Jump to content

The final summer of a fantastic foursome


King

Recommended Posts

What a strange thing to say, yoda. Maybe you should take the time to read more of my posts. Dhondy, what's the 'sir' business ? I'll take it as a mark of respect and thank you for it. :wink_smile: RD is a wonderful player but is overly careful and bats at around 43% strike rate in Tests. This is an admirable trait when the pressure is on and he's been there for India in many tough situations but when you have 4 other batsmen around you who bat the same way (Sehwag was the exception), it becomes a liability because he bats at the same pace on a friendly wicket. This is why I rate him a very good batsman. Fantastic is not for Rahul.
Sorry. But I don't agree with you. Every team has a strategy and every batsman is assigned a role. Dravid is the anchor of Indian team and does his job to perfection, accumulating runs as well as keeping the inning together. To expect that Dravid should go bang bang, is absolutely ridiculous and to say that he is not "fantastic" because of that is even more ridiculous!
Link to comment
RD is a wonderful player but is overly careful and bats at around 43% strike rate in Tests. This is an admirable trait when the pressure is on and he's been there for India in many tough situations but when you have 4 other batsmen around you who bat the same way (Sehwag was the exception), it becomes a liability because he bats at the same pace on a friendly wicket.
By sheer weight of runs scored , the variety of situations and its consistency and the number of match-winning or match saving innings Rahul has been one of THE batsman of the last decade. To trivialize his contribution by referring to strike rates in test cricket is a bit naive.
Link to comment
Dravid has by far and away the best average in away tests among his contemporaries. "Very good" Dravid averages 63 in alien conditions while "fantastic" Ponting and Gilchrist barely touch the 50 mark.
You are conveniently forgetting the strike rates of the 3 batsmen mentioned. Ponting, in particular, would surely be past SRT for centuries if he batted at RD's pace but Australia would've won a few less Tests. That's the whole point. As for Gilly batting anywhere near Dravid's strike rate, just unthinkable. That also goes for your rather rude last sentence, mm.
Link to comment
You are conveniently forgetting the strike rates of the 3 batsmen mentioned. Ponting, in particular, would surely be past SRT for centuries if he batted at RD's pace but Australia would've won a few less Tests.
Every batsman has his own way of playing. To say that if they had batted slower they would have scored more runs or centuries is making too many assumptions. If Tendulkar had batted with Dravid's strike rate would he also have had more centuries and runs? I doubt it because ever since Tendulkar has become slower over the last few years his run getting has gone down if anything.
As for Gilly batting anywhere near Dravid's strike rate is unthinkable.
You are giving way too much weight to strike rates in test matches. They might be important in certain situations but by and large not as important as you are making them out to be. I hope you are not trying to extrapolate and say that Gilchrist would have had twice as many centuries if his strike rate was same as Dravid's. But anyhow, it's your preference if you place so much emphasis on strike rates in tests. Good that you feel Gilchrist is a better batsman than Dravid. I am glad most cricket experts would side with me when I say Dravid is a better batsman than Gilchrist.
Link to comment
You are giving way too much weight to strike rates in test matches. They might be important in certain situations but by and large not as important as you are making them out to be. I hope you are not trying to extrapolate and say that Gilchrist would have had twice as many centuries if his strike rate was same as Dravid's. But anyhow, it's your preference if you place so much emphasis on strike rates in tests. Good that you feel Gilchrist is a better batsman than Dravid. I am glad most cricket experts would side with me when I say Dravid is a better batsman than Gilchrist.
Be that as it may, the hallmark of Australia's success in test cricket since the post-millennium era has been their tendency to score at a well-above-average run rate of 4 per over (or higher). Gilchrist's presence being one of the main contributing factors to that. Would they have won as many tests if their batting lineup was comprised of more Dravid-like scorers and fewer attacking batsmen ? I can see where Donny is coming from.
Link to comment
Good that you feel Gilchrist is a better batsman than Dravid. I am glad most cricket experts would side with me when I say Dravid is a better batsman than Gilchrist.
Nowhere have I said such a thing. I think it absurd to try to compare those two batsmen. One bats in the top order and one bats at 7. Big difference.
Link to comment

^ Most of the Australian batsmen have SRs in the 50-60 range IIRC with Gilchrist being the exception. That's a higher SR than Dravid but how many of them would you back to perform on a pitch like Barbados last year or Headingly in '02? When confronted with a minefield at Bombay they could not chase down 100 runs with all their striking power. Their SRs have played a part in the Australian's success but if I were to rank the parts played in their success they would go like : 1. McGrath 2. Warne The above two would be the hallmarks 3. Gilchrist 4. Overall great batting lineup 5. Ability to score quick

Link to comment
^ Most of the Australian batsmen have SRs in the 50-60 range IIRC with Gilchrist being the exception. That's a higher SR than Dravid but how many of them would you back to perform on a pitch like Barbados last year or Headingly in '02? When confronted with a minefield at Bombay they could not chase down 100 runs with all their striking power. Their SRs have played a part in the Australian's success but if I were to rank the parts played in their success they would go like : 1. McGrath 2. Warne The above two would be the hallmarks 3. Gilchrist 4. Overall great batting lineup 5. Ability to score quick
That doesn't matter. They are unbeatable on a playable pitch, and most pitches all over the world are like that. I also don't agree entirely when you doubt their abilities to bat in tougher, more bowler friendly conditions. They destroyed Sri Lanka in their own backyard - on pitches tailor-made for Murali where every ball would take turn. They were wrecked by Harmison at Lords in the Ashes opener when the ball was doing plenty, but still put up enough runs to roll England over with relative ease. As for your list, i'd say #3 and #5 are quite literally the same thing. Australia score quicker than most other sides primarily because of Gilchrist. Without his presence in the lower order, they wouldn't be the fast-scorers that they are (although they still wouldn't bat slow).
Link to comment
That doesn't matter. They are unbeatable on a playable pitch, and most pitches all over the world are like that.
Correct, but when you are ranking batsmen would you give more weight to someone who bats slower on flat decks and has the ability to play on minefields or to someone who bats quicker on flat decks and will come a cropper on a minefield.
I also don't agree entirely when you doubt their abilities to bat in tougher, more bowler friendly conditions. They destroyed Sri Lanka in their own backyard - on pitches tailor-made for Murali where every ball would take turn. They were wrecked by Harmison at Lords in the Ashes opener when the ball was doing plenty, but still put up enough runs to roll England over with relative ease.
Let's see how they cope in similar situations without McGrath and Warne, shall we?
As for your list, i'd say #3 and #5 are quite literally the same thing.
Not really. Hayden and Ponting are significantly quicker scorers than the average opener and number 3 batsman in the world.
Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks
Let's see how they cope in similar situations without McGrath and Warne, shall we?
Precisely, judgement should be held back till we see this event unfold.
Link to comment

Dons, i think u r misled by the term "fantastic foursome".... it doesnt necessarily mean, tht each one of them is fantastic inarguably.... it just means, u have 4 batters who have tremendous class and talent in the same team.... and tht is indeed fantastic... i know Aus had tht with Haydos, Gilly, Punter and Waugh.... u know, i dont rate Hussey much ;) Windies had Greenidge, Lloyd, Viv, and Haynes/Kalli.... in history, there have been a few instances.... and tht is indeed fantastic....

Link to comment
You are conveniently forgetting the strike rates of the 3 batsmen mentioned. Ponting, in particular, would surely be past SRT for centuries if he batted at RD's pace but Australia would've won a few less Tests. That's the whole point. As for Gilly batting anywhere near Dravid's strike rate, just unthinkable. That also goes for your rather rude last sentence, mm.
I dont feel i was rude in saying that you were a bit naive in downplaying Rahul's greatness by alluding to his strike rate. I made a point against your statement , not against you. IF you feel that was offensive , i apologize for it. And I dunno why you stress so much on strike rates here. Test matches of today rarely last 4 days, let alone 5. I have rarely seen instances off late where we have one team holding up in the last session with a match saving 10th wicket partnership. Test matches or won/saved by brilliant bowling or outstanding batting. Matches are rarely lost on slow batting. Besides , No way can you label Dravid as "slow" . I would say his strike rate in the last 6-7 years has been par. As a spectator , i havent felt that his slow batting was what we prevented us from winning/saving a test match. And to compare Dravid with Ponting/Gilchrist is itself debatable. They are different players , play for different team and are encountered with different circumstances and have different styles. And to use number of matches won as the guiding light to decide whether a batsman is great or not is also questionable. West Indies rarely won in the recent past. Does that mean Lara is not a fantastic batsman? Its not without reason Dravid has been nicknamed "The Wall". He has been India's most prolific batsman in the last 6 years , in a period when Sachin also played in the team. In my book , without doubt , Dravid is as fantastic as fanstastic can get !
Link to comment

MM, It's not just about time it's also about momentum e.g if you remember the 3rd test match vs SA where IND were well on track before an inexplicably slow partnership b/t Rahul and Sachin which turned the match in SA's favor. Some of you may remember PAK use to have this opener named Shoaib Mohammed(son of Hanif) who ended his career with an average of 44(same as Saeed) yet no one rated him any where near Saeed simply because he batted way too slowly.

Link to comment
MM, It's not just about time it's also about momentum e.g if you remember the 3rd test match vs SA where IND were well on track before an inexplicably slow partnership b/t Rahul and Sachin which turned the match in SA's favor.
I knew the SA match would be brought up. In that case , it wasnt JUST the slow Dravid-Tendulkar Partnership that contributed to the loss. It may have been a factor yes , but entire team failed to cope up with the pressure collectively. And pointing to an isolated example as proof to suggest Dravid bats slowly in tests also lacks credibility. IF dravid were a slow batsman after all , it would have got ample media attention. Thats not been the case. And I can point out a case of Dravid's "slow" batting which helped India post one its best test victories abroad- Headingly 2002. If I remember correctly , India were 230 -odd for the loss of couple of wickets at the end of the first day and it was Rahul's steadfast batting that laid the foundation for that victory
Some of you may remember PAK use to have this opener named Shoaib Mohammed(son of Hanif) who ended his career with an average of 44(same as Saeed) yet no one rated him any where near Saeed simply because he batted way too slowly.
Wrong comparison. Shoaib Mohammed may have averaged 44 , but did he score 10,000 test runs ? Script some of pakistan's best victories abroad ? And , just to complete the point , Lemme give an example where i though Dravid actually batted slowly and that cost us the match. Johannesburg , South Africa , 1997. India made 428 , batting two full days. Dravid made his first century abroad , a painstakingly slow 148 of 370 balls. Ultimately , weather and dogged Saffie tail cost India the match. And I dont think i can recollect even one instance after that when i have felt Dravid batted too slowly after that. If a batsman has strike rate of 45 in test cricket , i will take that any day , especially if he averages 60 ! The Aussies bat very fast -- Good for them ! I wont use that as a yardstick to judge my batsman "fantastic"ness.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...