An ODI team needs both stroke players and those who can build the innings. Having all players of only one type is asking for trouble. So is trying to compare one type of player with the other. Of course there are those greats like Tendulkar Viv Richards etc who will score big, consistently and quickly but unfortunately they are not that common unless we are making all time great sides and using time machines.
If you rank the top one day batsmen by aggregate runs scored and also rank batsmen by highest strike rates, you will fine that there are some who are high on the runs list but are nowhere to be seen in the strike rate list. So what should we assume? that they should never have played all those games that they did?
Here is a list of such batsmen with their strike rates.
Code:
[B]Player Mat S/R Runs[/B]
Tillakaratne, 200 57.6 3789
Mahanama, R S 213 60.6 5162
Haynes, D L 238 63.1 8648
Ramiz Raja 198 63.3 5841
Richardson, R B 224 63.8 6248
Harris, C Z 250 66.5 4379
Javed Miandad 233 67.0 7381
Flower, G W 219 67.5 6536
Atapattu, M S 267 67.7 8529
Jadeja, A D 196 69.8 5359
Chanderpaul, S* 248 71.1 8154
[B]Dravid, R * 333 71.2 10585[/B]
Border, A R 273 71.4 6524
Fleming, S P 279 71.5 8037
[B]Kallis, J H* 291 71.9 10239[/B]
Astle, N J 222 72.6 7090
Ganguly, S C 311 73.7 11363
Sangakkara, 245 73.9 7408
Azharuddin, M 334 74.0 9378
Bevan, M G 232 74.2 6912
Inzamam-ul-Haq 378 74.2 11739
Flower, A 213 74.6 6786
The list was much longer. I have pruned it based on those 21 who played the most Tests. You may ignore some of the older ones like Border and Haynes for they played in an era where strike rates were lower (although they still stand out against players like Richards and Zaheer who scored in the 80's). So what are we saying? that these players were no good ODI players? Of course that is non-sense. They have a role to play and that role is different from the one played by the Jayasuriyas and Afridis (I am intentionally picking those with fabulous strike rates but poorer averages). Eleven Afridi's wouldn't win you a world cup nor would eleven Dravid's.
This arguement is pointless because both sides are taking extreme positions. If you try to depict Rahul (or Kallis) as a terrible ODI player becuase of the low strike rate you are forgetting their immense contributions in games they helped win by resurrecting the innings and on many occasions accelrating too. Rahul's slowest 100 is 104 in 139 balls against Pakistan. All others are in the 80's and above. His average strike rate for his 100's is 117. Of course Jayasuriya's will be higher but we are not to compare them. By the way, Rahul's strike rate for all scores above 50 is 82.3 and for all scores above 40 is 80.1 - not as bad as we think.
On the other hand, those trying to portray Dravid (or Kallis) as a good/very good/great ODI player are doing him great injustice by falling into the trap of using just strike rates to evaluate this. He was never taken into the ODI side to boost the scoring rate - nor, by the way, was Michael Bevan whose figures are before you.
The problem of people like Dravid is that they play in a country like India where dropping a super star is unthinkable. Dropping means almost ending someone's career. Nonsense of course but true. This has a terrible impact
when the player is being made to play, when out of form, in a format where there can be situations not ideally suited to his game. An in form Dravid, can and has scored at very good pace in ODI's but if the guy is in poor batting form as it is and enters the ground with runs required at a maniacal clip, what is going to happen - disaster.
Indian super stars have done no favours to the team and also grave damage to their own reputations by not taking a 'voluntary time out' when out of form. Rahul should have done it even in Test matches at least on one occasion. Fortunately for him India persevered (partly because they were short on great alternative options) with him for almost two years till he struck form in a Test match. In the one day game it meant the end of his career.
The shorter version of the game is the last place for struggling players to try and recover their touch - the team just cant afford the time. An out of form Tendulkar, maybe, Sehwag, sure (for they can and will hit their way out of form) Dravid and his ilk need to play themselves into form and ODI's are not for net practice.
If Dravid has played too many ODI's for India, it is the ones he has played when his overall form was poor or when, recently, we have had good alternatives. On the other hand a few times when he was kept out because he was not a stroke player was also not justified.
PS : I dont think Dravid would have played so many games for India if he had not started keeping wickets in ODI's. He was the designated keeper in 73 games out of the 333 he has played in all.
He's not supposed to win the other team as many matches as he wins India!
