The final summer of a fantastic foursome

[Mandrake]

oh c'mon.....RD would walk into any all time great test side....judge by any yardstick and you will find him equal to it.

[MundaPakistani]

I knew the SA match would be brought up. In that case ' date=' 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[/quote'] That partnership in the 3rd test was the turning point of the test match. You are right about his innings at Headingly and even last year against the WI he made couple of fantastic half centuries to carry IND to a historic win but his problem is that he plays like that on almost all pitches...even in that series against the WI during the 1st test he made 49 of 173 balls and then 62 of 177 balls a similar thing happend on the previous tours of WI. So what he should have done through out his career is to identify the pitch and the conditions and asses what kind of innings he needed to play for IND to WIN the game. The thing that 'saves' Dravid and make him a fantastic batsman is his contributions in SO many of IND's famous wins.

I Wrong comparison. Shoaib Mohammed may have averaged 44 , but did he score 10,000 test runs ? Script some of pakistan's best victories abroad ?

I wasn't comparing him to RD i was comparing him to Saeed. Shoaib averaged 44 in 45 test matches and in that era that was an excellent average for an opener but no one rated him as the one of the finest openers of his generation simply because he was never able to dominate bowling attacks and didn't allow the innings to gain momentum.

[Donny]

Here are a few strike rate figures in Test cricket of Dravid's peers. Gilchrist 82 Sehwag 76 Pietersen 67 Hayden 60 Ponting 59 Sangakkara 56 Langer 54 Inzamam 54 Younis 53 Yousuf 53 Jayawardene 53 Vaughan 52 Gibbs 50 Collingwood 45 Fleming 45 Chanderpaul 43 Kallis 43 Dravid 42

[CC1981]

Donny and the rest, it is a common misconception that batting slower will mean you score more runs in tests (and thus faster-scoring batsmen are better). FYI, if Ponting tried to bat like Dravid, he'd see his average plumet. If Viv batted like Gavaskar, his average would've plumeted and vice-versa. I am not talking one innings here and there, i am talking about the overall tempo to their batting, their natural rythm. Tendulkar has declined in consistency after he became conservative and even today, most of his high-scoring affairs are fast-paced tendulkar-ish centuries, while his dravid-ian snail-pace sees him get out for a 50-70 at best. Strike rate of a batsman is quite irrelevant in a test match where batting and bowling are on an equal footing. In matches where 350-ish scores in 1st innings and 300-ish scores in 2nd innings are common, strike rate is irrelevant. Sure, i'd prefer Ponting on a flatter pitch but Dravid IMO doesnt have glaring flaws in his temperament or technique like Ponting does/did. I don't rate the group of Ponting-Dravid-Hayden-Kallis-Yousuf very highly but out of that lot, i rate Dravid to be better, followed by Ponting and then Kallis. I find it no coincidence that these gents all skyrocketed to absurd averages & runs/centuries the moment the pitches started flattening out and great bowlers started popping off the scene,unreplaced in skill or potential. The top 5 test batsmen of the last 17 years are IMO: 1. Tendulkar 2. Lara 3. Steve Waugh 4. Andy Flower 5. Dravid

[Donny]

Glaring flaws are not necessarily a measure to downgrade a batsman. Bradman is the obvious example. To not include Ponting above Flower and Waugh in that top 5, Sandro, beggars belief. You have left out a batsman who has scored 33 Test centuries with an average and strike rate of 59 and who is often at the crease in the first few overs. To contend Viv or Punter's averages would plummet if they batted like Dravid is ridiculously hypothetical. Ponting bats at a 40% strike rate when necessary, quite successfully. Unlike RD who bats like that in any situation. Strike rate in a Test is highly relevant. Let's say a team bats first and bats for 125 overs @ 3 r.p.o. That's 375. Another team bats at 4 r.p.o. They score 500. Are you seriously saying they are both in the same position ??

[Ram]

Here are a few strike rate figures in Test cricket of Dravid's peers. Gilchrist 82,Sehwag 76,Pietersen 67,Hayden 60,Ponting 59,Sangakkara 56 Langer 54,Inzamam 54,Younis 53,Yousuf 53,Jayawardene 53,Vaughan 52,Gibb50,Collingwood 45,Fleming 45,Chanderpaul 43,Kallis 43,Dravid 42

That table is better put in perspective if seen this way.... Runs Scored Average 50’s 100’s Gilchrist-82 5353 48 24 17 Sehwag-76 4155 49 12 12 Pietersen -67 2553 52 10 8 Hayden- 60 5652 57 27 27 Ponting- 59 9368 59 36 33 Sangakkara-56 5492 53 22 14 Langer -54 7696 45 30 23 Inzamam -54 8813 50 46 25 Younis- 53 4291 48 19 12 Yousuf- 53 6553 56 27 23 Jayawardene - 53 6630 49 28 19 Vaughan -52 4846 43 14 16 Gibbs -50 5943 43 24 14 Collingwood- 45 1819 45 4 5 F leming -45 6620 39 41 9 Chanderpaul- 43 7182 46 46 13 Kallis -43 8430 55 44 24 Dravid- 42 9366 57 47 24 _________

[Ram]

Strike rate in a Test is highly relevant. Let's say a team bats first and bats for 125 overs @ 3 r.p.o. That's 375. Another team bats at 4 r.p.o. They score 500. Are you seriously saying they are both in the same position ??

Now we are really into it. Can you prove that India's overall run rate suffers because of Dravid's slow batting ? I say , barring Australia , we score as quick as any other teams. Besides , as i said earlier , Today's test matches last 4 days at the most ! A comparitively low strike of a batsman will literally no bearing on the result.

[King]

Glaring flaws are not necessarily a measure to downgrade a batsman. Bradman is the obvious example. To not include Ponting above Flower and Waugh in that top 5, Sandro, beggars belief. You have left out a batsman who has scored 33 Test centuries with an average and strike rate of 59 and who is often at the crease in the first few overs. To contend Viv or Punter's averages would plummet if they batted like Dravid is ridiculously hypothetical. Ponting bats at a 40% strike rate when necessary, quite successfully. Unlike RD who bats like that in any situation. Strike rate in a Test is highly relevant. Let's say a team bats first and bats for 125 overs @ 3 r.p.o. That's 375. Another team bats at 4 r.p.o. They score 500. Are you seriously saying they are both in the same position ??

It is very irrelevant to even discuss the strike rate in test cricket. What are ODIs and Twenty20s for? Test cricket is serious business. It is the test of patience and skill both for bowlers and batters. Leaving a good ball outside the off stump is as effective as a creaming a four through covers. Bradman's strike rate is not as great by the way, would you call him fantastic?

[MundaPakistani]

It is very irrelevant to even discuss the strike rate in test cricket. What are ODIs and Twenty20s for? Test cricket is serious business. It is the test of patience and skill both for bowlers and batters. Leaving a good ball outside the off stump is as effective as a creaming a four through covers. Bradman's strike rate is not as great by the way, would you call him fantastic?

It's amazing how most of us have been following this game for decades and i would like to think that we all know the game very well yet we disagree on some of the very basic issues of the game...i guess that's just one of the reasons why it's such a great sport.

[yoda]

strike rate in test cricket is irrelevant for most part unless you are running short of time setting a target or of course chasing in the 4th. yes, it would be great if you can bat at a higher strike rate, but give me a 60 average at 42 SR than a 42 average at a 60 SR. and dravid's greatness is not measured by average or strike rate. the guy simply has been the backbone of indian test batting since 2001 and that is fantastic!

[Dhondy]

Dravid himself rates Ponting (and three others) ahead of himself. http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2093350.ece

[Chandan]

Dravid himself rates Ponting (and three others) ahead of himself. http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2093350.ece

That is very humble of him!

[King]

Dravid himself rates Ponting (and three others) ahead of himself. http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2093350.ece

The man himself, though, is modest. Even when he made such a terrific debut, he let his fellow debutant, Sourav Ganguly, to steal the attention at Lord’s with an innings of 131. He certainly was having nothing of The Times’s suggestion yesterday that he is better than Tendulkar. “No, I don’t agree,” he said. “Sachin is the greatest batsman of my generation. It has been a privilege to share a dressing-room with him. Sachin, [brian] Lara, [steve] Waugh and [Ricky] Ponting are the four great batsmen of my generation and I love to watch them and play against them. I just try to be the best that I can.” He only said he is not better than Sachin Tendulkar Dhondy. I don't see him say the rest are better than him. Either way it is not whether he rates Ponting above him or not. It is sacrilege to not think him of more than ordinary batsman based on the strike rate.

[CC1981]

Glaring flaws are not necessarily a measure to downgrade a batsman. Bradman is the obvious example.

If Bradman had someone his near-same in record and that someone had faced better bowling quality overall in his career and didnt have a glaring flaw, then bradman,like Ponting, would be looked over by me too.

You have left out a batsman who has scored 33 Test centuries with an average and strike rate of 59 and who is often at the crease in the first few overs.

because the said batsman was averaging in the 40s when good/great bowlers like Ambrose-Walsh-Waqar-Wasim-Saqlain-etc. were going around the park, for the first five years of his career. The boom in record is because Ponting has faced one of the lowest quality of attacks ever fielded by international cricket. I dont consider him to be a better bat than the names mentioned above- and Punter wouldnt be in my alltime Aussie XI either. Bottomline is, a player who is a spectacular failure in the home of spin does not deserve a spot on the alltime list, nomatter what his overall statistics are. And please don't bring a "bradman on wet-wicket" example here- wet wickets were rare even back in the day and non-existant today. But playing spin in the home of spin is no less important than performing against australia in australia.

To contend Viv or Punter's averages would plummet if they batted like Dravid is ridiculously hypothetical. Ponting bats at a 40% strike rate when necessary, quite successfully.

False. it is a fact that most of the time when Viv, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, etc. go out of their normal rhythm, they fail more often than succeed. It is ridiculously hypothetical to think that a player will do just as well/better if they forced themselves to bat slower/faster. Everyone plays at their natural tempo- some happen to have a faster tempo than others- batting outside the tempo (slower/faster) is almost invariably detrimental to the said player.

Strike rate in a Test is highly relevant. Let's say a team bats first and bats for 125 overs @ 3 r.p.o. That's 375. Another team bats at 4 r.p.o. They score 500. Are you seriously saying they are both in the same position ??

As i said, i don't care about strike rates unless its a pancake flat surface where 450-500 for an innings is to be expected. On balanced surfaces, that yeild 350-400 in the 1st innings & 250-300 in the 2nd innings, with 35-40 wickets in the match, strike rate of a batsman is quite irrelevant.