• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jacques Kallis vs Viv Richards

Who is the better test cricketer?

  • Total voters
    35
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
Ah yes, the man with the second most test centuries and the third most test runs who averages 50+ home and away is not an ATG bat. Makes sense.
Click to expand...
Yup those inflated numbers don't take away from the fact that without his bowling, he would be completely out of place in an ATG XI batting lineup. Dravid to me isn't an ATG either. You need to be best of the best.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
No ****, you need bowlers to win games. Which is why saying Dravid won more games by sticking around and through weight of runs is stupid in the first place.
Click to expand...
No, we are talking about perceived threat from the opposition. Either you score fast enough to shift momentum or you double ton up like Dravid did in his prime and give your team an unlosable position
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
No, we are talking about perceived threat from the opposition. Either you score fast enough to shift momentum or you double ton up like Dravid did in his prime and give your team an unlosable position
Click to expand...
You don’t need to score a double century to put your team in an unlosable position in most matches - just a quality century does this far more often. Plus, it all depends on match situation and other variable factors including strengths of both teams.

This is like the age old argument of Lara > Tendulkar because he went big more often. Next you’ll be telling me Sanga is the best since Bradman because he got double tons so often.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
You don’t need to score a double century to put your team in an unlosable position in most matches - just a quality century does this far more often. Plus, it all depends on match situation and other variable factors including strengths of both teams.

This is like the age old argument of Lara > Tendulkar because he went big more often. Next you’ll be telling me Sanga is the best since Bradman because he got double tons so often.
Click to expand...
If Dravid didn't double ton in his prime he wouldn't have been rated so highly at that time. He mitigated for scoring so slowly with sheer output. 150s are not the same mighty feat.

Tendulkar stilled double tonned consistent with other ATGs, Lara wa exceptional, not so with Kallis in his prime, and wasn't a slowpoke anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top