Steve Waugh vs Rahul Dravid (Tests)

[harsh.ag]

Hmm I may be misunderstanding the discussion here but IMO a "match-winning" hundred isn't the same as any hundred that was made in a match that you won.

Would Tendulkar's 136 in Chennai '99 count as a match winning hundred?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I counted both as same. But if I further try to narrow them down based on the actual definition of a quality match winning hundred, it might get a bit embarrassing for the AB from 20th century.
After all, how much further down from 5 should we go ?

Two of the hundreds were against attacks led by Martin Mccague and Richard de Groen. So that means he scored 3 good hundreds that led to wins against non-meme attacks.

 

[Burgey]

Tendulkar could learn a lot from Border. The next time he's cooped up in a hotel in Melbourne, he should hurl down a few pails of water on the locals strolling below. You know, for fun.

Why do you see that as a negative? The great AB delivering succour to the poor. A few Aussie dollars would get you a house in Chennai ffs. And imagine how grateful Indian crowds would have been to be having drinkable water for once.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why do you see that as a negative? The great AB delivering succour to the poor. A few Aussie dollars would get you a house in Chennai ffs. And imagine how grateful Indian crowds would have been to be having drinkable water for once.

Aussie brand of humour I guess?

 

[Burgey]

Would Tendulkar's 136 in Chennai '99 count as a match winning hundred?

Did it lead to the match finishing early so everyone could get out of Chennai? Because that would be a win by any measure.

 

[Shri]

You're wrong. Tendulkar was a spud compared with Waugh between 93 and 01. So was Lara. So was everyone. Waugh was the batsman of the 90s. He'd have walked into every other side and would have been their best player. Tendulkar and Lara were flashier, but they weren't better. Particularly Chokedulkar, who had myriad opportunities to get his side over the line in clutch situations and habitually failed. But he lookd pretty doing it, so well done him.

Sachin and I spoke of this many times when I was living in the late 90s/ early 2000s, and he agreed with me.

It's okay, sledger's ban is over. You can stop now.

 

[h_hurricane]

Two of the hundreds were against attacks led by Martin Mccague and Richard de Groen. So that means he scored 3 good hundreds that led to wins against non-meme attacks.

Lol, and these are bowlers who averaged 65 and 45 in test cricket. Richard de Groen was more famous as an Olympics team manager.

 

[Burgey]

It's okay, sledger's ban is over. You can stop now.

There’ll be no stopping. Tendulkar is the most over rated cricketer in history. He admits it himself. Very fine player, but selfish to the detriment of the team on myriad occasions. Tendulkar cared about Tendulkar

 

[h_hurricane]

Did it lead to the match finishing early so everyone could get out of Chennai? Because that would be a win by any measure.

His match winning 155 against Aus a year prior to this innings did exactly what you mentioned here. Smoked the bones out of Warne there.

 

[J_C]

Being that I’m operating from my phone and am not a draft nerd so do not have statistics at hand, I would say off the top of my head TOTAB made about half a dozen match winning tons that I can think of, not to mention innumerable match saving hundreds. Something which Tendulkar was incapable of mustering, as he was the Little Master of the Ton in a Losing Side.

He gets half a dozen only if we include one of his hundreds in backyard cricket. In the real world, the beta AB barely managed 5 in a winning cause in Tests. That's one less than Rahane who already has 6 in half a decade .

 

[OverratedSanity]

Objectively worse than Rahane. This might be the worst day of Burgey's life.

 

[stephen]

You need the rest of your team to put you into a match winning position. When AB had the opportunity, he took it. It was very rare that he had the opportunity though since the team he inherited makes the current Australian side look like the invincibles.

You first try to win tests, then you try to draw them. Burgey's point is that Border and Waugh maximised both, whereas Tendulkar got out whenever the really important runs needed to be made.

I'm not sure I totally agree about Tendulkar, but Border's average would be 60 if he played in this modern era of rubbish bowlers and huge bats.

 

[Burgey]

His match winning 155 against Aus a year prior to this innings did exactly what you mentioned here. Smoked the bones out of Warne there.

The series McGrath didn’t play.

 

[Bolo]

In the real world, Border had 2 match-winning hundreds from 1978-1991. Batsmen all round the world look at him bat and do the exact opposite if they want to win games .

I was considering a reply of how it was clear Border was a garbage bat after seeing this.

But Burgey has a sharp tongue today. I wouldn't want to offend him. So I will play it safe by saying he was merely a mediocre bat, and his rubbish stats in wins are a result of his team's inability to win. So the problem is obviously more his completely inept captaincy than his somewhat inept batting.

 

[h_hurricane]

The series McGrath didn’t play.

Needed to take fitness more seriously then.

 

[J_C]

I was considering a reply of how it was clear Border was a garbage bat after seeing this.

But Burgey has a sharp tongue today. I wouldn't want to offend him. So I will play it safe by saying he was merely a mediocre bat, and his rubbish stats in wins are a result of his team's inability to win. So the problem is obviously more his completely inept captaincy than his somewhat inept batting.

He wasn't a garbage bat. Just not particularly impactful when it comes to winning Tests. More evidence for this. Even Graeme Wood had more 100s in a winning cause from 1978-1991 FFS.

 

[Borges]

So that is settled then: the Lesser AB was actually even lesser than what that epithet suggests.

Let us now get back to the somewhat more interesting question. Who was the better test batsman: Rahul Dravid or Stephen Waugh?

 

[srbhkshk]

The series McGrath didn’t play.

Man up and actually play on. It’s these sort of character flaws which make him a lesser player than many before and since tbh.

.....

 

[h_hurricane]

You need the rest of your team to put you into a match winning position. When AB had the opportunity, he took it. It was very rare that he had the opportunity though since the team he inherited makes the current Australian side look like the invincibles.

You first try to win tests, then you try to draw them. Burgey's point is that Border and Waugh maximised both, whereas Tendulkar got out whenever the really important runs needed to be made.

I'm not sure I totally agree about Tendulkar, but Border's average would be 60 if he played in this modern era of rubbish bowlers and huge bats.

The real AB played in this era of so called rubbish bowlers and huge bats and barely managed to average 50. The lesser AB will struggle to average 50 let alone 60. He will get brutally owned by the likes of Ashwin, Jadeja, Yasir and Herath on rank turners , Anderson and Philander on green tracks, Steyn and Rabada on any track.

 

[Bolo]

He wasn't a garbage bat. Just not particularly impactful when it comes to winning Tests. More evidence for this. Even Graeme Wood had more 100s in a winning cause from 1978-1991 FFS.

But isn't the goal of tests to win? Anything else is statpadding and should be entirely disregarded... when being used mock Border.

100s and performances in wins are actually 2 stats I more or less ignore when assessing a player. Context matters to all forms of stats, but these two are basically meaningless without a ton of context that basic stats won't usually give you.

But your criticism of Border does seem to be appropriate given the context you have given.