Rahul Dravid vs AB de Villiers, who was better against high quality bowling?

[ma1978]

Let's talk about their records against high quality bowling then. Give me Dravid's case.

Dravid played a lot longer than AB De Villiers

He played at least the same proportion of “high quality bowling” (in itself a subjective term); likely more because he played in the 1990s and AB never played his own team

He finished with a higher average

Anything else is false precision

 

[BazBall21]

Agree with Subs that De Villiers edges it against high quality bowling but Dravid has the better overall test resume. Those things don't usually co-exist but can do.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with Subs that De Villiers edges it against high quality bowling but Dravid has the better overall test resume. Those things don't usually co-exist but can do.

I think de Villiers was the best I've ever seen against high quality bowling tbh.

But Dravid was clearly better than him over the course of a career - let alone Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Ponting, Smith etc.

It is a bit of a weird thing. When you ask me who was better without qualifier I will evaluate their career output. But when you ask me who was better against a specific type or standard of bowling I go full Flem274* about it.

 

[ma1978]

I don’t think AB has an innings like Dravid’s 180 in Eden Gardens against peak Mcwarne (or the 148 in Johannesburg)

 

[Adorable Asshole]

At that time, yes.

Only on certain pitches

 

[subshakerz]

Dravid played a lot longer than AB De Villiers

He played at least the same proportion of “high quality bowling” (in itself a subjective term); likely more because he played in the 1990s and AB never played his own team

He finished with a higher average

Dravid has one good and three failed tours to both SA and Australia, and overall home and away is middling against both of them. Struggled against Warne and Murali overall.

Some bright spots in between like England 2011 and WI 1997 but overall very spotty.

ABD failed against McWarne very early in his career as opener but after that no real problems against any class bowler specifically.

 

[ma1978]

I think de Villiers was the best I've ever seen against high quality bowling tbh.

But Dravid was clearly better than him over the course of a career - let alone Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Ponting, Smith etc.

It is a bit of a weird thing. When you ask me who was better with qualifier I will evaluate their career output. But when you ask me who was better against a specific type or standard of bowling I go full Flem274* about it.

De Villiers was like nothing I’ve seen before against good bowling in difficult considerations; but he didn’t do it often enough or successfully enough to win this against someone of Dravid’s track record

 

[ma1978]

Dravid has one good and three failed tours to both SA and Australia, and overall home and away is middling against both of them. Struggled against Warne and Murali overall.

Some bright spots in between like England 2011 and WI 1997 but overall very spotty.

ABD failed against McWarne very early in his career as opener but after that no real problems against any class bowler specifically.

False precision and small sample sizes

 

[Prince EWS]

De Villiers was like nothing I’ve seen before against good bowling in difficult considerations; but he didn’t do it often enough or successfully enough to win this against someone of Dravid’s track record

I think that's the point of the thread.

Obviously more generally Dravid was a better Test batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t think AB has an innings like Dravid’s 180 in Eden Gardens against peak Mcwarne (or the 148 in Johannesburg)

Misleading since he failed more often against Australia and SA.

 

[ma1978]

I think that's the point of the thread.

Obviously more generally Dravid was a better Test batsman.

Better is a subjective word and different than more talented. I think AB was more talented but Dravid had better results over a longer time.

 

[subshakerz]

False precision and small sample sizes

You mean right tours to SA and Australia is too small a sample?

 

[ma1978]

Misleading since he failed more often against Australia and SA.

He could have failed every other innings he played; I’ll trade them all for the 180. AB never reached those heights

 

[subshakerz]

Better is a subjective word and different than more talented. I think AB was more talented but Dravid had better results over a longer time.

Don't add Dravid's results from crappy bowlers in the mix.

 

[ma1978]

You mean right tours to SA and Australia is too small a sample?

I’m not into cherry picking samples

I’ll take his best knocks in Aus and SA and those are better than anything AB did

 

[ma1978]

Don't add Dravid's results from crappy bowlers in the mix.

Did AB play a higher proportion of better bowling than Dravid in totality?

 

[subshakerz]

He could have failed every other innings he played; I’ll trade them all for the 180. AB never reached those heights

We can't let flukes mislead us as to who was better.

 

[Prince EWS]

Did AB play a higher proportion of better bowling than Dravid in totality?

He probably did if you take pitch conditions into account.

 

[subshakerz]

I’m not into cherry picking samples

I’ll take his best knocks in Aus and SA and those are better than anything AB did

Hate to break it to you, but that IS cherry picking

 

[subshakerz]

Did AB play a higher proportion of better bowling than Dravid in totality?

I get it, you just want us to compare overall careers and key innings and ignore the OP.