Who is India's greatest test match winner ?

[PriyankaSR]

Dravid, Kumble.

[Ultimate_Game]

I think people are confusing "matchwinner" with "sole contributor" in a win. Yes, cricket is a team game and every win needs contributions from majority of the players but the match winner is someone who had the most impact on the win. It doesn't mean that the match-winner was the only player to perform and rest were all silent spectators. I guess the best way to determie the same is the MOM awards in the wins coz the MOM would be the player who contributed the most to the win. Another way to look at the topic is how much the team would have been impacted adversely f you took a player out of the team. I can safely say that Kumble comes out head and shoulders above the others in that respect. Without Kumble we wouldn't be unbeatable at home throughout 90s and most of 2000s. Sure he did have support from others like Raju, Chauhan, Harbhajjan etc. but Kumble was the main spearhead and leader of the attack. Without Kumble we wouldn't have won as many matches as we did. For SRT fans, SRT was similar to Kumble for India in odis. In odis India was heavily dependent on him. But in Tests even though he was our best batsman it didn't translate into wins. E.g., he was our best batsman on tour to Aus in 92, he was our best batsman in the tour to Eng in 96, tour to SA in 96 and in tour to Aus in 99 but even then we ended up losing all the series. Tendulkar was the best batsman for sure but he couldn't make too much difference on the results, i.e. he couldn't win us the matches and reason for that was India's poor bowling attack. At home SRT had company in the likes of Azhar, Sidhu, Manjrekar and others to pile on the runs coz at home we weren't dependent as much on SRT as we were away, and at home Kumble was the most important player as he could take wkts and win us the games. If we had a decent pace attack in 90s who could perform away SRT's runs could have made the difference but as things stand they didn't, but Kumble's wkts did translate to Indian wins at home and that's why Kumle is our all-time greatest match-winner. Most of the times you will have bowlers trumping batsmen as a match-winners simply because bowlers have a bigger role within the game. A batsman can get a good ball first up and he gets to play no further part in the match but a bowler can come back even after being hit for a 4/6, after a bad over or after a bad spell. A batsman is said to have done well if he succeeds once every 3-4 innings whereas a good bowler invariably gets wkts every innings or match. Also, when you factor in the fact that there are generally 6-7 batsmen who score runs and even tailenders or lower order batsmen can and do score runs, the dependence on a specialist batsman is not as much as compared to a bowler, who generally shares the wkts with just 3 other bowlers and not with 11 players. Thus a bowler will always be a greater match-winner than a batsman.

[Lurker]

Another way to look at the topic is how much the team would have been impacted adversely f you took a player out of the team. I can safely say that Kumble comes out head and shoulders above the others in that respect. Without Kumble we wouldn't be unbeatable at home throughout 90s and most of 2000s. Sure he did have support from others like Raju, Chauhan, Harbhajjan etc. but Kumble was the main spearhead and leader of the attack. Without Kumble we wouldn't have won as many matches as we did.

Yes. Simply put. We could have been pretty tough to beat at home even without Sachin during 90s. Dravid, Azhar, Ganguly, Sidhu and bunch of others were good enough to pile scores. Even folks like Mongia has their moments under the sun. Without Kumble we would have won a big fat ghanta. Not sure why this is even a discussion here.

My current stance/responses/attitude are based on what I have seen/experienced here. Anyway, I don't think this is anything related to the topic.

Good for you that you have been here only for a couple of years. Had you been here since inception you would have perhaps gone on a killing spree by now gauging the impact this website seems to have on you...:nice:

[tothepoint]

Without Kumble we would have won a big fat ghanta.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Edit : :agree:

[Ultimate_Game]

Yes. Simply put. We could have been pretty tough to beat at home even without Sachin during 90s. Dravid, Azhar, Ganguly, Sidhu and bunch of others were good enough to pile scores. Even folks like Mongia has their moments under the sun. Without Kumble we would have won a big fat ghanta. Not sure why this is even a discussion here.

And that is the reason a match-winning or a consistent wicket taker will always be rated ahead of a good/great batsman unless the batsman is someone like Bradman averaging nearly 100 :omg: In fact let's assume that you are building a franchise/club/team the draft way (similar to NFL fantasy draft) the players to be taken 1st would be genuine all-rounders like Sobers or Kallis as they can contribute with the bat and the ball. Next you would focus on match-winning bowlers as they are at a prmium and then you will get to the batsmen as there are very many available. Even if you don't land up Tendulkar you can pick Lara or Ponting, or maybe a Dravid. There are plenty to choose from but genuine wicket takers are few and far between.

[The Outsider]

That was aimed at the stats "expert" who found a filter that alligned with his agenda. The bhashans are given because of posts like these ... Go find a standout MoM worthy performance by Sunny in the list of matches won(which is what vvvsl here was doing) .. here's that link again : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28794.html?class=1;orderby=start;result=1;template=results;type=batting;view=match There is hardly six 100s to begin with and the avg goes into low 40s for matches won significantly lower than his overall avg. And in every one of these matches were he got a 100 he was either overshadowed by a Kapil or a Vishy or the spin quartet. Based on this we conclude that SMG was not a match winner since our resident statsguru filter finders have found a magical filter and you are cackling along with them as usual.

Where did I say or agree that Man of the Match awards in matches won is the only or even a major criteria to involve in this discussion? I was just having a chuckle at guys showing Gavaskar as a counter example when the award did not even exist for a large number of matches Gavaskar played and the high fives being exchanged for propagating another piece of lie. For what it's worth, and I've stated it in the past as well, this match winner thing is subjective and putting statistical filters one way or the other is not necessarily give you the "right" answer. They can be used as an indicator though. However, at times performances which I would classify as match winning actually don't happen in matches which were won eventually - like Gavaskar's 221, Tendulkar's 136, Gavaskar's 96. Yeah, paradoxical but that's my opinion - and carrying an opinion itself renders one subject to abuse by Tendulkar fan boys if that opinion is not in his favor. As for my choice among the ones in the poll, I voted for Kumble - again an opinion which opens up anyone to carrying it to ridicule by the bhakts as has been successfully demonstrated in this thread or the one on the article by Mukul.

[vvvslaxman]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28794.html?class=1;orderby=start;result=1;template=results;type=batting;view=match Funny how the StatsGuru doesnt show anything but the one Test as matches WON for SMG in that series. He was not even the second best performer in that match... what happened ? The evil Tendulkar fans hacked Statsguru and changed all the scoreboards ? .

Point is there were no man of the match awards.. Only those who watched it live would know who made the most impact. Unless you watched it you can keep quiet. If some idiot watch a scorecard of Headingley test where India won.. they might wonder why they didn't give MOM to Tendulkar who made 193 but to Dravid who only made 148.. we would laugh.

[saneindian]

Point is there were no man of the match awards.. Only those who watched it live would know who made the most impact. Unless you watched it you can keep quiet. If some idiot watch a scorecard of Headingley test where India won.. they might wonder why they didn't give MOM to Tendulkar who made 193 but to Dravid who only made 148.. we would laugh.

Noriega took 9 wickets in the test we won on that 71 tour, only West Indian ever to take 9 wickets in an innings. Surely irrespective of which Indian had a bigger impact (I would say it was Sardesai with a wonderful 100), Noriega would have walked away with the MoM.

[vvvslaxman]

Noriega took 9 wickets in the test we won on that 71 tour' date=' only West Indian ever to take 9 wickets in an innings. Surely irrespective of which Indian had a bigger impact (I would say it was Sardesai with a wonderful 100), Noriega would have walked away with the MoM.[/quote'] You could say VEnkat also as one of the bowler got injured and he had to bowl most of the overs.. It is all ifs and buts. Point of contention is there was no man of the match award. having said that as Lurker said Sunny was more a match saver than someone who would go out and play an audacious innings with one leg like Greenidge did in England to win a match or score 61 in 35 balls to help your side win a match within mandatory overs.

[akshayxyz]

forget about topic...none of the toipcs after few posts genuinely related to OP why you change your stance based on what others write...why cant you just stick to your opinion..if every one changes stance based on others what will happen

Kya bakwas kar raha hai.. you did not even get what I said. Just leave it.

[akshayxyz]

Good for you that you have been here only for a couple of years. Had you been here since inception you would have perhaps gone on a killing spree by now gauging the impact this website seems to have on you...:nice:

Dikh raha hai yahan pe lambey time rehne ka asar... dimag saatvey aasman par aur aqal ghutno mein.

[rageaddict]

they might wonder why they didn't give MOM to Tendulkar who made 193 but to Dravid who only made 148.. we would laugh.

It wasnt that much of an obvious choice anyways , Could have gone either way . Just because Dravid usually creeps his way to get runs and sometimes even made ordinary pitches look like complete minefield which dont mean actually mean that the pitches were that tough to bat at that given point of time .

[akshayxyz]

I think people are confusing "matchwinner" with "sole contributor" in a win. Yes' date= cricket is a team game and every win needs contributions from majority of the players but the match winner is someone who had the most impact on the win. It doesn't mean that the match-winner was the only player to perform and rest were all silent spectators. I guess the best way to determie the same is the MOM awards in the wins coz the MOM would be the player who contributed the most to the win. .

Problem is even one step before. OP put up an ambiguous question and people are just responding as per their understanding and perception. The concept of "match winner" is not objectively defined, hence there is no correct answer... yet... and it has given freedom to excel/stats-guru operators to come up with their magic filters, as always.

[vvvslaxman]

It wasnt that much of an obvious choice anyways ' date=' Could have gone either way . Just because Dravid usually creeps his way to get runs and sometimes even made ordinary pitches look like complete minefield which dont mean actually mean that the pitches were that tough to bat at that given point of time .[/quote'] It was freaking obvious choice.. if you had watched the match. Ball was whooshing around all day on day 1.

[Lurker]

Dikh raha hai yahan pe lambey time rehne ka asar... dimag saatvey aasman par aur aqal ghutno mein.

Lekin tumhari tarah doosron ko blame nahin kiya bandhu. Thora backbone badhao aur apni jimmedari lena sheekho.. My stance is based on response I have received here...lol..as if you deserved any better :finger:

[Ultimate_Game]

Problem is even one step before. OP put up an ambiguous question and people are just responding as per their understanding and perception. The concept of "match winner" is not objectively defined' date=' hence there is no correct answer... yet... and it has given freedom to excel/stats-guru operators to come up with their magic filters, as always.[/quote'] i am with you on that one. There's no metric you can come up with which tells you who has been the best match-winner. It's not like no. of 5 wkt hauls or no. of 100s scored or batting average. It's extremely subjective and depends on people's opinions and perceptions. That's why I said the best way is to go with MOM but again it's not the most objective criteria either.

[akshayxyz]

Lekin tumhari tarah doosron ko blame nahin kiya bandhu. Thora backbone badhao aur apni jimmedari lena sheekho.. My stance is based on response I have received here...lol..as if you deserved any better :finger:

sorry, I overestimated you. dimaag chaudhave aasmaan pe aur aqal... sar se lekar talwon tak tou dikhti nahi, research jaari rahegi...

[akshayxyz]

i am with you on that one. There's no metric you can come up with which tells you who has been the best match-winner. It's not like no. of 5 wkt hauls or no. of 100s scored or batting average. It's extremely subjective and depends on people's opinions and perceptions. That's why I said the best way is to go with MOM but again it's not the most objective criteria either.

Of all the faulty ways and definitions - MoM in won matches - is one of the worst way to evaluate match winning potential of a player. MoM - is like binary, one player gets 1 point, other 21 get 0. Considering just won matches - even worse. For e.g. WC 2011 final, was Jaya's not a potential match winning knock?, what about Gambhir's? But as per the magical filter - Jaya gets 0, and so does Gambhir and everyone else. And yes, if someone wants to put an award for such dumb stat - most MoMs in won matches - go ahead give it to whoever finishes at top of the ladder - and he deserves it.

[vvvslaxman]

i am with you on that one. There's no metric you can come up with which tells you who has been the best match-winner. It's not like no. of 5 wkt hauls or no. of 100s scored or batting average. It's extremely subjective and depends on people's opinions and perceptions. That's why I said the best way is to go with MOM but again it's not the most objective criteria either.

It is the same as MVP we have in other sports. For instance... let us take this match.. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64126.html INdia was precariously placed at 156 with effectively 5 down with Laxman injured and 19 year old KKD walking in. INdi's lead was only 170. Most decisive part of the match was this partnership. I gave up hope After Laxman got injured. Dravid stepped second time in the match and caused a turn around once again. Any total less than 250 India could not have put so much pressure.

[Lurker]

sorry' date=' I overestimated you. [i']dimaag chaudhave aasmaan pe aur aqal... sar se lekar talwon tak tou dikhti nahi, research jaari rahegi...

When it comes to research you are Nobel laureate janaab..kdam lage raho :giggle: Waise accha laga tumhare biraadari waalon ka har waqt ka rona..Duniya made me this way...Do paisa khud ki jimmewari nahin, avtar hai Guy Fox ka :hysterical: