Arno West wrote
The big question here is actually the following: In all aspects of life, when 2 masters of their craft are compared, who does the man on the street root for - the naturally gifted (though sometimes flawed/unpredictable genius or the clinical, well-trained/educated machine that despite enormous achievements still lacks that certain spark. I think since we as human beings are generally quite driven by emotians, we tend to stand in awe of people that have a supreme natural talent. I chose Mac and Lendl cos I generally stopped watching tennis after that. What other examples can you guys think of? Senna/Schumacher. Jobs/Gates. Pollock/Richards. Furthermore, who will be the first one to stick his neck out and post some famous guitarist's names?
Schumacher had a lot of on-track talent and was (maybe still is) a massively gifted race driver, certainly one of the very best ever. His problems were off-track - he lacked Senna's charisma. Schumacher was always a bit awkward in front of the press and seemed to think that nothing was their business anyway, Senna wouldn't so much hold a press conference as be a king holding court.
Schumacher also didn't pop fuses in public very often. He'd tear a strip off of the team behind closed doors (EG France 1996 when his car broke down on the warm-up lap) but he'd always back them in public - one of the reasons they liked him so much. A great team leader.
Both men had a very high degree of natural talent, both were utterly ruthless, both worked hard to find an extra edge - understanding more about the tyres, sitting up late at night with the mechanics etc etc. Both men raised the fitness and preparation stakes in their time.
And both men were the benchmark drivers in their time, the driver that all others were measured against.
Pollock and Richards both had exceptional talent. Both men were very good judges of length. Richards still has amazing eyesight - when you see him commentate he calls LBWs from the commentary position in real time and he gets an awful lot right.
To me that's not a grinder V dasher scenario. It might have looked that way for a while because Pollock was older than Richards and played on longer and past his best (though he was still pretty good).
I had supper with Clive Rice some years ago. He told me that if he had to pick one of them to bat for his life he'd want Pollock. He said that Richards would get a ton in no time and then get out doing something stupid, but Pollock was going to bat all week if you let him. Pollock had the greater determination I think. There was a theory that he couldn't play spin, but it didn't look that way to me. Towards the end he took longer to get going and bowlers had a chance early on. He had sublime timing.... he'd play a shot and it looked like he'd hardly moved the bat, then the ball would smash into the advertising boards at high speed.
I heard Rod Marsh speak once. He said that for all batsmen there is an area where they don't know whether to play forward or back, and if you can get the ball in that area consistently then the batsman is in trouble. It's different from player to player, but they all have it. He said that for Graeme Pollock that "no man's land" was smaller than for any other player he saw.
When Pollock started in test cricket matches were still played on uncovered pitches. At Nottingham Pollock played what is still regarded as one of the finest knocks ever on a "sticky" pitch. There's some film footage that has survived and it's remarkable - you can see him adjusting mid-shot, sometimes even stopping because the ball comes of the pitch slowly and then continuing the stroke.
