*Official* Group A Discussion - Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, India

[Uppercut]

How do you go to those two pages?

It's hard to explain, statsguru juggling.

If you want to check out the comparison for other players, go to that link and click "return to query menu" (not cleared query menu) and type in the name of the player and date of his first ODI in the appropriate places in place of Rahul Dravid. Don't forget to change the teams too if necessary. It's awkward, takes some fiddling.

 

[honestbharani]

I guess we each just see what we expect to see from Rahul Dravid. I thought he piled too much pressure on the other end to up the run rate, demonstrated by Virat Kohli's dismissal. Shoaib Malik played the batting-through role for Pakistan with a strike rate of 101.58, while Dravid struck at just 73. If you're going to bat through chasing 300, you have to either keep your strike rate higher than that or stay until the very end.

The problem with the tactic for me is, India's hopes become entirely dependent on Dravid staying until the end, upping his run-rate at the death and getting a century, and that's highly unlikely- Dravid's only done it 12 times in 312 ODI innings. No matter how carefully you bat or how few "risks" you take, you nearly always get out anyway.

Virat Kohli built up pressure on himself because he could not get the ball off the square.. And I would anyways have a Dravid at the crease than a Kohli in a crucial chase.. He is just no good as yet in international cricket...


I saw the game and I think Dravid played a great hand... WE were always in with a chance as long as he was out there... And I think saying Kohli got out because Dravid created the pressure is pretty senseless because Kohli was the one struggling to get bat on ball out there..


And Shoaib Malik upped the ante only round the 32 to 35 over mark.. Had Dravid been there batting first, and if he had the wickets in hand, I am sure he could have done the same (as a matter of fact, he HAS done the same before..).


And regarding getting out, while I concede there is some merit in that argument, it is usually stupid to point fingers at Dravid for other batsmen getting themselves out. Raina got a tough decision, Gambhir was run out due to his fault, Dhoni got himself out, Kohli could not handle the pressure and committed suicide, and Pathan was no good.. I don't see how anyone can blame Dravid for this.. He usually plays his role well these days in ODIs and the same was the case yesterday. Had Raina not been given out, I am pretty sure INdia could have won with Dravid there an unbeaten 102 or so off 130 balls. And it won't have been a bad innings because he made sure we were abreast with the run rate and just used the cushion provided to him by the aggressive Raina and Gambhir to get himself set.

 

[honestbharani]

I think this is the reason players like Dravid so often retain their places in sides. Scoring 70 off 102 when his side are bowled out gives the impression of a nuggety lone ranger, stubbornly defying the opposition attack when the others collapsed all around him.

I don't really buy it though, it's a cause and effect thing. Collapses in ODI cricket are usually caused by the pressure of a rising required run-rate, which Dravid in turn is responsible for. Dravid's slow batting often forces players to score at or over a run a ball from the moment they arrive at the crease, and the intense pressure of that requirement causes them to get out.

Yesterday is a bit of a borderline case. Had Dravid kept India on top of the run rate, would Gambhir have set off for a risky single? Probably, yes, because Dravid called him through. Would Kohli have tried to hit over the top so early in his innings? Surely not. Would Dhoni have danced down the track to Afridi? Maybe. Would Yusuf Pathan have tried to hit Mohammed Aamer over mid-on after being at the crease for nine balls? We can't know for sure. But the pressure of an ever-rising run rate can't have helped.

There's not really any facts that can determine whether your lone-ranger theory or my putting-pressure-on-the-rest theory is correct. It's just a different way of seeing things. I would, however, direct you to the facts I mentioned earlier in the thread on India with and without Dravid in the side:

Since his 1996 ODI debut, Dravid has played in 259 completed ODIs against the other test nations, Bangladesh excluded, of which India have won 111 and lost 148. India have also played 85 completed matches without Dravid, of which they've won 48 and lost 37. Feel free to analyse that.

Kohli struggled to get the ball off the square.. He would have gotten himself out - Dravid or no Dravid. He just simply could not handle the pressure of the big game and it was obvious... Dravid was going well enough most of the time and only took balls off when he had Gambhir or Raina at the other end, who were scoring aggressively anyways..

 

[honestbharani]

well the thing is there are two types of Arguments
One is baseless other is Very visible one
but whatever, Guys here saying that India lost cuz three players didn't play, but then Pakistan won the match, even they didn't play much cricket in Past few years

mate.. don't be stupid. No one is using money to end cricket in Pakistan. The problem is with terrorism and if and when Pakistan deal with it properly enough that their land is seen to be free of terrrorist infiltrators, this will continue to happen.

 

[honestbharani]

You can never be assured you won't lose a wicket at one end though, that's the point. Dravid nearly always gets out while batting defensively anyway. If he was averaging 50 I'd agree with your point.

Your argument seems to be based on one single thing: "You can get out at anytime". That is true of any and all cricket... So there is no real point in batting defensively EVER... The thing is, defensive batting gives less of a chance of you getting out than batting aggressively... And if you are good at it and can guarantee batting through certain period of time without getting out on a reasonably consistent basis, you are worth your place in an ODI side full of stroke makers at the other end..


And if someone better than DRavid comes along, I am completely happy to see him dropped. But we tried the youngsters, they failed and look like failing everytime on certain types of pitches where DRavid is very good. So he is there and they are not. Completely fair AFAIC.

 

[honestbharani]

I have no answer to that question. I am trying to think of one, but can't find it. I am flummoxed.

India were a poor team in the mid 90s... DRavid was a regular then. INdia have been a good to brilliant ODI side since Dhoni took over.. DRavid has not been a regular part of it. Sometimes the bleeding obvious answers are overlooked because they happen to be FACTS and not suited to our arguments...

 

[Uppercut]

India were a poor team in the mid 90s... DRavid was a regular then. INdia have been a good to brilliant ODI side since Dhoni took over.. DRavid has not been a regular part of it. Sometimes the bleeding obvious answers are overlooked because they happen to be FACTS and not suited to our arguments...

So what you're saying is, India have been a much better team since Dravid was dropped?

 

[Uppercut]

Got it honestbharani. Thank you! It confused me a lot.

It's just about looking for cause and effect. Dravid's being left out of the team since Dhoni took over (which, in any case, only partially accounts for the massive statistical variation between Indian success with and without him) coincided with India becoming bloody good. Or was it a coincidence? What changed in between the 4-2 home defeat to Australia and the CB series that made India a stunningly good ODI side?

Here is the third ODI of the 4-2 defeat, which India lost by 47 runs. Here is the first CBS final, which India won by six wickets. Praveen Kumar and Ishant Sharma came in for Sreesanth and an injured Zaheer Khan, while India dropped Rahul Dravid for the series, playing Pyush Chawla in a five-man attack. MS Dhoni was captain, as he had been during the Australia series. I'm also missing out a successful home ODI series against Pakistan, in which Dravid played no part.

Starting from that victory, India won eight out of nine ODI series, whereas prior to it they lost in England and flopped in the world cup. What changed that made India so damn good? Would you propose that Dravid's omission had absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

[Pratters]

A 4-2 defeat doesn't really say much. And India would have lost the CBS series had it not been for some miraculous performances by Tendulkar.

India were a dire side in the 90s (depending solely on Tendulkar miracles) when Dravid played a majority of his games. Most of the ODI explosion happened post 1995. Before then teams played less ODIs. From 1996 onwards teams started playing more than 25-30 games per year and Dravid made his debut in 1996. Also, he was poor in ODIs early on in his career and was dropped. I think your argument is valid for the first part of his ODI career but not later on for most part of his career. Comparing Dravid in one era to the other is like comparing win/loss ration in Allan Border's time with Steve Waugh's time and declaring Allan Border was a worse captain than Steve Waugh.

 

[Uppercut]

You're referring to specific matches or series, but is there a reason for it in the wider picture? India flopped in the World Cup, lost in England and lost at home to Australia with Dravid in the side. As soon as he was left out, they won against Pakistan, won the CBS, won in Sri Lanka, whitewashed England, won in Sri Lanka again, won in New Zealand, won in the West Indies and won the Compaq Cup. And reached the Asia Cup final. Dravid's now been recalled, and they've lost to Pakistan. Is it all a coincidence? Did his omission play no part at all in India's emergence as an excellent ODI side? Because the bulk of the side has stayed the same. There aren't too many other variables you could put it down to.

 

[Pratters]

I'll spell it out for you why the stats are like they are.

Dravid was POOR in his ODI career early on.

Dravid in first 3 years -

year 1996 20 19 2 475 90 27.94 683 69.54 0 3 1 32 1 view innings
year 1997 31 26 2 951 107 39.62 1493 63.69 1 8 0 77 2 view innings
year 1998 14 13 0 283 64 21.76 516 54.84 0 1 0 16 0 view innings
year 1999 43 43 5 1761 153 46.34 2343 75.16 6 8 3 164 12 view innings
year 2000 31 29 1 980 85 35.00 1536 63.80 0 9 0 91 1 view innings
year 2001 24 21 4 740 80 43.52 1046 70.74 0 6 0 58 1 view innings

He was dropped.

India were a poor side but improved by dropping him. In this period India played matches without him.

He came back to the ODI side with a vengeance.

year 2002 28 24 5 913 109* 48.05 1191 76.65 1 7 0 70 2 view innings
year 2003 23 21 6 623 62 41.53 966 64.49 0 4 0 50 4 view innings
year 2004 31 28 2 1025 104 39.42 1367 74.98 1 10 2 85 2 view innings
year 2005 30 30 7 1092 104 47.47 1463 74.64 2 9 2 100 2 view innings
year 2006 27 27 1 919 105 35.34 1255 73.22 1 8 2 112 3 view innings
year 2007 31 27 5 823 92* 37.40 1003 82.05 0 8 3 75 10 view innings

India were not a poor side in the 2000s compared to the 90s. They made the 2003 World Cup Finals and had improved from the side they were in the 90s which was solely dependent on Tendulkar with the emergence of guys like Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh.

Yes, India improved under Dhoni compared to what they were under Ganguly or Dravid but that is only marginal compared to how much India improved in 2000s under Ganguly compared to the 90s.

 

[Uppercut]

Right!

So what you're saying is, India dropped Dravid in the 90s and became a far better team immediately afterwards. Then they dropped him again in 2007, and once again became a much better team immediately afterwards (although the improvement was not, in your opinion, as significant as it was after dropping him in the 90s).

On either occasion, Dravid's omission coincided with a massive improvement in results. Even if you don't think the side's improved all that much since he was dropped in '07, their results undoubtedly have, and by a massive margin. Now was this just a particularly big coincidence? Or did Dravid's omission have anything to do with the improvement on either occasion?

 

[Pratters]

I don't think the second phase had to do with Dravid's dropping as a player. It was more to do with doing away with the stupid Chappell-Dravid era. India reached heights reaching the 2003 World Cup finals. Then, after Chappellgate, we saw a lot of stupid decisions taken by the ODI team under Dravid and Chappell. Among these were decisions like to drop Tendulkar down the order in batting. Then, after World Cup 2007 debacle, India started improving as a side after Chappell-Dravid partnership was sacked. Dhoni's team emerged due to a combination of factors. I don't think India's win in the CBS series was spectacular. It was on the shoulders of efforts from Praveen Kumar and then Tendulkar in two finals. The youngster's weren't firing.

The team's performance since then has certainly been creditable in ODIs. Last 18 months, Raina has done well against the top teams. He was not doing so well against the top 8 nations before this.Gambhir has also improved tremendously as a player. So we have a batting line up of Tendulkar, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Gambhir and Raina. I don't think it would have made a difference whether Dravid would have been in the line up or not. Certainly not that much of a difference. So no, in my personal opinion.

 

[ret]

Not much point in debating over Dravid's place as India is not full strength .... Once everyone is available then it would be a different matter

Some could say that Rohit could have cut in but I think it's a blessing in disguise for him. every cloud has a silver lining! After recent poor scores, he would have been under a lot of pressure and scrutiny. A break always helps to introspect and come back stronger, and he will!

May be batting Dravid at #5 would be a good option if the team is off to a good start, if Ind loses a wkts inside the first 5-6 overs than Dravid walks in at #3

 

[Uppercut]

I don't disagree with much that you're saying, but for me, Dravid is a relic of the Chappell-Dravid era you're heavily panning. Look at what Dhoni's era has done for the Indian cricket team:

-Improved their running between the wickets incredibly.
-Introduced a no-fear attitude to batting with strokeplayers all the way down the order.
-Given quality young players a run in the side and freedom to show what they can do.

This is what's worked for Indian cricket. Eight series wins out of nine since Dravid went out of the team, with the only loss being the Asia Cup final to Mendis. I don't think Dravid fits in with any of these policies as a player. And he was never really that good anyway.

 

[Pratters]

I'll put it another way Uppercut, India have played Rohit Sharma ahead of Dravid last 18 months and he has not played well. India has won despite that.

Rohit Sharma last 2 years -

year 2008 28 28 7 532 70* 25.33 733 72.57 0 3 2 43 3 view innings
year 2009 9 7 3 102 43* 25.50 155 65.80 0 0 1 5 1 view innings

That's a S/R of below 70 which is worse than what Dravid garners.

 

[honestbharani]

So what you're saying is, India have been a much better team since Dravid was dropped?

Rahul was a poor ODI player till around 2000 or so... India were a poor ODI side in the same period. He was dropped. We went ok for a while... Then he was good, India were decent. Then he was dropped.. Dhoni wanted to have more youth in the side. India did great.. But the youth did not. They were found out in certain conditions.. We have a series now in the same conditions and so they have dropped them and got back Dravid. He is not an outstanding player but you know what you are getting with him.. With the other lot, you know what you get with them too.. Which is just failure...


But then again, you can always twist facts to suit your arguments.

 

[honestbharani]

It's just about looking for cause and effect. Dravid's being left out of the team since Dhoni took over (which, in any case, only partially accounts for the massive statistical variation between Indian success with and without him) coincided with India becoming bloody good. Or was it a coincidence? What changed in between the 4-2 home defeat to Australia and the CB series that made India a stunningly good ODI side?

Here is the third ODI of the 4-2 defeat, which India lost by 47 runs. Here is the first CBS final, which India won by six wickets. Praveen Kumar and Ishant Sharma came in for Sreesanth and an injured Zaheer Khan, while India dropped Rahul Dravid for the series, playing Pyush Chawla in a five-man attack. MS Dhoni was captain, as he had been during the Australia series. I'm also missing out a successful home ODI series against Pakistan, in which Dravid played no part.

Starting from that victory, India won eight out of nine ODI series, whereas prior to it they lost in England and flopped in the world cup. What changed that made India so damn good? Would you propose that Dravid's omission had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Flat tracks where the youngsters could get away with their shortcomings were the main reason we were so good, tbh... When we encounter difficult conditions, we were always going to get found out. Just because encountering such conditions is rare doesn't mean you should not pick guys who are good for those conditions when there are chances that you will face them.

 

[honestbharani]

I'll put it another way Uppercut, India have played Rohit Sharma ahead of Dravid last 18 months and he has not played well. India has won despite that.

Rohit Sharma last 2 years -

year 2008 28 28 7 532 70* 25.33 733 72.57 0 3 2 43 3 view innings
year 2009 9 7 3 102 43* 25.50 155 65.80 0 0 1 5 1 view innings

That's a S/R of below 70 which is worse than what Dravid garners.

but hey, don't you know that Dravid is poor in ODI cricket... Sharma is all class...

 

[Uppercut]

I'll put it another way Uppercut, India have played Rohit Sharma ahead of Dravid last 18 months and he has not played well. India has won despite that.

Rohit Sharma last 2 years -

year 2008 28 28 7 532 70* 25.33 733 72.57 0 3 2 43 3 view innings
year 2009 9 7 3 102 43* 25.50 155 65.80 0 0 1 5 1 view innings

That's a S/R of below 70 which is worse than what Dravid garners.

That's a pretty fair point, I didn't realise Rohit's record was so poor. What I would say though is that typically Rohit would bat at 6, sometimes even at 7, whereas Dravid bats at 3. When your most defensive batsman is batting at 3, it makes defense Plan A and attack Plan B and IMO it should always be the other way around.