Yes.. and how many of them were against Australia ?
They would sure fear a batsman who got going against mediocre attacks or flat tracks and went into hiding when facing quality attacks on non-flat tracks.
The only successful tour of Dravid was in 2003-04 where :
1. He was well protected by openers (you always use this argument to downplay Tendulkar, right, but haven't answered it about Dravid)
2. The second string Australian bowling attack.. Lee was out of form and Gillespie wasn't fit either. McGill .. right.
3. Some of the flattest tracks Australia laid out. It was very similar to the last tour where Kohli scored 600 runs.
In all other tours he failed terribly.. so much for a pressure player and being a "wall".
I think I made my overall position on this thread in post #105. You may want to check how I rated these players relatively. I am not a Sachin hater or something that some Sachinistas accused me of, in this thread. The reality is, as [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] said Sachin fans can't take even a bit of criticism of their "God", they have skins made of paper.
Every batsman in this list has some flaws and strengths. Dravid had his weaknesses too, where did I deny it? He could have surely done better in Oz and SA, for all his ability. But to think that Sachin did better than Dravid in these conditions due to pure talent is misleading - Sachin was always hiding at #4 behind the openers and #3 and hence he came across the new ball only once in say, every four or five games. In fact, Sachin came into bat within the top ten overs only two or three times in his career. Not just Dravid, every #1-#3s have had disastrous tours down under. For Smith, this is his home turf where he plays a lot of matches - and see how he fared against good teams even on wickets he grew up? Dravid and Sanga are still the top #3 Asian batsmen of their generation in Australia/SA - the comments of some Sachinistas in this thread would make you think Dravid (or even Sanga/Kallis) did not even know how to hold a bat. Show their insecurity more than anything else.
I didn't have any problem considering Sachin > Dravid overall. I think most will agree with that. But is Sachin and Lara on a different level compared to the names suggested on the poll? On what grounds? Let me make it clear which type of batsmen I consider "to be in a league on their own". Others may have different requirements.
1. A significantly higher batting average and/or strike rate compared to their peers. Basically speaking, I don't consider any batsman in a league on his own unless he has a batting average of 60. Because these batsmen have not separated themselves from the crowd of 50-55 averaging greats over an entire career. If this can be compensated by a superior strike rate (like Lara/Viv/Hayden/KP/Sehwag/Gilly) I consider that as compensation for not having the 60 average.
2. Consistency over a significant portion of career.
3. Several iconic knocks and several match winning knocks. Several fighting and gutsy knocks that defy the odds. Similar to Lara 153 or Laxman 281 or even Faf 134. I don't think Sachin had many of these inspite of having the maximum opportunities.
4. Top ranked ICC player/ICC ratings for several years. Sachin was good in this category but no where near the best.
5. Good record in most countries and conditions. Sachin does meet this requirement. Lara doesn't.
6. Ability to take the fight to the opposition. Like taking control of a match by leading from the front, or playing out an impossible and marathon draw. I rarely saw Sachin doing this even though he played 200 tests.
Lara did better but not enough number to times to put him in a separate category.
7. Dominance against the best opposition. Sachin and Lara meet this requirement.
8. Series domination - Dominating the opponent thoroughly over an entire tour(s). Say, like making 600 runs in a series. Lara did this many times, Sachin didn't.
9. Big score making ability - Ability to rack up huge scores is one of the hallmarks of batsmen who are a cut above the rest - Sachin failed here. Lara was capable of this.
10. Longevity. Sachin had this but I don't personally rate a very long career over a handsome peak of 10 years.
So these are some of my observations. I may have missed out some of the points. From what I see, Sachin and Lara did better than others in the OP's listing (as I mentioned in post #105), but neither of them did enough to create a league of their own. The poll voters here also voted out so called "Sachin and Lara league", Sachin's achievements are mostly based on longevity, he does not own too many of the records that brilliant players often achieve - like making tallest scores in an innings, match, series etc. Sachin did not stamp his authority on a highest level in a single innings, match or series.
There are only a few players in history that I think were in a separate category unto themselves. And these are:
Bradman (because he was so far ahead of his peers that no detailed analysis is required to come to this conclusion)
Sobers (was so far ahead of his peers, being so good with both bat and ball was a rare skill for his era)
Miller (same argument as in the case of Sobers)
Richards (Richards was in a league of his own in terms of batting strike rate. Averaging 50 at a S/R of 70 during the 70s/80s era puts him in an elite category on his own especially given that Richards got more brutal whenever the opposition got stronger)
Imran (In the class of Miller, he separated himself from the great allrounder crowd of the 80)
Marshall (Never seen any bowler so complete and devastating at the same time. The very name conjures up terror and destruction)
Lara would be close, but lacked the consistency to make a grade for himself.
I just realized I have spent too much time on this thread. So this would be my last post on this thread.
this is me having a bit of fun at a Dravista's expense, I am just getting started...
......
, I enjoy this, post like this makes my day
