does anyone feel bad?

[Predator_05]

With his batting style you would expected him to have played a lot of match winning innings but other than his triple hundred at Multan nothing else stands out...in fact out of his 12 tons only 2 have come in a match winning cause.

errr, bowlers win tests - NOT batsmen. Your batsmen could score a million runs, but their efforts would amount to nothing if the bowlers can't take 20 wickets. This is why lots of Indian batsmen have scored hundreds in matches India didn't win - because the bowling attack was never good enough

[Ram]

errr' date=' bowlers win tests - NOT batsmen. Your batsmen could score a million runs, but their efforts would amount to nothing if the bowlers can't take 20 wickets. This is why lots of Indian batsmen have scored hundreds in matches India didn't win - because the bowling attack was never good enough[/quote'] So true. But batsman have to take their fair share of blame for our poor performances abroad. After all , if they score a million runs , we would end up atleast drawing the match.

[King]

Bowlers win test matches sure but batsmen lose test matches by putting on board sub par scores. If a batting team usually scores about 400 or more they will mostly not lose a game but when the batting team scores paltry 200s then you need a bowling line up of McGrath, Akram, Marshall and Murali to win a test match. Not many teams are blessed with that kind of bowling to defend crappy scores.

[MundaPakistani]

errr' date=' bowlers win tests - NOT batsmen. Your batsmen could score a million runs, but their efforts would amount to nothing if the bowlers can't take 20 wickets. This is why lots of Indian batsmen have scored hundreds in matches India didn't win - because the bowling attack was never good enough[/quote'] well R Dravid plays on the same Indian team yet he continues to play one match winning innings after another! In fact i would go on to say that since about 01 R Dravid has played a role in ALL of IND's major wins except for the one in Multan 04 and Johanesburg 06.

[Chandan]

well R Dravid plays on the same Indian team yet he continues to play one match winning innings after another! In fact i would go on to say that since about 01 R Dravid has played a role in ALL of IND's major wins except for the one in Multan 04 and Johanesburg 06.

Trinidad 2002?

[MundaPakistani]

Trinidad 2002?

103 runs in a relatively low scoring game http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/IND_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/IND_WI_T2_19-23APR2002.html

[The Outsider]

Why should I feel bad for an underperforming, lazy, and unfit player?

[Predator_05]

well R Dravid plays on the same Indian team yet he continues to play one match winning innings after another! In fact i would go on to say that since about 01 R Dravid has played a role in ALL of IND's major wins except for the one in Multan 04 and Johanesburg 06.

Match winning innings ? It was India's new-found ability to take 20 wickets which won them those matches. Even at Adelaide vs AUS, he may have scored 233 but that innings would have been worthless had Agarkar not taken 6/41 to bundle Australia out for 190. Batsmen don't win tests, never have and never will.

[yoda]

Match winning innings ? It was India's new-found ability to take 20 wickets which won them those matches. Even at Adelaide vs AUS' date=' he may have scored 233 but that innings would have been worthless had Agarkar not taken 6/41 to bundle Australia out for 190. Batsmen don't win tests, never have and never will.[/quote'] You can't brush off Dravid's role in all those wins. The reason Dravid gets all the credit is he performs under pressure more than the other chutiy@s in the team. When the ball talks with help from the pitch you get results. And in many of those situations it is Dravid has been the one consistent performer. Of course he has been part of the problem as well during our infamous 4th innings collapses of late along with the other chutiy@s.

[Predator_05]

You can't brush off Dravid's role in all those wins. The reason Dravid gets all the credit is he performs under pressure more than the other chutiy@s in the team. When the ball talks with help from the pitch you get results. And in many of those situations it is Dravid has been the one consistent performer. Of course he has been part of the problem as well during our infamous 4th innings collapses of late along with the other chutiy@s.

I am not "brushing off" anyone's role. I just used Dravid's innings as an example. You do agree that Tests are won by BOWLERS and not batsmen ? The batsman are required to put up enough runs on the board for the bowlers to defend, so ultimately it's the bowlers who have to deliver. Case in point - Sydney test '04. Every single batsmen did his job and IND finished with 705 but they still didn't win that match. Can you blame the batsmen for that ? No !! The bowlers are the ones entrusted with the responsibility of winning the match, and it was their failure, not the batsmen.

[Dhondy]

Did he win the match in the 2nd innings with 72* when all around him were falling like nine pins? What about that batsman's graveyard in the fiinal Test in WI recently when WI struggled to reach 100? Who was the man who towered above the rest with two half centuries? What knocks were those? Match saving ones? And I suppose walking out at 0 for 1 at Rawalpindi or 10 for 2 at Headingley, and the 270 or the 144 that followed were match saving innings as well? C'mon Pred, it takes enormous skill and a lot of courage to be Rahul Dravid. India would be BD without him...even with the "upturn" in their bowling.

[Predator_05]

Did he win the match in the 2nd innings with 72* when all around him were falling like nine pins? What about that batsman's graveyard in the fiinal Test in WI recently when WI struggled to reach 100? Who was the man who towered above the rest with two half centuries? What knocks were those? Match saving ones? And I suppose walking out at 0 for 1 at Rawalpindi or 10 for 2 at Headingley, and the 270 or the 144 that followed were match saving innings as well? C'mon Pred, it takes enormous skill and a lot of courage to be Rahul Dravid. India would be BD without him...even with the "upturn" in their bowling.

Who is calling them "match-saving" innings ? They set up the match, that is for sure but India still needed to take those 20 wickets. His best knock on the England tour was the 217 at the Oval, but India didn't win that game. That wasn't Dravid's failure, but the bowlers'. This is cricket101 yaar. Why do you think India struggled to win matches back in the 90's, even though the batting lineup was a decent one ? Because the bowling was couldn't take 20 wickets, that is why. Batsmen don't win Test matches, bowlers do. End of.

[Dhondy]

Even an ordinary bowling side, and that's what India is, will sometimes win a match when the batsmen put up 550 or 600, and that's what Rahul Dravid has done for India consistently over the years. With the innings I quoted above, and several others, he didn't just save the match, he turned a losing situation into a winning one in the face of great adversity. If you remember, in that Adelaide match, India were some 80 for 4 chasing 550. Dravid pulled them to 520. Without that, let alone win it, India would have been smashed to pieces, and Aggy and the rest might as well have been wanking themselves to death.

[Predator_05]

Even an ordinary bowling side' date=' and that's what India is, will sometimes win a match when the batsmen put up 550 or 600, and that's what Rahul Dravid has done for India consistently over the years..[/quote'] Yes, SOMETIMES. By memory, India have put up more 500+ scores than any other team bar Australia since '00, but their win % is not even close to Australia's. Ever wondered why ? The batsmen were just as good. You can make a case for batsmen who score in the 4th innings when chasing a target, ie; Lara's 153. These innings are exceptions to the norm though, which is the fact that bowlers win matches. I take issue with people who entertain the notion that batsmen are the ones who should be primarily responsible for winning matches - ie; the way Munda spun Sehwag's stats above.

[King]

If you want batmen winning the test matches don't look any further than India's overseas wins in the 70s and 80s. Amarnath and Madal Lal used to open the bowling for India for about a decade then.

[MundaPakistani]

Yes, SOMETIMES. By memory, India have put up more 500+ scores than any other team bar Australia since '00, but their win % is not even close to Australia's. Ever wondered why ? The batsmen were just as good. You can make a case for batsmen who score in the 4th innings when chasing a target, ie; Lara's 153. These innings are exceptions to the norm though, which is the fact that bowlers win matches. I take issue with people who entertain the notion that batsmen are the ones who should be primarily responsible for winning matches - ie; the way Munda spun Sehwag's stats above.

As mentioned earlier if you consistently score runs in tough situation then sooner or later bowlers will do the job for you and it's no surprise that his record in matches won(excluding BAN) is far superior than any other Indian batsman. In the 31 out of his 109 test matches that IND have won Dravid has averaged 76 while Sachin in his 39/137 matches has averaged "only" 59, Sehwag's average in his 16/52 wins is as low as 49!

[Gambit]

In the 31 out of his 109 test matches that IND have won Dravid has averaged 76 while Sachin in his 39/137 matches has averaged "only" 59, Sehwag's average in his 16/52 wins is as low as 49!

SRT averages 65 not 59.

[MundaPakistani]

SRT averages 65 not 59.

i excluded BAN.

[fineleg]

Why should I feel bad for an underperforming' date=' lazy, and unfit player?[/quote'] You have described Sehwag in one sentence. Perfecto :thumbs_up: To some extent this also describes Munaf Patel (despite all his talent)