Rahul Dravid or Javed Miandad?

[Bilal7]

1 - SRT
2 - Sunil
3 - Rahul
4 - Virat
5 - Sanga
6 - VVS
7 - Moyo
8 - Anwar
9 - JM
10 - Zaheer/Inzi

Virat at #4 and VVS at #6? Are you just trolling or Indian?

For me, the top five would be:

1) Sachin
2) Gavasker
3) Miandad
4) Dravid
5) Sanga

After these things are unclear but Younis, VVS, Inzi, Azhar, Yousuf, Sehwag, Jaya, Hanif, Zaheer all have arguments going for them.

 

[Bilal7]

Miandad and his Pakistan at that time didnt get many chances of playing against Zimbabwe and not at all against Bangladesh.These 2 teams are very cordial to enrich a player's stats you know

He didn't care about doing well against the minnows. Viv didn't do that well against the weaker teams of his era either.

 

[Buffet]

1 - SRT
2 - Sunil
3 - Rahul
4 - Virat
5 - Sanga
6 - VVS
7 - Moyo
8 - Anwar
9 - JM
10 - Zaheer/Inzi

Virat is pretty new and still playing. Better to not put him here for now. If sticking to retired players, I will put JM higher than several other people in your list. I havn't seen the best of JM though. If you have followed JM's career then I will like to hear why you rate him even lower than MoYo and Anwar.

 

[lilFlip]

Rahul Dravid is an ATG by all means

But is in another league

 

[Bouncer]

Virat is pretty new and still playing. Better to not put him here for now. If sticking to retired players, I will put JM higher than several other people in your list. I havn't seen the best of JM though. If you have followed JM's career then I will like to hear why you rate him even lower than MoYo and Anwar.

Virat is no doubt young but man I thought the kid is destined to be ATG from the the first day I saw the kid.

Yes I have seen JM's era & I do believe that Moyo and Anwar were better overall performers than JM. They had tighter techniques, better playing skills in both offense and defense, better overall game that suited conditions all over and didnt enjoy some of extra protection of home umpiring that helped JM immensely in home conditions specially with his greatest achievement of never letting the avr dip below 50.

 

[Bouncer]

I am not indian - I just follow cricket without a green tinited glasses. never have a likely never will. I follow Pak because I love cricket and not the other way around

Virat at #4 and VVS at #6? Are you just trolling or Indian?

For me, the top five would be:

1) Sachin
2) Gavasker
3) Miandad
4) Dravid
5) Sanga

After these things are unclear but Younis, VVS, Inzi, Azhar, Yousuf, Sehwag, Jaya, Hanif, Zaheer all have arguments going for them.

 

[Bilal7]

I am not indian - I just follow cricket without a green tinited glasses. never have a likely never will. I follow Pak because I love cricket and not the other way around

You don't have to be a patriotic Pakistani to realize that a guy who has played a handful of tests and has an average in the mid-fourties cannot be rated in the top 50 bats from the subcon, let alone top five. Or that VVS was by no means better than the guys you put below him.

 

[Adil_94]

Javed when you combine both formats is better. In Tests i'd say Dravid by a whisker but in ODIS Javed is a clear winner so overall i'd take Javed

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Buffet]

Virat is no doubt young but man I thought the kid is destined to be ATG from the the first day I saw the kid.

Yes I have seen JM's era & I do believe that Moyo and Anwar were better overall performers than JM. They had tighter techniques, better playing skills in both offense and defense, better overall game that suited conditions all over and didnt enjoy some of extra protection of home umpiring that helped JM immensely in home conditions specially with his greatest achievement of never letting the avr dip below 50.

Thanks for your input. It's quite likely that once Virat is done, he may be rated along side many ATGs. But he has a long way to go. I usually try to refrain from making any comparison comments for currently playing players with retired players but I agree with your general view. Based on what I have seen in Virat, he looks the class and has attacking/defensive game for all surfaces.

Yah, over the top home umpiring issue is well known but let's not go there. It's a touchy issue here. I have seen Sanga ,VVS, Anwar, MoYo, Inzzy etc. Sanga is the best of the lot. Not a huge difference to argue much about the order of others. I had an impression about JM being a better batsman than these guys but I haven't seen his entire career.

I personally also rate Sehwag pretty high from SC despite his failure in the last 2 years of his career. He had an obvious flaw in his game for sure though.

 

[Buffet]

You don't have to be a patriotic Pakistani to realize that a guy who has played a handful of tests and has an average in the mid-fourties cannot be rated in the top 50 bats from the subcon, let alone top five. Or that VVS was by no means better than the guys you put below him.

Only reason to make that statement is ..... [ Just pulling your leg here ]

SC hasn't produced too many good batsmen to have Kohli not in the top 50 even if he retires today. I will love to hear 50 names from SC

Kohli has played 24 tests. Doesn't look like handful to me. 20+ tests is normally accepted as a minimum benchmark to rate anyone. Now just for reference, here is the full list from Ind, Pakistan and SL , who scored 1500+ runs at 40+ avg in the test format. You get only 35 names and many of them are comfortably inferior batsman than Virat even at this stage.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

I didn't even look at the away performance here. Simply over all performance. 50 names are simply impossible to find.

 

[Bilal7]

You are simply proving his point here. SC hasn't produced too many good batsmen to have Kohli not in the top 50 even if he retires today. I will love to hear 50 names from SC

Kohli has played 24 tests. Doesn't look like handful to me. 20+ tests is normally accepted as a minimum benchmark to rate anyone. Now just for reference, here is the full list from Ind, Pakistan and SL , who scored 1500+ runs at 40+ avg in the test format. You get only 35 names and many of them are comfortably inferior batsman than Virat even at this stage.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

I didn't even look at the away performance here. Simply over all performance. 50 names are simply impossible to find.

Chill man, I was just exaggerating.

 

[Monsee]

Miandad in tests and ODIs for me.

First sensible post in the thread...Miandad in an era of giant killer bowlers has a very comparable record to Dravid and in some areas even better as well!

Those who have not seen Miandad play and are only going on stats have no idea what a dynamic player he was when he was on song...Dravid was just a block, block, block machine who tired the opposition in to dust in making his runs; while Miandad took the opposition on (in most cases) and still scored lots of runs while maintaining a 50+ record from day one till the day he retired

 

[Buffet]

Chill man, I was just exaggerating.

I was just having fun. I caught the exaggeration first time.

 

[Bilal7]

First sensible post in the thread...Miandad in an era of giant killer bowlers has a very comparable record to Dravid and in some areas even better as well!

Those who have not seen Miandad play and are only going on stats have no idea what a dynamic player he was when he was on song...Dravid was just a block, block, block machine who tired the opposition in to dust in making his runs; while Miandad took the opposition on (in most cases) and still scored lots of runs while maintaining a 50+ record from day one till the day he retired

This is the second. Miandad is clearly the better batsman, its not like he missed out on that 50+ away average by a huge margin or something. Around 4 points isn't a big difference at all when you consider the pitches and the bowlers in that era. There is a reason there were so few batsmen averaging 50+ in that era.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Miandad has an extraordinary record which no player ever had.He didnt allow his test average to fall from 50 for a single time in his carrier.That shows his super class. He is superior to Dravid in tests.

In his era, Miandad averaging 41+ with a formidable strike rate is just amazing.He didn't get field restrictions throughout the carrier like Dravid, Powerplay not at all.Dravid got the 2000's era, the era of killing the ODI bowlers by rules.Add with that super fast outfield and regular posting of 280-320+ scores which were not dependable total in Dravid's era!Only one thing goes in favor of Dravid.Fielding quality was better in hios time.Yet Dravid couldnt take his SR above 71! So considering all these, Minadad is also a superior ODI batsman to Dravid.

And lastly,Miandad is one of my very lost listed favorites.So...

nice to read, some ground realities which phd of stats usually dont bring in their notice

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Virat is no doubt young but man I thought the kid is destined to be ATG from the the first day I saw the kid.

Yes I have seen JM's era & I do believe that Moyo and Anwar were better overall performers than JM. They had tighter techniques, better playing skills in both offense and defense, better overall game that suited conditions all over and didnt enjoy some of extra protection of home umpiring that helped JM immensely in home conditions specially with his greatest achievement of never letting the avr dip below 50.

can u plz tell me the name of bowlers of virat era which can be compared to the bowlers of 80s & 90s

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Yes. I've heard stories about how he helped his partner from the runners end by pointing the bat in the direction where the bowler is holding the shiny side, thus allowing the batsman (who did not have a clue on the swing) to be prepared. Bowler in this case was Walsh and I'm not sure of the other batsman. But this exemplifies Miandad's street smartness. Great character!

apart of batting skills both these were different type of characters. Dravid was the true gentleman & and the most decent, graceful, elegant, refined and sophisticated cricketer produced by India while Miandad had one of the best cricketing brain. He was the dream V.C for any one. For young captain he could have been the best counselor. He was the best adviser to his captain.
I read somewhere that he & imran was the power house of cricketing strategy & ability.

 

[zulfiqar]

Best subcontinent test batsman list for me:

1) Gavaskar
2) Dravid
3) Miandad

Sadly though, I never saw Gavaskar and Miandad play. I wish I saw the cricket in the 80s...

 

[samplepiece]

Best subcontinent test batsman list for me:

1) Gavaskar
2) Dravid
3) Miandad

Sadly though, I never saw Gavaskar and Miandad play. I wish I saw the cricket in the 80s...

You never saw 2 of the 3 you rate the best from subcon?

 

[Mainul]

He didn't care about doing well against the minnows. Viv didn't do that well against the weaker teams of his era either.

My point was Miandad didnt get as many chances as Dravid to play against minnows. Yes, sometimes adverse situation and tougher opposition gets the best out of great players.Miandad is also one of them.I cant forget those innings in WC 1992 semifinal and final.Without his sheet anchor role in crisis,it would not have been possible for Pakistan to win the trophy

 

[Buffet]

My point was Miandad didnt get as many chances as Dravid to play against minnows.

I already showed , that point was not correct. He played as much as Dravid. You could have many other reasons for rating Dravid lower but this can't be the one.

 

[zulfiqar]

You never saw 2 of the 3 you rate the best from subcon?

Yup. And the problem is? Acknowledging that there was cricket played before I was born? My opinions are greatly formed by hearing interviews of past players, listening to people talk about the kind of players they were (not just statisticians looking at a sheet of paper) and also a small bias of how well each batsman performed against my own team (Pakistan), particularly when it comes to Indian batsmen. Cuz surely Ind-Pak games were the highlights of these players' careers, much in the same way the Ashes are for England and Australia.

Also for example, Dravid is my favorite test cricketer from India. But for me to say he was the best out of the subcontinent is simply an incomplete opinion if players from before his era are not considered. So I can only try my best to judge the kind of players they were from scorecards, interviews, clips and other cricketers' opinions of them.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Dravid convincingly better in tests. at the end of 189 INNS , the same as Javed played, look at their records.they differ by much in records in best team's home(AUS & WI respectively), Dravid has way better records in almost all nations, Dravid has way better away record etc etc. then longevity played its part as in lot of great players's cases.

In one dayers Miandad is convincingly better, though i feel Dravid was good too.but gap not that much as they differed in tests.

over all Dravid better .

 

[samplepiece]

Yup. And the problem is? Acknowledging that there was cricket played before I was born? My opinions are greatly formed by hearing interviews of past players, listening to people talk about the kind of players they were (not just statisticians looking at a sheet of paper) and also a small bias of how well each batsman performed against my own team (Pakistan), particularly when it comes to Indian batsmen. Cuz surely Ind-Pak games were the highlights of these players' careers, much in the same way the Ashes are for England and Australia.

Also for example, Dravid is my favorite test cricketer from India. But for me to say he was the best out of the subcontinent is simply an incomplete opinion if players from before his era are not considered. So I can only try my best to judge the kind of players they were from scorecards, interviews, clips and other cricketers' opinions of them.

Fair enough.

 

[hur rizvi]

Dravid convincingly better in tests. at the end of 189 INNS , the same as Javed played, look at their records.they differ by much in records in best team's home(AUS & WI respectively), Dravid has way better records in almost all nations, Dravid has way better away record etc etc. then longevity played its part as in lot of great players's cases.

In one dayers Miandad is convincingly better, though i feel Dravid was good too.but gap not that much as they differed in tests.

over all Dravid better .

But Miandad Avges. 52.57 in tests and Dravid Averages 52.31 in tests and Miandad has a superior strike rate so i guess 52.57/52.31*100 is greater than 100% (Going by your Logic in Kapil-Imran thread) , and Miandad batted with Inferior btsmen (Surely batting with Inferior batsmen must have dented his average otherwise 60 avg was with in his reach ), and that all makes Miandad better than Dravid easily

 

[Mamoon]

This isn't about Miandad vs Dravid, just a general point.

What is the logical reasoning behind downgrading modern day batsmen compared to the ones in the 70's and 80's, based on the argument that bowling and pitches are friendlier now and rules relaxed in favour of the batsman?

What proof and evidence is there to suggest that the high quality modern day batsmen would have struggled in that era? or are you simply degrading them based on your whims and assumptions? Or is it the nostalgia cancer?

 

[Bilal7]

This isn't about Miandad vs Dravid, just a general point.

What is the logical reasoning behind downgrading modern day batsmen compared to the ones in the 70's and 80's, based on the argument that bowling and pitches are friendlier now and rules relaxed in favour of the batsman?

What proof and evidence is there to suggest that the high quality modern day batsmen would have struggled in that era? or are you simply degrading them based on your whims and assumptions? Or is it the nostalgia cancer?

Its pretty obvious thinking, really. When the bowlers are better and the pitches are less batting-friendly, batsmen are going to have a much harder time doing well. This is also supported by the fact that 50+ average batsmen have become increasingly common as time goes by to the point where now you even find such batsmen in ODIs. Average scores are also rising.

 

[Mamoon]

Its pretty obvious thinking, really. When the bowlers are better and the pitches are less batting-friendly, batsmen are going to have a much harder time doing well. This is also supported by the fact that 50+ average batsmen have become increasingly common as time goes by to the point where now you even find such batsmen in ODIs. Average scores are also rising.

Its nothing more than an assumption. There is no way to prove that the top tier batsmen of today would have struggled in the 80's and 70's, which is why comparing greats across eras is illogical and futile.

 

[Bilal7]

Its nothing more than an assumption. There is no way to prove that the top tier batsmen of today would have struggled in the 80's and 70's, which is why comparing greats across eras is illogical and futile.

It is an educated guess, based upon a lot of evidence and far more likely to hold true than the theory that batsmen of today would be averaging 50+ against the Windies on their killer-pitches.

 

[Mamoon]

No point in degraded players based on educated guesses. Good players are good.

A failure in that era won't turn into a great today and a great today won't turn into a failure in that era.

 

[Bilal7]

No point in degraded players based on educated guesses. Good players are good.

A failure in that era won't turn into a great today and a great today won't turn into a failure in that era.

Agreed. No is degrading anyone though, Miandad being the better player doesn't lower Dravid's status as an ATG.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

But Miandad Avges. 52.57 in tests and Dravid Averages 52.31 in tests and Miandad has a superior strike rate so i guess 52.57/52.31*100 is greater than 100% (Going by your Logic in Kapil-Imran thread) , and Miandad batted with Inferior btsmen (Surely batting with Inferior batsmen must have dented his average otherwise 60 avg was with in his reach ), and that all makes Miandad better than Dravid easily

some points to remember here

1. Kapil-Imran belonged to same era. Miandad & Dravid from successive eras.
2. Kapil led Imran in str: rate by 33.5(huge). In J-D case it is about 3.5 only in favour of Miandad.
3.at the end of 189 inns Dravid avg:ed almost 57.what i mean is w.r.t longevity Kapil scored much more than Imran where as in J-D case it was Dravid who led.
4.yes batting with inferior batsmen can have its effect.but i don't think there was that large a difference between batting strengths of Pakistan team in Javed's period & Indian team of Dravid's period.if you go thru the career stats of Pak batsmen who played along with Javed, you can see that most of them were in the 35-44 range.those times these avg:s were convincingly better than the same no:s in Dravid's time because in those days one days didn't evolve much.scoring was slightly more difficult in tests.
and this is why i said Javed was convincingly better than Dravid in one dayers , despite Dravid
scoring much more runs, having better runs/inns value & better str: rate than Javed, you should know.
also team wise(batting + bowling) Javed's team was better when compared to Dravid's case.

you have to take all the above said into account related to my conclusion.

 

[tempus123]

Dravid was mostly a Pre-programmed player who knew only one (stable and very solid) approach towards his batting. He also had a super strong control over his nerves supported by a very cool head.

Miandad on the other hand was a master of playing mind games. His brain was always thinking of ways to penetrate, he was very active and lively on the field. He was someone who on one hand would take decisions on the fly and on the other hand he could accurately predict the kind of delivery the bowler was gonna bowl next.
Both were ATGs and mega defenders of their country and full of patriotism.

I am a Pakistan supporter but I have no shame in admittng that Dravid in some aspects of the game leaves Miandad behind. This includes involvement in any sort of team politics, greed for captaincy, an absolute controversy free career and a role in national sports after retiring.

To me, absolutely no disrespect to Javed as a player and as a son of Pakistan, but perhaps Dravid edges out in gentlemanship.

I would take a player who helps his team win rather than one who is a "gentleman".

 

[tempus123]

I would say Miandad was helped a lot by the home umpires.

 

[tempus123]

Considering either of them an ATG is not possible unless you lower the ATG threshold.

 

[Monsee]

I would say Miandad was helped a lot by the home umpires.

Yes, you saw him being helped but not Gavaskar and Teendu and tons others from the past, right?

No one says a thing about Greg Chappell and Boycott and Richards and the help they got from their own umpires!

 

[Monsee]

Virat is no doubt young but man I thought the kid is destined to be ATG from the the first day I saw the kid.

Yes I have seen JM's era & I do believe that Moyo and Anwar were better overall performers than JM. They had tighter techniques, better playing skills in both offense and defense, better overall game that suited conditions all over and didnt enjoy some of extra protection of home umpiring that helped JM immensely in home conditions specially with his greatest achievement of never letting the avr dip below 50.

Why is this argument not used when we talk about Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Chappell, Boycott, Viv etc. etc.

Back in the day ever country had some of the most biased umpires and if they were not corrupt...like in case of some WI umpires, they were pressured by local crowds into not giving some of the favorite players out!

I am not arguing Pakistan had bad umpires in the past but we were not alone...umpires like David Constance and others were always doing their patriotic duties to help their teams win or not give some of the crowd favorites out

 

[zulfiqar]

This isn't about Miandad vs Dravid, just a general point.

What is the logical reasoning behind downgrading modern day batsmen compared to the ones in the 70's and 80's, based on the argument that bowling and pitches are friendlier now and rules relaxed in favour of the batsman?

What proof and evidence is there to suggest that the high quality modern day batsmen would have struggled in that era? or are you simply degrading them based on your whims and assumptions? Or is it the nostalgia cancer?

I never assume someone from the past is better than someone from the present, because from stats alone, comparing greats from different eras is indeed futile. But for me the ultimate question is this: How did you compare to the other players who played in our era?

That is the only way you can measure the worth of different players and compare them. This is why Bradman wins all wars in batting, because no one in his time could even touch him. To say that "If ponting played then he would've averaged 200" is just a grossly negligent statement. You can only be compared to players who played around you, and then from that standpoint, you can see how a different player compared to those around him in his era. It gives you an idea of how good someone was.

Also having said that, generally you will find that many more batsmen averaged in 50s in the 2000s vs say, in the 90s. So to average 50 in the 90s means you stood out more (and that for me translates into a better batsman). From this logic, I also think that Steyn might go down as one of the best fast bowlers EVER if he keeps on taking wickets, because if you look around him, not a single person can match his talent. He truly stands out in this generation of bowlers, and that is how we should judge him when comparing him to fast bowlers in other eras.

 

[Monsee]

Miandad played 12 tests before 1992 against SL. SL was minnow then and their bowling unit was pretty bad. Take a look at their top 5 wicket takers in the same period. Every single one of them was averaging the north of 35.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=8;template=results;type=bowling

SL bowling was worse than Zim. Zim had at least Streak playing for them till 2005. So you have Miandad playing 15 games against SL and Zim. That's 12% of his total career. Dravid played 16 games against BD & Zim. That's less than 10% of his entire career.

Clearly, Miandad and Pakistan has as much chance against minnows as Dravid.

You conveniently forgot to mention the huge number of runs and average Dravid compiled against BD and Zimbabwe...showing only half truth is something lot of 'Certain Country' fans do a lot!

I did expect better from you but alas

 

[zulfiqar]

As an example, I think Real Madrid coach recently stated something like, if Messi and Ronaldo were born in different eras, they would each retain the Player of the Year for a decade each. He is just using a metaphor to describe how good they are, but it's the same fallacy that we fall to if we compare stats from different eras. Who's to say how well Messi would have done in the 80s? Would he score more goals or less due to the meta-game prevalent then? It's so hard to say! So you can only compare to those around you, and in that Messi and Ronaldo might appear unfortunate that they compete against each other, but you have to deal with the circumstances you have. You have to assume that competition is just as fierce between players now as it was in any other era.

 

[Buffet]

You conveniently forgot to mention the huge number of runs and average Dravid compiled against BD and Zimbabwe...showing only half truth is something lot of 'Certain Country' fans do a lot!

I did expect better from you but alas

Not sure what's your point here to be honest. I pointed out that Miandad played 15 tests against minnows and Dravid played 16 in reply of a poster who was claiming that Miandad didn't get chance to play against minnows. It was a direct response to a wrong claim. I even quoted the post.

Here is the original post by a fellow poster and my reply to that which you are quoting here.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...o-was-the-better-player&p=6852782#post6852782

 

[Mamoon]

I never assume someone from the past is better than someone from the present, because from stats alone, comparing greats from different eras is indeed futile. But for me the ultimate question is this: How did you compare to the other players who played in our era?

That is the only way you can measure the worth of different players and compare them. This is why Bradman wins all wars in batting, because no one in his time could even touch him. To say that "If ponting played then he would've averaged 200" is just a grossly negligent statement. You can only be compared to players who played around you, and then from that standpoint, you can see how a different player compared to those around him in his era. It gives you an idea of how good someone was.

Also having said that, generally you will find that many more batsmen averaged in 50s in the 2000s vs say, in the 90s. So to average 50 in the 90s means you stood out more (and that for me translates into a better batsman). From this logic, I also think that Steyn might go down as one of the best fast bowlers EVER if he keeps on taking wickets, because if you look around him, not a single person can match his talent. He truly stands out in this generation of bowlers, and that is how we should judge him when comparing him to fast bowlers in other eras.

You make good points about more batsmen averaging 50+ but I am mostly referring to the cream of any generation. Someone like Samaraweera wouldn't be averaging 50 in the 80's but there is no doubt in my mind over players like Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, de Villiers, Amla etc. Perhaps even Younis Khan.

Bradman is an extreme case. No one averages 99 and never will, but how much better was someone like Viv Richards in comparison to Lara or Ponting? Well the difference may not be as great as we think.

Another important point in my opinion is that batsmen of that era simply evolved into a different breed because of the uncovered pitches and the quality of bowling. They grew into it and they were better than the rest which made them standout. Of course not every batsman was great in that era. There have been plenty of passengers which we don't even know about.

Similarly, the greats of today who are standing out from the rest would have evolved like them in that era as well. I have little doubts over that. Its just their ill fortune that they are born today and hence people degrade them because bowling isn't great today and pitches are flat.

The idea that someone like Viv Richard would be averaging 70 today because he averaged 50+ against better bowlers is also flawed as far as I'm concerned. He wouldn't have been that Viv Richards today; he would have evolved into a different player. He would still be brilliant, but maybe not as much.

Similarly, it will be impossible for Bradman to average 99 today. He played 52 Tests in a 20 years long career, which will yield him around 160-170 Tests in this era along with the burden of all three formats. He'd probably average around 60-65 which is way better than any batsman today, which was the case in his era as well.

 

[Mamoon]

As an example, I think Real Madrid coach recently stated something like, if Messi and Ronaldo were born in different eras, they would each retain the Player of the Year for a decade each. He is just using a metaphor to describe how good they are, but it's the same fallacy that we fall to if we compare stats from different eras. Who's to say how well Messi would have done in the 80s? Would he score more goals or less due to the meta-game prevalent then? It's so hard to say! So you can only compare to those around you, and in that Messi and Ronaldo might appear unfortunate that they compete against each other, but you have to deal with the circumstances you have. You have to assume that competition is just as fierce between players now as it was in any other era.

I do have a problem with people degrading Messi and Ronaldo because nowadays teams are defensively and tactically not very disciplined and there is more emphasis on attack. Also, they have better boots, lighter balls, better training and diet, more awareness etc etc but you have to consider the fact that they are well ahead of their competitors who have access to all that as well so its really naive to assume that they'd would have struggled in earlier errors. They may not be score 60 goals a season, but if others were scoring 30, they'd be scoring 40+.

My point is, the lead that great players have over their competitors will be consistent in all eras. They will always standout and I mean the real greats, not the pseudo ones which we all recognize.

Therefore its futile to compare players across eras. They are all in the same class.

 

[Monsee]

Not sure what's your point here to be honest. I pointed out that Miandad played 15 tests against minnows and Dravid played 16 in reply of a poster who was claiming that Miandad didn't get chance to play against minnows. It was a direct response to a wrong claim. I even quoted the post.

Here is the original post by a fellow poster and my reply to that which you are quoting here.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...o-was-the-better-player&p=6852782#post6852782

But you missed this bit "These 2 teams are very cordial to enrich a player's stats you know"

Dravid upped his stats by scoring 1600 runs at 80+ average and hence his overall average got a really nice bump...compare this to what Miandad scored against the two teams and you will see what I meant in my earlier post

 

[Buffet]

But you missed this bit "These 2 teams are very cordial to enrich a player's stats you know"

Dravid upped his stats by scoring 1600 runs at 80+ average and hence his overall average got a really nice bump...compare this to what Miandad scored against the two teams and you will see what I meant in my earlier post

I still don't understand your point in context of my post you are quoting. Off course Dravid did well against minnows otherwise why any poster will point out that Dravid got opportunities against minnows. Poster indicated that Dravid got chance to enrich his stats and Miandad didn't. I simply corrected him by pointing out that Miandad got as much chance as Dravid to enrich his stats against minnows.

If Dravid had failed to enrich his stats against minnows then I wouldn't have had that conversation with him.

 

[zulfiqar]

My point is, the lead that great players have over their competitors will be consistent in all eras.

Basically, this.

And yes, I agree with your point on Messi that it would be false to assume that Messi would be worse than other greats from previous eras, and equally false to assume he would be better than other ATGs. What we CAN say however is that he would standout from most of his peers in the same fashion as he stands out among his peers now, and the fact that him and Ronaldo are WELL ahead of most others would support claims that they would be that much better in earlier (or future) eras.

And on your cricket examples, once again I agree that it is a totally baseless statement to make that Viv would average in the 70s now with helmets and rule changes and shorter boundaries. The least you can say is that he would still stand out as he did in his own era, and the most you can say is that he would give extremely tough competition to our current ATGs, just as he did to others in his own time.

I think we are on the same page from reading your comments. Though I rate some of the older generation players highly, it's never because "well they are from the 80s so they are better." You have to rate them on the same rubric as you rate players now... success in pressure games, success in winning games, match-winning & memorable performances, and of course most importantly, how much of an edge they had over their peers.

 

[zulfiqar]

Bradman is an extreme case... it will be impossible for Bradman to average 99 today. He played 52 Tests in a 20 years long career, which will yield him around 160-170 Tests in this era along with the burden of all three formats. He'd probably average around 60-65 which is way better than any batsman today, which was the case in his era as well.

That will be the big "What if?" It is mind-boggling that this guy was able to average so much higher than all other players of his time. Though the sample size of total number of players was significantly smaller, I will always wonder if he was just a statistical outlier, or the biggest sporting genius to have ever lived!

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Basically, this.

And yes, I agree with your point on Messi that it would be false to assume that Messi would be worse than other greats from previous eras, and equally false to assume he would be better than other ATGs. What we CAN say however is that he would standout from most of his peers in the same fashion as he stands out among his peers now, and the fact that him and Ronaldo are WELL ahead of most others would support claims that they would be that much better in earlier (or future) eras.

And on your cricket examples, once again I agree that it is a totally baseless statement to make that Viv would average in the 70s now with helmets and rule changes and shorter boundaries. The least you can say is that he would still stand out as he did in his own era, and the most you can say is that he would give extremely tough competition to our current ATGs, just as he did to others in his own time.

I think we are on the same page from reading your comments. Though I rate some of the older generation players highly, it's never because "well they are from the 80s so they are better." You have to rate them on the same rubric as you rate players now... success in pressure games, success in winning games, match-winning & memorable performances, and of course most importantly, how much of an edge they had over their peers.

In that regard, how do you rate Dravid ahead of Sachin in tests?

I can understand liking him (favourite player and stuff) but on an objective level - if you take that criteria - how in the world does Sachin fall short of Dravid? Dravid Vs Kallis is itself a tough debate leave alone Lara (whom Dravid isn't beating).

Also regarding match winning, when Sachin was in his peak in the 90s, India had a rubbish team. When Dravid was in his peak 2002 - 2006, India had pretty good players (Fab 4) and India did well. When Sachin hit his second peak (albeit a lesser one than earlier) from 2007-2011, he was instrumental in India getting and retaining the No 1 spot. Dravid didn't have great years in this period but other players did....so it didn't matter much. Just like Sachin's not so great performance during Dravid's peak.

Plus Sachin has never failed in any of the 8 countries. Dravid has in SA.

So using what objective criteria is Dravid a better batsman than Sachin? Not saying that you can't have that view. Just found your posts interesting so I am asking.

Any angle I take, Sachin wins. Except for the fight Dravid gives. There Dravid owns Sachin.

 

[zulfiqar]

To sensibleindianfan:

I think I understand why neutral fans would rate Sachin ahead of Dravid, since the primary reason I rate the latter more is because of his match-winning performances against Pakistan. This has a high impact on me since I believe that Indo-Pak series is the highest pressure series any player from either side will ever take part in (similar to the Ashes for an Aus/Eng player).

I recall Sachin hitting that 194* where Sehwag had already done us in, and otherwise to be honest, the only memorable Sachin performance was the hundred he hit in Chennai in '99, in which India lost.

In comparison, IIRC Dravid averages 80+ in games India won against us. Off the top of my head I remember his twin hundreds that gave India the lead in 2005. I also remember his clutch 270 that won India the series in our Jeet Lo Dil Series.

Even outside of Indo-Pak series, his epic 180 in his partnership with Laxman to save India and beat Australia from a position that they were following-on, and also his other partnership with Laxman where this time Dravid was the one that got the double hundred in Adelaide following a massive 550 1st innings total, giving India a lead in the series. Both these performances are the once-in-a-generation type performances of the like that Sachin has not given IMO, and Dravid did it twice.

I know Sachin has also hit many other hundreds in winning causes (as has Dravid), but it is my opinion that Dravid's are more memorable and had more of an impact considering when he hit them in the series, and how important it was for his team. And of course his performances vs Pakistan puts him higher on the list. Having said that, there's not much between the two, and I only put Dravid ahead of Sachin in a scenario for if I had to choose only of them for an XI!

 

[zulfiqar]

Man.. nostalgia! Whilst writing that post btw, I just re-watched highlights of both of Dravid's innings against Australia that I mentioned in my post. I wonder if cricket will keep producing superstars that have a lasting impact on us! Given the state of the game now with all these corruption allegations I sincerely hope cricketers will rise above all this and keep giving the defining and memorable performances ATGs gave before them!

 

[zulfiqar]

Come to think of it.. this guy Laxman! If only he was consistent enough and go to that magical, pundit-made benchmark of greatness: an average of 50. So many match-winning performances... totally under appreciated and lived in Sachin's shadow for all his career (and to a certain extent, in Dravid's shadow). We need a Laxman in our test line-up right now

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

To sensibleindianfan:

I think I understand why neutral fans would rate Sachin ahead of Dravid, since the primary reason I rate the latter more is because of his match-winning performances against Pakistan. This has a high impact on me since I believe that Indo-Pak series is the highest pressure series any player from either side will ever take part in (similar to the Ashes for an Aus/Eng player).

I recall Sachin hitting that 194* where Sehwag had already done us in, and otherwise to be honest, the only memorable Sachin performance was the hundred he hit in Chennai in '99, in which India lost.

In comparison, IIRC Dravid averages 80+ in games India won against us. Off the top of my head I remember his twin hundreds that gave India the lead in 2005. I also remember his clutch 270 that won India the series in our Jeet Lo Dil Series.

Even outside of Indo-Pak series, his epic 180 in his partnership with Laxman to save India and beat Australia from a position that they were following-on, and also his other partnership with Laxman where this time Dravid was the one that got the double hundred in Adelaide following a massive 550 1st innings total, giving India a lead in the series. Both these performances are the once-in-a-generation type performances of the like that Sachin has not given IMO, and Dravid did it twice.

I know Sachin has also hit many other hundreds in winning causes (as has Dravid), but it is my opinion that Dravid's are more memorable and had more of an impact considering when he hit them in the series, and how important it was for his team. And of course his performances vs Pakistan puts him higher on the list. Having said that, there's not much between the two, and I only put Dravid ahead of Sachin in a scenario for if I had to choose only of them for an XI!

Fair enough. Thanks for your reply.

By the way, if you mean the bolded part referring to your opinion, I get it.

If you mean it in an objective way, then I beg to differ. The more we dig in, the more the difference between Sachin and Dravid comes out.

There are many many many Sachin gems that went to waste. For eg - the 146 against Cape Town vs Steyn (at his peak on a track where he was virtually unplayable) allowed India to level scores against SA in the 3rd test (series was already tied 1-1). Then SA was reduced to 130-6 in the second innings. Then our great bowlers let them score 336 and we scored 180 odd and the match ended in a tame draw. With even a slightly better bowling attack, India would have won its first test series in SA soil 2010 with Sachin being the MOM on the decider (also MOS for his 2 100's). What effect that could have created? Alas that didn't happen.

Overall, I do get your views. Dravid indeed played many amazing innings. Fighter to the core. In certain situations (to see off tough plays and protect others), a player like him was more valuable than Sachin.

 

[tempus123]

Yes, you saw him being helped but not Gavaskar and Teendu and tons others from the past, right?

No one says a thing about Greg Chappell and Boycott and Richards and the help they got from their own umpires!

Everyone got helped once in a while, but Miandad was a continuous beneficiary and really the benefits were directed towards him.

One doesn't need to watch every ball played, listening to somewhat neutral observers will show it.

 

[tempus123]

To sensibleindianfan:

I think I understand why neutral fans would rate Sachin ahead of Dravid, since the primary reason I rate the latter more is because of his match-winning performances against Pakistan. This has a high impact on me since I believe that Indo-Pak series is the highest pressure series any player from either side will ever take part in (similar to the Ashes for an Aus/Eng player).

I recall Sachin hitting that 194* where Sehwag had already done us in, and otherwise to be honest, the only memorable Sachin performance was the hundred he hit in Chennai in '99, in which India lost.

In comparison, IIRC Dravid averages 80+ in games India won against us. Off the top of my head I remember his twin hundreds that gave India the lead in 2005. I also remember his clutch 270 that won India the series in our Jeet Lo Dil Series.

Even outside of Indo-Pak series, his epic 180 in his partnership with Laxman to save India and beat Australia from a position that they were following-on, and also his other partnership with Laxman where this time Dravid was the one that got the double hundred in Adelaide following a massive 550 1st innings total, giving India a lead in the series. Both these performances are the once-in-a-generation type performances of the like that Sachin has not given IMO, and Dravid did it twice.

I know Sachin has also hit many other hundreds in winning causes (as has Dravid), but it is my opinion that Dravid's are more memorable and had more of an impact considering when he hit them in the series, and how important it was for his team. And of course his performances vs Pakistan puts him higher on the list. Having said that, there's not much between the two, and I only put Dravid ahead of Sachin in a scenario for if I had to choose only of them for an XI!

Definitely, Dravid against Pakistan was better than Sachin against Pakistan. But I would like to draw your attention to the 1999 series, where arguably Pakistan had their best attack, and Dravid failed.

I have seen this problem with Dravid, against "real class" bowlers he usually (not always) failed. He is better than Tendulkar when facing average or above-average bowlers, which was usually the case in 2004 (jeet lo dil) and 2005 Kolkata Test.

You can add Tendulkar's match winning innings of Delhi Test in 2007 also to your memory, perhaps it got left out due to it being a low profile and boring series.

 

[tempus123]

Rahul Dravid is an ATG by all means

But is in another league

JM is more than an ATG ?

 

[tempus123]

Fair enough. Thanks for your reply.

By the way, if you mean the bolded part referring to your opinion, I get it.

If you mean it in an objective way, then I beg to differ. The more we dig in, the more the difference between Sachin and Dravid comes out.

There are many many many Sachin gems that went to waste. For eg - the 146 against Cape Town vs Steyn (at his peak on a track where he was virtually unplayable) allowed India to level scores against SA in the 3rd test (series was already tied 1-1). Then SA was reduced to 130-6 in the second innings. Then our great bowlers let them score 336 and we scored 180 odd and the match ended in a tame draw. With even a slightly better bowling attack, India would have won its first test series in SA soil 2010 with Sachin being the MOM on the decider (also MOS for his 2 100's). What effect that could have created? Alas that didn't happen.

Overall, I do get your views. Dravid indeed played many amazing innings. Fighter to the core. In certain situations (to see off tough plays and protect others), a player like him was more valuable than Sachin.

I rate Dravid's 148 at Jo'burg in 1997-98 his best innings, though it didn't come in a won match. The quality of attack he faced was pretty good.

His 180 in Kolkata was very special too, but there he was kind of "protected" by Laxman.

Honourable mention must also go to his 3 100's in England in 2011, against Anderson and Broad who were bowling very good.

 

[tempus123]

Come to think of it.. this guy Laxman! If only he was consistent enough and go to that magical, pundit-made benchmark of greatness: an average of 50. So many match-winning performances... totally under appreciated and lived in Sachin's shadow for all his career (and to a certain extent, in Dravid's shadow). We need a Laxman in our test line-up right now

He was better than Dravid in terms of facing McGrath/Warne etc. against Akram both sucked

 

[Sidcricfan]

Dravid. Arguably the best test batsman we have produced.

 

[zulfiqar]

He was better than Dravid in terms of facing McGrath/Warne etc. against Akram both sucked

Yeah, that along with his consistency against other teams in general means he won't be an ATG. But if the only criteria was winning games this guy had a penchant for delivering vs Australia.

 

[tempus123]

Yeah, that along with his consistency against other teams in general means he won't be an ATG. But if the only criteria was winning games this guy had a penchant for delivering vs Australia.

Sorry, I am not talking about "winning" matches, but innings which helped the team when it was down and out. Also doing it against the best bowling attack of that time, I think Lax in this regard was better than Dravid.

 

[hk031992]

Javed Miandad vs Rahul Dravid

In test cricket, who do u rank higher?

 

[Fastandfurious]

Ehh, this is a tough one. Miandad the better spin player and Dravid better against pace. This can go either way really.

Hopefully, we won't get too many biased answers.

 

[Saqs]

Miandad arguably faced better bowling attacks and played in a weaker batting lineup than Dravid did so Miandad for me.

 

[Scrolln]

Has been discussed to death here -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?203724-Miandad-v-Dravid-Who-was-the-better-player/page2

 

[Electron]

Dravid for me. A better overall player against any type of bowling.

 

[Silly Point]

Here's the original Miandad vs Dravid thread:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?203724-Miandad-v-Dravid-Who-was-the-better-player

Has been discussed to death already and I won as usual with this comment:

Miandad is the only batsman ever who never had his test average drop less than 50 at any point. And he played in the bowler's era.

He also has 6 double centuries. Only 5 batsmen have more than 6 double centuries in test history.

Miandad was a genuine match winner and an ATG. And the mentally the strongest. He was the only batsman who used to sledge the bowlers instead.

DRAWvid was only good at drawing matches.

 

[Fastandfurious]

These two would be worth debating if all of us were at least 30+ but majority here have not watched Miandad play in his prime.

Both are ATG players without a doubt and as with any ATG players, arguments can be made either way.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Here's the original Miandad vs Dravid thread:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?203724-Miandad-v-Dravid-Who-was-the-better-player

Has been discussed to death already and I won as usual with this comment:

)

Narcissism at its finest.

 

[Straight_Drive]

Dravid, Easily ....He has a better average than even sachin outside the subcontinent, Miandad on the other hand was a HTB never given lbw at home LOL

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Obviously Miandad was better

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Dravid, Easily ....He has a better average than even sachin outside the subcontinent

Miandad was better than Sachin.

Infact Miandad was better than any player who was Indian

A better comparison would be Viv vs Miandad or Bradman vs Miandad

 

[Fastandfurious]

Dravid, Easily ....He has a better average than even sachin outside the subcontinent, Miandad on the other hand was a HTB never given lbw at home LOL

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

 

[Straight_Drive]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

??...I don't get it....are those links to disprove my point? They clearly show dravid had a better average

 

[Fastandfurious]

??...I don't get it....are those links to disprove my point? They clearly show dravid had a better average

Dravid failed to score against the big teams of his time while Sachin was a gun against them. Most of Dravid's scores against England came against a weak England attack. He was still impressive in England albeit the fact.

 

[Straight_Drive]

Dravid failed to score against the big teams of his time while Sachin was a gun against them. Most of Dravid's scores against England came against a weak England attack. He was still impressive in England albeit the fact.

lol I never said Dravid was better than Sachin...read my signature...I just said he had a better average, Dravid played some awesome knocks in the toughest situations which I still remember

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Dravid, Easily ....He has a better average than even sachin outside the subcontinent, Miandad on the other hand was a HTB never given lbw at home LOL

bcz he never was,

 

[Straight_Drive]

bcz he never was,

You mean like Inzi in this video

 

[Fastandfurious]

Dravid, Easily ....He has a better average than even sachin outside the subcontinent, Miandad on the other hand was a HTB never given lbw at home LOL

That was the case for all teams in that time. As for Miandad being a HTB, he scored massive in NZ and was pretty good in Eng.

Struggled in Aus as most SC batsmen do because of the bounce and Windies had a ATG attack in those days; pitches were also similar to Australia.

 

[Straight_Drive]

That was the case for all teams in that time. As for Miandad being a HTB, he scored massive in NZ and was pretty good in Eng.

Struggled in Aus as most SC batsmen do because of the bounce and Windies had a ATG attack in those days; pitches were also similar to Australia.

yeah HTB was a bit OTT...but the disparity between his home and away (outside subon) average is huge....much like sangakara

 

[biggestdravidfan]

The great Miandad against the best bowling attack of his era - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;opposition=4;template=results;type=batting