Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yep, his batting only improved with the gloves and was a more than competent keeper.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best South African batsman ever
- Thread starter jaideep
- Start date
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I have Smith with his nose in front of Mitchell. Other than that, agree with that top 7.
StephenZA
Hall of Fame Member
Thinking Faulkner more in sub-continent conditions.... Procter > Pollock (just!)...
I can`t pick AB as specialist keeper as he never was one... and I personally prefer picking a pure keeper before keeper/batsmen...
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Unless it's played in the SC, I'd have Procter or Adcock ahead of Tayfield, you already have Faulkner's leggies.
Richie Cunningham probably does deserve his spot, but there's something ferocious about a pace attack of Steyn, Donald, Procter & Adcock, with Faulkner in support.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
StephenZA
Hall of Fame Member
Not to sure quite what the laugh is... unless you think that I`m talking about G Pollock, when I`m talking about S. Pollock..
cnerd123
likes this
Man a South Africa ATG XI could bat ridiculously deep. You could pick all of Kallis, Proctor, Faulkner, S.Pollock and have ABDV to keep. Steyn, Donald and Tayfield to round of the bowling, a pair of openers, and you still have space for a middle order batsman. 7 bowling options and batting till 8. Crazy good.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
I guess we just have different ideas of the gap between Procter and Pollock. Procter a far more skilled batsman and a better bowler.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Heh, if you drop Tayfield for Procter, that lineup bats stupidly deep.
jimmy101
Cricketer Of The Year
I agree that Procky was the better bowler of the two. But saying Procter was a far more skilled batsman than Pollock might be underrating Shaun a bit.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Disagree, I think Procter was a far better batsman. The gap between their bowling is much smaller than in their batting.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
6 centuries in 6 consecutive innings begs to differ.
For me it will always be Barry Richards.
The abilities he had against good bowling on poor wickets.
He was able to bat on difficult wickets. In one county match the extras was the second highest scorer I think 15 or so while Barry went on to make over forty. No other batsman came close to 8. In a test I remember about him talking about how one part of the wicket was slow and another was quick. He was somehow able to play attacking while taking that into consideration. Mike Procter if he had to choose a batsmen to bat for his life he would choose Barry.
He made 325 runs in a day against a side in Sheffield cricket that included Dennis Lilley .
Bradman said he was one of the three best players of short pitched fast bowling he ever saw.
He almost scored a hundred before lunch and come close to it at least onc other time.
He played Gleeson when other were struggling because he got so quickly to the pitch of the ball end read which way the was going to turn.
I certainly don't think Kallis would have been able to that against the quality of bowling. Kallis batted a strike rate of 40 for the greater part of his career. Barry let very few deliveries through to the keeper and always batted with a strike rate above 50 sometimes above 60.
Kallis was good but he was no patch against Barry. When has a ever faced a pace attack of the likes of the touring west Indies during the isolation years? Barry was the only one who constantly dealt with pace . Even Graeme Pollock struggled and only managed one hundred against them.
The abilities he had against good bowling on poor wickets.
He was able to bat on difficult wickets. In one county match the extras was the second highest scorer I think 15 or so while Barry went on to make over forty. No other batsman came close to 8. In a test I remember about him talking about how one part of the wicket was slow and another was quick. He was somehow able to play attacking while taking that into consideration. Mike Procter if he had to choose a batsmen to bat for his life he would choose Barry.
He made 325 runs in a day against a side in Sheffield cricket that included Dennis Lilley .
Bradman said he was one of the three best players of short pitched fast bowling he ever saw.
He almost scored a hundred before lunch and come close to it at least onc other time.
He played Gleeson when other were struggling because he got so quickly to the pitch of the ball end read which way the was going to turn.
I certainly don't think Kallis would have been able to that against the quality of bowling. Kallis batted a strike rate of 40 for the greater part of his career. Barry let very few deliveries through to the keeper and always batted with a strike rate above 50 sometimes above 60.
Kallis was good but he was no patch against Barry. When has a ever faced a pace attack of the likes of the touring west Indies during the isolation years? Barry was the only one who constantly dealt with pace . Even Graeme Pollock struggled and only managed one hundred against them.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Of course you would if it was played outside the SC (or the WI based on pitches in the last decade). Tayfield is without doubt SA's best spinner, but with Faulkner being a lock for his all-rounder ability and being a very fine leg-spinner and with SA have so many really great pace options, I don't think you have a choice.
On your typical non-SC deck an attack of say Steyn, Donald, Pollock, Procter (or even Adcock) & Faulkner looks a lot more potent than Steyn, Donald, Pollock, Tayfield & Faulkner imo.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Except almost all of their Test opponents at that time rate Pollock ahead of Richards, even though the latter was a genuine great batsman in his own right & a genius at County/FC level.
Wasn't Pollock also voted SA cricketer of the 20th century suggesting that he was also thought as the better of the two in SA as well?
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because Allan Border is so great he's polling in the best South African Batsman thread, and he isn't even South African. That's why.
Yes Graeme was a great batsmen. Its really only between him Barry for sa's greatest bat. Yes Pollock did make the 125 form 160 balls at Trent bridge where virtually no else could make any runs as the wicket was very difficult. But he got hit on the head by the west Indies paceman during the rebel tours. Barry had so much time to play his shots. They say often it felt like he and the boer had agreed before hand where to pitch the ball and he just responded accordingly. They say when he played baseball he saw the ball so early and he hit many home runs because of this Graeme himself was a good player of pace . Many duels with Sylvester Clarke proved that. But for me the edge goes to Barry.