sachin or dravid: who in test matches delivered more in crisis?

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, the thesis aside, I don't see what Vijay's done wrong in this thread. There's a hint of intellectual laziness on here. I'd be interested to know if anyone's verified his list of innings' played against minnows, because if what he says is true, it is an eye-opener on that aspect.

 

[centurymaker]

Back to the original topic, I think Dravid definately takes the prize for delivering in a crisis more. That being said, though, Tendulkar hardly makes it a mission of his to get runs in easy situations - I just don't think he is much better than the next great batsman at scoring runs in pressure situations. Think there is also a bit of an illusion with regards to delivering in a a crisis. If you take Laxman who has an excellent second innings record and often scores runs in pressure situations, one is tempted to glorify him as a more useful match winning/saving batsman than Tendulkar. However, that just ignores the fact that Laxman often fails to score in e.g. the first innings and Tendulkar does - perhaps there isn't as much pressure, but nonetheless the runs are still pretty much equivalent in the overall context of the match.

yeah when the pressure is at its highest, he usually starts to play defensively out of fear of misfiring.
pakistan semi-final
v england- 100 hype/expectations weighing him down
from 2004/5 to 2007 (especially the 2007 world cup)

this england series tendulkar played alot better in the 2nd innings than the 1st and look at the outcome. if he had got those runs in the 1st innings, india wouldn't have got into the dire situations in the first place.

 

[Spark]

That's often a criticism levelled at VVS tbf, who in my mind is probably the best crunch player I've ever seen.

 

[Ruckus]

It is a pretty reasonable criticism though. The only difference at the end of the day is Laxman looks a far better player (than he probably should) because of it.

 

[centurymaker]

It is a pretty reasonable criticism though. The only difference at the end of the day is Laxman looks a far better player (than he probably should) because of it.

most of his dismissals are so soft that you sometimes feel sorry for him. would've been an atg if he didn't have this tendency to throw his wicket away.

 

[Spark]

It is a pretty reasonable criticism though. The only difference at the end of the day is Laxman looks a far better player (than he probably should) because of it.

Yeah it is, but this question is different - it's about who would you back to perform when you're in a crisis. In that regards, Laxman is first choice for mine.

 

[TumTum]

most of his dismissals are so soft that you sometimes feel sorry for him. would've been an atg if he didn't have this tendency to throw his wicket away.

His technique is not the best tbh, especially to full balls around his pads.

 

[The Sean]

Haha, the thesis aside, I don't see what Vijay's done wrong in this thread. There's a hint of intellectual laziness on here. I'd be interested to know if anyone's verified his list of innings' played against minnows, because if what he says is true, it is an eye-opener on that aspect.

Without wanting to get into endless debate (which I don't have time for right now), the innings played against minnows criteria seems weighted against the old-timers. In order for minnows to be promoted to non-minnow status they need to have won a certain number of matches/series. Obviously, back in the '20s/'30s a lot less Test cricket was played and so it took longer for teams to achieve this promotion.

This one criteria, the "minnows" criteria, seems by its nature to disproportionately affect the rest of the analysis.

Just my thoughts, obviously.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah it is, but this question is different - it's about who would you back to perform when you're in a crisis. In that regards, Laxman is first choice for mine.

Yeah agreed. Laxman, Dravid then Tendulkar imo.

 

[sumantra]

Yeah agreed. Laxman, Dravid then Tendulkar imo.

yes, i think, if last 4 years taken into account, laxman is the guy...

 

[sumantra]

I was trying to defend your position mate. I was saying that hypothesis testing is all about taking a hypothesis (e.g. Tendulkar is the greatest) and proving it, which you did in your analysis.

if the "hypothesis" was that ponting is the best, or kallis is the best or gavaskar is the best...it is possible to work out these numbers and stats to one's favor (and in the process supress, distort, ignore, manipulate them) and in the end prove your case...(yes, they have to have some serious amount of runs and averages to back them, if someone goes out to prove the greatness of suresh raina, it might not be possible, and tendulkar does have the numbers, no doubt)

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bias has always been there with hypothesis testing, especially when you have a clear goal in mind.

 

[Spark]

if the "hypothesis" was that ponting is the best, or kallis is the best or gavaskar is the best...it is possible to work out these numbers and stats to one's favor (and in the process supress, distort, ignore, manipulate them) and in the end prove your case...(yes, they have to have some serious amount of runs and averages to back them, if someone goes out to prove the greatness of suresh raina, it might not be possible, and tendulkar does have the numbers, no doubt)

This is very true.

 

[benchmark00]

MacGyver for mine.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Vijay.Sharma, you have taken facts and manipulated and distorted them with some made up crap. Where did you get "0.5*average + 0.3*hundreds + 0.2*fifties"? Not only where did you determine that that's the best way to weight them, but what is the importance in all this anyway?

I didn't get it anywhere...I created it. If you think there is a better way to compute the index please let me know and I'll try to incorporate them.

Another thing which you said is that you halved the runs scored if they were against weak sides, again how do you justify this?

That is one of the subjective criteria being quantified. You'll find the logic of determining a minnow in the doc. For version 3 the plan is to make it a sliding scale from 0.5 to 1.0 instead of just two numbers based on the evolution of the team. I need to figure out how to do that - any help will be more than appreciated.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Without wanting to get into endless debate (which I don't have time for right now), the innings played against minnows criteria seems weighted against the old-timers. In order for minnows to be promoted to non-minnow status they need to have won a certain number of matches/series. Obviously, back in the '20s/'30s a lot less Test cricket was played and so it took longer for teams to achieve this promotion.

This one criteria, the "minnows" criteria, seems by its nature to disproportionately affect the rest of the analysis.

Just my thoughts, obviously.

Well actually the main reason for differentiating minnow and regular had to do with the fact that ppl keep harping about how Pawning, Lara, Dravid, Sachin, Inzy, Kallis have feasted on Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Now, if you manage to keep a sense of perspective you would realize that minnow bashing has always existed through out the game's history. So, fine let us see who gained more from minnow bashing. Voila! if anything the batsmen of the 70s were the most unluckiest since they didn't get to play enough minnows - Gavaskar, Chappell, Miandad, and Richards all had very little minnow feast opportunities. And the chaps of the 90s and 00s seem to not enjoy so many minnow opportunities as the ones till the 60s.

Once you put things in perspective, people jump back to saying "oh no we should all teams equally".

Anyway, as part of the 3rd version the weightage is changing from being 0.5 or 1.00 to a sliding scale between 0.5 and 1.0 where the team is given 0.5 for their first Test and evolve towards 1.0 whence their minnow status changes to regular.

Any help or ideas in devising the sliding scale is much appreciated

 

[centurymaker]

facing the current srilankan attack in your country is like facing the bangers.
current indian attack isn't much better with sreesanth mishra etc..

 

[dude2]

after dravid such a great performance england now i see many dravid fans are coming up and claiming that he is best test batsman records does not matter he plays more in critical situations etc etc... http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/huh.gif

now why peaple only see present why peaple forget his performance before this series when he is strugling badly in last 4 years... in SA not even once he was able to score past 50...

how can dravid be best with avg of just 41 and 33 against 2 best teams of his era aus and SA...sachin avg around 60 and 43 against these 2 teams...


sachin has total 18 100s against aus and SA while dravid just 4100s against aus and SA

with such a struggle against these 2 best teams of his era..how can he be best while on other hand sachin never struggle against any team and didnt have avg less then 40 against any team or in any country...

why do peaple forget sachin played like a lone warrior for a decade... in 90s we use to say there is just one man in team if he is gone every thing is over....

while dravid got far better team then what sachin got sachin for 1st 11 years didnt get any great batsman to support his while dravid got a team that is considered as best batting line up after 2001...

before 2001 sehwag wasnt in team, laxman was nobody before that knock of 281 his avg was just 27 before that knock... dravid himself was just ohk batsman from 1996 to 2001...

from 1990 to 2001 sachin avg 58 while no other batsman in that period is avg even 55 steve waugh and dravid is 2nd highest with 53 and even lara avg in that era was just 48... ponting just 46... kallis just 43... http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/laugh.gif

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/…

here is the link... had sachin played in after 1996 and as every batsman reach his peak after 3 or 4 years of his carrier + the kind of good team dravid got compare to sachin.... sachin would easily had the avg of around 60+ today and atleast 10 more 100s today....

now as far as inngs in diffcult times is concerned ok lets put forward few sachin and dravid inngs that can be cmpared...

1st dravid...

his 180 and 233 vs aus...
270 vs pak, 103 and 146 vs england recently these are the knocks i would say great and came in great time... or pressure u can say...

but compare them to tendulkar's ohk lets see...

119 vs eng saved almost lost test...

114 vs aus at perth considered as one of the greatest inngs no other player able to cross 50...

111 vs sa in 1992 in jonsburg no other indian player able to cross 25+...

122 vs england no other player even able to cross 18 2nd highest was 18 in that inngs by manjerekar...

177 vs england when india was 2-9 played a great knock with ganguly..

155* vs in 3rd inngs vs aus ...

169 vs SA when india was 58-5 laxman dravid gangully all back to pavilion greatest inngs on african soil according to donald...

136 vs pak in 1999 in 4th inngis bring india to almost win situation from nowhere played with back injury and taking pain killers...

113 at welling no other player able to cross 50... in 1998..

116 vs aus in 1999 no other player able to cross even 31+ in this inngs....


lols i can keep on puting... this was sachin 22nd century and i have put 10 centuries of his here this shows even 2nd century that he scored in 90s came in difficult period or pressure situation...http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/tongue.gif

now dravid fans pls put for dravid inngs that can be said better then these or he played that much in difficult time

point to be noted i took half of sachin carrier and showed more then double in difficult time or crises situation while i took whole dravid carrier and i found only these 4 knocks that be compared to these.... http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/smilies/original/laugh.gif

 

[Burgey]

Both of them.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

1st dravid...

his 180 and 233 vs aus...
270 vs pak, 103 and 146 vs england recently these are the knocks i would say great and came in great time... or pressure u can say...

Out of all his knocks, you regard only these five worthy of being called pressure innings (however, you may define the term)?

Of the top of my head, I can name quite a few more but refuse to enter this game. Fair to say that both Dravid and Tendulkar have achieved such heights in their professional lives that 99% of mortals never manage to come close to in their fields.

Everybody has their preferences (including myself), but such comparisons are silly if you are looking for a numerical quantification of all aspects. Burgey is right on the money. Just enjoy two all time great batsmen and their contributions to our beloved sport.