• 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.

Rahul Dravid vs Allan Donald

Who is the better test cricketer?

  • Total voters
    31
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Are you expecting your average ATG pacer to play 150 tests? Come on.
Click to expand...
we are comparing two individuals. And yes when you make that comparison, volume of output matters.

playing 150*+ tests and averaging 50+ is an accomplishment unto itself
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
we are comparing two individuals. And yes when you make that comparison, volume of output matters.

playing 150*+ tests and averaging 50+ is an accomplishment unto itself
Click to expand...
You ignore the fact that ATG pace bowlers are matchwinners and therefore inherently more valuable than bats. Them playing shorter careers is compensated naturally.

There are about 10 or so pacers in the top rung and Donald is one of them. Dravid is debatable to make the top 20 bats. So there's that issue too.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
You ignore the fact that ATG pace bowlers are matchwinners and therefore inherently more valuable than bats. Them playing shorter careers is compensated naturally.

There are about 10 or so pacers in the top rung and Donald is one of them. Dravid is debatable to make the top 20 bats. So there's that issue too.
Click to expand...
you guys love making these assertions and it may be true, but there’s no real analysis to back it up. Unlike baseball and even basketball, no one has really been able to quantify value in cricket so really your position here is just intuition.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
you guys love making these assertions and it may be true, but there’s no real analysis to back it up. Unlike baseball and even basketball, no one has really been able to quantify value in cricket so really your position here is just intuition.
Click to expand...
We have examples where a single ATG bowler dramatically improves the effectiveness of a side. Best I can think of is Richard Hadlee who took NZ from an otherwise mediocre side to a near top tier team in the 80s. Murali also made SL much stronger despite not great bowling support.

Yet a single ATG bat like Tendulkar or Lara couldn't make their teams much more better off.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
We have examples where a single ATG bowler dramatically improves the effectiveness of a side. Best I can think of is Richard Hadlee who took NZ from an otherwise mediocre side to a near top tier team in the 80s. Murali also made SL much stronger despite not great bowling support.

Yet a single ATG bat like Tendulkar or Lara couldn't make their teams much more better off.
Click to expand...
I could point to any number of counterfactuals here.

this is anecdotal, not analytical.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
I could point to any number of counterfactuals here.

this is anecdotal, not analytical.
Click to expand...
Please point to them then. I could bring other examples of team results improving with a single ATG bowler. Imran in the 70s and early 80s, for example. But I can't think of a single example of an ATG bat alone dramatically changing it. Bowlers contribute disproportionately to victories.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Please point to them then. I could bring other examples of team results improving with a single ATG bowler. Imran in the 70s and early 80s, for example. But I can't think of a single example of an ATG bat alone dramatically changing it. Bowlers contribute disproportionately to victories.
Click to expand...
George Headley - 1930s west indies
Sunil Gavaskar - 1970s India
Andy Flower - 1990s Zimbabwe

One can even make a case for Tendulkar in 1990s India who were minnow quality without him

imran had Miandad and someother excellent batting in support - Majid, Sadiq, Mushtaq, Mudassar, Asif, Zaheer. It was hardly a lone wolf.

SimilaryNZ had Martin Crowe, John Wright, Jeremy Coney, Ian Smith - no mugs.
 
Last edited:
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
ma1978 said:
George Headley - 1930s west indies
Sunil Gavaskar - 1970s India
Andy Flower - 1990s Zimbabwe

One can even make a case for Tendulkar in 1990s India who were minnow quality without him

imran had Miandad and someother excellent batting in support - Majid, Sadiq, Mushtaq, Mudassar, Asif, Zaheer. It was hardly a lone wolf.

SimilaryNZ had Martin Crowe, John Wright, Jeremy Coney, Ian Smith - no mugs.
Click to expand...
Martin Crowe came in halfway past Hadlee's career, and Ian Smith and Jeremy Conney were decent Test level players; but not really much more. 90s Zimbabwe, and 30s Windies were heavily carried by these 2, no doubt there; but they really weren't winning many games all around. Yes, they won a series in Pakistan and a game against India; but really then also, he had support in Heath Streak, Grant Flower and Murray Goodwin. 70s India had a good to atleast most often decent batting unit with the likes of Amarnath, Vengsarkar and Viswanath; had the spin quartet and Kapil Dev. And I don't necessarily think 90s India, with Dravid and Ganguly joining in 96 alongside Kumble, Srinath and Azhar (when he played); were necessarily minnows.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
We have examples where a single ATG bowler dramatically improves the effectiveness of a side. Best I can think of is Richard Hadlee who took NZ from an otherwise mediocre side to a near top tier team in the 80s. Murali also made SL much stronger despite not great bowling support.

Yet a single ATG bat like Tendulkar or Lara couldn't make their teams much more better off.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
AndyZaltzHair

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
we are comparing two individuals. And yes when you make that comparison, volume of output matters.

playing 150*+ tests and averaging 50+ is an accomplishment unto itself
Click to expand...
Bradman played only 52 tests to Dravid's 150+ tests therefore hes unknown quantity. If he played 150+ tests like Dravid he would have ended up with avg of below 50. So Dravid > Bradman proved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top