Miandad/Kohli

 

[number11]

We’ll never know about Pollock really but it’s not much of a debate when one guy played 150 tests and the other 20

Sometimes people seem to champion longevity, other times they dismiss it.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sometimes people seem to champion longevity, other times they dismiss it.

Yeah, Pollock was dropped from the team after 23 matches due to poor performances.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid had the better career, and that's what I count as "greatness" essentially. Pollock was pretty clearly the batsman with more talent and natural ability though and with a full career probably would have been looked at as a top 10 batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Quality over quantity gentleman. And quality wise it's not especially close.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Quality over quantity gentleman. And quality wise it's not remotely close.

The problem is quality is tougher to evaluate when the quantity is so small

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Pollock

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock easily.

 

[subshakerz]

The problem is quality is tougher to evaluate when the quantity is so small

It's more that Pollock had a sky high rep and enough of a sample over seven years to show it wasn't just talk.

 

[ankitj]

Dravid had the better career, and that's what I count as "greatness" essentially. Pollock was pretty clearly the batsman with more talent and natural ability though and with a full career probably would have been looked at as a top 10 batsman.

I think a poll of "experts" outside CW will still put him in top 10. ESPN's legends of cricket had him at #15 and that list also included bowlers and all-rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

Dravid had the better career, and that's what I count as "greatness" essentially. Pollock was pretty clearly the batsman with more talent and natural ability though and with a full career probably would have been looked at as a top 10 batsman.

Pollock played seven years for his 23 tests. We give more latitude to pre-WSC cricketers, so it's like playing 40-50 tests at a 60 average. Along with his rep, enough to rate him ahead of Dravid.

 

[ankitj]

What's the sample size cut-off? Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests compared to Pollock's 23. No one brings up former's sample size.

 

[Coronis]

What's the sample size cut-off? Bill O'Reilly played 27 tests compared to Pollock's 23. No one brings up former's sample size.

tbf the gap between O’Reilly and other spinners is a fair bit larger than between Pollock and comparable batsmen. If they both had longer careers Pollock would likely be top 10 and O’Reilly could well end up above the spin twins. As it is O’Reilly sits below them and I have Pollock in the low 20’s.

 

[ma1978]

20 something tests vs 150 something tests

Dravid had a seven year period where he was better than Polloccks whole career

the fact that this is even a discussion highlights people willingness to back an old white guy because they are old and white

 

[Coronis]

20 something tests vs 150 something tests

Dravid had a seven year period where he was better than Polloccks whole career

the fact that this is even a discussion highlights people willingness to back an old white guy because they are old and white

Why do people rate Headley jw?

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's more that Pollock had a sky high rep and enough of a sample over seven years to show it wasn't just talk.

I didn't say it was talk, I myself say he's the better batsman in terms of skill and talent and eye test. It's the quality of the production that I'm questioning a bit. 2000s players benefitted from flat decks and soft attacks for a few years but Pollock's career also came in a period where there were a lot of very soft attacks around. I don't think there was one bowler he had to face even a few times in that period who could be classified as a true great of the game. For me, "Better" is a measure of the level of skill and there, Pollock probably beats him. But "greater" should include some aspect of career quality and that's where I think he falls short.

There is no real question around his skill ftr, he was smashing around test quality fast bowlers at age 40+ in FC games. But I do think players of older eras get away with far less scrutiny around the context of their runs in a way modern players don't (especially because you've watched modern players day in day out with their strengths and flaws on display) . Older players also benefit from having less visible 'warts' in their records due to a smaller variety of opposition/conditions and sometimes only playing tests at their absolute peak. So I've made it my new obnoxious agenda to point out this whenever possible especially in a comparison with a modern player.

 

[number11]

Yeah, Pollock was dropped from the team after 23 matches due to poor performances.

No one said that but the fact remains that people are grossly selective when it comes to validity assigned to sample sizes.

There has to be some consistency.