• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank the 10,000 club

Line and Length

International 12th Man
The argument about batsmen helping each other needs to take into account running between the wickets. A good understanding and trust in your partner enables batsmen to concentrate rather than worrying about what the other might do. I always remember a quote from either Bob Simpson or Bill Lawry about their ability to take quick singles. One of them said something along the lines of, "We were always keen to get off strike where it was safer, but we always responded to the other's call."
 

ankitj

International Coach
i smell stats manipulation. dravid has scored runs in australia before.
Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.

BTW, this Dravid better than Tendulkar is such a meme opinion. Indian fans at various times have been disappointed that Tendulkar didn't achieve heights that they expected of him. Some become over defensive about missing jewels in his record (triple hundreds, 500 run series etc.). Some swing in the opposite direction and come up with nonsense like Dravid better than Tendulkar. I like Anil but I can't treat his view here as anything more than an overreaction to his failed expectations from Tendulkar.
 

Bijed

International Debutant
Partnerships are the key to building an innings. Of course having other ATG batsmen in your team helps you do better. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Probably enhances Flower's record tbh.
More generally, if you're a middle-order bat, you'd expect to find things easier on average with a stronger top 3 ahead of you than a weak one. I'm not going to say it happened with Dravid/Tendulkar because I just don't know, but as a general rule it should be true.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

First Class Debutant
Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.

BTW, this Dravid better than Tendulkar is such a meme opinion. Indian fans at various times have been disappointed that Tendulkar didn't achieve heights that they expected of him. Some become over defensive about missing jewels in his record (triple hundreds, 500 run series etc.). Some swing in the opposite direction and come up with nonsense like Dravid better than Tendulkar. I like Anil but I can't treat his view here as anything more than an overreaction to his failed expectations from Tendulkar.
For a casual Indian fan aged below 35, Dravid is better test batsman than everyone except Bradman (and Viv to an extent )

Dravid won recent Wisden Best Indian Test Batsman online poll beating Sachin and Gavaskar.
 

StephenZA

International Coach
An interesting aside regarding Kallis is his record at home in SA. He is the only SA batsman to avg over 50 since post-isolation. To be exact he avg 57. The next closest is ABdV and then Amla at 48.

Also interesting, of the great batsmen under discussion here (and also have played a significant number of tests), the only one to avg over 50 in SA is Steve Waugh.
 

h_hurricane

International Debutant
He literally said 1993-1995, this is you being pedantic, not him. It's very reasonable that he simply applied a three year filter not bothering about what series ended where.
He had a point to prove, and that is Tendulkar > Dravid. I am sure most would agree to that opinion, but then he goes on to explain it a weird way. Like taking out 5 innings out of a 6 innings series and saying he averaged very high during a long period. The NZ average was also only about one test where Sachin scored only 54 runs. So a casual observer who did not follow Indian cricket during 1993-95 would think Sachin was awesome against NZ and SA during this period, after reading his opinion, which is misguided path. Instead, if he had focussed on Tendulkar's better record against a full strength SA or Aus compared to Dravid during their playing days, no one would have argued with him.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

First Class Debutant
He had a point to prove, and that is Tendulkar > Dravid. I am sure most would agree to that opinion, but then he goes on to explain it a weird way. Like taking out 5 innings out of a 6 innings series and saying he averaged very high during a long period. The NZ average was also only about one test where Sachin scored only 54 runs. So a casual observer who did not follow Indian cricket during 1993-95 would think Sachin was awesome against NZ and SA during this period, after reading his opinion, which is misguided path. Instead, if he had focussed on Tendulkar's better record against a full strength SA or Aus compared to Dravid during their playing days, no one would have argued with him.
Nah, My point was whatever stats Sachin recorded before Dravid's arrival suggested an extra ordinary careeer, especially considering his age.
Sachin's superior stats during Dravid's career can not be used here, because his argument was Dravid helped Sachin to attain those stats.

Btw
Sachin > Dravid in tests is equivalent to Sachin > Anwar in Odis. Easy to prove.
 

h_hurricane

International Debutant
Sachin did pretty well in 1991-92 and 1992-93, coming behind a mediocre top order (not going with the exaggerated averages PFK posted here like 73 vs SA). He also scored one of his best hundreds, with every one collapsing around him, in the first test against England in 1996. Then scored a great hundred in Newlands in the company of Azhar, when India was 58 for 5. Had a great tour of 1999-2000 down under when Dravid was poor. When Dravid was in his peak between 2002- 2007, Tendulkar went though a career low and hence did not take advantage of coming behind a great no.3.
It is pretty clear that Tendulkar earned his runs. So too did Dravid by the way.
 

Altaican

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.

BTW, this Dravid better than Tendulkar is such a meme opinion. Indian fans at various times have been disappointed that Tendulkar didn't achieve heights that they expected of him. Some become over defensive about missing jewels in his record (triple hundreds, 500 run series etc.). Some swing in the opposite direction and come up with nonsense like Dravid better than Tendulkar. I like Anil but I can't treat his view here as anything more than an overreaction to his failed expectations from Tendulkar.
To be honest, Tendulkar’s performances against McGrath weren’t particularly spectacular either. They weren’t bad, but certainly not spectacular, especially for someone who is considered by many as the second greatest batsman of all time.

Someone posted about Tendulkar averaging nearly 60 for 18 years or so. The big caveat here is that almost all his stellar performances during the time came against less-than-great attacks. I am NOT saying he was bad against great attacks, he was decent for the most part but he almost never really had a stellar series against them.

In Tendulkar’s defense, it must be said that he rarely played great attacks, so got fewer opportunities. He played McGrath in just 18 innings compared to 45+ innings that Lara played McGrath. Never faced McGrath on a fast bowler friendly pitch. He never faced Wasim and Waqar at their peak during this time. He played a tremendous amount of cricket against less-than-great attacks, and cashed it heavily (can’t blame him). His astonishing performances against Bangladesh were the main reason his average didn’t really dip during his 2002-2007 low.

To me what applies to Sanga, does apply to Tendulkar as well to some extent. He played a lot less cricket against great bowling when compared to Steve Waugh or Lara. Not his fault just like it’s not Sanga’s fault.

Also I am also not sure about just scoring a 100 in a series against a great attack as a proof of success. For example - in the 1980s, India made 5 Test tours to West Indies and Pakistan combined (2 to West Indies and 3 to Pakistan). In 4 of those 5 tours, Ravi Shastri scored a 100. In fact, Shastri is one of only 2 batsmen who scored multiple 100s against the West Indies in the West Indies in the decade of 80s. It’s a phenomenal achievement, given that the knocks came against the most fearsome bowling attacks in cricketing history in their own backyard. But I think it would be ridiculous to use this and claim that Shastri was very successful batsman against great fast bowling. I think it takes a lot more than scoring a 100 to call it a successful series.

That being said, Tendulkar > Dravid is a no brainer. Dravid was pretty much useless at forcing the pace against great bowling. Nevertheless Dravid had a specific role to play in a team with extraordinary stroke playing batsmen, and he did that very very well for the most part.

To me, Dravid’s best series will always be 1996-97 tour of South Africa where he finished the series with a 50+ average against Donald and Pollock at their peak. He never looked like getting out in the entire Test series. I don’t recall properly but I think he was the top scorer for India in both innings in the Durban Test where India got bowled out for 100 and 66. He got a bad decision in the first innings, and scored 27* (of a team total 66 all out) in the second. He was immediately promoted to number 3 in the next Test match. He looked really good in Newlands too although he didn’t make any runs - he got out because of his own stupidity.
 

ankitj

International Coach

Dravid did better than Tendulkar in that series, yes. That was the only time he scored a hundred in South Africa though. Tendulkar returned to score one of his best hundreds in 2001 (or so) in Sehwag's debut test and also scored 2 great knocks against red hot Steyn in 10-11. And one additional hundred back in 1992. So total of 5 hundreds I can recall (may have been one or two others) in SA and each time the attack contained at least one of Donald, Pollock and Steyn.

Reason why Dravid's effort seem to stand out more in people's mind is probably because Dravid made batting look hard.
 

ankitj

International Coach
Someone posted about Tendulkar averaging nearly 60 for 18 years or so. The big caveat here is that almost all his stellar performances during the time came against less-than-great attacks.
Between his 20th and 38th birthday, the lowest Tendulkar averaged anywhere was 45 in Pakistan and averaged 50+ in each of SENA countries. And this includes his big slump which came in easiest batting conditions (which is when he played all his games in Pakistan outside of teenage).

Tendulkar (20th to 38th birthday)
MatInnsNORunsHSAveSR100500
in Australia112131154241*64.1159.73453
in Bangladesh793820248*136.6663.36500
in England10170105719362.1753.98350
in India7412414617221756.1053.4921244
in New Zealand814172516055.7663.31240
in Pakistan671268194*44.6656.18100
in South Africa1122395916950.4752.60421
in Sri Lanka12192115520367.9455.79540
in West Indies1014162011747.6947.22153
in Zimbabwe3612407448.0054.54020

I don't know about performances against "great attacks" though but will be curious to know. He never had a series like Lara had a couple of times against full strength Australia though -- that's a well known and well acknowledged fact.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dravid did better than Tendulkar in that series, yes. That was the only time he scored a hundred in South Africa though. Tendulkar returned to score one of his best hundreds in 2001 (or so) in Sehwag's debut test and also scored 2 great knocks against red hot Steyn in 10-11. And one additional hundred back in 1992. So total of 5 hundreds I can recall (may have been one or two others) in SA and each time the attack contained at least one of Donald, Pollock and Steyn.

Reason why Dravid's effort seem to stand out more in people's mind is probably because Dravid made batting look hard.
Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.
While there's no doubt dravid was nowhere hear as good as Sachin against those two teams, what you need to keep in mind here is that dravid was repeatedly asked to bat out of position and open the batting against them on some of these tours. In 07/08 especially, he was already in dreadful form before going to Australia but was still made to open because we didn't have sehwag. Again, Tendulkar quite obviously batted better against them simply from the eye test but when one batsman is given a worse chance at success by his own team, it makes a comparison like this inherently unfair.
 
Last edited:

pardus

School Boy/Girl Captain
Between his 20th and 38th birthday, the lowest Tendulkar averaged anywhere was 46 in Pakistan and averaged 50+ in each of SENA countries. And this includes his big slump which came in easiest batting conditions (which is when he played all his games in Pakistan outside of teenage).

Tendulkar (20th to 38th birthday)
MatInnsNORunsHSAveSR100500
in Australia112131154241*64.1159.73453
in Bangladesh793820248*136.6663.36500
in England10170105719362.1753.98350
in India7412414617221756.1053.4921244
in New Zealand814172516055.7663.31240
in Pakistan671268194*44.6656.18100
in South Africa1122395916950.4752.60421
in Sri Lanka12192115520367.9455.79540
in West Indies1014162011747.6947.22153
in Zimbabwe3612407448.0054.54020

I don't know about performances against "great attacks" though but will be curious to know. He never had a series like Lara had a couple of times against full strength Australia though -- that's a well known and well acknowledged fact.
Wow! So impressive! And yet how come he averages in 30s or lower against McGrath/Donald/Akram or even Shane Bond led attacks?
In all the Test series he played against above bowlers, only once did he average above 50 (that too just barely when he averaged 50.66 against McGrath in 2001).
Now before Tendulkar's fans gang up and lynch me, I ain't saying he was bad in most of the series against these bowlers, but he was never truly spectacular (like how he was against Kasper & Daniel Fleming in 1998).
I guess that is the difference between stellar performance against a good attack and stellar performance against a "great attack".

Coming to your "SENA", Sanga averages 60+ in "NA" of your "SENA" but you used the same stats to put Sanga below Tendulkar. And the New Zealand attack (combined with New Zealand conditions) that Sanga performed stellarly against in 2006 was vastly superior to any New Zealand attack that Tendulkar performed well against.
 
Last edited:

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
Bond played 18 tests in all though. He faced Akram as a 16 year old which would bring his stats down. And against the other 2 he had his moments and they had their moments as you would expect.
 

anil1405

International Regular
That sounds more like an emotional sachin fanatic saying, how dare you question Sachin when he has achieved almost everything that any player can in cricket, and I obviously don't see you as that emotional fanatic. I come across people (outside this forum) telling me that I must be a Sachin hater and that I have an agenda against him.

I mentioned it in my earlier post that I rate Dravid a tiny fraction above Sachin (as a test batsman alone) for his ability to dig deep and do the dirty job for the team so that rest of the team benefits.

Edit: This post was in response to Ankit telling me that Sachin did not meet my expectations and disappointed me.
 

anil1405

International Regular
Look it's so easy to like Sachin for his sheer talent, for his adaptability and ability to dominate attacks and for his stroke play. And I like him too. No other Indian player comes close.

People like Dravid come out to be pretty boring. His natural ability is not to dominate bowlers but to wear them down and he did that just as good as Sachin used to dominate attacks. All this while scoring 13k runs and facing most number of deliveries in test cricket. While this might not be attractive for many, I consider this to be pretty impactful for the team and the main reason behind India's improved overseas record. Off course there were other people who contributed but Dravid's hand is pretty evident in most of those good performances overseas.

Couple of Dravid's best performances were in a game where he didn't even score a century. Those twin knocks of 81 and 68 in Sabina park were top draw and helped India secure their first ever test series win in WI since 1971. People don't talk about those knocks because it didn't have crisp stroke play that caught the eye. People look at averages of subcontinent players in Australia and England and New Zealand but how many turn to West Indies and think oh look Dravid averages 65 in WI and performed well on one or two pitches which made even Jerome Taylor and Collymore look like Ambrose and Walsh?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wow! So impressive! And yet how come he averages in 30s or lower against McGrath/Donald/Akram or even Shane Bond led attacks?
In all the Test series he played against above bowlers, only once did he average above 50 (that too just barely when he averaged 50.66 against McGrath in 2001).
Now before Tendulkar's fans gang up and lynch me, I ain't saying he was bad in most of the series against these bowlers, but he was never truly spectacular (like how he was against Kasper & Daniel Fleming in 1998).
I guess that is the difference between stellar performance against a good attack and stellar performance against a "great attack".
I suppose if we're counting bond, we should count series against Pollock, Steyn, Walsh, Ambrose (not counting spinners so no murali or Warne)

He averaged 67 vs Walsh in the 94 home series, 58 vs Walsh /ambrose in 97, 64 vs Pollock in 01, and 71 and 81 against Steyn in 2010 in back to back series. I'm not a fan of series average as a particularly accurate metric but these should meet the qualifications you set. Some of these were relatively unremarkable performances but a handful could definitely be described as spectacular imo.

The last two series against Steyn especially was against some of the highest standard of pace bowling I've seen.
 

pardus

School Boy/Girl Captain
Bond played 18 tests in all though.
Bond led New Zealand attack (along with New Zealand conditions) that India played in 2004 was just too tough.
India had Sehwag, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and yet their highest score in 4 innings was 161
It was a great opportunity for Tendulkar to do what Sanga did in 2006 against a similar attack in similar conditions.

He faced Akram as a 16 year old which would bring his stats down.
You can ignore the 1989 series since Tendulkar was 16, it won't change a thing.
He still averages in 30s against Akram.

And against the other 2 he had his moments and they had their moments as you would expect.
Not really. His moments, though decent, weren't spectacular enough. Not one series against these great bowlers
befitting someone second to Bradman. That's the whole point.
 
Last edited:

Top