Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly - 1998

[saneindian]

from 1999-2008 Sachin 93 tests, 7676 runs@54 with 24 100s Dravid 107 tests, 8676 runs@53 with 24 100s (No 3 in the runs tally) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+1999;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Across all formats Dravid 17552 runs@47 with 35 100s (no 2 in the runs tally) Sachin 16380 runs @49 with 45 100s http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+1999;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting But Sachin dominated, Dravid didn't.

[Crookbond]

Here is that thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=285117&highlight=Dravid&page=2

I now remember this thread! Number of likes on Facebook page is a parameter in deciding the "greatness" of a player. No doubt he keeps on saying "look beyond statistics". :two_thumbs_up:

[maniac]

:nono:Obsession would qualify if I made threads about how Dravid is overrated.. I don't do that.. I just give my take where it's relevant. Sorry if that hurt feelings. :nervous:

Dude what the f are you trying to prove here.......The article implied that these 3 would lead India into the future and every one knows India's stature as a team definetely changed or evolved between 98-2008,so don't know what you are on about. You have been spending too much time on the green ghetto because can tell by your argument style...Hopefully we will cure you back to normalcy now that you are here :facepalm:

[Crookbond]

Dude what the f are you trying to prove here.......The article implied that these 3 would lead India into the future and every one knows India's stature as a team definetely changed or evolved between 98-2008' date=so don't know what you are on about. You have been spending too much time on the green ghetto because can tell by your argument style...Hopefully we will cure you back to normalcy now that you are here :facepalm:

:good: Now that's a very cool interpretation. The testimony to that fact is that all of them captained India in the next decade.

[saket123]

No doubt he keeps on saying "look beyond statistics". :two_thumbs_up:

To prove how confused you are..

Please enlighten us rankings of Sunil Gavaskar. Will you agree that statistic was irrelevant in the whole discussion? Now, for once post your parameters of LEGEND-ness and then we shall have a nice discussion. :two_thumbs_up:

To which I replied..

statistics are irrelevant in a discussion about World Domination?? :WTF:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[maniac]

:good: Now that's a very cool interpretation. The testimony to that fact is that all of them captained India in the next decade.

I am not difficult is it?cricket is obviously not an individual sport,so when they say a group of cricketers are going to dominate world cricket I would assume they are talking about the team.. PS : Don't recollect reading the article so I am just interpreting unless I am missing something here

[saket123]

Dude what the f are you trying to prove here.......The article implied that these 3 would lead India into the future and every one knows India's stature as a team definetely changed or evolved between 98-2008,so don't know what you are on about. You have been spending too much time on the green ghetto because can tell by your argument style...Hopefully we will cure you back to normalcy now that you are here :facepalm:

As I said every early on this thread.. the 3 have definitely been good for India.. which implies, I agree they led India along the right track.. My point is about "World Domination for 10 years".. Now if that is an argument that you find too inconsequential and not worth anyone's time.. so be it.. no worries... But I've only been talking about how so not true that is.

BS prediction. G Great for India? Yes.. But I wouldn't call that as "World Domination" by a far shot.

[Crookbond]

You still want to make an a...ss out of yourself. TIL that if I tell one particular statistic is irrelevant to the discussion it means that statistics (in general) are irrelevant to the discussion. And you have me testing my reading comprehension skills! :hysterical: :hysterical:

[saket123]

TIL that if I tell one particular statistic is irrelevant to the discussion it means that statistics (in general) are irrelevant to the discussion. And you have me testing my reading comprehension skills! :hysterical: hysterical:

Wow... Only you can understand what you wrote there!.. :hysterical::hysterical:

[maniac]

As I said every early on this thread.. the 3 have definitely been good for India.. which implies, I agree they led India along the right track.. My point is about "World Domination for 10 years".. Now if that is an argument that you find too inconsequential and not worth anyone's time.. so be it.. no worries... But I've only been talking about how so not true that is.

So You don't agree that collectively and again the term here is collectively,India was not the strongest batting side in this period? again I am not saying for the complete duration but atleast for a period of time

[Crookbond]

Nothing new there! :punter:

[saket123]

So You don't agree that collectively and again the term here is collectively' date='India was not the strongest batting side in this period? again I am not saying for the complete duration but atleast for a period of time[/quote'] Saying 3 individuals will dominate world cricket for years to come is not the same as saying the team will have a better batting side than what they had in the earlier decade. Sure they were good in sporadic durations here and there. India certainly stepped up their game in the 2000s.. and these 3 have been instrumental... Dravid and SRT more so than Ganguly when it comes to individual records.. .. Ganguly's captaincy took us to new heights.. but again.. that is not world domination.. But only 1 or 2 people dominated world cricket in that era... Ponting and maybe SRT (SRT is a distant 2nd at it only because of his individual records+influence).

[SLICKR392]

Wow.. I feel flattered.. I have my own personal Paparazzi. :giggle::giggle: p.s. Saying someone is over-estimated.. is not exactly Bashing... What are you? a girl?

And what are you, 8? You go beyond than just stating he is overrated, which I think in the real world can also be called 'bashing' a certain individual. Come up with 'the' most obnoxious stats which makes no bloody sense. You are yet to post a solid statement on why he is overrated. Those stats make no sense whatsoever and most of those aren't true.

[saket123]

And what are you, 8? You go beyond than just stating he is overrated, which I think in the real world can also be called 'bashing' a certain individual. Come up with 'the' most obnoxious stats which makes no bloody sense. You are yet to post a solid statement on why he is overrated. Those stats make no sense whatsoever and most of those aren't true.

OK.

[Muloghonto]

1 ODI Hundred :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: enough said. Gavaskar has pretty good records when it comes to tests.. granted the dwarf was very good at facing fast bowlers of his era.. but he also had most amount of ducks amongst his peers.. Average was also only DECENT in both tests and ODI... Again.. these were good players.. but you guys are smoking weed if you think they are legends.

Gavaskar's Test average was only 'decent' ? He is the *ONLY* test opener in 40 years to average 50+. Ever since Hutton retired ( mid 1950s) to Matty Hayden-Virender-Sehwag-Graeme Smith trio hit their highs in 2002 onwards period, Gavaskar remained the only test opener to average 50+. As it stands right now ( if Sehwag never got a chance and Graeme doesnt get a late career resurgence), Gavaskar is one of two openers in 50+ years of cricket to average 50+ in tests. Thats pretty f-kin incredible if you ask me. Oh and he averaged 50+ in an era when only 4 batsmen in the ENTIRE WORLD averaged 50+ : Viv, Miandad, Greg Chappell and Gavaskar himself. So how on earth is his average 'decent' ? Its a mindboggling average if you ask me.

[Muloghonto]

there is no me versus anybody.. Honestly, I couldn't care less. You idolize Chuteshwar Pujara.. others Idolize Dravid/Ganguly... Knock yourselves out.. In India it is an extremely short trip to climb up to the top of the pedastal. I just highlighted the FACT that Dravid and Ganguly didn't really dominate the world. Their performance against their peers indisputably proves that. End of story.

Dravid is quite easily one of the top 5 batsmen in Tests from 98 to 2008 period (a decade,as the OP insinuates) and quite easily in the top 10 ODI bats of the period. Ganguly is quite easily one of the top 5 ODI bats from 98-2008 period, though not a top 10 test bat. Tendu is #1 in both categories during this period. So when you have a trio of batsmen- the #1 and a top 5 in tests and the #1, top 5 and top 10 in ODIs, it definitely qualifies as 'dominating' trio. The only other 'trio' of batsmen who come close to challenging the Dravid-Ganguly-Tendulkar nexus in this period are Hayden-Ponting-Gillchrist trio and even then, I rate these three below the Indian 3. As for Gangu being worse than Inzy- true in Tests but in ODIs Gangu is miles better than Inzy.

[saket123]

Gavaskar's Test average was only 'decent' ? He is the *ONLY* test opener in 40 years to average 50+. Ever since Hutton retired ( mid 1950s) to Matty Hayden-Virender-Sehwag-Graeme Smith trio hit their highs in 2002 onwards period, Gavaskar remained the only test opener to average 50+. As it stands right now ( if Sehwag never got a chance and Graeme doesnt get a late career resurgence), Gavaskar is one of two openers in 50+ years of cricket to average 50+ in tests. Thats pretty f-kin incredible if you ask me. Oh and he averaged 50+ in an era when only 4 batsmen in the ENTIRE WORLD averaged 50+ : Viv, Miandad, Greg Chappell and Gavaskar himself. So how on earth is his average 'decent' ? Its a mindboggling average if you ask me.

I guess my benchmark to call someone dominating or All time Great is just different. Gavaskar was also the first one to get 10,000 runs.. I know all that..He was good for his time.. but when the game changed with times.. he couldn't adapt to LOI that well... 1 frigging century from an alleged Master Batsman!...I remember watching him with bated breath in ODI and the guy couldn't frigging get bat to ball most of the time... Couldn't do a good job as Captain.. .. Very low Strike Rate.... I just don't see a run stacker in 1 format of the game as an all time legend when his other stats are flailing. .. This is why I argued AGAINST considering Bradman as an all time best cricketer ever. There are no LASTING legends in an ever changing game..(Bradman does not fit this criteria when it comes to test.. he is still unparalleled there).. Maybe they were legends in their times..and Gavaskar's test records are still exemplary... but I don't consider him as an all time great.

[saket123]

Dravid is quite easily one of the top 5 batsmen in Tests from 98 to 2008 period (a decade,as the OP insinuates) and quite easily in the top 10 ODI bats of the period. Ganguly is quite easily one of the top 5 ODI bats from 98-2008 period, though not a top 10 test bat. Tendu is #1 in both categories during this period. So when you have a trio of batsmen- the #1 and a top 5 in tests and the #1, top 5 and top 10 in ODIs, it definitely qualifies as 'dominating' trio. The only other 'trio' of batsmen who come close to challenging the Dravid-Ganguly-Tendulkar nexus in this period are Hayden-Ponting-Gillchrist trio and even then, I rate these three below the Indian 3. As for Gangu being worse than Inzy- true in Tests but in ODIs Gangu is miles better than Inzy.

Dravid ranked #2 3 years in the decade in question. In 3 other years.. his ranking has been 14, 19 & 19. If you average out his ranking for the decade in question.. it comes out to 9.. I don't see how you can consider him as top 5 for the decade... In ODIs Dravid only ONCE got into single digit rankings.. and pretty much other times in the decade he was ranked in 20s and 30s. Ganguly did well in ODIs for 3 or 4 years where his ranking was single digit and as low as 2.. But the rest of the time his rank was >30 and before he retired it was 60. I think a lot of you people go by PERCEPTION of good (these 3 have been superstars in India).. rather than what they actually did. Just my humble opinion.

[Muloghonto]

I guess my benchmark to call someone dominating or All time Great is just different. Gavaskar was also the first one to get 10' date=000 runs.. I know all that..He was good for his time.. but when the game changed with times.. he couldn't adapt to LOI that well... 1 frigging century from an alleged Master Batsman!...I remember watching him with bated breath in ODI and the guy couldn't frigging get bat to ball most of the time... Couldn't do a good job as Captain.. .. Very low Strike Rate.... I just don't see a run stacker in 1 format of the game as an all time legend when his other stats are flailing. .. This is why I argued AGAINST considering Bradman as an all time best cricketer ever. There are no LASTING legends in an ever changing game..(Bradman does not fit this criteria when it comes to test.. he is still unparalleled there).. Maybe they were legends in their times..and Gavaskar's test records are still exemplary... but I don't consider him as an all time great.

Well your idea of an alltime great is laughable if it doesnt include the best opener the world has seen in the last 50+ years, if not ever. Those who think that 'greatness' depends on performance across different formats fail to factor in the simple idea that performance across all formats are relevant only to a generation growing up with that format available. Gavaskar played a grand total of ZERO limited overs matches before he was an adult. Tendulkar played a grand total of ZERO 20/20s before he was 30. To ask worldclass competence from players who didnt grow up playing the said format is nothing more than assinine illogic of the highest order.

[saket123]

Here are a few lists... See where Dravid figures (since he is the point of controversy here more than others). In most of the lists Dravid doesn't even figure http://list25.com/25-best-cricketers-of-all-time/2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden_100 And FORGET GAVASKAR.. HE IS NO WHERE AROUND ANYWHERE!