Steve Waugh vs Rahul Dravid (Tests)

[srbhkshk]

Lol, Waugh's record in the 90s is a lot more complete than Tendulkar's, and far more so than Lara's. Lara had a real trough before 99 (happens to the best).

Tendulkar had sub 40 average in SA and Waugh in SL - there are no holes in the records of either apart from that.

 

[Xuhaib]

Not saying I agree that Steve was greater than srt during the 90s but Steve did have very good series vs all the great attacks of his time ie averaging 50+ . He did it vs rsa, Pakistan and wi. Sachin as far as I remember sucked (relatively speaking) vs rsa and Pakistan. Did very good in his only series vs Ambrose and did good vs Australia in the only series where they had a great attack (99 series). Sachin averaged 58 in the 90s but he sure as hell didnt average close to that overall vs the great attacks of the 90s.

Sachin poor record in the 90's against Pak can be attributed to playing one series that was too a debut series as a 16 yr old. Even then Wasim in an interview said they were amazed at how comfortable he looked against both pace and spin and Imran commented "guys you are looking at one of the future legend of this great game"

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin's "poor" record includes his debut when he was 16 and managed to play a number of crucial knocks, including a match saving fifty in the 4th test when India were staring at a defeat 4 down with virtually no lead. The only series he played v Pakistan in the 90s was in 1999 in which he scored one of his best ever tons. Can't boil it all down to an average and go "bad record" when his performances were good with context.

 

[Burgey]

I'm interested why you rate Chappell so low compared to others.

Didn’t play as often as he should have, missed some tours when it suited him due to personal/ business reasons.

Which is fair enough tbh. He was a great player, no doubt. Brilliant. Rate Ponting a bit higher, maybe because he batted three and took them on a bit more. And obviously Border as he carried like no one before or since, and for longer.

 

[Coronis]

Didn’t play as often as he should have, missed some tours when it suited him due to personal/ business reasons.

Which is fair enough tbh. He was a great player, no doubt. Brilliant. Rate Ponting a bit higher, maybe because he batted three and took them on a bit more. And obviously Border as he carried like no one before or since, and for longer.

Don't really like this line of thinking but to each their own.

 

[Burgey]

Sachin's "poor" record includes his debut when he was 16 and managed to play a number of crucial knocks, including a match saving fifty in the 4th test when India were staring at a defeat 4 down with virtually no lead. The only series he played v Pakistan in the 90s was in 1999 in which he scored one of his best ever tons. Can't boil it all down to an average and go "bad record" when his performances were good with context.

Yeah but doesn’t Waugh’s poor SL record include a series where he broke his nose on Gillespie’s leg? Who played more decisive roles for their side in winning tests and series in the 90s, Waugh or Tendulkar? Waugh was as clutch as it gets. Tendulkar was just about the opposite. Lara was sporadically clutch (eg 1999 v Aus) but far patchier than Waugh.

 

[Burgey]

Don't really like this line of thinking but to each their own.

Well that’s fine, but as has been said a million times, one fer is no big deal; two fer always is.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah but doesn’t Waugh’s poor SL record include a series where he broke his nose on Gillespie’s leg? Who played more decisive roles for their side in winning tests and series in the 90s, Waugh or Tendulkar? Waugh was as clutch as it gets. Tendulkar was just about the opposite. Lara was sporadically clutch (eg 1999 v Aus) but far patchier than Waugh.

But Lara and Tendulkar had **** teams. That tends to greatly affect your chances of playing match winning knocks.

 

[cnerd123]

Who played more decisive roles for their side in winning tests and series in the 90s, Waugh or Tendulkar?

Obviously Waugh. ATG Cheater and all that.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah but doesn’t Waugh’s poor SL record include a series where he broke his nose on Gillespie’s leg? Who played more decisive roles for their side in winning tests and series in the 90s, Waugh or Tendulkar? Waugh was as clutch as it gets. Tendulkar was just about the opposite. Lara was sporadically clutch (eg 1999 v Aus) but far patchier than Waugh.

Can't tell if this is a joke.

Sachin didn't play many decisive roles in their side winning tests and series in the 90s because the team Sachin played for was utter turd and struggled to take 10 wickets, nevermind 20.

 

[stephen]

But Lara and Tendulkar had **** teams. That tends to greatly affect your chances of playing match winning knocks.

The West Indies were world class during the 90s. They were top 2 for the entire decade and were number 1 for the first half of the decade.

 

[Slifer]

The West Indies were world class during the 90s. They were top 2 for the entire decade and were number 1 for the first half of the decade.

I'd say top 4. Australia >RSA>Pakistan >/=Wi.

 

[jimmy101]

West Indies had dropped off a bit following the exit of guys like Viv, Dujon, Greenidge & Marshall. They were lucky not to be beaten in India in 1994. After Richardson, Haynes, Harper, Patterson & Bishop departed in the mid-90's they were whittled down to a 3-man show for the most part (Chanders had yet to mature & Adams' form waned as the decade preogressed). The only reason they would have been in the top 2 rankings wise would have been thanks to the victories they achieved pre-1995/96.

Australia, South Africa & Pakistan (when they showed up) were the top 3 during the latter part of the 90's.

 

[h_hurricane]

I would go with Rahul, only just. Steve was gun too. And Sachin was objectively the best batsman of the 1990s and better than Steve till Waugh's retirement. He had a sharp decline after that.

 

[rtramdas]

such a close call..... yet.... Dravid was more pleasing to the eye and he belonged to comparatively weak team(hence would have had to cope with a bit more pressure thru out) .So going for Dravid

 

[subshakerz]

I would go for Steve Waugh, his peak was against higher quality attacks. Dravid was terrific but Waugh was ATG level. Dravid was the type of batsman who would play around the other more attacking batsmen in the lineup and steadily accumulate. Waugh played a lot with the lower order.

 

[Burgey]

I would go with Rahul, only just. Steve was gun too. And Sachin was objectively the best batsman of the 1990s and better than Steve till Waugh's retirement. He had a sharp decline after that.

Absolute tosh. Never delivered when it mattered most. Waugh was a clutch player. Tendulkar played nice looking shots but fell apart like a Sao in a blender when it mattered most.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would have thought Waugh takes this relatively comfortably, surprised by some of the responses

 

[h_hurricane]

Absolute tosh. Never delivered when it mattered most. Waugh was a clutch player. Tendulkar played nice looking shots but fell apart like a Sao in a blender when it mattered most.

There is nothing tosh about it. Sachin averaged 58 in 1990s and scored 22 hundreds in the decade. Scoring clutch runs look better when you are part of a strong team like Steve was. People are obviously going to miss his failures because some one else is going to turn up and win you matches. He averaged 53 in the whole decade (inflated by not outs) despite being at the right age at the start and end of the decade.

Steve was the second best batsman of 1990s. Deal with it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He averaged 53 in the whole decade (inflated by not outs)

omg can this just die