Dravid or Gavaskar?

[salman85]

It's always been Tendulkar vs everyone else,but the Dravid-Gavaskar comparison just crossed my mind today.Surely,Dravid has achieved enough in his career to warrant a shot at a comparison with some of the very best in the field.Both him and Gavaskar boasted impeccable techniques,but who would you rate the better batsman?

And while we're at that,i'm also very interested in knowing how people would rank Tendulkar,Gavaskar and Dravid when compared against each other.More than the ranking itself,i'm more interested in knowing the reasons behind why a certain poster here would be inclined to rank one of these batsmen ahead of the others.

 

[Jono]

Won't know for sure until I see Sunil Gavaskar's wife's article on him on Cricinfo. Then I can properly compare.

 

[Burgey]

Difficult for me to answer this in any way objectively, because I have so much Dravid love, and have Gavaskar in the top five biggest ****s ever to pick up a bat.

 

[Jacknife]

Difficult for me to answer this in any way objectively, because I have so much Dravid love, and have Gavaskar in the top five biggest ****s ever to pick up a bat.

This.

 

[Bouncer]

Salman this is one awesome comparision IMO . Having seen both of them bat, I think it's a pretty interesting one, I would add to this discussion as soon as I am sober.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Gavaskar. No greater technician in history. I remember the tidbit my old man used to share about Gavaskar merely swaying his head out of the line of a bouncer; no ducking needed usually. I don't know the veracity of that, never saw much of him live, but the clips available indicate the purest of batsmanship to my eyes.

And to do what he did, opening the batting against some of the greatest fast men to have drawn breath. There just isn't any comparison tbh.

Top three: Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Dravid

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd love to read SJS's thoughts on this as he's probably seen the majority of both players' careers.

Burgemeister hits the nail on the noggin tho; it's so hard to be objective given one chap is pretty well universally beloved and the other, to put it politely, isn't.

 

[weldone]

Tendulkar>Gavaskar>Dravid, according to the ranking system I am working on using 3 inputs - adjusted batting average from PEWS, longevity points conceptalised by weldone and calculated by PEWS, and number of dismissals (sample size) from cricinfo.

Using data from a few months ago, Tendulkar, Gavaskar and Dravid are at no. 3, 7 and 13 respectively in the all-time batsmen rankings with batting average adjusted for opposition, conditions, sample size and longevity of 66.43, 61.45 and 60.11 respectively.

Would want to refresh the rankings now that Dravid has retired - but that would require computational help from PEWS

 

[smash84]

so according to PEWS ranking

Tendy > Gavaskar > Dravid

 

[marc71178]

And to do what he did, opening the batting against some of the greatest fast men to have drawn breath.

Apart from when he dropped down the order you mean?

 

[weldone]

according to PEWS ranking

Tendy > Gavaskar > Dravid

That too.

Though their respective ranks are different in his results to the one I am working on. Different methodologies with similar inputs etc..(though all the inputs are not same)

 

[Arachnodouche]

Apart from when he dropped down the order you mean?

Absolutely, you're so smart

 

[The Sean]

Tendulkar>Gavaskar>Dravid, according to the ranking system I am working on using 3 inputs - adjusted batting average from PEWS, longevity points conceptalised by weldone and calculated by PEWS, and number of dismissals (sample size) from cricinfo.

Using data from a few months ago, Tendulkar, Gavaskar and Dravid are at no. 3, 7 and 13 respectively in the all-time batsmen rankings with batting average adjusted for opposition, conditions, sample size and longevity of 66.43, 61.45 and 60.11 respectively.

Who is number 2? And what does "number of dismissals (sample size)" mean?

 

[Burgey]

Gasvaskar as high as number seven all time?

Mate, the abacus has gone feral.

 

[weldone]

Who is number 2? And what does "number of dismissals (sample size)" mean?

Sobers. Sample size is the number of times the batsman has been dismissed, i.e. total runs divided by average.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tendulkar>Gavaskar>Dravid, according to the ranking system I am working on using 3 inputs - adjusted batting average from PEWS, longevity points conceptalised by weldone and calculated by PEWS, and number of dismissals (sample size) from cricinfo.

Using data from a few months ago, Tendulkar, Gavaskar and Dravid are at no. 3, 7 and 13 respectively in the all-time batsmen rankings with batting average adjusted for opposition, conditions, sample size and longevity of 66.43, 61.45 and 60.11 respectively.

Would want to refresh the rankings now that Dravid has retired - but that would require computational help from PEWS

Even though Dravid has retired, his standardised average won't be final until the end of 2014 because games up until then still count when determining the quality of the bowling attacks he faced in 2012 (just Australia in this case).

 

[weldone]

Gasvaskar as high as number seven all time?

Unfortunately, the rankings are on test performances alone. So many batsmen who wasted some time on WSC, or were way better in ODIs, or were great in FC and played low number of test matches in the early years of test cricket are below him. Though I consider some of them as better than Gavaskar as batsmen overall.

 

[Burgey]

Unfortunately, the rankings are on test performances alone. So many batsmen who wasted some time on WSC, or were way better in ODIs, or were great in FC and played low number of test matches in the early years of test cricket are below him. Though I consider some of them as better than Gavaskar as batsmen overall.

So by that definition, your own ranking system is flawed. Why do you use it then?

 

[weldone]

Even though Dravid has retired, his standardised average won't be final until the end of 2014 because games up until then still count when determining the quality of the bowling attacks he faced in 2012 (just Australia in this case).

Ah of course, forgot that!

 

[weldone]

So by that definition, your own ranking system is flawed. Why do you use it then?

Nah, my ranking system is for test performances alone. I am not necessarily ranking players, I am ranking their test match performances.