Top 10 Matchwinners for India with the bat

[Bumper]

Gambit, SRT does not standup in BIG moments, moments that would have helped us create history ? Do you not agree with that ? Durban'06, Capetown'06 are two recent examples. Forget a 100, even an average performance from SRT would have helped us create history in these circumstances. He may have played well in the 90s, 80s, 2000s, scored tons, averaged great in his career, none of that can compensate for his inability to show up in moments that will *never* return in his career ? These could have been the *defining moments* of his career. Precisely for these reasons, I'll never remember him as a match winner in Tests.

[Gambit]

Gambit, SRT does not standup in BIG moments, moments that would have helped us create history ? Do you not agree with that ? Durban'06, Capetown'06 are two recent examples. Forget a 100, even an average performance from SRT would have helped us create history in these circumstances. He may have played well in the 90s, 80s, 2000s, scored tons, averaged great in his career, none of that can compensate for his inability to show up in moments that will *never* return in his career ? These could have been the *defining moments* of his career. Precisely for these reasons, I'll never remember him as a match winner in Tests.

Bumper, we've discussed this millions of time in the past and it's been stalemate. SRT showed up during BIG moments plenty of times in the past only for others to screw it up. South African tours, English tours, NZ tours, Australian tours when the others were pissing about, he was firefighting with minimal support. How about BIG moments v OZ? Made 126 at Chennai in Series decider in 2001. Made 241* and 60* at SCG in 2004 series decider. 153 at Adelaide in 4th test 2007. Were these not big moments? And in almost every away victory we have had since 2000, he has contributed. 100 at Port of Spain '02(first victory in WI since 1976), 100 at Headingley '02, Near double at Multan '04(first test win in Pak), Near 100 at Nottingham and crucial 70 at Perth '07. Sure if you want to remember him for his recent failures, then of course it's your choice.

[CSK Fan]

Gambit, SRT does not standup in BIG moments, moments that would have helped us create history ? Do you not agree with that ? Durban'06, Capetown'06 are two recent examples. Forget a 100, even an average performance from SRT would have helped us create history in these circumstances. He may have played well in the 90s, 80s, 2000s, scored tons, averaged great in his career, none of that can compensate for his inability to show up in moments that will *never* return in his career ? These could have been the *defining moments* of his career. Precisely for these reasons, I'll never remember him as a match winner in Tests.

The problem with SRT is that he has reached such a stage in his career that his failure's mention more notice than his successes. Dravid is measured by his succeses, SRT by his failures. As Gambit's example shows he has scored many times in such situations but all your remember are his few failures. you also seem to forget that in 2006 he was completely out of form just like Ponting is now but no one blames Ponting for not playing at key momemnts against Australia's greater rivals in this decade. Also, if only SRT had the bowling and middle order support in the 90s which Dravid had, such historic moments would have come at least a decade ago for India.

[CSK Fan]

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.

I suggest you go carefully through this thread where different people have torn that theory to shreds with facts. Also after Dravid's debut, Sachin has won india more tests than he has. SRT has played more defining knocks under more pressure many time single-handedly. Dravid on the other hand is not capable of that and always needs a more dominating player to leech onto and get the credit. He might be very valuable, but most valuable he is not. Also avergae players like De-Silva, Mark Waugh, etc have all at one point of their career had a great 5-6 year run but couldnt sustain it for a period of say 12-15 years. Dravid comes in the same category.

[graphic23]

I suggest you go carefully through this thread where different people have torn that theory to shreds with facts. Also after Dravid's debut' date=' Sachin has won india more tests than he has. SRT has played more defining knocks under more pressure many time single-handedly. [b']Dravid on the other hand is not capable of that and always needs a more dominating player to leech onto and get the credit. He might be very valuable, but most valuable he is not. Also avergae players like De-Silva, Mark Waugh, etc have all at one point of their career had a great 5-6 year run but couldnt sustain it for a period of say 12-15 years. Dravid comes in the same category.

Regarding the un-bolded part, we had this discussion in the previous page so I don't want to start it again. I respectfully disagree with the highlighted part. I agree that Sachin has shined for India many times single-handedly. Dravid does not leech on to anybody. He is always concerned with building a partnership with people because no matter how the partnership is made, the team's score will increase higher than say, only one player fired while the rest lost their wickets (as often was the case when Sachin fired until early in this decade). If he made 180 with VVS Laxman's 281 and batted through the entire 4th day of the Kolkata test, I think he deserves whatever credit he gets. Often, we only remember how Laxman made the epic 281 and won the game for us single handedly. But had Dravid not stuck around made his 180, we never would have gotten the massive lead we got after being forced to follow-on. He has himself admitted that he has been often overshadowed by more flamboyant and dominating innings particularly by Sachin, Laxman, and Sehwag, and even by Ganguly in that '99 WC game against Sri Lanka. I have never seen him take credit for whatever he has poured into the partnership. Secondly, I disagree that Aravinda DeSilva was an average player. He has done wonders for Sri Lanka and scored that 100+ runs in a WC final that we've always expected Sachin to do. He was a tremendous player, and if you see that innings with Sachin he played in the Diana Memorial Match, it can hardly be concluded that he was an average player. Sachin dominated because he's the greatest bastman of the past 2 decades and 2nd greatest ever. But that does not mean DeSilva was an average batsman. I am not well informed about Mark Waugh to make any comments on that. Finally, since his debut in Test Matches in 1996 against England, I have never seen Dravid behaving selfishly. This is an important point because he has not only been good for India in the past 6-7 years but he has been a gem of a player in Test Matches since his debut. He had struggled for form between '99-'00 but which player does not go through that. To his credit he had been extremely consistent from 2001-2006/07 that it should count as 10 years, and several articles had been written in this period saying Dravid was the difference between men and boys when it comes to playing for the team and in any conditions and against any team. Sachin's innings are definitely more worthy of remembering because of the audacity and the way he dominated attacks that boasted of McGrath, Donald and the likes.

[CSK Fan]

Regarding the un-bolded part, we had this discussion in the previous page so I don't want to start it again. I respectfully disagree with the highlighted part. I agree that Sachin has shined for India many times single-handedly. Dravid does not leech on to anybody. He is always concerned with building a partnership with people because no matter how the partnership is made, the team's score will increase higher than say, only one player fired while the rest lost their wickets (as often was the case when Sachin fired until early in this decade). If he made 180 with VVS Laxman's 281 and batted through the entire 4th day of the Kolkata test, I think he deserves whatever credit he gets. Often, we only remember how Laxman made the epic 281 and won the game for us single handedly. But had Dravid not stuck around made his 180, we never would have gotten the massive lead we got after being forced to follow-on. He has himself admitted that he has been often overshadowed by more flamboyant and dominating innings particularly by Sachin, Laxman, and Sehwag, and even by Ganguly in that '99 WC game against Sri Lanka. I have never seen him take credit for whatever he has poured into the partnership. Secondly, I disagree that Aravinda DeSilva was an average player. He has done wonders for Sri Lanka and scored that 100+ runs in a WC final that we've always expected Sachin to do. He was a tremendous player, and if you see that innings with Sachin he played in the Diana Memorial Match, it can hardly be concluded that he was an average player. Sachin dominated because he's the greatest bastman of the past 2 decades and 2nd greatest ever. But that does not mean DeSilva was an average batsman. I am not well informed about Mark Waugh to make any comments on that. Finally, since his debut in Test Matches in 1996 against England, I have never seen Dravid behaving selfishly. This is an important point because he has not only been good for India in the past 6-7 years but he has been a gem of a player in Test Matches since his debut. He had struggled for form between '99-'00 but which player does not go through that. To his credit he had been extremely consistent from 2001-2006/07 that it should count as 10 years, and several articles had been written in this period saying Dravid was the difference between men and boys when it comes to playing for the team and in any conditions and against any team. Sachin's innings are definitely more worthy of remembering because of the audacity and the way he dominated attacks that boasted of McGrath, Donald and the likes.

Good debate. I will reply point ot point Dravid's 100 against Aus was very very important but wouldnt you say that VVS Laxman's was a tad more important in the context of the things? Thats what I meant that Dravid played second fiddle. so attributing all those wins he featured in to him alone is as wrong as taking all credit away from him. the reason he has been only given secondary credits for those partnerships is BECAUSE he played a secondary role which is completely fair IMO. the hero's sidekick will only get so much screen space. The reason I called Desilva and Waugh average (which was the wrong term, the term should be "good"), is because their peaks lasted only for 4-5 years unlike say Lara or Sachin or Bradman. Yes he played a good role in the WC final but thats only 1 performance just like Sachin got only one chance in a wC final and shouldnt be judge on that. performance/non-performance out of a sample of just 1 match cannot be counted for anything and can be a fluke! To put things in context, Ponting has scored only ONE good knaock in the 5 odd WC finals he played, ditto for Gilchrist. I am sure if Desilva and Sachin were given 5 odd WC finals, they would average the same. You say you have never seen Dravid behave selfishly. I dont believe he is not capable of upping the ante when needed. Most of his match winning scores have been very fluent knocks and a treat to watch. Hence I believe that his scores in Australia and the one ion the last test on a flat 3rd day pitch were the knoks of a player playing for his place in the team. Sachin has been criticised for the same despite scoring at a much higher rate and i dopnt know why dravid should be exempt from it.

[graphic23]

Good debate. I will reply point ot point Dravid's 100 against Aus was very very important but wouldnt you say that VVS Laxman's was a tad more important in the context of the things? Thats what I meant that Dravid played second fiddle. so attributing all those wins he featured in to him alone is as wrong as taking all credit away from him. the reason he has been only given secondary credits for those partnerships is BECAUSE he played a secondary role which is completely fair IMO. the hero's sidekick will only get so much screen space. The reason I called Desilva and Waugh average (which was the wrong term, the term should be "good"), is because their peaks lasted only for 4-5 years unlike say Lara or Sachin or Bradman. Yes he played a good role in the WC final but thats only 1 performance just like Sachin got only one chance in a wC final and shouldnt be judge on that. performance/non-performance out of a sample of just 1 match cannot be counted for anything and can be a fluke! To put things in context, Ponting has scored only ONE good knaock in the 5 odd WC finals he played, ditto for Gilchrist. I am sure if Desilva and Sachin were given 5 odd WC finals, they would average the same. You say you have never seen Dravid behave selfishly. I dont believe he is not capable of upping the ante when needed. Most of his match winning scores have been very fluent knocks and a treat to watch. Hence I believe that his scores in Australia and the one ion the last test on a flat 3rd day pitch were the knoks of a player playing for his place in the team. Sachin has been criticised for the same despite scoring at a much higher rate and i dopnt know why dravid should be exempt from it.

I would definitely say Laxman deserved the man of the match award and his innings was the difference. I also agree that any win featuring Dravid attributing it to him alone is wrong but for the Test Series win in WI. I think he played a major role in winning that for us. You said he gets less appreciation than the dominating player because he usually plays a secondary role. While that point is true, I think innings like his 153 (153) are not be forgotten (it was in the 186* match). I think the 100 S/R would hardly say that he was the less dominating partner of the two. Infact, despite Dravid coming in at #3, he reached his century before Sachin (if I remember correctly). Sachin scored 28 runs off the 49th over to boost his score to 186* by the end of the match. So, in terms of innings like those, my point was it is in matches like these that his contributions should not be declared second fiddle. I think comparing Dravid with others like Sehwag or Sachin is not wise because they are very very different players and especially with Sachin, his genius is unmatched. In this point, I will perhaps have to agree that Desilva was very good between '95-'00 and therefore be considered a very good player rather than a great player. But I definitely don't agree that Dravid comes in this group of players. His contributions to the ODI and Test teams (barring the recent loss of form) have been phenomenal and he deserves to be up there with Sunny and Sachin as the greatest Test batsmen India has produced. I am not sure if I can argue here because I have never seen Sachin criticized for a slow innings (apart from that 99(143) against South Africa in Ireland). This is because I was not following cricket very well between 2005-early 2007 when Sachin had lost his form and all. If you could point me to an innings where he scored at a much faster rate and he got criticized for "keeping himself in the team", I can perhaps relate to your argument that Dravid deserves the same criticism. One thing I ought to add here is how I've lately been noticing that Dravid has not been playing freely and he's happy accumulating runs instead of playing his natural game ( a few more attacking shots). I think the fact that he had a bad tour of SA, England, Australia and that he was dropped from the ODI team has been preoccupying his mind. I think Kumble ought to have a talk with him and assure him that his place in the test team is not in trouble and he can afford to play a few aggressive shots and that it doesn't matter if he gets out playing in that fashion. The same could be said about Laxman as well, albeit he has lesser of a problem than Dravid seems to have. I am really wondering if giving captaincy to one of the best bats in the team was the right way to go. As long as he was captain, I didn't think of this but now it seems to have affected him in a very negative manner.

[CSK Fan]

I would definitely say Laxman deserved the man of the match award and his innings was the difference. I also agree that any win featuring Dravid attributing it to him alone is wrong but for the Test Series win in WI. I think he played a major role in winning that for us. You said he gets less appreciation than the dominating player because he usually plays a secondary role. While that point is true, I think innings like his 153 (153) are not be forgotten (it was in the 186* match). I think the 100 S/R would hardly say that he was the less dominating partner of the two. Infact, despite Dravid coming in at #3, he reached his century before Sachin (if I remember correctly). Sachin scored 28 runs off the 49th over to boost his score to 186* by the end of the match. So, in terms of innings like those, my point was it is in matches like these that his contributions should not be declared second fiddle. I think comparing Dravid with others like Sehwag or Sachin is not wise because they are very very different players and especially with Sachin, his genius is unmatched. In this point, I will perhaps have to agree that Desilva was very good between '95-'00 and therefore be considered a very good player rather than a great player. But I definitely don't agree that Dravid comes in this group of players. His contributions to the ODI and Test teams (barring the recent loss of form) have been phenomenal and he deserves to be up there with Sunny and Sachin as the greatest Test batsmen India has produced. I am not sure if I can argue here because I have never seen Sachin criticized for a slow innings (apart from that 99(143) against South Africa in Ireland). This is because I was not following cricket very well between 2005-early 2007 when Sachin had lost his form and all. If you could point me to an innings where he scored at a much faster rate and he got criticized for "keeping himself in the team", I can perhaps relate to your argument that Dravid deserves the same criticism. One thing I ought to add here is how I've lately been noticing that Dravid has not been playing freely and he's happy accumulating runs instead of playing his natural game ( a few more attacking shots). I think the fact that he had a bad tour of SA, England, Australia and that he was dropped from the ODI team has been preoccupying his mind. I think Kumble ought to have a talk with him and assure him that his place in the test team is not in trouble and he can afford to play a few aggressive shots and that it doesn't matter if he gets out playing in that fashion. The same could be said about Laxman as well, albeit he has lesser of a problem than Dravid seems to have. I am really wondering if giving captaincy to one of the best bats in the team was the right way to go. As long as he was captain, I didn't think of this but now it seems to have affected him in a very negative manner.

So we agree on most things then. Only one question, considering the form Dravid is in now. If he is not able to score another 100 ever or is dropped/retire before having another good knock, would you still consider him one of the all time greats? Regarding Sachin's innings he did recieve a fair amount of criticism, mainly to the tune that, since he was playing slower than ususal(which was due to his abysmal form), he was a selfish player who cared more for his own scores than the result for the team. If you haven't followed those matches, we can drop that as its no longer applicable in the current scenario.

[graphic23]

So we agree on most things then. Only one question, considering the form Dravid is in now. If he is not able to score another 100 ever or is dropped/retire before having another good knock, would you still consider him one of the all time greats? Regarding Sachin's innings he did recieve a fair amount of criticism, mainly to the tune that, since he was playing slower than ususal(which was due to his abysmal form), he was a selfish player who cared more for his own scores than the result for the team. If you haven't followed those matches, we can drop that as its no longer applicable in the current scenario.

Surely, why not? Because he has failed near the end of his career does not wipe off all the innings that he has played until now does it ? 100s are not a measurement of greatness nor are they a measurement of the capability of the batsman. I hope that it does not happen to Dravid because I truly believe the world's best #3 batsman has another 2 years in him in the test team. What would make you think that he doesn't belong in the all time greats if he fails once more or twice more ?

[suraj]

I would definitely put him above Sachin in winning/saving matches for us in the past 6-7 years. I would like to clarify that I have nothing against Sachin. Last night when he got out for 0 I turned off my computer and did not sleep properly. I didn't sleep well when Ian Chappell wrote that infamous article asking Sachin to retire, and I was cursing Chappell for a long long time. I am a die-hard fan of Sachin and will remain so and he's my most favorite batsman ever. Now that I have clarified that, what is unfortunate with regards to Sachin winning matches for us is that in his prime destructive form (1994-2001?), India was at its worst as a team. He was the only shining light for us, and when the other teams have 11 players with 7 batsman, we had 1 batsman trying to save the game for us and to his credit, he got close several times. But we ended up drawing and losing most of the times. This is definitely not a direct reflection to his commitment and effort, because some of this innings deserve so much more respect in history than they have right now. With Dravid on the other hand, he's not as attacking or flamboyant as Sachin is, and he can stay at the crease looking very ugly for long periods of time. Literally, the quote "Rahul is a player who will walk on broken glass if his team tells him to" definitely makes sense. He doesn't care what his strike rate is as long as partnerships are being built, and he can make sure that the game is safe. If we won our first test series in WI in nearly 25 years, the credit solely goes to him (both Ganguly & Sachin were not in the squad. Sachin was injured, IIRC). There were so many more innings where he won the test matches for us or he directly saved it for us. To belittle his contributions (such as the 153 he scored in 153 balls when Sachin made 186* against NZ in 1998-99 or his 180 when Laxman's epic 281 was made or even when he made 160+* runs when Sehwag hit that 254 (250) against Pakistan) is not what Dravid deserves. He has been the backbone of the team, and true to that analogy, we've never seen him in the limelight. When Sachin made 99 against England with a strike rate in the 90s or 100s, Dravid hit 92* from 63 balls and sure that shows that he has all the armory with him to score in possible manner. With regards to the innings yesterday (111 from 290+ balls), the partnership between Sehwag and Dravid was going on at a run rate of 4.81, which is amazing for a test match. We might say it would've been higher had Sachin or Dhoni been at the crease. We saw later what happened when those two respective gentlemen came to the crease. It is hard to match Viru in strokeplay and perhaps thats why we were getting carried away with our criticisms (I say "we" because I also was a part of this). Even Sachin couldn't match him when he made the 309. With Dravid blocking one end, a big score was always on the cards. He could've done a bit more had he been in his prolific form (as he has consistently maintained from 2001-2006/07). We saw how the other batsmen handled losing Viru, Sachin, and Dravid quickly. So let us give him the credit he truly deserves, and "technically" 100 in 273 balls is not too bad for a test match( :P ). I thought he was coming back to his form at the end of his innings, and for India to win more test matches in the next 2-3 years (at the end of which our batting legends will retire), we need Dravid to be in awesome form. His determination, grit, and commitment to his team is unmatched, and if we had 11 Dravid like people playing for India, we would've been #1 a long time ago. This is not to say it is not possible with others but Dravid is the team man in the truest sense. I refuse to believe that he took so long to make 80 was so he could reach 10,000 runs; thats just utter nonsense. Let us enjoy his batting and let us hope he enjoys his batting, and start contributing to the net-runrate next time he bats with Sachin or Sehwag. Edit: I realized after I posted this that it looks like I consider Dravid to be perfect. I was merely highlighting his positive aspects. There are flaws in every human, and Dravid is no exception. I felt he could have been a better captain in taking innovative decisions but perhaps as someone else pointed out, he shouldn't have been even given captaincy because of its effect on him now. But that will always be debated.

Great post graphic- I disagree with some points but really a great post

[CSK Fan]

Surely' date=' why not? Because he has failed near the end of his career does not wipe off all the innings that he has played until now does it ? 100s are not a measurement of greatness nor are they a measurement of the capability of the batsman. I hope that it does not happen to Dravid because I truly believe the world's best #3 batsman has another 2 years in him in the test team. What would make you think that he doesn't belong in the all time greats if he fails once more or twice more ?[/quote'] Many reason. Most obvious would be his inability to up the ante. This might have led his partners to fall on difficult pithces trying to get a move on. His not being able to dominate a bowler The fact that his peak lasted for such a short period of time. At their there are many batsmen who won games for their team. Pakistani players are the best example. Yet, inability to continue their best form for a long time has been their bane. Remember that I am not contesting the fact of him being a great player. Only debating that he belongs to the elite list of Sachin, Lara, Wane, Murali, etc

[graphic23]

Many reason. Most obvious would be his inability to up the ante. This might have led his partners to fall on difficult pithces trying to get a move on. His not being able to dominate a bowler The fact that his peak lasted for such a short period of time. At their there are many batsmen who won games for their team. Pakistani players are the best example. Yet, inability to continue their best form for a long time has been their bane. Remember that I am not contesting the fact of him being a great player. Only debating that he belongs to the elite list of Sachin, Lara, Wane, Murali, etc

Forgive me for seeming rather arrogant but I really don't understand this 'upping the ante' stuff in Test Match cricket. In the latest test played, after Sehwag got out, he had to play out a few overs after Sachin was out to stabilize the innings a little. After this, I thought he was attempting to play quickly to accelerate and give Ganguly the momentum so he could fire at the other end. Infact Cricinfo's headline after Dravid got out was "Dravid falls trying to score fast" or something along these lines. Lets take another match, the MCG Boxing Day one (the recent one). We needed 500 runs to win the match and we had 2 days left. Had the WI team of the 80s been batting, they probably would've gone for it (it is irrelevant that they wouldn't have collapsed to 197 all out in the 1st innings). But, for our team, we didn't have Sehwag or Viv Richards to completely dominate the innings. So the ideal thing to do was to play out 180 overs. Surely, having the best batting lineup (on paper) would be able to achieve that. I was able to understand his slow approach (16 from 105 balls or something). Sachin came and tried to play what he called "positive cricket" and got caught behind for 15 runs. So, in that circumstance, Dravid's approach, I felt was justified. I am not sure if "upping the ante" is the criteria we should be using to judge him as a batsman. The only time we ought to criticize for not upping the ante is if the captain wants to declare soon and your player is playing stodgily. In the recent test match, we needed to score fast in order to get SA out quickly but you saw how the batting collapsed for 9/145 after Sehwag got out. So, if Dravid was still wanting to build a partnership with Ganguly and therefore transfer the momentum back to us so we could attack, I don't find any fault with his approach. I did not see any bowler dominating Dravid during his 233 at Adelaide or 270 against Pakistan (Akhtar troubled him very early on but after that he was solid and was making runs freely). What does dominating a bowler mean? Does it mean taking singles to disturb his rhythm and make sure he bowls to your weakness or does it only mean hitting sixes and fours? In that case, I think that we are being unfair to Dravid.

[CSK Fan]

Forgive me for seeming rather arrogant but I really don't understand this 'upping the ante' stuff in Test Match cricket. In the latest test played, after Sehwag got out, he had to play out a few overs after Sachin was out to stabilize the innings a little. After this, I thought he was attempting to play quickly to accelerate and give Ganguly the momentum so he could fire at the other end. Infact Cricinfo's headline after Dravid got out was "Dravid falls trying to score fast" or something along these lines. Lets take another match, the MCG Boxing Day one (the recent one). We needed 500 runs to win the match and we had 2 days left. Had the WI team of the 80s been batting, they probably would've gone for it (it is irrelevant that they wouldn't have collapsed to 197 all out in the 1st innings). But, for our team, we didn't have Sehwag or Viv Richards to completely dominate the innings. So the ideal thing to do was to play out 180 overs. Surely, having the best batting lineup (on paper) would be able to achieve that. I was able to understand his slow approach (16 from 105 balls or something). Sachin came and tried to play what he called "positive cricket" and got caught behind for 15 runs. So, in that circumstance, Dravid's approach, I felt was justified. I am not sure if "upping the ante" is the criteria we should be using to judge him as a batsman. The only time we ought to criticize for not upping the ante is if the captain wants to declare soon and your player is playing stodgily. In the recent test match, we needed to score fast in order to get SA out quickly but you saw how the batting collapsed for 9/145 after Sehwag got out. So, if Dravid was still wanting to build a partnership with Ganguly and therefore transfer the momentum back to us so we could attack, I don't find any fault with his approach. I did not see any bowler dominating Dravid during his 233 at Adelaide or 270 against Pakistan (Akhtar troubled him very early on but after that he was solid and was making runs freely). What does dominating a bowler mean? Does it mean taking singles to disturb his rhythm and make sure he bowls to your weakness or does it only mean hitting sixes and fours? In that case, I think that we are being unfair to Dravid.

In the example you gave, people were criticizing Dravid for his stance before Sehwag got out. 4.7 is a healthy RR in tests but in the context of this game, only way India could have achieved victory was scoring around 5.5. With a long batting line up left and a flat pitch, he still did not even try to play as fluently as he could have. You will agree with me, that test cricket has changed a lot over the years and one of the major results we see so many results and Aus and SA winning so mant tests is because they score at a very healthy rate. I am not suggesting that Dravid should attemot to play like Sehwag or Sachin but he does not try to play shots according to his own capability. This has been more evident in the last couple of years By dominating a batsman, I mean like Sachin dominated Warne in the 98 tour. This not only set the tone for the series but even our tailenders were confident about facing Warne after that onslaught while Warne's confidence nose-dived.

[graphic23]

In the example you gave, people were criticizing Dravid for his stance before Sehwag got out. 4.7 is a healthy RR in tests but in the context of this game, only way India could have achieved victory was scoring around 5.5. With a long batting line up left and a flat pitch, he still did not even try to play as fluently as he could have. You will agree with me, that test cricket has changed a lot over the years and one of the major results we see so many results and Aus and SA winning so mant tests is because they score at a very healthy rate. I am not suggesting that Dravid should attemot to play like Sehwag or Sachin but he does not try to play shots according to his own capability. This has been more evident in the last couple of years By dominating a batsman, I mean like Sachin dominated Warne in the 98 tour. This not only set the tone for the series but even our tailenders were confident about facing Warne after that onslaught while Warne's confidence nose-dived.

You speak about fluency in batting. His innings was something Steve Waugh would call "ugly" - he was trying to find his form back and therefore for fluency to come back. It is unfair to say he was intentionally being quiet and batting slowly. He is not in the usual Rahul Dravid form we're used to and therefore cannot change gears as quickly (or at all) as he probably could if he was in control of the bowling and was at his fluent best. So it is unfair to criticize him now. Oh yeah, I will agree with you here. I think we ought to always play to win and not to draw. Even in the interview after the 3rd day, Kumble made it known that he wanted the bastmen to play till Tea and get a lead of around 150-200 runs. So if we had continued with Laxman and Dravid batting, we could've easily made 150-200 run lead because the run rate was around 4.7 as you mentioned. He got out trying to score faster and ended up giving up on the higher lead. I feel here we are comparing batsmanship rather than the value of the batsman to the team. In this case, I am a Sachin fanatic and I will tell you that no other batsman in the modern era can handle spinners like Sachin does (heck any other bowler as well). He is the greatest batsman of this era for me, and his domination of Shane Warne is an example of his genius. He is far above any other batsman in this analysis, except perhaps Lara. But since we are talking about the value of the player to the team, I think domination can count as disrupting the rhythm of the bowler by making easy runs off the bowler.

[CSK Fan]

You speak about fluency in batting. His innings was something Steve Waugh would call "ugly" - he was trying to find his form back and therefore for fluency to come back. It is unfair to say he was intentionally being quiet and batting slowly. He is not in the usual Rahul Dravid form we're used to and therefore cannot change gears as quickly (or at all) as he probably could if he was in control of the bowling and was at his fluent best. So it is unfair to criticize him now.

Not complaining about the lack of success in scoring quick but about the lack of intent all together. As if that did not concern him at all as long as he remains not out.

[graphic23]

Not complaining about the lack of success in scoring quick but about the lack of intent all together. As if that did not concern him at all as long as he remains not out.

I think there was intent. I didn't see the innings after Sehwag was out (well, after Sachin was out). But I kept following the cricinfo commentary and the cricbuzz commentary and he struggled to clear the fielder and was driving hard to the fielder every single time. Rather than lack of intent, there was a lack of correct execution. I don't think it was that he wanted to remain not out as much as he wanted the momentum to come back to us. Perhaps we read the situation differently. BTW, I feel we've dried up this topic. Lets argue about something else. :D

[CSK Fan]

I think there was intent. I didn't see the innings after Sehwag was out (well, after Sachin was out). But I kept following the cricinfo commentary and the cricbuzz commentary and he struggled to clear the fielder and was driving hard to the fielder every single time. Rather than lack of intent, there was a lack of correct execution. I don't think it was that he wanted to remain not out as much as he wanted the momentum to come back to us. Perhaps we read the situation differently. BTW, I feel we've dried up this topic. Lets argue about something else. :D

Any suggestions about what to argue on? Or lets argue to dis-argue?

[cochise]

Don't argue now...relax for 30 mins then switch on TV and watch cricket. After the days play, plenty more to argue about.

[Shehezaada]

Tendulkar and Dravid are the closest thing resembling to Jordan and Pippen. Jordan was undisputably the best skilled, most hungry ball player in the NBA, that shone as a youngster and carried the mantle as the master. Same with Tendulkar. Pippen was the man he relied on most, the solid, no nonsense player, brilliant in his own right, but not quite as masterful as Jordan. Time and time again Jordan took the bulls to the Eastern Conference finals, but he was beaten by better teams..Pistons namely, and Celtics. He had to wait several years, until Pippen came along, to win his first NBA ring. Tendulkar also had to wait until Dravid came along until he could start winning big too.

[Dhondy]

Just to remind folks that batsmen do win matches. And how! Shabash Ganguly! That was a career defining knock.