Rahul Dravid vs Ravichandran Ashwin

[kyear2]

Dravid's overall value in slip fielding, keeping, captaincy etc was very very valuable and would probably equal Ashwins batting for me. However it's Dravid's away performances which is the clincher for me. There is a fair argument to me made that Dravid was the best away bat of his gen bar Tendulkar and Lara

I don't recall Dravid keeping that much in test cricket, but could be wrong. But his value as an elite slip fielder is pretty handy.

But yes agree, Dravid for me is a better batsman than Ashwin is a bowler, due in large part to the points that you've made.

 

[Thala_0710]

I don't recall Dravid keeping that much in test cricket, but could be wrong. But his value as an elite slip fielder is pretty handy.

But yes agree, Dravid for me is a better batsman than Ashwin is a bowler, due in large part to the points that you've made.

Actually yeah, Dravid only kept in ODIs. My bad

 

[Xix2565]

That's a bit of a stretch. Ashwin could have been better in primary discipline if his numbers were overall better overseas.

No way, Dravid's playing a less impactful role and got similar benefits for parts of his career with batting friendly conditions and weaker attacks to feast on to say he's better in the primary disciplines.

 

[sayon basak]

No way, Dravid's playing a less impactful role and got similar benefits for parts of his career with batting friendly conditions and weaker attacks to feast on to say he's better in the primary disciplines.

But unlike Ashwin, Dravid has century everywhere he played in. Also one of the only batsmen who averaged better overseas than at home. Ashwin could make a case in the next tour if he performs.

 

[ma1978]

No way, Dravid's playing a less impactful role and got similar benefits for parts of his career with batting friendly conditions and weaker attacks to feast on to say he's better in the primary disciplines.

Lol. Just shows you clearly had no concept of Indian cricket back then. India NEVER won outside before. Dravid’s centuries in Headingley (in deeply challenging batting conditions), Adelaide and Pindi were responsible for three of India’s most seminal, game changing wins not to mention the 180 in Eden Gardens and the innings in Sabina Park. Dravid is the most impactful Indian bat, ever. Sachin was better but didn’t have the same impact Dravid did.

 

[kyear2]

No way, Dravid's playing a less impactful role and got similar benefits for parts of his career with batting friendly conditions and weaker attacks to feast on to say he's better in the primary disciplines.

Yes Subz takes it way too far sometimes, and I do try to stay out of this discussion, and yes he's the best spinner since Warne and Murali... But the tendency by some to totally ignore his record away from home / helpful conditions is a little strange.

And then when anyone says anything they're immediately called a hater or shouted down.

Dravid is clearly better than him on primary discipline

 

[Xix2565]

But unlike Ashwin, Dravid has century everywhere he played in. Also one of the only batsmen who averaged better overseas than at home. Ashwin could make a case in the next tour if he performs.

Having a century everywhere or averaging better overseas isn't much without context. Ashwin on the other hand is still doing the more valuable role of bowling when it comes to winning Tests. I value bowlers more than batters, and in this regard I have no issues with having Ashwin over Dravid.

Lol. Just shows you clearly had no concept of Indian cricket back then. India NEVER won outside before. Dravid’s centuries in Headingley (in deeply challenging batting conditions), Adelaide and Pindi were responsible for three of India’s most seminal, game changing wins not to mention the 180 in Eden Gardens and the innings in Sabina Park. Dravid is the most impactful Indian bat, ever. Sachin was better but didn’t have the same impact Dravid did.

India had won in the past away from home, but we'll pretend to act like that never happened. It's one thing to highlight Dravid's performances, but another entirely to pretend that everything he did was in impossible circumstances that Ashwin never faces and so on. Also aren't you just indulging the same sort of thing you're criticizing me for with this much 'praise' for Dravid over the best Indian batter for most people?

Yes Subz takes it way too far sometimes, and I do try to stay out of this discussion, and yes he's the best spinner since Warne and Murali... But the tendency by some to totally ignore his record away from of home / helpful conditions is a little strange.

And then when anyone says anything they're immediately called a hater or shouted down.

Dravid is clearly better than him on primary discipline

Is it any better than people ignoring the impact of batting friendly conditions and weak bowling attacks in the 2000s on Dravid's career? Be serious please, you're not much better than Subzi in this regard with hyperfixations on tangents.

 

[subshakerz]

Having a century everywhere or averaging better overseas isn't much without context. Ashwin on the other hand is still doing the more valuable role of bowling when it comes to winning Tests. I value bowlers more than batters, and in this regard I have no issues with having Ashwin over Dravid.

Bowlers are meant to be matchwinners by default.

If you favor bowlers fine, most of us make adjustments for parity between bowlers and bats based on their roles.

India had won in the past away from home, but we'll pretend to act like that never happened. It's one thing to highlight Dravid's performances, but another entirely to pretend that everything he did was in impossible circumstances that Ashwin never faces and so on. Also aren't you just indulging the same sort of thing you're criticizing me for with this much 'praise' for Dravid over the best Indian batter for most people?

No, India winning overseas in the 2000s was after a long shallow period in the 90s of being uncompetitive.

Is it any better than people ignoring the impact of batting friendly conditions and weak bowling attacks in the 2000s on Dravid's career? Be serious please, you're not much better than Subzi in this regard with hyperfixations on tangents.

Literally everyone brings up the 2000s as a flat bat era. But Dravid was already averaging 50 by the end of the 90s.

Dravid is just better and more respected in his primary discipline.

Everyone knows Ashwin built his career almost entirely on home bashing. It's a cheap way to try and get into the ATG title that he doesn't deserve.

 

[subshakerz]

Fielding isn't a primary discipline and yes, the impact of fielding is fractional when compared to the primary skills of batting or bowling.

The idiotic blanket statement though that it isn't a secondary skills and not comparable even to secondary skills of batting or bowling isn't grounded in fact.

Fielding and catching was always a tertiary skill. You even agreed the captaincy itself impacts the results of around 15 percent of games, meaning that fielding is behind even that.

Are you still trying to calculate runs for dropped catches?

For teams like SA and the WI (when we had Hall and Griffith), Sobers and Kallis were at least as valuable at 2nd slip as they were with the ball.

Completely untrue. Especially in the case of Sobers.

 

[Xix2565]

Bowlers are meant to be matchwinners by default.

If you favor bowlers fine, most of us make adjustments for parity between bowlers and bats based on their roles.


No, India winning overseas in the 2000s was after a long shallow period in the 90s of being uncompetitive.


Literally everyone brings up the 2000s as a flat bat era. But Dravid was already averaging 50 by the end of the 90s.

Dravid is just better and more respected in his primary discipline.

Everyone knows Ashwin built his career almost entirely on home bashing. It's a cheap way to try and get into the ATG title that he doesn't deserve.

Who says I haven't made adjustments for parity? I don't see how Dravid is higher than Ashwin in their respective 'lists' anyway.

And the point was extra brownie points have to be given for being competitive then after a while. I don't see it that way.

Yet it's where most of his great knocks and records were made. So it definitely matters here.

Dravid isn't better in his primary discipline.

Everyone knows Ashwin is an ATG, it's idiots like you who want to bash him for his record because for some reason it insults you. Don't try to turn this around when your pattern of behaviour has been pretty evident.

 

[subshakerz]

Dravid isn't better in his primary discipline.

Everyone knows Ashwin is an ATG, it's idiots like you who want to bash him for his record because for some reason it insults you. Don't try to turn this around when your pattern of behaviour has been pretty evident.

I think you need to accept that home bashing isn't going to get a player the same respect as someone accomplished abroad as Dravid.

Dravid has record series hauls away from home. His contribution to Indian cricket legacy is immense.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Imagine how high Dravid would be rated now if he retired after the 2006 West Indies series. He was averaging like 65 overseas at that stage.

 

[Xix2565]

I think you need to accept that home bashing isn't going to get a player the same respect as someone accomplished abroad as Dravid.

Dravid has record series hauls away from home. His contribution to Indian cricket legacy is immense.

I think you need to accept that you don't have any real standards that anyone understands beyond "Subs likes X Player = good, Subs doesn't like Y Player = bad".

And Ashwin's got a great legacy as well. That you don't rate it is besides the point. You've never been objective at any point.

 

[ma1978]

Who says I haven't made adjustments for parity? I don't see how Dravid is higher than Ashwin in their respective 'lists' anyway.

And the point was extra brownie points have to be given for being competitive then after a while. I don't see it that way.

Yet it's where most of his great knocks and records were made. So it definitely matters here.

Dravid isn't better in his primary discipline.

Everyone knows Ashwin is an ATG, it's idiots like you who want to bash him for his record because for some reason it insults you. Don't try to turn this around when your pattern of behaviour has been pretty evident.

both Dravid and Ashwin are ATGs. It’s the relative comparison we are making and I’d rate Dravid on the margin higher. It’s hardly controversial.

 

[Xix2565]

both Dravid and Ashwin are ATGs. It’s the relative comparison we are making and I’d rate Dravid on the margin higher. It’s hardly controversial.

The controversy is with Sub's absolutes, not you. That we differ is understandable, Subs is just being annoying for no reason.

 

[sayon basak]

both Dravid and Ashwin are ATGs. It’s the relative comparison we are making and I’d rate Dravid on the margin higher. It’s hardly controversial.

Agreed.

 

[ma1978]

The controversy is with Sub's absolutes, not you. That we differ is understandable, Subs is just being annoying for no reason.

I agree. Clutching for straws and throwing out pointless pieces of statistical irrelevance to justify a view only he has

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid's era was good for batsmen of course, but he had many great innings in difficult batting conditions. Definitely a more well rounded player on primary discipline than Ashwin imo. Match winning impact can of course be argued in Ashwin's favour because he's a bowler but even there the fact that many of India's most memorable wins had a big hand from dravid (particularly away from home) makes it close.

 

[subshakerz]

The controversy is with Sub's absolutes, not you. That we differ is understandable, Subs is just being annoying for no reason.

Why? We all have our opinions. I have a high bar for ATG and much fewer reach that level.

I don't think it's controversial to say Dravid was more internationally respected too.

 

[Xix2565]

Why? We all have our opinions. I have a high bar for ATG and much fewer reach that level.

I don't think it's controversial to say Dravid was more internationally respected too.

It's all bunk from you though. You behave like this for certain players when it's not justified at all. Am I supposed to treat you like you know something or someone with little reason to be here?