The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

Would you say he was more like Miller or Hadlee?

Overall, probably Miller. I mean, his batting was in a completely different league to Hadlee, he not only played down the order, but also in the middle order many times in his career. In terms of bowling he was more of a strike bowler such as Hadlee than Miller, who really didn't bowl that much and certainly not the best bowler in his own team during his career.

I think it is much easier to do worse in international cricket than it is in domestic cricket. By all accounts international cricket is a significant step above domestic cricket everywhere.

I think we all know that. Trying to predict his performance based on his first class and WSC stats is really all we can do though, by comparing it to other contemporaries and their records. Assuming the worst possible outcomes for him (based on a normal career) the lowest I would have him would be bowling somewhere in between Kapil and Imran, and batting somewhere between them as well. In all likelihood his proficiency with offspin would've also held off a decline in later years in bowling unlike Imran.

 

[Bolo]

Would you say he was more like Miller or Hadlee?

Neither. In his prime (playing for a very weak team) he was the best bat (batting 5) and the best bowler. He couldnt afford a speciality because the team was weak in both departments. In a typical batting innings some one else would top score a fair bit more often, while he would have the best bowling in something like half the innings and the majority of matches. There was a distance between his batting numbers and the best opponents, but he was usually the best bowler.

 

[Bolo]

I think between footage and results at all levels we can make a fair call on his bowling, being anywhere below mid 20s and likely low 20s.

Batting is a lot tougher to predict. It's more difficult to tell with a batsman. See Hick. They get found out, have mental issues etc. I wouldn't have much confidence saying anything above mid 20s.

But I also wouldn't be confident saying anything below mid 40s. He had the talent. He wouldn't have played tests a decade past his prime. He would have probably had a lower work load than 2 1st class seasons, especially being a main man in both disciplines. With so much bowling talent in the 70s he might have been asked to focus on batting more.

But between Kapil and Imran seems likely.

 

[bagapath]

Always imagined Procter to be Closer to Botham than the other great all rounders. Not saying anyone else would ever be able to score 14 centuries and take 27 fiver fers. But Procter might have come closer.

 

[Red]

Yeh I imagine him as similar to Botham with the bat in that he was a proper batsman who was pretty orthodox and well suited to batting top 6. I think he might have been better than Botham with the ball however, closer to Hadlee or Imran in that aspect.

 

[Bolo]

Role and balance is definitely closer to Botham than the others.

Don't see why not on the 100s/five fers. Played a played the same number of FC games and managed stacks more of both.

 

[fredfertang]

Had Mike Procter been English I'm confident he'd have had a better Test record than Sir Beefy - he was very special indeed

 

[Coronis]

Thinking about it, a closer analogy to Miller would be Rice.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Always imagined Procter to be Closer to Botham than the other great all rounders. Not saying anyone else would ever be able to score 14 centuries and take 27 fiver fers. But Procter might have come closer.

It seems You are obsessed with 14 and 27, as great as it is, most of them came in a relatively short span of period against parker weakened teams.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Overall, probably Miller. I mean, his batting was in a completely different league to Hadlee, he not only played down the order, but also in the middle order many times in his career. In terms of bowling he was more of a strike bowler such as Hadlee than Miller, who really didn't bowl that much and certainly not the best bowler in his own team during his career.



I think we all know that. Trying to predict his performance based on his first class and WSC stats is really all we can do though, by comparing it to other contemporaries and their records. Assuming the worst possible outcomes for him (based on a normal career) the lowest I would have him would be bowling somewhere in between Kapil and Imran, and batting somewhere between them as well. In all likelihood his proficiency with offspin would've also held off a decline in later years in bowling unlike Imran.

Bowling - between Imran and Kapil, makes sense.
Batting - between Kapil and Imran? Actually there is not much space between them, Kapil was better but not much.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Thinking about it, a closer analogy to Miller would be Rice.

I too think so
Rice and Miller
Procter and peak Botham

 

[AndrewB]

It seems You are obsessed with 14 and 27, as great as it is, most of them came in a relatively short span of period against parker weakened teams.

They didn't really: the Packer-weakened teams he played against were Pakistan in 1978 and Australia in 1978-9, and those series account for 2 hundreds and 1 five-for (all against Pakistan).

 

[Coronis]

It seems You are obsessed with 14 and 27, as great as it is, most of them came in a relatively short span of period against parker weakened teams.

Actually 11 of his centuries and 19 of his five fers came post WSC.

 

[AndrewB]

Neither. In his prime (playing for a very weak team) he was the best bat (batting 5) and the best bowler. He couldnt afford a speciality because the team was weak in both departments. In a typical batting innings some one else would top score a fair bit more often, while he would have the best bowling in something like half the innings and the majority of matches. There was a distance between his batting numbers and the best opponents, but he was usually the best bowler.

Assuming you mean Glos, they did have Zaheer Abbas and Sadiq Mohammad for most of the 70s, so it'd be more accurate to say he was one of the best bats.

 

[Bolo]

Assuming you mean Glos, they did have Zaheer Abbas and Sadiq Mohammad for most of the 70s, so it'd be more accurate to say he was one of the best bats.

I meant Rhodesia. The big name RSA players were spread all over the RSA teams, but even the quality Zimbos were elsewhere. It was basically Procter vs an RSA province.

It was a bit of mismatch in 1970 when they were playing B league, but they fixed the problem in 1971 to make Rhodesia one of the top 5 so he was up against 1/4 of what would have been the national players plus the top fringe players every game and it got competitive.

 

[AndrewB]

Ah, sorry, was forgetting he played for Rhodesia. Says something about how good Procter was that it wasn't a ridiculous claim for Gloucestershire.

 

[Bolo]

Greater than Abbas would be a bold claim. I guess it could be vaguely plausible. With Procter at peak form, and Abbas supposedly weak against pace, I guess he could have been subpar for Gloucester.

But not really. Abbas would have been clearly the 3rd best bat in RSA. I'm not sure where Procter would sit. Might be the third best at that stage, or he might be the third best in a team that wasn't Rhodesia.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

They didn't really: the Packer-weakened teams he played against were Pakistan in 1978 and Australia in 1978-9, and those series account for 2 hundreds and 1 five-for (all against Pakistan).

I know i was wrong but not to this extent.
What i meant was most of his 100s and 5fers came against not so strong teams and in his 5years peak.

 

[bagapath]

It seems You are obsessed with 14 and 27, as great as it is, most of them came in a relatively short span of period against parker weakened teams.

Obsessed? Well... Ok. It's liked being obsessed with a batting average of 99.94 or 800 test wickets or a quadruple test hundred. In cricket history these numbers have been achieved only once. When another man scores 14 hundreds and claims 27 five fers I'll move on, even iif all of that is achieved against Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Obsessed? Well... Ok. It's liked being obsessed with a batting average of 99.94 or 800 test wickets or a quadruple test hundred. In cricket history these numbers have been achieved only once. When another man scores 14 hundreds and claims 27 five fers I'll move on, even iif all of that is achieved against Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Hmm
5000 runs 400 wickets
35+ with bat less than 25 with ball (twice)
10k runs + 250 wickets
45 100s and 5 5fers
35 + runs and 5 wkts per match
All unique as well..