Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[kyear2]

Don’t forget strike rate.

Strike rate isn't about aesthetics. It's about setting the tone of a match, the ability to change the turn the tide in a session, out the bowlers on the back foot and make life easier for your teammates.
Batting overly slowly, like mid 40's have the opposite effect and can put you.onnrje back foot and let the bowlers hit their stride.

It's invaluable.of someone has that ability or to be able to counter attack and shift gears when required.

 

[kyear2]

Kapil, Botham, Miller and Gilly are ATG cricketers.

Bradman, Murali, Lillee, Gavaskar, Lara.. Etc are not ATGs Because they are practically useless half the time.. Only Multi Dimensional players should be rated ATGs.

How about that?

I literally don't rate anything you post, so it doesn't matter to me...

But yes, I get the all rounder fascination here, never understood it, but hey.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I rate Barry as a top 10 batsman of all time (didn't say the T word), he batted all over the world, showed more than adequate longevity, and played in tough conditions against varied and quality opponents. His performances in WSC was also dominant and special and it's harder for a batsman to just be popped into situations and always perform the way he did. Everyone who saw him bat, from journalists, peers and more importantly.posters here I trust, says that he was one of the very best. One saying he was one of the top 4 batsmen he's ever seen, Lillee ranks him with Viv and Sobers.

Ponting over Dravid is easier. There was a point, of quite substantial length actually where I believed that Ponting had more than a decent chance to be the best after Bradman, he was scoring like a machine and in dominant fashion. He was like Djoker where he made a dominant Dua a trio, he was that dominant.

He could destroy and attacks and change the course of a match in a session, he and Barry could, and yes, that matters to me.

Barry Richards being a Top 10 batsman when he almost solely performed in the County Cricket (Glenn Turner and Zaheer Abbas were better) and SA FC (Graeme Pollock was better). High peer ratings is used by some posters whenever they pleases and for all it matters, people swear Graeme Hick was the second coming of Don. Man you're awfully biased towards him. He played 4 Test matches against a decent at best Australian attack and 5 matches in WSC. Lawrence Rowe was one of 4 batsmen to average 40+ in WSC, don't see him being put ahead of Lloyd and Greenidge.
And again, I have pointed out multiple times Ponting has ZERO Great away series. If people were putting him second to Don, just goes to show why revisionism is important. Dravid is one of the 2 best batsmen in England after Don and while he struggled in SA and SL, he wasn't as bad there as Ponting in India really. It basically boils down to SR, which is fine on itself but ridiculous to use to put in separate tiers.

 

[kyear2]

Oh yeah, my bad; his struggle was more against Australia. But I believe I am pretty spot on on the rest.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't even mention Harvey as an option for the Australian team either. Think it was ORS that once posted about why he too was a tad over rated. Weekes doesn't make the WI side either and Worrell does as an opener. Walcott if he does make it, is as a keeper if playing spinners.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In case you didn't notice, I didn't even mention Harvey as an option for the Australian team either. Think it was ORS that once posted about why he too was a tad over rated. Weekes doesn't make the WI side either and Worrell does as an opener. Walcott if he does make it, is as a keeper if playing spinners.

I think whether they makes the team or not isn't the issue, as well none of them have taken 170 wickets at 23, the fact that they were the elite batsmen of their time and all failed in England is.

 

[Socerer 01]

30 tests in the modern era over 7 years isn't quite good enough is it. You know, context and all.

One has had the odd injury issues while the other had their career truncated.

Taken wise, Bumrah is already India's best bowler ever, don't think anyone disputes that.

assuming you’re talking about Bumrah in the 1st line

since Bumrah’s debut, only 6 pacers have bowled more overs than him in test cricket. use matches as the metric instead and only Roach and Shami overtake him. and thats right, Bumrah’s even got more overs bowled than Shami. 36 tests over the modern era is sufficient for a three format fast bowler

7 years is also disingenuous when covid took out a few extra tests that could have been played

 

[kyear2]

The good attacks of the the Sobers/Pollock test era were Eng, AUS, RSA, and WI. The others were mostly poor. Ya?

I don't think Pollock ever faced a great attack. He just faced consistently good attacks. without checking scorecards, there is a good chance Sobers faced a significantly better attack or 2 in the 50s, but the average quality of attack he faced (and home pitches) was probably a significant step down.

What Pollock would have done in the 70s and 80s against better opposition is pretty speculative. His eyes went twice. Temporary problem in about 71 and permanent problem from the early 80s.

Yeah, one reason why I don't rate him as highly as most. And even 1st class he didn't travel nearly as much as Barry.

And Sobers faced really good attacks during that time. Trueman, Lindwall, Davidson, Benaud, Underwood, Snow, the quartet

 

[peterhrt]

Some of the bowlers Graeme Pollock scored hundreds against in first-class cricket, including Tests and unofficial representative matches:

Fast: Wes Hall, Lillee, Snow (3), Procter (3), le Roux (3), Sylvester Clarke (2), Franklyn Stephenson (2), Ezra Mozeley, Rodney Hogg (2), Rackemann

Fast-medium: McKenzie (8 including 3 doubles), van der Bijl (3), Cartwright (on a greentop), Max Walker, Gary Gilmour, Alderman

Spin: Benaud (5 including 1 double), Tayfield, Underwood (a double), Mallett (3), Hobson (6 including 1 double)

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I literally don't rate anything you post, so it doesn't matter to me...

But yes, I get the all rounder fascination here, never understood it, but hey.

All rounder fascination ?
If you dont get it, its ok... Its commonsense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Some of the bowlers Graeme Pollock scored hundreds against in first-class cricket, including Tests and unofficial representative matches:

Fast: Wes Hall, Lillee, Snow (3), Procter (3), le Roux (3), Sylvester Clarke (2), Franklyn Stephenson (2), Ezra Mozeley, Rodney Hogg (2), Rackemann

Fast-medium: McKenzie (8 including 3 doubles), van der Bijl (3), Cartwright (on a greentop), Max Walker, Gary Gilmour, Alderman

Spin: Benaud (5 including 1 double), Tayfield, Underwood (a double), Mallett (3), Hobson (6 including 1 double)

Here I am not really debating Pollock was a better batsman than Dravid or not; as I believe he was. Just that based only on his Test career, he can't be called a better Test batsman than someone who has played 150+ Tests and scored @52 while batting at 3.

 

[kyear2]

Even with context and Bumrah's injury issues, it's quite disingenuous to say Kapil might be the better bowler than him but Dravid isn't better than Pollock; especially given that both of them played for similar length of careers and Bumrah actually have played more Tests. What could had happened is speculative and doesn't belongs in this discussion really.

Please tell me where I said he was better.

Bumrah is India's best bowler and possibly 2nd best player on qualify.

He's still playing and ideally a bit of longevity to see where his numbers still are. Not talking 100 tests and not saying the guy isn't insane.

 

[subshakerz]

Strike rate isn't about aesthetics. It's about setting the tone of a match, the ability to change the turn the tide in a session, out the bowlers on the back foot and make life easier for your teammates.
Batting overly slowly, like mid 40's have the opposite effect and can put you.onnrje back foot and let the bowlers hit their stride.

It's invaluable.of someone has that ability or to be able to counter attack and shift gears when required.

So many people don't understand this on CW.

This thinking 'well it's the same amount of runs, who cares if one scores faster' is so detached from the game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So many people don't understand this on CW.

This thinking 'well it's the same amount of runs, who cares if one scores faster' is so detached from the game.

Yeah, as is the notion scoring faster is always better.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, as is the notion scoring faster is always better.

Not always, but all other things being equal, clearly more advantages to a player who is aggressive.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not always, but all other things being equal, clearly more advantages to a player who is aggressive.

Slight advantage considering everything else equal but not nearly enough some people makes it to be. For instance, Dravid had shown plenty of times that he could play attacking if the situation calls for it; just that for a good chunk of his career he had Sehwag at top and was followed by 3 pretty good mostly attacking batsmen. His grinding was very much appreciated by the fans for the most part.

 

[kyear2]

Barry Richards being a Top 10 batsman when he almost solely performed in the County Cricket (Glenn Turner and Zaheer Abbas were better) and SA FC (Graeme Pollock was better). High peer ratings is used by some posters whenever they pleases and for all it matters, people swear Graeme Hick was the second coming of Don. Man you're awfully biased towards him. He played 4 Test matches against a decent at best Australian attack and 5 matches in WSC. Lawrence Rowe was one of 4 batsmen to average 40+ in WSC, don't see him being put ahead of Lloyd and Greenidge.
And again, I have pointed out multiple times Ponting has ZERO Great away series. If people were putting him second to Don, just goes to show why revisionism is important. Dravid is one of the 2 best batsmen in England after Don and while he struggled in SA and SL, he wasn't as bad there as Ponting in India really. It basically boils down to SR, which is fine on itself but ridiculous to use to put in separate tiers.

There really is literally nothing that we agree on.

This is like the 5th topic in a row.

 

[kyear2]

Here I am not really debating Pollock was a better batsman than Dravid or not; as I believe he was. Just that based only on his Test career, he can't be called a better Test batsman than someone who has played 150+ Tests and scored @52 while batting at 3.

I think the distinction can be made on who had the better career and who could be seen as the better batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, as is the notion scoring faster is always better.

Literally no one said that.

I specifically mentioned being able to change gears as required is valuable as well.

Everyone here today seems to be reading to disagree rather than understand.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Literally no one said that.

I specifically mentioned being able to change gears as required is valuable as well.

Everyone here today seems to be reading to disagree rather than understand.

Plenty of batsmen you guys disregard on SR were actually pretty capable of changing gears.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think the distinction can be made on who had the better career and who could be seen as the better batsman.

Yes, the better batsman AND the better TEST batsman.