Gower versus Dravid

[zen]

David Gower and Rahul Dravid are top contenders for the #3 slot in an AT Test 11 for Eng and Ind respectively. Who would be your pick?

 

At #3 

• Gower, avg 49
• Dravid, avg 50 (excluding BD and Zim) 

 

For me -> Gower as

• Avg of 49 playing mostly in SENA conditions (can add 10% more to his average) 
• Stylish free flowing left-hander so good to watch as well 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by zen

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, zen said:

David Gower and Rahul Dravid are top contenders for the #3 slot in an AT Test 11 for Eng and Ind respectively. Who would be your pick?

 

At #3 

• Gower, avg 49
• Dravid, avg 50 (excluding BD and Zim) 

 

For me -> Gower as

• Avg of 49 playing mostly in SENA conditions (can add 10% more to his average) 
• Stylish free flowing left-hander so good to watch as well 

 

Gower will be nowhere in my All-time Eng XI or even my second-rung all-time XI. I didn't see Hammond (apart from some clippings), so I won't comment much on him - but a batting avg of 75 at no. 3 speaks for itself. But I got to see some of barrington's innings and he was much better than gower. a genuine clutch player who scored heavily overseas, especially vs. spin. 27 tests at no. 3 and 13 100s at batting avg of 77.  in some respects, one of the greatest no. 3s of all time

 

gower was also not a regular no. 3; only 30-odd tests out of nearly 120. I remember andy zaltzmann had a nice post long ago about some batters who were far better in some positions than others. alan knott was another who was very good in some positions. I think even Ganguly falls in this category when one looks at his batting at 4.

 

dravid's weakness against genuine pace is known, and the same goes for gower at 3 in WI and he didn't play in SC at this position (remains to be seen how he would fare on turners). gower had a lot of talent and underachieved. dravid had decent talent and overachieved. better to compare gower with other unfulfilled talents like lawrence rowe than with dravid, who was a solid player who made most of his potential.

[Majestic]

If my memory serves well, David Gower mostly played at 4 in his career. At 3, he might have played some games but an average of 50 with say, 2000 runs, is not comparable to average of 50 with 11000 runs at the same position.

 

It could very well be possible that he batted at that position when he was going through the purple patch.

 

Dravid overall is a much better test batsman as he maintained an average of 50 at 3 for almost his entire career with equally balanced performances both home and away.

 

Among the 1980s batsman, I would put Viv, Border, Chappell, Gavaskar, Miandad and Martin Crowe ahead of him.

 

 

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Gower will be nowhere in my All-time Eng XI or even my second-rung all-time XI. I didn't see Hammond (apart from some clippings), so I won't comment much on him - but a batting avg of 75 at no. 3 speaks for itself. But I got to see some of barrington's innings and he was much better than gower. a genuine clutch player who scored heavily overseas, especially vs. spin. 27 tests at no. 3 and 13 100s at batting avg of 77.  in some respects, one of the greatest no. 3s of all time

 

gower was also not a regular no. 3; only 30-odd tests out of nearly 120. I remember andy zaltzmann had a nice post long ago about some batters who were far better in some positions than others. alan knott was another who was very good in some positions. I think even Ganguly falls in this category when one looks at his batting at 4.

 

dravid's weakness against genuine pace is known, and the same goes for gower at 3 in WI and he didn't play in SC at this position (remains to be seen how he would fare on turners). gower had a lot of talent and underachieved. dravid had decent talent and overachieved. better to compare gower with other unfulfilled talents like lawrence rowe than with dravid, who was a solid player who made most of his potential.

Also the SENA rule doesn't apply in Gower's era. Gower played when Windies were biggest force and South Africa was banned so it was WENA.

 

 

[zen]

13 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Gower will be nowhere in my All-time Eng XI or even my second-rung all-time XI. I didn't see Hammond (apart from some clippings), so I won't comment much on him - but a batting avg of 75 at no. 3 speaks for itself. But I got to see some of barrington's innings and he was much better than gower. a genuine clutch player who scored heavily overseas, especially vs. spin. 27 tests at no. 3 and 13 100s at batting avg of 77.  in some respects, one of the greatest no. 3s of all time

 

 

I am talking about relatively modern AT teams. Bradman would be #3 in an Aus AT11 so when talking about Ponting we cannot say that Pointing would be no where near #3 in an Aus AT11 because of Bradman. 

 

It is not Gower or Ponting's fault that their countries have a rich history of great batsmen! 

 

 

 

Quote

 

gower was also not a regular no. 3; only 30-odd tests out of nearly 120. I remember andy zaltzmann had a nice post long ago about some batters who were far better in some positions than others. alan knott was another who was very good in some positions. I think even Ganguly falls in this category when one looks at his batting at 4.

 

 

Gower played anywhere from 3 to 5. 

 

Recently on the occasion of England playing its 1000th test, English fans picked an AT11 with Gower at #3 - Link

 

 

Quote

dravid's weakness against genuine pace is known, and the same goes for gower at 3 in WI and he didn't play in SC at this position (remains to be seen how he would fare on turners). gower had a lot of talent and underachieved. dravid had decent talent and overachieved. better to compare gower with other unfulfilled talents like lawrence rowe than with dravid, who was a solid player who made most of his potential.

 

Gower is better than Dravid (on ICF, it can go differently)  

Edited January 30, 2022 by zen

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

If my memory serves well, David Gower mostly played at 4 in his career. At 3, he might have played some games but an average of 50 with say, 2000 runs, is not comparable to average of 50 with 11000 runs at the same position.

 

It could very well be possible that he batted at that position when he was going through the purple patch.

 

Dravid overall is a much better test batsman as he maintained an average of 50 at 3 for almost his entire career with equally balanced performances both home and away.

 

Among the 1980s batsman, I would put Viv, Border, Chappell, Gavaskar, Miandad and Martin Crowe ahead of him.

 

 

Gower was an underachiever. could have finished with a great record, and failed to capitalize on it. he was rather happy-go-lucky, which also translates to loose shots in batting. comparing him and dravid is looking at antitheses. first and foremost, of course, as we both pointed out, gower was not a regular no. 3.

 

if we stick only to 80s and go by the form in that decade, the best ones I saw were: border, miandad, Viv, greenidge (opening was v. tough then), vengsarkar, gavaskar, gower, richie richardson (started with a bang), crowe, amarnath, lloyd (finished very well), chappell, dean jones (highly underrated efficient bat), azhar and abbas.

[Vijy]

Just now, zen said:

 

I am talking about relatively modern AT teams. Bradman would be #3 in an Aus AT11 so when talking about Ponting we cannot say that Pointing would be no where near #3 in an Aus AT11 because of Bradman. 

 

It is not Gower or Ponting's fault that their countries have a rich history of great batsmen! 

 

 

 

 

Gower played anywhere from 3 to 5. 

 

Recently on the occasion of England playing its 1000th test, English fans picked an AT11 with Gower at #3 - Link

 

 

 

Gower is better than Dravid (on ICF, it can go differently)  

it is called recency bias. as simple as that.

 

gower didn't bat regularly at 3. yes, he could play there, but he mostly didn't.

 

gower was more talented than dravid probably. but did not do enough justice to it.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

it is called recency bias. as simple as that.

 

gower didn't bat regularly at 3. yes, he could play there, but he mostly didn't.

 

gower was more talented than dravid probably. but did not do enough justice to it.

 

Even if Gower did not do justice to his talent, he was still better than Dravid 

[Vijy]

Just now, zen said:

 

Even if Gower did not do justice to his talent, he was still better than Dravid 

okay, whatever you say. I want to add: gooch was better than gavaskar.

[Majestic]

15 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Gower was an underachiever. could have finished with a great record, and failed to capitalize on it. he was rather happy-go-lucky, which also translates to loose shots in batting. comparing him and dravid is looking at antitheses. first and foremost, of course, as we both pointed out, gower was not a regular no. 3.

 

if we stick only to 80s and go by the form in that decade, the best ones I saw were: border, miandad, Viv, greenidge (opening was v. tough then), vengsarkar, gavaskar, gower, richie richardson (started with a bang), crowe, amarnath, lloyd (finished very well), chappell, dean jones (highly underrated efficient bat), azhar and abbas.

Forgot about Greenidge also, so he should be added too in that list. Greenidge was arguably better than Gavaskar in 80s.

 

I agree with you on David Gower being very talented, actually he was quite like Mark Waugh, would play glamorous 70s and 80s and get out due to elapse in concentration or loose shots.

 

Among the England batsman from 1980s onwards, I would have Graham Gooch, Kevin Pietersen, Alastair Cook and Joe Root ahead of him. Graham Thorpe will be just below him. After these guys, you can have Strauss, Vaughan, Trott, Stewart, Prior, Bell, Atherton, Stokes in any order.

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Majestic

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Vijy said:

okay, whatever you say. I want to add: gooch was better than gavaskar.

 

This is not a debate but simple discussion on whom you would pick 

 

There is not a big difference b/w top players. You could pick anyone you like  ... And per many, Gavaskar is India's best test batsman so you are probably indirectly suggesting that Gooch is better than all Indian test batsmen! 

Edited January 30, 2022 by zen

[Vijy]

Just now, zen said:

 

This is not a debate but simple discussion on whom you would pick 

 

There is not a big difference b/w top players. You could pick anyone you like  ... And per many, Gavaskar  India's best test batsman so you are probably indirectly suggesting that Gooch is better than all Indian test batsman! 

yes, gooch in the 90s was better than most of them. he transformed his batting greatly in that duration.

[zen]

Just now, Vijy said:

yes, gooch in the 90s was better than most of them. he transformed his batting greatly in that duration.

 

Exposed against spin though both in India (due to pitches) and by Warne

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Forgot about Greenidge also, so he should be added too in that list. Greenidge was arguably better than Gavaskar in 80s.

 

I agree with you on David Gower being very talented, actually he was quite like Mark Waugh, would play glamorous 70s and 80s and get out due to elapse in concentration or loose shots.

 

Among the England batsman from 1980s onwards, I would have Graham Gooch, Kevin Pietersen, Alastair Cook and Joe Root ahead of him. Graham Thorpe will be just below him. After these guys, you can have Strauss, Vaughan, Trott, Stewart, Prior, Bell, Atherton, Stokes in any order.

 

greenidge was a more destructive batter than sunny ever was.

 

Yep, Gooch in 90s was a beast. transformed his batting completely. root in 2020 was on fire as well. KP was another genuine match winner. Cook, in my opinion, is a bit overrated but still an ATG. Thorpe is another underrated batter.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Vijy

[Majestic]

9 minutes ago, Vijy said:

greenidge was a more destructive batter than sunny ever was.

 

Yep, Gooch in 90s was a beast. transformed his batting completely. root in 2020 was on fire as well. KP was another genuine match winner. Cook, in my opinion, is a bit overrated but still an ATG. Thorpe is another underrated batter.

Ofcourse he was. Those square cuts, the guy had a different swagger to his batting and he was an all conditions batsman too.

 

The statement about Cook is a bit misleading, I think he is an England great but not an ATG clearly. But his impact was right up there for England with series defining performance in India 2012 and Australia 2010. Another case where a less talented achieved more than the extremely talented Gower.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Majestic

[Adamant]

Dravid by a mile and a half, you can't pick a small sample from a player who played over 117 tests. 

 

Picking 56 out of the 200+ innings Gower played makes zero sense, yes maybe you can say that Gower has a better record playing at number 3 but definitely Dravid was the better batsman coz he was way more consistent than Gower who was elegant but flashy. 

 

Overall career. 

 

Rahul dravid avg 52.4

David gower avg 44.2

[Adamant]

Gower was known for getting out often when he is set and was an exquisite timer of the ball although he couldn't really survive on tough tracks. 

 

Otoh Dravid had a monk like focus and was India's best batsman on unhelpful tracks even surpassing the great SRT. 

[Adamant]

Following are the post 1960s batsman whom even the englishman rate ahead of Gower

 

Boycott 

Gooch

Pietersen

Cook

Root

 

 

[zen]

Like the overuse of logical fallacies on this thread (An example of how not to make a point): 

 

• Gower would not make it to my 1st Eng 11. As if that matters and has any relation to his comparison with Dravid, who would not make it too if he played for Eng (and when Dravid too would not make it to many folks Ind AT11)
• Gower was not a regular #3. Irrelevant to his skills and his ability to be picked to play at #3  ...  England fans chose him to bat at #3 in the recent 1,000 test poll 
• X, y, z England players are rated above Gower (which can be debated) as if that counts versus Dravid, who would not be rated too (and as if Dravid is rated above many Indian batsmen)
• and many more ... 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by zen

[rkt.india]

6 hours ago, zen said:

 

Exposed against spin though both in India (due to pitches) and by Warne

That's the point you are missing with Gower. Sena batsmen's real test is in SC. They are born and brought up playing pace.