Rahul Dravid vs Graeme Pollock

[Coronis]

You didn't answer the question.

Yes he did

 

[h_hurricane]

Do you rate Mohd Yousuf and
Chanderpaul ahead of Pollock? If not, why not? They had full careers.

Sadly yes. It is the way it is. I know it is unfair to Pollock, but we can't be rating players based on hypotheticals.
And a large part of the peer reputation that you are arguing in favor of Pollock(which he deserves) is due to his performances in FC. Can't be used to judge him as a test player when there is very little sample size.

 

[ankitj]

By all accounts, Graeme Pollock could have been a top 5 ODI batsman of all time too. What a loss to cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

Sadly yes. It is the way it is. I know it is unfair to Pollock, but we can't be rating players based on hypotheticals.
And a large part of the peer reputation that you are arguing in favor of Pollock(which he deserves) is due to his performances in FC. Can't be used to judge him as a test player when there is very little sample size.

Yeah but how far do you want to take this logic? Atherton and Gatting better than Pollock because they had full careers?

 

[h_hurricane]

Yeah but how far do you want to take this logic? Atherton and Gatting better than Pollock because they had full careers?

Nah, I won't say that. Chanders and Yusuf are generally accepted as great players, hence it is fair to rate them higher on virtue of a full career.

 

[h_hurricane]

Probably the only time I saw Pollock live on TV. Thoroughly enjoyed this innings. Great cover driving.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, I won't say that. Chanders and Yusuf are generally accepted as great players, hence it is fair to rate them higher on virtue of a full career.

Then you are relaxing the longevity requirement based on a predetermined category of player.

I am just doing the same because I already consider Pollock a different category of player to Dravid.

 

[ma1978]

Then you are relaxing the longevity requirement based on a predetermined category of player.

I am just doing the same because I already consider Pollock a different category of player to Dravid.

with zero basis to do so

 

[subshakerz]

with zero basis to do so

Do you rate Mohd Yousuf and Atherton ahead of Pollock

 

[ma1978]

Do you rate Mohd Yousuf and Atherton ahead of Pollock

no but Rahul Dravid had a career that was better quality than Graham Pollock that was five times longer and played another 50 tests where was still valuable

you try to create these irrelevant equivalencies

and you have zero basis other than your own biases to believe Pollock was another tier of player

 

[ma1978]

In order to believe that Pollock was better you have to believe that Pollock was the best after Bradman on quality to take account for the longevity difference

it’s not even possible to make the case he’s at a higher tier than Dravid quality wise let alone make a case he’s equivalent in quality to a Tendulkar, Richards or Lara

 

[subshakerz]

no but Rahul Dravid had a career that was better quality than Graham Pollock that was five times longer and played another 50 tests where was still valuable

Right so there goes the longevity argument. Yousuf also had a 'better quality career' by your standards. So it's just how much you value his rating plus small sample and we have a disagreement there.

You still believe that Pollock with 23 tests and ATG rating was enough to get over Yousuf.

We believe it was enough to get over Dravid too.

 

[subshakerz]

In order to believe that Pollock was better you have to believe that Pollock was the best after Bradman on quality to take account for the longevity difference

We don't because you already showed it's enough to get over Yousuf. You have destroyed your own argument.

 

[ma1978]

Right so there goes the longevity argument. Yousuf also had a 'better quality career' by your standards. So it's just how much you value his rating plus small sample and we have a disagreement there.

You still believe that Pollock with 23 tests and ATG rating was enough to get over Yousuf.

We believe it was enough to get over Dravid too.

I see you’re referring to yourself in the royal we again?

you’ve made no case

your only argument is that you say so

 

[ma1978]

We don't because you already showed it's enough to get over Yousuf. You have destroyed your own argument.

Dravid an order of magnitude better than Yousuf

 

[subshakerz]

Dravid an order of magnitude better than Yousuf

you’ve made no case

your only argument is that you say so

 

[ma1978]

you’ve made no case

your only argument is that you say so

how about someone actually makes a case for Pollock which no one has done

 

[subshakerz]

how about someone actually makes a case for Pollock which no one has done

I have given the same argument you gave for Pollock > Yousuf.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have given the same argument you gave for Pollock > Yousuf.

Imo, you people are magnifying the gap in the abilities of Pollock and Dravid too much..... Pollock was the better batsman imo, but by how much is hugely arguable and with the length of his career at the top level and the attacks his faced, it's difficult to make a case for him to be in Sachin/Lara class. Sad, but practical.

 

[subshakerz]

Imo, you people are magnifying the gap in the abilities of Pollock and Dravid too much..... Pollock was the better batsman imo, but by how much is hugely arguable and with the length of his career at the top level and the attacks his faced, it's difficult to make a case for him to be in Sachin/Lara class. Sad, but practical.

Nobody is putting Pollock with Sachin. He is going to take a hit due to small sample even though he is rated with Sobers. But come on, we can say with confidence he is better than Dravid.