Rahul Dravid vs Ricky Ponting

[sideshowtim]

Who was arguing that aggression was all there was to admire in the game of cricket? All I saw was people saying Ponting is better because he was more aggressive and could score the runs at a faster rate and then people rubbished that. Essentially Ponting has all that Dravid has in his game and more. A wider range of strokes, the ability to score at a fast rate, the ability to perform immaculately when his team needs him and yes, Ponting can even go on the defensive if required.

 

[SJS]

Who was arguing that aggression was all there was to admire in the game of cricket? All I saw was people saying Ponting is better because he was more aggressive and could score the runs at a faster rate and then people rubbished that. Essentially Ponting has all that Dravid has in his game and more. A wider range of strokes, the ability to score at a fast rate, the ability to perform immaculately when his team needs him and yes, Ponting can even go on the defensive if required.

Ok maybe were adressing different debates going on here.

One poster said that players like Dravid and Kallis were not the ones who people flocked to see and that they were big bores and it is people like Ponting (and Afridi I think he said that too) who bring the people. Words to that effect.

This provoked another debate about what people want to see in the game. I thought you were writing in that context.

Apologies if I was mistaken.

 

[sideshowtim]

Well in that particular debate I think it'd be foolish to argue that all people love watching Dravid and Kallis bat. Sure they may be the ones for the cricket tragics and lovers of the traditional game, but guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Afridi attract the masses, they definitely have more pulling power than Dravid and Kallis.

And in all honesty, would you rather see a 60-ball Gilchrist century or a tight, classical 60 off 100 balls from Dravid. I think that's a no-brainer to be honest. Mainly because any batsman in the world could score a 100 ball 60 whereas not many people can do what Gilchrist does.

 

[Jono]

Umm I think the fact is throw Dravid on a bowler friendly wicket and he'll show you a master class 60 off 100 balls whilst the rest of the team collapses around him (think India vs. WI 4th test 2006), whereas you throw an Afridi or even a Gilchrist, if we're being perfectly honest here, and they may not be able to get many runs on it.

 

[sideshowtim]

Afridi maybe not, but Gilchrist can bat quickly in any conditions a he's proved on many occassions. So can Ponting.

 

[haroon510]

Well in that particular debate I think it'd be foolish to argue that all people love watching Dravid and Kallis bat. Sure they may be the ones for the cricket tragics and lovers of the traditional game, but guys like Ponting, Gilchrist and Afridi attract the masses, they definitely have more pulling power than Dravid and Kallis.

And in all honesty, would you rather see a 60-ball Gilchrist century or a tight, classical 60 off 100 balls from Dravid. I think that's a no-brainer to be honest. Mainly because any batsman in the world could score a 100 ball 60 whereas not many people can do what Gilchrist does.

well said and i agree with u. that is what i wanted to say all along but just couldn't get the words right. well done.

 

[SJS]

I think it'd be foolish to argue that all people love watching Dravid and Kallis bat.
.

No, not ALL people, its obvious otherwise we wouldnt be having this debate.

By the same coin not ALL people prefer big hits and sixes as the only form of good cricket and prefer watching Gilchrist and Dhoni clobber some hapless bowler rather than see Dravid and Gavaskar play out of their skins against a master under adverse conditions. Thats what is also not true.

There is clearly a fan following for twenty20 and 'sixer', maro, dho daaalo etc. No one ever denied that.

And in all honesty, would you rather see a 60-ball Gilchrist century or a tight, classical 60 off 100 balls from Dravid. I think that's a no-brainer to be honest. Mainly because any batsman in the world could score a 100 ball 60 whereas not many people can do what Gilchrist does.

Anyday I would prefer to watch Dravid or any other master batsman perform in difficult conditions against a master bowler. There is something happening in that form of the game which also can be appreciated by those who can. Not just the fast food of sixers. And its not a no-brainer.

I too love a 100 in 60 balls but not all the time.

And any batsman in the world CAN NOT score a hundred ball 60 against master bowlers operating in helpful conditions, only very skilful can. Why ony 100 ball 60 even a 200 ball 60 can, in some circumstances, require immense skills which not many may posess.

 

[Majin]

And in all honesty, would you rather see a 60-ball Gilchrist century or a tight, classical 60 off 100 balls from Dravid.

Dravid, every single time. His batting is what got me really into Cricket in the first place.

Anyway, as far as the original question goes, I'd say there was nothing to choose between the two in Tests and in ODI's Ponting is superior, so overall I'd give the nod to Ponting. But If I had to choose a current XI to play for my life, Dravid would be the first name on the teamsheet.

 

[marc71178]

I think this is kind of reflected in the fact that Australia have won 16 of their last 17 tests and India have an incredibly high rate of draws.

I think that might have more to do with the fact that Australia could call on Warne and McGrath, luxuries India do not possess.

 

[pup11]

I think we aren't comparing Australia and India, we are comparing Dravid and Ponting and there is no doubt Dravid's batting has been affected by captaincy (in recent times) but captaincy has only made Ponting a better batsman.


But then again its hard to compare these 2 batsmen because their styles of batting are completly different.



Ponting is still a better batsman compared to Dravid in both forms of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

Afridi maybe not, but Gilchrist can bat quickly in any conditions a he's proved on many occassions. So can Ponting.

yeah, his amazing run of scores on the really difficult Indian wickets proves that. Or even his amazing success in the Ashes in 2005.............

 

[Anil]

yeah, his amazing run of scores on the really difficult Indian wickets proves that. Or even his amazing success in the Ashes in 2005.............

right...watch gavaskar in his last innings in bangalore(scored 96) against the pakistani bowling and then figure out if adam gilchrist will survive 5 overs on that wicket against that attack...

 

[pup11]

Gilchrist in his prime could play unbelievable knocks in even hopeless situations, when he is his zone the condition of the pitch,playing the shots against the spin/swing such factors hardly effect him and thats why he is still such a dangerous player [even without the squash ball].



So even on a dicey track Gilly could make batting look terribly easy.

 

[Athlai]

Gilchrist in his prime could play unbelievable knocks in even hopeless situations, when he is his zone the condition of the pitch,playing the shots against the spin/swing such factors hardly effect him and thats why he is still such a dangerous player [even without the squash ball].



So even on a dicey track Gilly could make batting look terribly easy.

A third of the time he hits nothing at all. 10 or under.

 

[pup11]

Shane Warne was never too effective on Indian tracks and against Indian players, but if he would have toured India now his figures would have been much better [mind you the last test series which he played in India, he produced much better results] because after coming back from the ban he evolved as a bowler.



The same could be said about Ponting, he has really evolved as a batsman and his technique against spin bowling too has improved.

 

[Burgey]

right...watch gavaskar in his last innings in bangalore(scored 96) against the pakistani bowling and then figure out if adam gilchrist will survive 5 overs on that wicket against that attack...

What about Gilchrist on day 5 against the Pakistan attack in only his second test when he won a match after Australia were 5 for sfa? We could rule Gavaskar out of doing that, because, with the test being played in Australia, he probably wouldn't have done very well.
These players (Gilchrist and Gavaskar included) are that good, that if they are on their game they'll perform well against virtually any attack. They have their different styles though, which makes them of different value in different situations. Sure, if you want to guts something out, you'd go with a Dravid, but if you want to punish an attack, you'd go with a Gilly. Each attribute can win you a match.
As for Ponting, he can probably do both - 3rd Ashes Test '05 springs to mind - imo took him from being a very good player to a great one in about 5 and a half hours, one of the great knocks of the past 10 years, and all it did was save a game, not win it. Then he can turn around and do what he did in the 03 WC final.

 

[howardj]

Punterrrr

 

[pup11]

Yup, Punter played a superb knock in the 3rd test during the Ashes 05, it was one of his best knocks and it completly transformed him as a batsman.



But TBH, the real heroes of the 3rd test were Binga and Pidge together they survived the last 24 balls to save the test.

 

[Jono]

Afridi maybe not, but Gilchrist can bat quickly in any conditions a he's proved on many occassions. So can Ponting.

I don't care if he can bat quickly in any conditions, so can Afridi.

Can he consistently win matches for his team, or save them, when the rest of the team is collapsing and conditions are completely against the batsman? I'd pick plenty of batsman to bat for my team in that situation over Gilly.

Ponting? Obviously he can, but Ponting scores quickly anyway so he wasn't part of the discussion. We were discussing whether people would rather watch a gritty Dravid innings, or a run a ball Gilly ton. Obviously it depends on the situation, but if its on a bowler friendly wicket there's every chance Gilly would only get a run a ball 10.

 

[Ikki]

In the position Gilchrist bats, it is ALWAYS the best for his team to bat in that manner.

If his team has collapsed, a Gilchrist innings will not only bring back the match, but him doing it fast enough makes it possible for Australia to squeeze out a good innings total. If his team has dominated and he comes in, the faster he scores with the remaining balls, the more devastating the total will be. Gilchrist, in his position, should never really play that kind of innings. It would be a very rare game to see Australia 50/6.

And to be honest, I've seen plenty of gritty Gilchrist innings that showed the same resiliance as a Dravid - he just happened to do it a bit faster. Can't pop up at the top of my head, and I can't look it up because I gotta go, but I am sure others can put in an example or two.

And before a few people pop-off green and gold bias, Dravid is one of my favourite batsmen ever.

ADD: You said specifically 'consistently', well I can't answer you honestly. Not that I don't think he can't do it, but as aforementioned, his team is rarely in that position to begin with for him to have to do that.