Ricky Ponting vs Graeme Pollock

[Johan]

Still going with Punter, guy was a monster at his peak.

Either is a valid answer, simply saying Graeme should not be discounted for longevity itself.

 

[kyear2]

Either is a valid answer, simply saying Graeme should not be discounted for longevity itself.

Of course not

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Pollock would probably be compared to Sobers if he had a full career

 

[Coronis]

Modern bowlers is 300 wickets and a decade.

Modern bats harder to say but longer than a decade. Pollock isn't modern era for me though so there is an allowance for him at seven years.

The amount of tests changing because of era makes sense - but the amount of years doesn’t really.

 

[subshakerz]

The amount of tests changing because of era makes sense - but the amount of years doesn’t really.

Perhaps.Were test careers the same length on average before as well?

 

[Coronis]

Perhaps.Were test careers the same length on average before as well?

Well some were artificially extended a bit by war - e.g does Bradman necessarily play all the way til 1948 if the war never happened? But even way back when we’ve got Blackham from 1877-1894, Hill from 1896-1912, Hobbs 1908-1930 (war gap), Harvey and Lindwall both played 15 years I think? Sobers was 20. I think the lengths of top class careers haven’t changed that much, batsmen generally a few years longer than bowlers, unless interuppted by external factors. e.g the Wars. Headley was pretty ass after the war in some token tests but if the war hadn’t happened and he’d had consistent cricket you can easily see him being quality til 1945 at least.