Rahul Dravid - What would you do? Is he still one of India's 6 best batsman?

[centurymaker]

In the same test which was the last time that Gambhir scored a century against a top side - Mohali, December 2008.

That is going by your definition of a 'top' side. If you include Sri Lanka too as a 'top' side (I would), curiously enough, again both Dravid and Gambhir scored their last century in the same game; Kanpur, November 2009.

Dravid hasn't even been scoring 50's.
He should've retired in 2008 with Ganguly.

 

[Borges]

Dravid hasn't even been scoring 50's.
He should've retired in 2008 with Ganguly.

Ah! Not scoring 50's. Let me see. Last two years:

Dravid ---- 26 innings, 1240 runs @51.66, 5 centuries (a century every 5.2 innings), 2 half-centuries

Gambhir - 23 innings, 963 runs @45.85, 3 centuries (a century every 7.7 innings), 6 half-centuries

Rrright. Not scoring 50's indeed. That must be the absolute clincher.

Though I would be over the moon if the replacement for Dravid, whoever he happens to be, whenever he comes in, does nearly as well as the miserable hack who should've retired ages ago has done in the last two years.

 

[hang on]

based on what has been put up on here in terms of recent performances and stats, it seems that the problem with dravid is that he is not managing to play the really important knocks as of yore: the lack of any truly significant knock against the lankans away or the south africans in two rather important series (or even the south africans at home).

what a great player though! i, for one, hope that he does well in england.

 

[Borges]

based on what has been put up on here in terms of recent performances and stats, it seems that the problem with dravid is that he is not managing to play the really important knocks as of yore: the lack of any truly significant knock against the lankans away or the south africans in two rather important series (or even the south africans at home).

what a great player though! i, for one, hope that he does well in england.

Precisely. Seems to be batting quite well, as is his wont, and then boom - out!

I guess the criticism of Dravid would have somewhat more muted if he hadn't been the most important batsman for India during the fairly long period when Tendulkar was ordinary.

 

[smash84]

they all retired or ceased to be the forces they were circa 97... Basically just about 6 years out of the 16 Lara played at the international level...

lol...................both Walsh and Amby seem to have excellent records for the last 3 years of their career as abmk shows.........

from 98 to 2000

Walsh : Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Ambrose: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[hang on]

i was aware of walsh and ambrose bowling rather well in their cricketing dotage, and so found the 1997 claim slightly confusing. walsh, in particular seemed to have found a second wind at the end, and i remember wondering why he wanted to retire. of course, bishop is another matter; what a tragedy his unfulfilled potential...he had it in him to be a great.

again, i would never say that lara didn't have the pressure of playing in a weak team; it's just that the weak batting lineup argument, in isolation, doesn't always reveal the whole story.

i feel that flower, despite the presence of streak and co., who were good enough but no greats, was the one who truly performed, or was expected to perform, herculean tasks. and i doff my cap to him.

 

[TumTum]

Of course scoreboard pressure exists in Tests.

A captain can bowl with more freedom, creativity and intent if his batsman give him a healthy score to bowl at. Conversely, a captain will have to be more cautious and defensive if he doesn't have enough runs on the board to work with.

Hence, batting after a good bowling performance, or especially when chasing a low total, is easier than if your team conceded a big score.

That's true, but you can say the complete opposite, the bowling side will lack the intent and purpose/control they usually would have if defending a large score.

Freedom is one thing, but carefree is another.

So as you can see it can go either way, so it cancels itself out.

 

[Borges]

That's true, but you can say the complete opposite, the bowling side will lack the intent and purpose/control they usually would have if defending a large score.

Freedom is one thing, but carefree is another.

So as you can see it can go either way, so it cancels itself out.

Not too sure of that really. What I've noticed is a tendency for batsmen (opening batsmen in particular) to be far more adventurous than usual when they chase a low score. And for even ultra-defensive captains to start with much more attacking fields than usual when they have a huge score behind them; I would think that it would encourage the bowlers bowl with even more intensity than usual.

 

[Spark]

Not too sure of that really. What I've noticed is a tendency for batsmen (opening batsmen in particular) to be far more adventurous than usual when they chase a low score. And for even ultra-defensive captains to start with much more attacking fields than usual when they have a huge score behind them; I would think that it would encourage the bowlers bowl with even more intensity than usual.

This. It's probably a big part of the reason why India have still managed to take 20 wickets despite a mediocre looking attack - the bowlers are bowling with the freedom of either big runs in the bank or the promise of them. Makes life much easier.

 

[TumTum]

Being adventurous doesn't mean its a good thing though.

At the start of every innings in almost every situation captains would be aggressive. New batsman, new ball, chances of a wicket are high. Even if defending a tiny score, captains know that early wickets can put them back in the game.

 

[hang on]

spark,

or perhaps the indian bowlers lull the batsmen into a false sense of security!

 

[vcs]

Indian bowlers are quite decent in helpful conditions. They also have the knack, lately, of doing just enough to ensure a decent series result. They might get absolutely pasted in the games that they draw/lose, but will sneak 20 cheap wickets in the one game they have to win.

 

[smash84]

what a bot

 

[Daemon]

Sree, Zak, Sharma and Bhaj have got all the talent needed to succeed. It's just that while sharma is usually ****, in most games, out of the other three bowlers, two of them take turns to bowl crap in each innings. When two or more out of the four click, then we end up with wins.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, both Ambrose and Walsh were good right upto the end of their careers (i.e. 2000). However, WI's batting lineup had become very weak by then.. overall I would say Lara definitely played in a weaker team than his contemporary ATGs.

from 98 to 2000

Walsh : Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Ambrose: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

lol...................both Walsh and Amby seem to have excellent records for the last 3 years of their career as abmk shows.........

i was aware of walsh and ambrose bowling rather well in their cricketing dotage, and so found the 1997 claim slightly confusing. walsh, in particular seemed to have found a second wind at the end, and i remember wondering why he wanted to retire. of course, bishop is another matter; what a tragedy his unfulfilled potential...he had it in him to be a great.

again, i would never say that lara didn't have the pressure of playing in a weak team; it's just that the weak batting lineup argument, in isolation, doesn't always reveal the whole story.

i feel that flower, despite the presence of streak and co., who were good enough but no greats, was the one who truly performed, or was expected to perform, herculean tasks. and i doff my cap to him.

Ok.. it is the Wasim argument all over again.. I said they were not the forces they were and watching the games, it was clear they were not. But Ambrose and Walsh were still not giving away runs easily and on helpful tracks were always a handful, but come on, they were not what they were in the early and md 90s and it was pretty obvious to anyone who was watching them...

 

[smash84]

Ok.. it is the Wasim argument all over again.. I said they were not the forces they were and watching the games, it was clear they were not. But Ambrose and Walsh were still not giving away runs easily and on helpful tracks were always a handful, but come on, they were not what they were in the early and md 90s and it was pretty obvious to anyone who was watching them...

Ambrose was still more than a handful even though he may not be the force that he used to.......it would be better if you would clarify what "not being the force that they were" exactly means........in any case it doesn't mean that they were not a huge challenge to the batsmen.......they were still big challenges to batsmen

Walsh otoh seemed to be getting better and better with time.........he was not quite as stellar in the 80s and early 90s as some of the other WI bowlers and his record also suggests that he was getting better with experience

 

[honestbharani]

Ambrose was still more than a handful even though he may not be the force that he used to.......it would be better if you would clarify what "not being the force that they were" exactly means........in any case it doesn't mean that they were not a huge challenge to the batsmen.......they were still big challenges to batsmen

Walsh otoh seemed to be getting better and better with time.........he was not quite as stellar in the 80s and early 90s as some of the other WI bowlers and his record also suggests that he was getting better with experience

When I say someone was not the force they were, it means exactly that.. they were not as good as they used to be. Of course, Ambrose was still a challenge but at reduced pace, a lesser challenge than he was at his peak..



Walsh was interesting because I got the feeling he benefitted when the attack got worse around him, suddenly batsmen seemed to loosen up a bit against him too and kept getting out. Of course, he was also adding more tricks to his armoury as a bowler with more experience but this was one thing I could see.. Perhaps the responsibility of having to lead the attack (at a time when even Ambrose was in the side) brought the best out of him... So I should retract what I said about him not being at his best.. but Ambrose certainly was nowhere near...

 

[sehwag fan]

. Also the fact that Miandad had much less support from other ends tips the scales in his favor IMO.

Pakistan batting was already strong enough during that time that Imran could not bat higher up the order AND he was never supposed to be an opener in any case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what you said when i asked why Imran never batted high enough ? And here you are saying Pakistan's batting was not that strong.

Are you kidding me ?

Miandad who averaged 45 outside pakistan without home-umpire is better than Dravid who averages 52.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Make up your mind , Was pakistan's batting strong or not ?

 

[sehwag fan]

as I said earlier and howe zat pointed out that all teams were benefitting from home umpiring and not just Pakistan

Then why Pakistan's W/L ratio has gone much lower with the introduction of neutral umpiring ?

Miandad himself acknowledged he used home-umpiring help.


I recall a 2004 conversation with their former champion batsman Javed Miandad. He believed Pakistan struggled to win overseas because for too long they had relied on help at home to win. Help in the form of favourable pitches and hometown umpiring, and when this wasn't forthcoming they had little to fall back on

Ian Chappell: Pakistan and UDRS are failing | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo


Miandad was given out lbw once against India in Pakistan. .

 

[sehwag fan]

There was a lot of partial umpiring going on around the world at that time and Miandad was not the only beneficiary.

Really, they why Miandad averaged 91 against India at home, whereas 49 in India.

Why no such difference was observed in Gavaskar's average ?

Miandad was given lbw only once in his entire career in Pakistan against India.

It would be insult to compare home-bully Miandad with Dravid.