The league of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara | Does any other modern era batsman belong in it?

[Mamoon]

My one criticism of Tendulkar is that most of his records are due to his longevity. For example, in spite of having a Test career spanning 20+ years, and 2,000 runs more than his closest rival, he features only twice in the top 15 list of most runs in a calendar year, that too 8 years apart (2002, 2010).

He never managed to score even a 250 and in spite of playing more Tests than anyone else in history and 32 more than his closest rival, he has 6 double-hundreds only. So if you consider impact only, he was never in league above his peers and that is reflected in his average, but he stands out for his record number of runs and hundreds which have to do more with longevity than anything else, because his hundred/innings ratio is not in a class of its own either.

However, I do rate him as the best batsman of his generation and without question among the top 4-5 of all time, because longevity is not easy. To maintain your form, fitness, motivation levels etc. for 20+ years shows extraordinary ability, mental strength and resilience.

There is a reason why we may never see a 200 Test player again in our lives, or someone to remain the most iconic player of his country for more than two decades.

If we talk about players in leagues of their own, Bradman and Viv Richards stand out more so than the others, because they were well ahead of their peers at that time, but Tendulkar is not in that category, because he never managed to put himself in a different league and there was always someone who could match him blow for blow (Lara, Ponting) at any given time, and Tendulkar fans should not take offense to this assessment.

 

[Sheriar]

Dravid often went missing when up against ATG bowlers. I'm certain that the stats will back me up on this because it's a feeling that I always got watching him and I followed his career right from Singapore/Lord's in 1996. He often feasted on the less good teams/bowlers.

Someone please check his numbers against:

1) Wasim
2) Waqar
3) Steyn
4) McGrath
5)Warne
6)Ambrose
7)Walsh
8)Murali
9)Donald
10)Pollock

 

[tempus123]

My one criticism of Tendulkar is that most of his records are due to his longevity. For example, in spite of having a Test career spanning 20+ years, and 2,000 runs more than his closest rival, he features only twice in the top 15 list of most runs in a calendar year, that too 8 years apart (2002, 2010).

He never managed to score even a 250 and in spite of playing more Tests than anyone else in history and 32 more than his closest rival, he has 6 double-hundreds only. So if you consider impact only, he was never in league above his peers and that is reflected in his average, but he stands out for his record number of runs and hundreds which have to do more with longevity than anything else, because his hundred/innings ratio is not in a class of its own either.

However, I do rate him as the best batsman of his generation and without question among the top 4-5 of all time, because longevity is not easy. To maintain your form, fitness, motivation levels etc. for 20+ years shows extraordinary ability, mental strength and resilience.

There is a reason why we may never see a 200 Test player again in our lives, or someone to remain the most iconic player of his country for more than two decades.

If we talk about players in leagues of their own, Bradman and Viv Richards stand out more so than the others, because they were well ahead of their peers at that time, but Tendulkar is not in that category, because he never managed to put himself in a different league and there was always someone who could match him blow for blow (Lara, Ponting) at any given time, and Tendulkar fans should not take offense to this assessment.

Brace yourself.

 

[tempus123]

Dravid often went missing when up against ATG bowlers. I'm certain that the stats will back me up on this because it's a feeling that I always got watching him and I followed his career right from Singapore/Lord's in 1996. He often feasted on the less good teams/bowlers.

Someone please check his numbers against:

1) Wasim
2) Waqar
3) Steyn
4) McGrath
5)Warne
6)Ambrose
7)Walsh
8)Murali
9)Donald
10)Pollock

He had good numbers against Ambrose because 1997 WI pitches were not really that fast and didn't have bite. He never played Waqar at his peak. He was ok against Akhtar. Handled Swann well, and played Anderson with better surety than others in his team.

Had a good innings against Donald in a dead rubber in 1997. Had played a match winning innings against Murali in 2001, and a good 180 against McWarne.

That's all I remember honestly. Others can provide more reference.

 

[Sheriar]

Swann and Anderson aren't ATG bowlers.

Knock in 1997 was a good one (not fair to bring in the dead rubber here imo) and so was the 180, although that involved an initial struggle against Warne after Warne cleaned him up in the Bombay test.

Not much else over such a long career.

 

[IndianWillow]

2011 England was the only exception (one or two others you would find if search hard) where he handled the batting together.. against tough bowling on difficult pitches (not one of the match winning innings, mind you, one of your favourite criteria, but that's beside the point).

I have seen him fail in Australia and SA far too many times to trust him at the top of the order. It's not about the runs he scored, but he was being consistently beaten/getting out on no-balls and once being bailed out by Laxman, that made me believe he didn't really have the "guts" people talk about.

Failure rates are higher for #1-#3 batsmen in Oz and SA. I am sure you would agree? I am pretty sure that if Dravid had batted at #4 or #5 he would have made more runs in Oz and SA. Very few #1-3 batsmen have made lots of runs in Oz and SA (say, since 1990) because of the tough conditions and high quality bowling. The first innings and new ball is especially notoriously difficult for #1-3 batsmen in these conditions - the difficulty can be gauged by noting how a premier top order batsman like Smith has fared in home conditions against good sides. #3 visiting batsmen have scored far less number of hundreds and fifties compared to #4 batsmen in these two countries - so you cannot compare #3 and #4 batsmen in these conditions just based on stats. The most interesting thing about Dravid in these conditions is that he has lasted 4604 balls for 49 dismissals, that is 94 deliveries per innings - 16 overs! Basically means Dravid shielded the middle order from the new ball quite admirably even though his averages here do not match his stature.

 

[IndianWillow]

[MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] is usually pretty good at stats, and is very thorough.. but his aversion to Sachin makes him lose track of his own good quality of posts.

Rubbish. Sachin is one of my fav players. Just don't think he was as good as Sachinistas make him out to be. I have followed Sachin throughout his career to know both his strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Sheriar]

So here are Dravid's numbers.

Avg of 34 vs Aus, 14 in Aus
Avg of 34 vs SA, 29 in SA
Avg of 27 vs Pak
Avg of 47 vs SL, but 33 in Murali's backyard
Avg of 72 vs WI in that rain filled and flat pitch (ex Barbados) dominated series in 1997

Even including the WI (as it should be), his away average is 32!

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...r_involve=47154;template=results;type=batting

Removing the ATG bowler criteria, he still has 2 hundreds across 54 innings in SA and Aus. 2 failures out of the big 3 countries that SC are judged on. Great record in England only.

Even his record in Australia is misleading since he feasted in 1 series. His record is very similar to Cook's record in Australia.

1999/00- Avg of 15
2003/04- Avg of 124
2007/08- Avg of 34
20013/14- Avg of 24

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...t=2;template=results;type=batting;view=series

 

[tempus123]

Failure rates are higher for #1-#3 batsmen in Oz and SA. I am sure you would agree? I am pretty sure that if Dravid had batted at #4 or #5 he would have made more runs in Oz and SA. Very few #1-3 batsmen have made lots of runs in Oz and SA (say, since 1990) because of the tough conditions and high quality bowling. The first innings and new ball is especially notoriously difficult for #1-3 batsmen in these conditions - the difficulty can be gauged by noting how a premier top order batsman like Smith has fared in home conditions against good sides. #3 visiting batsmen have scored far less number of hundreds and fifties compared to #4 batsmen in these two countries - so you cannot compare #3 and #4 batsmen in these conditions just based on stats. The most interesting thing about Dravid in these conditions is that he has lasted 4604 balls for 49 dismissals, that is 94 deliveries per innings - 16 overs! Basically means Dravid shielded the middle order from the new ball quite admirably even though his averages here do not match his stature.

Take 2003-04 away and then show the stats.. again he never looked at ease in Australia 1999 and 2007/12 (except once or twice).

 

[IndianWillow]

Shielded by Sehwag from 2002 onwards, The same Sehwag that avg 20 odd in SA ? ) Also the same Dravid that has been horrible in SA and in Aus (unless Mcwarne did not play ) ? When Touring SA & AUS and when 'great' bowlers played, wannabes like Dravid and Sehwag dissappeared, SRT was the odd saving grace that stood out occasionally, he was a one man team.. You seriously cannot compare the legendary side Ponting played in with any of the sides SRT played with, this is weak argument, you are starting to lose your way here buddy....

If Sehwag gets a 20 and Dravid a 20, Sachin would be shielded from the new ball completely. Sachin was good against good bowlers, but he wasn't good against the new ball (enough stats were already posted). If Sachin had batted at #1-3 in Oz and SA, I am pretty sure his averages would have gone down by several points, just like his ODI averages as an opener here. BTW, Sachin averages 31 and 32 in Australia and SA against the home sides and made two hundreds and four fifties in 29 matches. That is his strength against the new ball in these conditions.

 

[tempus123]

Failure rates are higher for #1-#3 batsmen in Oz and SA. I am sure you would agree? I am pretty sure that if Dravid had batted at #4 or #5 he would have made more runs in Oz and SA. Very few #1-3 batsmen have made lots of runs in Oz and SA (say, since 1990) because of the tough conditions and high quality bowling. The first innings and new ball is especially notoriously difficult for #1-3 batsmen in these conditions - the difficulty can be gauged by noting how a premier top order batsman like Smith has fared in home conditions against good sides. #3 visiting batsmen have scored far less number of hundreds and fifties compared to #4 batsmen in these two countries - so you cannot compare #3 and #4 batsmen in these conditions just based on stats. The most interesting thing about Dravid in these conditions is that he has lasted 4604 balls for 49 dismissals, that is 94 deliveries per innings - 16 overs! Basically means Dravid shielded the middle order from the new ball quite admirably even though his averages here do not match his stature.

Also don't worry.. his stature in Australia and SA is clear to everyone. He failed in both the places whichever way you look at it. In your stats driven way, you once included Dravid's 50 at Sydney 2008 also, which was one of the worst performances of him.. got out to no-balls and just couldn't score runs till Lax came and played a blinder to release the pressure off.

That innings to me, signified his performance in Australia.

 

[Mamoon]

Brace yourself.

Yes, it is a risky thing to say when you are surrounded by hardcore Sachin fans who get foam in their mouths if you do not consider him a batting god.

 

[tempus123]

So here are Dravid's numbers.

Avg of 34 vs Aus, 14 in Aus
Avg of 34 vs SA, 29 in SA
Avg of 27 vs Pak
Avg of 47 vs SL, but 33 in Murali's backyard
Avg of 72 vs WI in that rain filled and flat pitch (ex Barbados) dominated series in 1997

Even including the WI (as it should be), his away average is 32!

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...r_involve=47154;template=results;type=batting

Removing the ATG bowler criteria, he still has 2 hundreds across 54 innings in SA and Aus. 2 failures out of the big 3 countries that SC are judged on. Great record in England only.

Even his record in Australia is misleading since he feasted in 1 series. His record is very similar to Cook's record in Australia.

1999/00- Avg of 15
2003/04- Avg of 124
2007/08- Avg of 34
20013/14- Avg of 24

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...t=2;template=results;type=batting;view=series

[MENTION=1451]Indian[/MENTION]Wilow will attack you saying all these innings he protected Tendulkar.

 

[IndianWillow]

Take 2003-04 away and then show the stats.. again he never looked at ease in Australia 1999 and 2007/12 (except once or twice).

How can you take out stats from select countries when the sample size is already small? You cannot take out arbitrary years from player stats to make them look good or bad. Dravid was obviously at his peak in 2003/04. In other tours, he was relatively inexperienced (1999 was his first tour to Oz) and in 2012 he was about to retire.

 

[tempus123]

How can you take out stats from select countries when the sample size is already small? You cannot take out arbitrary years from player stats to make them look good or bad. Dravid was obviously at his peak in 2003/04. In other tours, he was relatively inexperienced (1999 was his first tour to Oz) and in 2012 he was about to retire.

Huh.. I am taking out 2003-04 because clearly he was protected by Sehwag and Chopra.. on some of the flattest ever tracks against new ball.

If you remember, it was your primary weapon, mate.

 

[Scrolln]

Failure rates are higher for #1-#3 batsmen in Oz and SA. I am sure you would agree? I am pretty sure that if Dravid had batted at #4 or #5 he would have made more runs in Oz and SA. Very few #1-3 batsmen have made lots of runs in Oz and SA (say, since 1990) because of the tough conditions and high quality bowling. The first innings and new ball is especially notoriously difficult for #1-3 batsmen in these conditions - the difficulty can be gauged by noting how a premier top order batsman like Smith has fared in home conditions against good sides. #3 visiting batsmen have scored far less number of hundreds and fifties compared to #4 batsmen in these two countries - so you cannot compare #3 and #4 batsmen in these conditions just based on stats. The most interesting thing about Dravid in these conditions is that he has lasted 4604 balls for 49 dismissals, that is 94 deliveries per innings - 16 overs! Basically means Dravid shielded the middle order from the new ball quite admirably even though his averages here do not match his stature.

Dravid had innings like 2(41) and 5(25) in SA, which could do more harm than good adding unnecessary pressure on the non-striker batsman,

 

[tempus123]

Yes, it is a risky thing to say when you are surrounded by hardcore Sachin fans who get foam in their mouths if you do not consider him a batting god.

Yes.. in fact what you wrote is perfect.. I will just add that Tendulkar, apart from longevity, never really "failed" in any condition. His lowest average of 40 in Pakistan could be called a failure but then he didn't play for 10 years there.

 

[Sheriar]

No worries.

Not even getting into Dravid's ODI performances here. Some really damning numbers. The fact is that Dravid's stats for some reason are not really scrutinized unlike Lara. SRT. Ponting and Sanga.

 

[tempus123]

One thing in which Dravid was better than Tendulkar was being injury free. Tendulkar had back problem, elbow, toe, shoulder all kinds of injuries, and Dravid maintained his body better.

 

[tempus123]

No worries.

Not even getting into Dravid's ODI performances here. Some really damning numbers. The fact is that Dravid's stats for some reason are not really scrutinized unlike Lara. SRT. Ponting and Sanga.

Because he was "the wall" who didn't let scrutiny get through him either.

 

[Mamoon]

Dravid had one of the best defense the game has ever seen, but he lacked that extra bit of talent and flair to take on all-time great bowlers like Tendulkar and Lara did.

Dravid's method of scoring runs was very attritional; he tired the bowlers into submission and few batsmen have had more patience and temperament than him. However, top quality bowlers could match him for his patience and persistence and they eventually would get the better of him.

However, in spite of not doing wonderfully well against top class bowlers, he ended up with 13k runs, 52 average and 36 hundreds, which shows that if you filter out some of the legendary bowlers, he was almost impossible to dismiss for others, and his ability to score big was better than most other batsmen.

He is not a Tendulkar/Lara level great but he's still a great nonetheless.

 

[Sheriar]

[MENTION=1451]Indian[/MENTION]Wilow will attack you saying all these innings he protected Tendulkar.

No worries.

Not even getting into Dravid's ODI performances here. Some really damning numbers. The fact is that Dravid's stats for some reason are not really scrutinized unlike Lara. SRT. Ponting and Sanga.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes.. in fact what you wrote is perfect.. I will just add that Tendulkar, apart from longevity, never really "failed" in any condition. His lowest average of 40 in Pakistan could be called a failure but then he didn't play for 10 years there.

And that is a big reason why I'd put him ahead of Lara.

 

[tempus123]

Dravid had one of the best defense the game has ever seen, but he lacked that extra bit of talent and flair to take on all-time great bowlers like Tendulkar and Lara did.

Dravid's method of scoring runs was very attritional; he tired the bowlers into submission and few batsmen have had more patience and temperament than him. However, top quality bowlers could match him for his patience and persistence and they eventually would get the better of him.

However, in spite of not doing wonderfully well against top class bowlers, he ended up with 13k runs, 52 average and 36 hundreds, which shows that if you filter out some of the legendary bowlers, he was almost impossible to dismiss for others, and his ability to score big was better than most other batsmen.

He is not a Tendulkar/Lara level great but he's still a great nonetheless.

[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION] bhai emotions mein bah gaye.. kuch jyada hi bol gaye.. Dravid was by no means, a "fraud" batsman.

 

[IndianWillow]

Dravid had innings like 2(41) and 5(25) in SA, which could do more harm than good adding unnecessary pressure on the non-striker batsman,

He just didn't survive the new ball here, inspite of the effort. You think these slow innings harm the team in a test match? And that too ten years ago? If India can get to lunch with 50/1 they would have drawn/won many matches here, but India didn't do that quite often. Scoring rates were irrelevant in these cases.

 

[Sheriar]

Dravid had one of the best defense the game has ever seen, but he lacked that extra bit of talent and flair to take on all-time great bowlers like Tendulkar and Lara did.

Dravid's method of scoring runs was very attritional; he tired the bowlers into submission and few batsmen have had more patience and temperament than him. However, top quality bowlers could match him for his patience and persistence and they eventually would get the better of him.

However, in spite of not doing wonderfully well against top class bowlers, he ended up with 13k runs, 52 average and 36 hundreds, which shows that if you filter out some of the legendary bowlers, he was almost impossible to dismiss for others, and his ability to score big was better than most other batsmen.

He is not a Tendulkar/Lara level great but he's still a great nonetheless.

That's an understatement. He went missing but his stats are never looked at in detail like those of the big 3 and Sanga. Look closely and you will see plenty of holes.

 

[Scrolln]

When PP legend [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] is getting dragged into a SRT-Lara kinda debate you can be sure there is nothing particularly interesting happening in Pakistani/world cricket.

Can't wait for Oct/cricket season to begin

 

[tempus123]

And that is a big reason why I'd put him ahead of Lara.

To me, there are a lot of things in which Lara was ahead.. I think playing Murali was one, and when he got going, he really made the opposition pay by scoring big, while Tendulkar did not.

One thing in which Dravid was also better than Tendulkar was the price on his wicket.. once set, and with target in his mind, Dravid rarely lost sight.. Tendulkar gave away his wicket many times and he is not that big a match winner for a reason.

 

[Mamoon]

That's an understatement. He went missing but his stats are never looked at in detail like those of the big 3 and Sanga. Look closely and you will see plenty of holes.

Perhaps they are, but I tend to look at stats only when I haven't seen a player play. I have seen Dravid's career and I don't recall many instances where took only quality bowling and look unflustered.

Perhaps the 270 in Rawalpindi in 2004 comes to mind, he dominated Akhtar but he wasn't a legendary bowler and he bowled like a hack in that series, short and wide. No wonder Sehwag feasted on him.

 

[Mamoon]

When PP legend [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] is getting dragged into a SRT-Lara kinda debate you can be sure there is nothing particularly interesting happening in Pakistani/world cricket.

Can't wait for Oct/cricket season to begin

Flattered, thank you.

Yes indeed, too many Tendulkar, Lara, Imran etc. threads these days. Off-season is always cumbersome on PP.

 

[Buffet]

Point of entry less than 75 would have been ideal I think (ie within the first 20 or so overs) but since that data is not available for some less than 50 will have to do.

Number 6 batsman coming to bat when score is 50 is not the same as number 3 bat coming to bat when score is 50. Sure, number 4 and number 3 are closer but point still stand.

This kind of analysis is only meaningful if we are talking about batsmen coming at same positions. Some poster earlier pointed out that with bigger sample size it gets even but that's a bogus point. It doesn't get even.

It's simple probability that if number 6 coming to bat at score of 50 then chances of pitch being difficult is high. 50/1 is not the same as 50/2 if you are talking about a large number of innings taken together. 50/2 shows that pitch is more difficult 'on average'.

 

[tempus123]

Rubbish. Sachin is one of my fav players. Just don't think he was as good as Sachinistas make him out to be. I have followed Sachin throughout his career to know both his strengths and weaknesses.

But you lose track of your posts and throw a lot of low quality uninformed posts when talking about Dravid-Sachin comparison. If you were always like this, I wouldn't have cared, but I found some of the most amazing perspective and clear stats from you on other topics.

PS: Not saying every argument of yours is flawed when you put Dravid ahead of Sachin, but the argument quality goes down significantly. "Warne at his peak" was a definite miss here (not exactly Dravid-Sachin thread though).

 

[Stallion__]

One thing that do we ignore that Dravid was in early phase of his career in late 90s while Sachin was already an established player by then. And some of those bowling greats were retired by the time Dravid was developed as a batsman.

Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose and Walsh had already been retired didn't play much in 2000s. Among the rest, there were Murali, Warne, McGrath, two of them played till 2007 and then there was Steyn.

He got one series against McGrath and Warne and didn't do well here, so that make him lose some points.

He handled Murali better than Sachin and wasn't troubled by Steyn (he got out to Morkel mostly).


But Dravid played some of the bowlers like Akhtar, Anderson, MacGill, Vettori, Ntini, Swann much better than his team-mates, even Tendulkar, not many give him enough credit for that.

Dravid had one of the best defensive game. Personally, I used to fear Dravid more than Sachin while playing against India, cuz, Dravid will just grind out our bowlers, and I knew our batsmen will wilt under pressure. With Sachin and Sehwag, you do felt like they would give us a chance somewhere.

Plus Dravid has played most number of series defining knocks for India. I know win aspect depends on both teams, not a certain player, but there are some moments to seize for the batsman, the ones that can change the momentum of the matches. And Dravid has done that more often for India. Just like Sangakkara always did against Pakistan. His 270 in Pindi, 233 in Adelaide, twin 50s in Kolkatta 2004 and Jamaica 2006, centuries in Headingley and Notingham 2002, twin tons in Kolkatta are some in my mind. Like Laxman, he was more clutch player like Sachin.

If I have to pick one out of SRT and Dravid on basis of quality of opposition's bowling attack, I would pick Sachin, but if I have to pick them according to match situation, I will pick Dravid.

 

[tempus123]

Swann and Anderson aren't ATG bowlers.

Knock in 1997 was a good one (not fair to bring in the dead rubber here imo) and so was the 180, although that involved an initial struggle against Warne after Warne cleaned him up in the Bombay test.

Not much else over such a long career.

The SA innings was pretty good but usually the dead rubber point is brought about because usually the team which has won the series 2-0 lowers the intensity level since not much is at stake. Again, it's not objective and not true for all the teams, but a dead rubber usually involves newer untested players and tired bowlers.

 

[tempus123]

One thing that do we ignore that Dravid was in early phase of his career in late 90s while Sachin was already an established player by then. And some of those bowling greats were retired by the time Dravid was developed as a batsman.

Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose and Walsh had already been retired didn't play much in 2000s. Among the rest, there were Murali, Warne, McGrath, two of them played till 2007 and then there was Steyn.

He got one series against McGrath and Warne and didn't do well here, so that make him lose some points.

He handled Murali better than Sachin and wasn't troubled by Steyn (he got out to Morkel mostly).


But Dravid played some of the bowlers like Akhtar, Anderson, MacGill, Vettori, Ntini, Swann much better than his team-mates, even Tendulkar, not many give him enough credit for that.

Dravid had one of the best defensive game. Personally, I used to fear Dravid more than Sachin while playing against India, cuz, Dravid will just grind out our bowlers, and I knew our batsmen will wilt under pressure. With Sachin and Sehwag, you do felt like they would give us a chance somewhere.

Plus Dravid has played most number of series defining knocks for India. I know win aspect depends on both teams, not a certain player, but there are some moments to seize for the batsman, the ones that can change the momentum of the matches. And Dravid has done that more often for India. Just like Sangakkara always did against Pakistan. His 270 in Pindi, 233 in Adelaide, twin 50s in Kolkatta 2004 and Jamaica 2006, centuries in Headingley and Notingham 2002, twin tons in Kolkatta are some in my mind. Like Laxman, he was more clutch player like Sachin.

If I have to pick one out of SRT and Dravid on basis of quality of opposition's bowling attack, I would pick Sachin, but if I have to pick them according to match situation, I will pick Dravid.

Flawed argument. Let me know where to start once you are fine with it.

 

[Stallion__]

Dravid had one of the best defensive game. Personally, I used to fear Dravid more than Sachin while playing against India, cuz, Dravid will just grind out our bowlers, and I knew our batsmen will wilt under pressure. With Sachin and Sehwag, you do felt like they would give us a chance somewhere.

*scoreboard pressure

I know win aspect depends on both teams, not a certain player, but there are some moments to seize for the batsman, the ones that can change the momentum of the matches.

*whole team

 

[tempus123]

..

 

[Stallion__]

Flawed argument. Let me know where to start once you are fine with it.

You can explain your point. One liner isn't much helpful.

 

[IndianWillow]

But you lose track of your posts and throw a lot of low quality uninformed posts when talking about Dravid-Sachin comparison. If you were always like this, I wouldn't have cared, but I found some of the most amazing perspective and clear stats from you on other topics.

PS: Not saying every argument of yours is flawed when you put Dravid ahead of Sachin, but the argument quality goes down significantly. "Warne at his peak" was a definite miss here (not exactly Dravid-Sachin thread though).

Warne was indeed a top bowler during that time. He may have had temporary loss of form from time to time. He had some difficult teams (like India and WI) but that does not mean he wasn't a very good bowler back then. Warne was right in his mid career in 1999 (1992-2007 was his full career). Warne was already in the 300 wicket club (at an average of 25odd) during that Lara epic, so I wouldn't know why you wouldn't treat that part of Warne's primary years among his peak days.

 

[Stallion__]

Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose and Walsh had already been retired didn't play much in 2000s. Among the rest, there were Murali, Warne, McGrath, two of them played till 2007 and then there was Steyn.

Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose and Walsh didn't play much in 2000s. Among the rest, there were Murali, Warne, McGrath, two of them played till 2007 and then there was Steyn.

 

[SL_Fan]

Number 6 batsman coming to bat when score is 50 is not the same as number 3 bat coming to bat when score is 50. Sure, number 4 and number 3 are closer but point still stand.

This kind of analysis is only meaningful if we are talking about batsmen coming at same positions. Some poster earlier pointed out that with bigger sample size it gets even but that's a bogus point. It doesn't get even.

It's simple probability that if number 6 coming to bat at score of 50 then chances of pitch being difficult is high. 50/1 is not the same as 50/2 if you are talking about a large number of innings taken together. 50/2 shows that pitch is more difficult 'on average'.

We are talking about no 3/4 batsmen here. Not no 6 bats. Again the match situation is hardly relevant. Things even out more or less. It was in relation to how those top order bats fared against the new ball.

 

[IndianWillow]

But you lose track of your posts and throw a lot of low quality uninformed posts when talking about Dravid-Sachin comparison. If you were always like this, I wouldn't have cared, but I found some of the most amazing perspective and clear stats from you on other topics.

PS: Not saying every argument of yours is flawed when you put Dravid ahead of Sachin, but the argument quality goes down significantly. "Warne at his peak" was a definite miss here (not exactly Dravid-Sachin thread though).

The thing with Dravid is this. India lost just a single game (and that too against Zimbabwe) when Dravid got a 100 during his prime. Effectively, India did not lose a single game on a Dravid 100 during his prime. When Dravid got a 100 he ensured that India could not be beaten. That was his real worth. If Dravid decided to hang around at his prime, there was simply no way to beat India.

The only few losses came towards the end of his career when India had a historically worst disastrous tour in England. But with Sachin, India lost a large number of test matches on his hundreds - I think close to 15. Sachin is more loved for his personal records, and Dravid more for his team contributions. Many Sachin fans would love to see a Sachin 100 rather than a team win. You could guess why Sachin searched desperately for that elusive 100th hundred. His fans weren't going to allow him to miss that 100. That 100th 100 summarizes and symbolizes his career.

 

[SL_Fan]

[MENTION=1451]Indian[/MENTION]Wilow will attack you saying all these innings he protected Tendulkar.

In Tests generally your best batsman bats at 4. Unless of course there's no other decent bat to see off the new ball at 3. So yes Dravid did protect Sachin. That was his job.

 

[SL_Fan]

Failure rates are higher for #1-#3 batsmen in Oz and SA. I am sure you would agree? I am pretty sure that if Dravid had batted at #4 or #5 he would have made more runs in Oz and SA. Very few #1-3 batsmen have made lots of runs in Oz and SA (say, since 1990) because of the tough conditions and high quality bowling. The first innings and new ball is especially notoriously difficult for #1-3 batsmen in these conditions - the difficulty can be gauged by noting how a premier top order batsman like Smith has fared in home conditions against good sides. #3 visiting batsmen have scored far less number of hundreds and fifties compared to #4 batsmen in these two countries - so you cannot compare #3 and #4 batsmen in these conditions just based on stats. The most interesting thing about Dravid in these conditions is that he has lasted 4604 balls for 49 dismissals, that is 94 deliveries per innings - 16 overs! Basically means Dravid shielded the middle order from the new ball quite admirably even though his averages here do not match his stature.

Yup something which is often overlooked.

 

[SL_Fan]

Interesting.

I expected Dravid's to be in 50s.

Ponting's numbers are amazing. I have seen him playing great innings against new ball but I couldn't be decisive in my opinion because of him being covered by Langer, Slater and Hayden. Ponting's achievements sometimes go under-appreciated as compared to other great batsmen because of him playing in a team full of match-winners.


Just found Sachin's number's breakdown in different countries

These are upto 2009. He scored 5 overseas centuries after than and only one of them while coming at scoreboard showing less than 50, his Cape Town century. So I guess, averages wouldn't have changed much by the end of his career, except in case of South Africa.

Good find there. Yeah expected Ponting to have done pretty well but not that well tbh 60 Ave and 23 tons one every 5 innings. Amazing!

 

[tempus123]

The thing with Dravid is this. India lost just a single game (and that too against Zimbabwe) when Dravid got a 100 during his prime. Effectively, India did not lose a single game on a Dravid 100 during his prime. When Dravid got a 100 he ensured that India could not be beaten. That was his real worth. If Dravid decided to hang around at his prime, there was simply no way to beat India.

The only few losses came towards the end of his career when India had a historically worst disastrous tour in England. But with Sachin, India lost a large number of test matches on his hundreds - I think close to 15. Sachin is more loved for his personal records, and Dravid more for his team contributions. Many Sachin fans would love to see a Sachin 100 rather than a team win. You could guess why Sachin searched desperately for that elusive 100th hundred. His fans weren't going to allow him to miss that 100. That 100th 100 summarizes and symbolizes his career.

Pretty pathetic argument. Gilchrist was a better World cup player than Tendulkar because when Gilchrist played, Australia always won the world cup whereas Tendulkar didn't.

You can say they belonged to two different teams, which is a flawed argument too.. because a team is never the same. But to take it, Gilchrist was better than McGrath, Ponting, Waugh too as the WC player because each of the others had world cup losses with them.

When Dravid got to 100, he "ensured" India could not be beaten.. how ? By taking 20 opposition wickets ? Childish argument.

 

[IndianWillow]

One thing that do we ignore that Dravid was in early phase of his career in late 90s while Sachin was already an established player by then. And some of those bowling greats were retired by the time Dravid was developed as a batsman.

Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose and Walsh had already been retired didn't play much in 2000s. Among the rest, there were Murali, Warne, McGrath, two of them played till 2007 and then there was Steyn.

He got one series against McGrath and Warne and didn't do well here, so that make him lose some points.

He handled Murali better than Sachin and wasn't troubled by Steyn (he got out to Morkel mostly).


But Dravid played some of the bowlers like Akhtar, Anderson, MacGill, Vettori, Ntini, Swann much better than his team-mates, even Tendulkar, not many give him enough credit for that.

Dravid had one of the best defensive game. Personally, I used to fear Dravid more than Sachin while playing against India, cuz, Dravid will just grind out our bowlers, and I knew our batsmen will wilt under pressure. With Sachin and Sehwag, you do felt like they would give us a chance somewhere.

Plus Dravid has played most number of series defining knocks for India. I know win aspect depends on both teams, not a certain player, but there are some moments to seize for the batsman, the ones that can change the momentum of the matches. And Dravid has done that more often for India. Just like Sangakkara always did against Pakistan. His 270 in Pindi, 233 in Adelaide, twin 50s in Kolkatta 2004 and Jamaica 2006, centuries in Headingley and Notingham 2002, twin tons in Kolkatta are some in my mind. Like Laxman, he was more clutch player like Sachin.

If I have to pick one out of SRT and Dravid on basis of quality of opposition's bowling attack, I would pick Sachin, but if I have to pick them according to match situation, I will pick Dravid.

You reiterated what Wasim Akram said a while ago - "Sachin is undoubtedly a class act and is up there as one of the game’s greats. But Dravid has always performed under pressure." Even during the disastrous 1999 tour for Dravid, McGrath said that they feared Dravid more, because if he dug in Australia could not win the match. Sachin when he gets a 100 gets them quicker, and leaves the match wide open. Dravid when he gets a 100 usually seals up the match for the opposition from where India either win or draw the match.

 

[tempus123]

So when Dravid scored 100 and India lost, it was historic bad tour.. not Dravid's fault, haan ? But when Tendulkar scored 100 and India lost, it was because he never won the match for the team.

 

[IndianWillow]

Pretty pathetic argument. Gilchrist was a better World cup player than Tendulkar because when Gilchrist played, Australia always won the world cup whereas Tendulkar didn't.

You can say they belonged to two different teams, which is a flawed argument too.. because a team is never the same. But to take it, Gilchrist was better than McGrath, Ponting, Waugh too as the WC player because each of the others had world cup losses with them.

When Dravid got to 100, he "ensured" India could not be beaten.. how ? By taking 20 opposition wickets ? Childish argument.

Dravid consumes far more deliveries and closes out the match for the opposition - classic test match strategy. It has been the case with Dravid 100s, India usually win or draw. That is the way it has been most of his career.

 

[soso_killer]

Dravid has a terrible avg in Aus & SA
Kallis was consistently mediocre when McWarne played.
Sanga: Came into his own when bowling quality went down with the wickets becoming more batsmen friendly.
Ponting: I dont know how anyone can come to this conclusion, this guy had everything going for him playing in that legendary Australian side lol This is the one that cracks me up the most....... Not saying Ponting was a bad batsmen but come on, how scary would it be had Lara or SRT played in that Australian side instead of Ponting................

I think one needs to define mediocre.
Kallis became a great bat in the 2000's.
He averaged 46 against Australia in that time period. An average of 57 in Australia against Warne, McGrath, Lee is not bad/mediocre. It would be interesting to draw a list of players who averaged 50 against that attack in their turf when they played together.
He did struggle in SA though averaging 37. Then again many great players have come to SA and struggled to an inferior attack to that of Australia, even worse when we include Donald. Kallis had no respite against Australia he couldn't hide behind a flat pitch.
Kallis between Jan 2000 & 31 Dec 2007.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[tempus123]

Warne was indeed a top bowler during that time. He may have had temporary loss of form from time to time. He had some difficult teams (like India and WI) but that does not mean he wasn't a very good bowler back then. Warne was right in his mid career in 1999 (1992-2007 was his full career). Warne was already in the 300 wicket club (at an average of 25odd) during that Lara epic, so I wouldn't know why you wouldn't treat that part of Warne's primary years among his peak days.

Seriously many posts have already answered it. You can read them.

 

[tempus123]

Dravid consumes far more deliveries and closes out the match for the opposition - classic test match strategy. It has been the case with Dravid 100s, India usually win or draw. That is the way it has been most of his career.

Not sure.. because a lot of Tendulkar 100s ended in draw as well.. in 2003-04, both the players played 1 Test match where they did everything they could to ensure India won the match.. Agarkar destroyed Australia in Adelaide while India couldn't get Australia out twice despite having the match in it's grasp in Sydney.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Ponting still leading but with less than 50% votes now and the second most votes being with None suggests people have given their verdict in favour of Tendulkar and Lara being way above in their league and the only probable candidate, could be Ponting.

Big conclusions-
Kallis, Dravid and Sangakkara rejected as a Tier 1 batsmen


Others > KP, others could Be ABD, Sehwag, Smith or Amla.

KP rejected as Tier 2 batsman

Ponting cements Tier 1.5 status

 

[tempus123]

You can explain your point. One liner isn't much helpful.

There are so many points in your argument that it will be difficult to simultaneously prove all of them wrong at once. Let me know which one you want to defend first.

1. Dravid being new in 1999.
2. Dravid played Murali better than Tendulkar
3. Dravid performed when pressure was there.

 

[giri26]

If Sehwag gets a 20 and Dravid a 20, Sachin would be shielded from the new ball completely. Sachin was good against good bowlers, but he wasn't good against the new ball (enough stats were already posted). If Sachin had batted at #1-3 in Oz and SA, I am pretty sure his averages would have gone down by several points, just like his ODI averages as an opener here. BTW, Sachin averages 31 and 32 in Australia and SA against the home sides and made two hundreds and four fifties in 29 matches. That is his strength against the new ball in these conditions.

Batting at number 3 and 4 are mere numbers and except for having a psychological effect on the batting, it does not mean much. Let us look at the 2010 capetown game when Sachin scored that brilliant 146. In that test Dravid (Batting at number 3) came in to bat in the 7th over after the dismissal of Sehwag and Sachin came to bat in the 11th over after the dismissal of Rahul. So not much difference there. He went on to make that brilliant hunderd. Sachin in overseas test inspite of batting at number 4 most often came in to bat within the first 10-15 overs all through the 90's and most part of 2000's. yes we had Dravid but the openers were not that great as you are making it out to be. Sachin in the 90's did not even have a reliable number 3 till 1996 when Dravid made his debut. Even when Dravid established himself he did not succeed on all overseas tours. In the 1999/00 Australian tour, Dravid did not score anything of note and Sachin batted against the new ball most often and was the highest scorer.

 

[tempus123]

*scoreboard pressure



*whole team

Should it be "you did feel" or "you do felt" is correct ?

 

[Stallion__]

There are so many points in your argument that it will be difficult to simultaneously prove all of them wrong at once. Let me know which one you want to defend first.

1. Dravid being new in 1999.
2. Dravid played Murali better than Tendulkar
3. Dravid performed when pressure was there.

You pretty much conclude the result even before the start

But anyways, do 2,3,1 in that order.

 

[Mamoon]

Kallis failed against Muralitharan and couldn't handle the lateral movement in England. That, along with a very mundane batting style and lack of balls to take on bowlers.

If you are not a South African, you can only recall 2-3 knocks of Kallis visually, even though stats show that he scored 45 tons and scored 13,000 runs. That sums him up in my opinion.

 

[Stallion__]

Should it be "you did feel" or "you do felt" is correct ?

Didn't get it.

Elaborate.

 

[IndianWillow]

Ponting still leading but with less than 50% votes now and the second most votes being with None suggests people have given their verdict in favour of Tendulkar and Lara being way above in their league and the only probable candidate, could be Ponting.

Big conclusions-
Kallis, Dravid and Sangakkara rejected as a Tier 1 batsmen


Others > KP, others could Be ABD, Sehwag, Smith or Amla.

KP rejected as Tier 2 batsman

Ponting cements Tier 1.5 status

Your interpretation appears to be wrong. Tendulkar/Lara got 8 votes (as none) while "others" got 45 votes. Basically most do not think that Tendulkar/Lara are a cut above the rest. Most probably rate Ponting>Sanga>Dravid>Kallis>KP, which explains the voting pattern, but the verdict is clear. Most people rejected the "none" category.

 

[SL_Fan]

That's one heck of a reply right there )

 

[tempus123]

You pretty much conclude the result even before the start

But anyways, do 2,3,1 in that order.

No result is not clear yet.. hopefully I will learn something along the way. My humble clarification out of the way, I will start with 2.

Here are both of their records in SL (since Murali was most dangerous at home) stats wise :

Tendulkar:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...er_involve=2041;template=results;type=batting

average: 46 with 2 centuries and 2 half centuries.


Dravid:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...lve=2041;team=6;template=results;type=batting

average : 32 with 0 century, and 4 half centuries.

Now this doesn't prove much apart from the fact that the in presence of Muralitharan, Tendulkar played better in SL.

It however doesn't prove that he played Murali himself better there, neither does it prove that he played Murali at his best (Murali wasn't the same developed bowler in early 90s, but then it could also be attributed to the fact that some fine players of spin bowling like Tendulkar, Azhar, Salim Malik etc. played him during his early career, nullifying him).

Let us put this on table and we can discuss it along.

 

[tempus123]

Didn't get it.

Elaborate.

The phrase "you do felt" has feel in past participle/past tense form, usually it is not used with an auxiliary verb like do or does which represent present tense.

Just my opinion, as a lot of usage-model is indeed considered correct which doesn't look correct at face value.

 

[tempus123]

You reiterated what Wasim Akram said a while ago - "Sachin is undoubtedly a class act and is up there as one of the game’s greats. But Dravid has always performed under pressure." Even during the disastrous 1999 tour for Dravid, McGrath said that they feared Dravid more, because if he dug in Australia could not win the match. Sachin when he gets a 100 gets them quicker, and leaves the match wide open. Dravid when he gets a 100 usually seals up the match for the opposition from where India either win or draw the match.

Can you provide the source/reference for your quote for McGrath's comment about fearing Dravid more in 1999 .. must be having a crack at his poor run then ?

 

[Stallion__]

No result is not clear yet.. hopefully I will learn something along the way. My humble clarification out of the way, I will start with 2.

Here are both of their records in SL (since Murali was most dangerous at home) stats wise :

Tendulkar:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...er_involve=2041;template=results;type=batting

average: 46 with 2 centuries and 2 half centuries.


Dravid:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...lve=2041;team=6;template=results;type=batting

average : 32 with 0 century, and 4 half centuries.

Now this doesn't prove much apart from the fact that the in presence of Muralitharan, Tendulkar played better in SL.

It however doesn't prove that he played Murali himself better there, neither does it prove that he played Murali at his best (Murali wasn't the same developed bowler in early 90s, but then it could also be attributed to the fact that some fine players of spin bowling like Tendulkar, Azhar, Salim Malik etc. played him during his early career, nullifying him).

Let us put this on table and we can discuss it along.

Dravid has played 16 tests against Murali overall. 4 of them were in 90s.

For the rest of 12 matches, we do have ball by ball data available, so we can figure out how many balls he faced against Murali in those tests and how many runs he scored.

This method of evaluating how a batsman has done against bowler is far more accurate than what your stats show, which actually are the runs scored against the whole bowling attack.

I found out somewhere, that Dravid's head to head average during those 12 matches against Murali is 65 (326 runs at cost of 5 dismissals) while that of Sachin is 33.

I know Sachin had tennis elbow issues during that period, but the difference is big enough to conclude who dealt with Murali better. Though I don't have home/away record breakage since both are Asian conditions, so I don't think if breaking it into home/away is necessary.

The phrase "you do felt" has feel in past participle/past tense form, usually it is not used with an auxiliary verb like do or does which represent present tense.

Just my opinion, as a lot of usage-model is indeed considered correct which doesn't look correct at face value.

Oh, you were talking about grammar. Yeah, it should have been "I did feel", according to classical English grammar, though the other form is pretty much acceptable these days.

 

[SL_Fan]

No result is not clear yet.. hopefully I will learn something along the way. My humble clarification out of the way, I will start with 2.

Here are both of their records in SL (since Murali was most dangerous at home) stats wise :

Tendulkar:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...er_involve=2041;template=results;type=batting

average: 46 with 2 centuries and 2 half centuries.


Dravid:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...lve=2041;team=6;template=results;type=batting

average : 32 with 0 century, and 4 half centuries.

Now this doesn't prove much apart from the fact that the in presence of Muralitharan, Tendulkar played better in SL.

It however doesn't prove that he played Murali himself better there, neither does it prove that he played Murali at his best (Murali wasn't the same developed bowler in early 90s, but then it could also be attributed to the fact that some fine players of spin bowling like Tendulkar, Azhar, Salim Malik etc. played him during his early career, nullifying him).

Let us put this on table and we can discuss it along.

Those numbers are not all that accurate actually. Until the late 90s we had part timers bowling a ton of overs. Plus Murali was a 30+ averaging bowler. Only around the late 90s Murali started to take off. We were the worst bowling side before then out of all the Test nations. Even worse than the Zimboks.

Sachin

Overall 36
Home 48
Away 23

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Dravid

Overall 49
Home 77
Away 34

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting

 

[tempus123]

Dravid has played 16 tests against Murali overall. 4 of them were in 90s.

For the rest of 12 matches, we do have ball by ball data available, so we can figure out how many balls he faced against Murali in those tests and how many runs he scored.

This method of evaluating how a batsman has done against bowler is far more accurate than what your stats show, which actually are the runs scored against the whole bowling attack.

I found out somewhere, that Dravid's head to head average during those 12 matches against Murali is 65 (326 runs at cost of 5 dismissals) while that of Sachin is 33.

I know Sachin had tennis elbow issues during that period, but the difference is big enough to conclude who dealt with Murali better. Though I don't have home/away record breakage since both are Asian conditions, so I don't think if breaking it into home/away is necessary.

I think you didn't read my full post.. I already gave the caveat and disclaimers about what these stats prove and what they do not. Two more points following your argument.

1. Runs against dismissal is flawed too because it depends on a lot of other factors.

2. Murali was way more difficult to face in SL than he was in India. His record in India is very poor and this proves it.

 

[tempus123]

Those numbers are not all that accurate actually. Until the late 90s we had part timers bowling a ton of overs. Plus Murali was a 30+ averaging bowler. Only around the late 90s Murali started to take off. We were the worst bowling side before then out of all the Test nations. Even worse than the Zimboks.

Sachin

Overall 36
Home 48
Away 23

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Dravid

Overall 49
Home 77
Away 34

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting

LOL.. selective period stat.

 

[tempus123]

Muttiah Muralitharan picks the ten toughest batsmen he had to bowl to during his career.

1. Brian Lara (WI)

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India)

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)

4. Navjot Sidhu (India)

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan)

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan)

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)

8. Graham Thorpe (England)

9. Jon Crawley (England)

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa)

 

[Bhaijaan]

Muttiah Muralitharan picks the ten toughest batsmen he had to bowl to during his career.

1. Brian Lara (WI)

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India)

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)

4. Navjot Sidhu (India)

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan)

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan)

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)

8. Graham Thorpe (England)

9. Jon Crawley (England)

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa)

Warne, Murali, McGrath, Wasim etc all lay it down clear. Tendulkar and Lara, then rest.

 

[SL_Fan]

LOL.. selective period stat.

Shows the numbers v SL From late 90s onward. Sachin feasted on our part timers in the 90s.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ting&view=innings&submit_results=Submit+query

If you didn't get it the first time our bowling was worse than Zim during most of the 90s (Ave 39)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...pan;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team

At home the same (ave over 37).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...pan;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team

Compare apples with apples.

 

[tempus123]

THE TOP BATSMEN AGAINST MURALI IN ODIS SINCE JAN 2002-2008

Batsman Runs Balls Dismissals Average Runs Per Over
Gautam Gambhir 53 53 0 - 6.00
Shivnarine Chanderpaul 61 69 0 - 5.30
Sachin Tendulkar 69 82 0 - 5.04
Brian Lara 54 79 0 - 4.10
Chris Gayle 25 64 0 - 2.34
Ricky Ponting 188 217 2 94.00 5.19
Mohammad Yousuf 91 143 1 91.00 3.81
Mahendra Singh Dhoni 67 85 1 67.00 4.72
Boeta Dippenaar 56 82 1 56.00 4.09
Michael Clarke 107 116 2 53.50 5.53
Adam Gilchrist 107 133 2 53.50 4.82
Khaled Mashud 51 133 1 51.00 2.30
Simon Katich 93 126 2 46.50 4.42
Rahul Dravid 88 164 2 44.00 3.21
Andrew Symonds 160 175 5 32.00 5.48
Damien Martyn 93 150 3 31.00 3.72

 

[Stallion__]

I think you didn't read my full post.. I already gave the caveat and disclaimers about what these stats prove and what they do not.

No, I did read your full post and the disclaimer. I was reiterating your point rather than contradicting it.

1. Runs against dismissal is flawed too because it depends on a lot of other factors.

2. Murali was way more difficult to face in SL than he was in India. His record in India is very poor and this proves it.

First of all, no stat can tell us everything, there always remain ifs and buts.

1) Tell me what are those lot of factors that this runs/dismissal depend upon.

2) Dravid's lower average in SL has a lot to do with his failure to pick Mendis in 2008 series. I try to find how both Sachin and Dravid did in SL against Murali, but I don't expect anyone do have done significantly better than the other.

 

[tempus123]

Shows the numbers v SL From late 90s onward. Sachin feasted on our part timers in the 90s.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ting&view=innings&submit_results=Submit+query

If you didn't get it the first time our bowling was worse than Zim during most of the 90s (Ave 39)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...pan;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team

At home the same (ave over 37).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...pan;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team

Compare apples with apples.

At least Murali doesn't agree with you. He doesn't include Dravid in the 10 hardest batsmen list, while has Tendulkar at 3. He may be wrong but ..

 

[tempus123]

No, I did read your full post and the disclaimer. I was reiterating your point rather than contradicting it.





First of all, no stat can tell us everything, there always remain ifs and buts.

1) Tell me what are those lot of factors that this runs/dismissal depend upon.

2) Dravid's lower average in SL has a lot to do with his failure to pick Mendis in 2008 series. I try to find how both Sachin and Dravid did in SL against Murali, But I don't expect anyone do have done significantly better than the other.

Murali's own opinion about the hardest batsmen he bowled to (which in turn means the ones who played him better) indicates something.

Now Murali is the best judge of players who have played him but not necessarily completely correct, because sometimes a player may miss including an opposition player out of bias or incorrect reading.

Murali's record was poor in the early 90s but Tendulkar played him throughout his career, so his opinion about him wouldn't be confined to early 90s.

 

[SL_Fan]

At least Murali doesn't agree with you. He doesn't include Dravid in the 10 hardest batsmen list, while has Tendulkar at 3. He may be wrong but ..

Who Murali rated higher is irrelevant. At the end of the day it's all about the runs scored off him. I'm not sure about what the exact numbers are head-to-head but what you posted before was incorrect. Clearly Dravid did better against SL (when Murali was playing) when we had a Test quality attack.

 

[tempus123]

Who Murali rated higher is irrelevant. At the end of the day it's all about the runs scored off him. I'm not sure about what the exact numbers are head-to-head but what you posted was incorrect. Clearly Dravid did better against SL (when Murali was playing) when we had a Test quality attack.

Who Murali rated higher is irrelevant but who SL_Fan rated higher (based on selective period stat) is gospel truth. Bravo.

Anyway, I have given my view point in post #315.

It's not all about runs scored off a bowler.. playing a bowler well goes much beyond scoring more runs off him.

 

[Stallion__]

Murali's own opinion about the hardest batsmen he bowled to (which in turn means the ones who played him better) indicates something.

Now Murali is the best judge of players who have played him but not necessarily completely correct, because sometimes a player may miss including an opposition player out of bias or incorrect reading.

Murali's record was poor in the early 90s but Tendulkar played him throughout his career, so his opinion about him wouldn't be confined to early 90s.

Thats irrelevant mate.

We are talking about who did better against Murali. If we are going to decide it on bowler's opinion than its game, set, match. No need to discuss this.

Its quite possible that a batsman do well against a bowler, but bowler still don't rate him as good as some of the batsman who haven't done as well. Tendulkar and Lara had an aura with him, Dravid never had that. They sometimes, get brownie points with lesser performances. You ask any bowler of 70s and 80, that who was the most difficult batsman to bowl to, most of them would name Viv, but Viv may not have best of record against that bowler.

I am pretty sure than Cronje won't be in Sachin's list of most difficult bowlers he have faced but we know how they performed against each other.

 

[SL_Fan]

I give up

 

[IndianWillow]

Warne, Murali, McGrath, Wasim etc all lay it down clear. Tendulkar and Lara, then rest.

Wasim didn't even include Sachin in his toughest 10, leave alone #1.