Top 10 Matchwinners for India with the bat

[Cricketics]

but one gotta gree with the fact the above list of stats defined as 10 match winners is just piece of crap.. how can they define match winners.. infact how do they define match winners..

[prince40]

he he he

[The Outsider]

Test matches cannot be won without taking 20 opposition wickets hence batting "matchwinners" do not exist.

[f.b.m]

I feel the word "matchwinner" is just a stupid mish mash between the concept of the team and the individual. Is a "matchwinning" duck more valuable than a losing 100? On flat wickets, guys like Sehwag come into play because of their strike rates and on green tops and minefields (where 20 wickets are a guarantee) guys like Dravid, Gavaskar, etc would win matches. (like Kingston 06). cant we just leave it at that?

[Dhondy]

It just isn't in Dravid's game to play(blaze when the deck is burning) knocks like these. http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63567.html http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63713.html http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63587.html RD just isn't an enforcer.

How did "boy on the burning bridge" knocks come into a thread on matchwinning batsmen?

[Gambit]

How did "boy on the burning bridge" knocks come into a thread on matchwinning batsmen?

That was more to clarify my point which was:

He does his thing i.e holding one end up and it's almost always the partner at the other end who attacks. He is great at building partnerships. That is why you hardly see a Dravid 100 when the entire top order has collapsed. He usually either gets second last 60-70 odd or is 60* not out. He will survive the tough conditions as others fall but not go after the bowling. That's just not his way.

People were disagreeing with my assessment of Dravid not being one to take the initiative and I was providing clarification on my viewpoint. BTW Tendulkar has more 100s in matches won at home OR away from home against non minnows than Dravid. Is he a bigger 'matchwinner' away and at home then? I hold the same view as shwetabh. Batsmen cannot win matches alone. The biggest example is Lara, who has assumed almost mythical status when it comes to winning matches despite the fact that after Walsh and Ambrose retired in 2000, he had a grand total of JUST 1 hundred in matches won against non minnows.

[Gambit]

Another thing I'd like to say is that given our bowling attack in the 90s and 2000s, a Dravid hundred is always more valuable than a Sehwag or a Tendulkar hundred simply because of the time it consumes. We are almost always assured of a draw. However, a Sehwag ton or a Tendulkar ton come quickly and give the opposition more time to beat up our traditionally weak bowling attack and force a result in their favour. A prime example is Bloemfontaein 2001. We scored nearly 380 runs on the 1st day and yet got thrashed. A Dravid ton would have meant us reaching 380 by 2nd day tea or thereabouts.

[The Outsider]

Another thing I'd like to say is that given our bowling attack in the 90s and 2000s' date=' a Dravid hundred is always more valuable than a Sehwag or a Tendulkar hundred simply because of the time it consumes. We are almost always assured of a draw. However, a Sehwag ton or a Tendulkar ton come quickly and give the opposition more time to beat up our traditionally weak bowling attack and force a result in their favour. A prime example is Bloemfontaein 2001. We scored nearly 380 runs on the 1st day and yet got thrashed. A Dravid ton would have meant us reaching 380 by 2nd day tea or thereabouts.[/quote'] That's an excellent point and a reason why a lot of Sehwag and Tendulkar's big centuries have come in losses because they are backed up by a $hit bowling attack. They would have won a lot more matches with a good bowling attack with their aggressive batting. Just look at how Sehwag's 195 at Melbourne and 203 at Bangalore ended up on the losing side because of our genius bowlers.

[riya]

Absolute non sense .Whenever Dravid batted wth purposefully ''defensive '' mood we have lost the test match .Second test against SA in SA an example .On the other hand whenever he scored with reasonable strike rate or scores big we won .

[Bumper]

If we are talking ODIs, Tendulkar is our peerless match winner. However in Tests, Sachin would struggle to make my top 5 list of match winners for India. I consider Kumble, India's greatest match winner. Amongst the batsmen, I'd put Dravid at the very top. If you sit down to compile India's greatest moments in Tests of his times, Dravid will figure in every page, every highlight reel. He has played the most influential role in almost every major overseas test win (our first win in Australia in over two decades at Adelaide, our series sealing win at Pindi vs Pak, our first ever series win in WI at Kingston, to name a few!). Each of one these wins, was a trendsetter, an inspiration for our future cricketers, one that changed the way people thought of India as a test nation. Whether he plays slow or fast, Dravid plays darn well under pressure. Thats what separates him from the rest. Dravid is a very rare breed, one who possesses the mental toughness of a western sportsman, in a subcontinental's body. Too bad his form ran out, otherwise with a batting machine like him, we'd go places with our current seam attack.

[f.b.m]

Absolute non sense .Whenever Dravid batted wth purposefully ''defensive '' mood we have lost the test match .Second test against SA in SA an example .On the other hand whenever he scored with reasonable strike rate or scores big we won .

Thats quite interesting. Dravid can also lose matches for his team as he showed us in the MCG test.

[Dhondy]

That was more to clarify my point which was: I hold the same view as shwetabh. Batsmen cannot win matches alone. The biggest example is Lara, who has assumed almost mythical status when it comes to winning matches despite the fact that after Walsh and Ambrose retired in 2000, he had a grand total of JUST 1 hundred in matches won against non minnows.

And you both would be wrong, because your argument would be facile, pandering to conventional wisdom that recycles tried and tested platitudes. Firstly, the premise that a batsman's match winning exploits should be measured in the number of hundreds scored is specious. When can a batsman's effort be considered match-winning? When he scores on a bowler friendly pitch, where even ordinary bowlers have stunning figures, and yet very good batsmen have poor returns, i.e when the dice is firmly stacked against batsmen. Under such circumstances, it may not be possible to score a hundred. A fifty, sixty, seventy or an eighty where others are struggling to get into double figures might require a superhuman effort, and may therefore be construed as a match winning effort. The Kingston knocks played by Dravid are a case in point. He scored 81 and a 68 on a pitch where a side was bowled out for 100, and his own team totals were 200 and 171. No top order Indian batsman reached 20 in that match. Similarly, Stephen Fleming's 32, chasing 160 to win against India at Hamilton just before Christmas in 2002 may be considered match winning. Remember, this was a series in Which Tuffy averaged in single figures with the ball, and even Zaheer Khan had an average of around 15. It may be pointed out that such low scoring matches are few and far between. True. What about the knock Moin Khan played at Calcutta, coming in with his side tottering on 26 for 6? How would you measure the 70 runs he scored in a team total of 185? Was it not the difference between victory and defeat, snatching the initiative out of India's grasp and demoralising them? What about Kamran Akmal's knock at Karachi in 2006 from 39 for 6. Was that 113 match winning or would you rather credit Asif and Razzaq for scuttling India out for 265 while chasing 607? And yes, that 153 by Lara at Barbados against a full strength Aussie side will go down as one of the finest match winning knocks ever, in an innings when the second highest individual score was 38.

[Gambit]

And you both would be wrong, because your argument would be facile, pandering to conventional wisdom that recycles tried and tested platitudes. Firstly, the premise that a batsman's match winning exploits should be measured in the number of hundreds scored is specious. When can a batsman's effort be considered match-winning? When he scores on a bowler friendly pitch, where even ordinary bowlers have stunning figures, and yet very good batsmen have poor returns, i.e when the dice is firmly stacked against batsmen. Under such circumstances, it may not be possible to score a hundred. A fifty, sixty, seventy or an eighty where others are struggling to get into double figures might require a superhuman effort, and may therefore be construed as a match winning effort. The Kingston knocks played by Dravid are a case in point. He scored 81 and a 68 on a pitch where a side was bowled out for 100, and his own team totals were 200 and 171. No top order Indian batsman reached 20 in that match. Similarly, Stephen Fleming's 32, chasing 160 to win against India at Hamilton just before Christmas in 2002 may be considered match winning. Remember, this was a series in Which Tuffy averaged in single figures with the ball, and even Zaheer Khan had an average of around 15. It may be pointed out that such low scoring matches are few and far between. True. What about the knock Moin Khan played at Calcutta, coming in with his side tottering on 26 for 6? How would you measure the 70 runs he scored in a team total of 185? Was it not the difference between victory and defeat, snatching the initiative out of India's grasp and demoralising them? What about Kamran Akmal's knock at Karachi in 2006 from 39 for 6. Was that 113 match winning or would you rather credit Asif and Razzaq for scuttling India out for 265 while chasing 607? And yes, that 153 by Lara at Barbados against a full strength Aussie side will go down as one of the finest match winning knocks ever, in an innings when the second highest individual score was 38.

How are both of us wrong? Nothing in your post has negated what me and shwetabh said. Without a half decent bowling attack, all the 100s in the world cannot win you games. Lara is an example. So is SRT prior to 2000s. Look at Allan Border's efforts in mid 80s. Andy Flower etc etc. The list is endless. Sure, what you said about just looking at 100s fallacy is correct and I agree with it as well. But over time, 100s in games won in the yardstick used to judge 'matchwinning' batsmen. No one will remember Fleming's 32, just like no one remembers Sehwag's 48, Laxman's 35 or Tendulkar's 37 in that Adelaide chase because none of them made 50+. Does anyone remember Kumble's 45 in that Kingston test(he actually dominated in the p'ship with RD)? The only way you can do justice to all Fleming type knocks is to do an exhaustive study of knocks with regard to % of team score and compare it with what the rest of the team put up. There's a stats article in there somewhere Dhondy. How about giving varun's machine a whiz? :D

[Dhondy]

How are both of us wrong? Nothing in your post has negated what me and shwetabh said. Without a half decent bowling attack, all the 100s in the world cannot win you games.

Really? I didn't know that. I suppose bowlers can defend team totals of 50 and 100 regularly?:D

[Gambit]

Really? I didn't know that. I suppose bowlers can defend team totals of 50 and 100 regularly?:D

No but 150-210 can be defended on a good track with a good attack. Amby himself has wreaked carnage on England, South Africa, Australia, India and Zimbabwe when they were chasing totals in this vicinity in the 4th innings. Why else do you think despite scoring at the breakneck speed that he does, only 2 of Sehwag's tons have come in matches won by India? Bowling just didn't stand up.

[graphic23]

Gambit, I think thats what Dhondy was saying. He spoke about Lara's record after Walsh & Ambrose retired. On a side note, Curtly Ambrose once skittled out England for 46 in '94 with a 6 wicket haul, and he had a spell of 7 wickets for 1 run against the Aussies in that time period as well. Awesome Awesome fast bowler.

[Gambit]

Gambit' date=' I think thats what Dhondy was saying. He spoke about Lara's record after Walsh & Ambrose retired. On a side note, Curtly Ambrose once skittled out England for 46 in '94 with a 6 wicket haul, and he had a spell of 7 wickets for 1 run against the Aussies in that time period as well. Awesome Awesome fast bowler.[/quote'] Ok, let's not look at just 100s. Prior to Walsh and Ambrose's retirement, Lara had 5 tons and 13 50s in games won against non minnows. After they left, when he had the likes of Best and Dillon and gods knows what other crapola in the bowling unit, he managed just 4 50s and 1 ton in games won. And none of those wins came outside WI.

[Dhondy]

Why else do you think despite scoring at the breakneck speed that he does, only 2 of Sehwag's tons have come in matches won by India? Bowling just didn't stand up.

You have to consider the argument that he scores big on pitches that favour a draw, i.e. batting friendly tracks.

[Gambit]

You have to consider the argument that he scores big on pitches that favour a draw' date=' i.e. batting friendly tracks.[/quote'] You think he is a bit of an FTB?

[Dhondy]

You think he is a bit of an FTB?

No, I think he is an amazing batsman. Five of his knocks came in matches that ended decisively- the two you mentioned, and three defeats at the MCG, Bangalore and Blomfontein. That's 5 out of 14 or around one-third of all his hundreds- not negligible at all. Then, there's the 90 he scored at Lahore when India lost in 2004. I was just throwing up a possible explanation for what you pointed out. He'll probably kill that theory for good with his performances on various tracks over the next couple of years.