Dravid or Gavaskar?

[uvelocity]

leave mo alone

 

[Burgey]

Oh so you mean the attacks prior to 2011 Ashes were all doing that

No, something in your avatar reminded me about all those things.

 

[Furball]

was the 85-86 attack as bad as the one for Ashes 2011?

Or was the bowling coaching as bad?

The 2010/11 Ashes, "spinner" aside, wasn't a bad attack.

 

[Burgey]

The 2010/11 Ashes, "spinner" aside, wasn't a bad attack.

Not in terms of names and what some have done since (or even before) but they bowled horribly.

 

[Furball]

Not in terms of names and what some have done since (or even before) but they bowled horribly.

Indeed, but there's a difference between a bad attack and an attack that's out of form/up against a really good, in form batting lineup.

 

[cricdude]

gavaskar was better.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed, but there's a difference between a bad attack and an attack that's out of form/up against a really good, in form batting lineup.

Think you play the bowling, not the bowler.

 

[Debris]

Gavaskar easily. There is even a case for rating Gavaskar ahead of Tendulkar, although I probably would not go that far. He played against better bowling on worse pitches.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, as good as Dravid is, I'd rate Gavaskar higher.

 

[CWB304]

Gavaskar marginally better. Both better than Tendulkar in Tests.

 

[silentstriker]

Gavaskar.