I've noted myself, elsewhere, that South Africa in the last, perhaps, 3 years, has had more than its share of proper seam-friendly decks. And that the ball does still tend to swing there to acceptable, if not ideal, degrees. I mentioned it in the Steyn situation.
That's just harsh. Dravid was at his peak when he played in the 90s, Ponting and Kallis peaked a bit later. They hardly "proved themselves" incapable of batting in difficult conditions, especially since Kallis has played his career in the world's hardest country to bat in and still come out among the best figures going.
So Dravid > Ponting? Yikes.
For reasons that you can't defend I am assuming. P.S. is Dravid > Sobers too?
No, just ones you won't accept so I won't waste my time with.
Not really.
That has little to nothing to do with it.
Really? In 2004 he averaged 91. Tendulkar has not been the same for the good part of a decade, I think that should weigh in here.
No, really. It's obvious I won't agree, but let's hear your reasons.
Why not? Sobers did poorly against NZ, you should count that against him too...come on Richy be fair now!
Really, then what else?
Nah, it didn't explain anything. In the 90s Dravid didn't do well against 2 of the 4 best sides of the time. Gets a pass mark against 1 and did very well against the other. Ponting does well against 2/3 of the best bowling sides of his time. And in the 2000s, continues to do so and also owns the weaker sides. They're basically the same age, have had roughly the same career, yet Ponting's record is superior to Dravid's in most ways...yet Dravid > Ponting.
Dravid, Kallis, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Hayden, Gibbs. Not constant in their calibre, but all constant in incurring an upsurge in scoring at the exact same time.
Nope. Pretty obvious if you just watch them all bat that they changed next to nothing.
There's absolutely no point whatsoever in having any form of discussion with you when I've stated time and again that the date of significance is 01 Sep 2001, while you constantly attempt to project 01 Jan 2000 onto what I've said, despite precisely nothing of remote significance happening in cricket on that date.
No point. It'd be a waste of my time.
It does count against him. He's lesser for his 1 failure in NZ at a time they were Test-class than he would be had he had success there.
I've already mentioned that.
As I showed, Dravid's record (with Test-standard teams only considered and innings' in their weaker positions knocked-out) was quite a bit superior to Ponting's when things were difficult, and both of them had superlative records when things got much easier. Therefore, Dravid > Ponting.
I've not used MSN much of late and don't have the inclination to change over this matter.
Like Gooch, Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar and Ganguly? Even in Gower or Wright who don't have superlative records overall start hammering above their weight in the 90s.
Except scoring a crap-load more runs.
So what happened on 01 Sep 2001 that makes you have such an arbitrary cut-off? Pitches don't get flat overnight.
Basically, Dravid went: excellent--->excellent--->useless (you left that part out).
It was superior because Dravid knocked the stuffing out of the weaker sides, not because of anything else. As Ponting's record in the 90s shows; against the best opposition, he did well. It's, ironically, against the weaker ones that he did worse. And he fixed that post 2000. So he did not fail in the "tough conditions" as you put forth.
Suit yourself, I thought maybe you'd care to have a proper chat about it. A bit more frankness with less ego.
Fixed your post
.
guess there will be some wise ass posting stuff like this too, without actually making any relevant point abt cricket and juz reading, and re-reading the numbers.....I have a feeling that 20 years from now, there'll be a guy who has a batting average of 60 and bowling average of 28, and guys on crickweb (the name of the game will have been shortened in 20 years) will all be talking about how Kallis was "so much better".
And I will be trying to convince the few who disagree that ah, I watched Kallis in his heydey, and he was like a god among men, swatting away the girly pies of the Australians. And people will rejoice, and be thoroughly convinced, because older is always better.
Nothing of the sort happened, but as I say, I really can't be arsed getting into the matter. There are all sorts of things that happened from 2001/02 onwards that'd never happened before, but I don't expect you to recognise this so I'm not going to bother trying to make you.
That was a result, not a cause.
Don't they? I suggest you take a closer look and stop relying on assumptions.
