Best test match number 3 since 1970?

[sumantra]

I perhaps should have rebutted the premise that there are only three types of wickets in the world (which is nonsensical) instead of focus on rebutting the idea that Dravid's England record somehow made him better in swinging conditions than Ponting.

1. I'm quite willing to concede that Dravid was better in England. He clearly has a very good record there over 3 tours. I'll even take your word for it that it was swinging around corners when he made all of his runs. That doesn't make him necessarily better in swinging conditions than other batsmen. It makes him better in England, which isn't the be all and end all of swing.

I only brought up 2002 because that's the series where he made the majority of his runs in England and in that series the bowling attack didn't have Gough or Fraser, Flintoff or Jones. It was a time when England were between generations. It's the same argument that gets brought up to discredit batsmen like Hayden all the time - that the bowling he scored runs against was consistently weak (even though it's not true at all). I think it's fair to point out that the series Dravid made a huge portion of his runs against England in was their lowest bowling ebb for a decade.

But fair point that he was great against England in 2011 as well, even if he did most of that opening. England's bowling had Anderson and Broad by that point which is as good as anything outside the 05 Ashes attack.

Given Dravid and Ponting's records in South Africa and New Zealand and against Pakistan it's not clear that Dravid was actually any better than Ponting against swing anywhere other than England.

It would be a much more reasonable argument that Dravid was better on slower decks than Ponting, while Ponting was better in wickets that had more pace. But against swing? Not unless England is the be all and end all of swing.

2. Neither Dravid nor Ponting were particularly good on turning tracks. Dravid was probably a bit better given his record in India, though I wouldn't take either of them. My point here is that there are much better options than either on turning tracks so it's a spurious argument.

3. Why this wasn't taken as the joke it was is beyond me. Of course Pakistan, the West Indies and New Zealand aren't minnows.

4. Not batting at 3. Most of his 2011 runs were scored at opener, including one of his hundreds.

5. Dravid was no Pujara but he batted slowly for his era. There's a reason his nickname was "the Wall" and not "the Smasher".

6. Most people and analysts who watched them play. In fact, you can tell how people perceive them by how they're drafted in drafts. Ponting goes way earlier than Dravid most of the time.

7. I'll happily admit I haven't watched a huge amount of Dravid outside Australia tours (though I have watched some). But I'd wager that the reverse is true about most fans - the majority of tests they watch involve their own country.

And lastly, you'll find the same "shallow arguments" for people who regard Viv to be the best. Sometimes you just need to see them. Dravid was a great batsmen, almost certainly in the top 7 of his generation, behind Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting and in the same group as Sehwag, Hayden and Kallis.

You seem to have corrected some of the loose and emotional comments you made in your earlier post and that's good to see.

About the points you have made in this post

1. You are "quite willing to concede that Dravid was better in England" and though you agree it swung "around corners there when he made all of his runs" but that "doesn't make him necessarily better in swinging conditions than other batsmen" - this is hard stuff. The question is, if this doesn't then what will? That he scored his runs when the ball was "swinging around corners" only makes him a better player in England and not against swing bowling - it's, if you permit the word, a ridiculous argument.

Just don't go by the name of the bowlers. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Darrell Tuffy looked more lethal than Richard Hadlee in 2002. Do take into account other things as well. A mediocre bowler would deliver a great spell given a favorable condition.

Throwing one more argument here. The kind of wicket England prepared for India in 2011 or N. Z did in 2002, they would have never done so if the touring side was Australia or South Africa ( India have also prepared half done tracks for touring sides that didn't have quality spinners). In that test match in Hamilton both teams got out below 100 in their first innings, India for 99 and N.Z for 94. It happened for the first time in test cricket history and I don't think it happened since. Not a single batsman from both sides got a half century in that match, in fact no one scored 40 (very mediocre bowling line ups from both sides, mind you), Dravid's 39 was the highest score in that test match...all these records are probably holding still (I don't know where cricket pundits would be rating that 76 in the first test and that 39 in the second). Anyway, the argument here is being in a side that didn't have great pace bowling line up, Dravid and Indian batsmen in general had to face more adverse conditions overseas.

By the way, one can run a poll here asking 'Who was better against genuine swing bowling, Ponting or Dravid?' I am sure in spite of all that Ponting bias here, members would vote for Dravid in this one. Hands of biggest Ponting devotees would be shaking when casting vote for Ponting in that poll.

You accepted England bowling line up in 2011 was "as good as anything outside the 05 Ashes attack", still you didn't mention Dravid's performance in that tour because he mostly opened in that series. If you remember this discussion we are having here from the beginning...it all started when I wrote Dravid better option than Ponting in turning and swinging conditions and you are trying to tell me that he scored 3 centuries in that series when balls were moving in all directions and that too against a potent bowling line up (that you agree) doesn't necessarily prove his caliber of playing swing bowling because he was opening in that series and not batting at number 3! Well, another of those arguments of yours really....

2. Well, yes, neither was greatest in their generation when it came to playing turning ball. But that doesn't mean I can't say that Dravid was better. Of course he was. Not only better, better by a country mile and his ability to play spin improved over time.

3. Sorry, I absolutely didn't get that you meant it as a joke only. My mistake. Bad joke though mind you. Don't make jokes about good sides in a serious argument. Can be misleading.

4. Already talked about this.

5. I have talked about this in the earlier post.

6. Not following drafts, can't tell.

7. Yes, that you haven't watched much of Dravid was evident in your post but the main problem is whatever that you watched or knew, you suppressed and manipulated to a great extent to fit your argument.

Don't talk on others behalf mate. I don't watch cricket as much as I used to before, don't get much time at all. But during that period (say, from late 80's to 2010) I had watched everything around the globe, irrespective of my country's participation...followed both Dravid and Ponting's career very very closely and I am a fan of both of them.

I never said you need to have watched Dravid more to know what he was kind of stuff. I don't make arguments like that. Yes, Dravid was a great batsman and so was Ponting and I don't know from where you gather these ratings of yours. They are your ratings, right? You present them in such an ominous and omnipotent way, they almost scare me. In that generation the greatest cricketer was Jacques Kallis. If only test batsmanship is taken into account, Sachin and Lara way ahead of everyone. Ponting, Dravid and Kallis followed in the same league. Absolutely thin line between these three...Hayden and Sehwag should not pop up in this discussion. And this is just my opinion only.

Lastly one more thing mate, from the beginning of this conversation you have accused me of bias saying that outside India i will find it hard convincing anyone that Dravid was in the same class as Ponting at 3. Then you said, it's either partisan bias or based on something that didn't watch them play...so many judgements so early! while I was only fighting your post with reason and logic. It did piss me off a little. Kindly refrain from making such comments. Someone can have a different opinion about matters, and not see things the way you do. That's what makes the world a beautiful place.

 

[stephen]

You seem to have corrected some of the loose and emotional comments you made in your earlier post and that's good to see.

About the points you have made in this post

1. You are "quite willing to concede that Dravid was better in England" and though you agree it swung "around corners there when he made all of his runs" but that "doesn't make him necessarily better in swinging conditions than other batsmen" - this is hard stuff. The question is, if this doesn't then what will? That he scored his runs when the ball was "swinging around corners" only makes him a better player in England and not against swing bowling - it's, if you permit the word, a ridiculous argument.

Just don't go by the name of the bowlers. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Darrell Tuffy looked more lethal than Richard Hadlee in 2002. Do take into account other things as well. A mediocre bowler would deliver a great spell given a favorable condition.

Throwing one more argument here. The kind of wicket England prepared for India in 2011 or N. Z did in 2002, they would have never done so if the touring side was Australia or South Africa ( India have also prepared half done tracks for touring sides that didn't have quality spinners). In that test match in Hamilton both teams got out below 100 in their first innings, India for 99 and N.Z for 94. It happened for the first time in test cricket history and I don't think it happened since. Not a single batsman from both sides got a half century in that match, in fact no one scored 40 (very mediocre bowling line ups from both sides, mind you), Dravid's 39 was the highest score in that test match...all these records are probably holding still (I don't know where cricket pundits would be rating that 76 in the first test and that 39 in the second). Anyway, the argument here is being in a side that didn't have great pace bowling line up, Dravid and Indian batsmen in general had to face more adverse conditions overseas.

By the way, one can run a poll here asking 'Who was better against genuine swing bowling, Ponting or Dravid?' I am sure in spite of all that Ponting bias here, members would vote for Dravid in this one. Hands of biggest Ponting devotees would be shaking when casting vote for Ponting in that poll.

You accepted England bowling line up in 2011 was "as good as anything outside the 05 Ashes attack", still you didn't mention Dravid's performance in that tour because he mostly opened in that series. If you remember this discussion we are having here from the beginning...it all started when I wrote Dravid better option than Ponting in turning and swinging conditions and you are trying to tell me that he scored 3 centuries in that series when balls were moving in all directions and that too against a potent bowling line up (that you agree) doesn't necessarily prove his caliber of playing swing bowling because he was opening in that series and not batting at number 3! Well, another of those arguments of yours really....

2. Well, yes, neither was greatest in their generation when it came to playing turning ball. But that doesn't mean I can't say that Dravid was better. Of course he was. Not only better, better by a country mile and his ability to play spin improved over time.

3. Sorry, I absolutely didn't get that you meant it as a joke only. My mistake. Bad joke though mind you. Don't make jokes about good sides in a serious argument. Can be misleading.

4. Already talked about this.

5. I have talked about this in the earlier post.

6. Not following drafts, can't tell.

7. Yes, that you haven't watched much of Dravid was evident in your post but the main problem is whatever that you watched or knew, you suppressed and manipulated to a great extent to fit your argument.

Don't talk on others behalf mate. I don't watch cricket as much as I used to before, don't get much time at all. But during that period (say, from late 80's to 2010) I had watched everything around the globe, irrespective of my country's participation...followed both Dravid and Ponting's career very very closely and I am a fan of both of them.

I never said you need to have watched Dravid more to know what he was kind of stuff. I don't make arguments like that. Yes, Dravid was a great batsman and so was Ponting and I don't know from where you gather these ratings of yours. They are your ratings, right? You present them in such an ominous and omnipotent way, they almost scare me. In that generation the greatest cricketer was Jacques Kallis. If only test batsmanship is taken into account, Sachin and Lara way ahead of everyone. Ponting, Dravid and Kallis followed in the same league. Absolutely thin line between these three...Hayden and Sehwag should not pop up in this discussion. And this is just my opinion only.

Lastly one more thing mate, from the beginning of this conversation you have accused me of bias saying that outside India i will find it hard convincing anyone that Dravid was in the same class as Ponting at 3. Then you said, it's either partisan bias or based on something that didn't watch them play...so many judgements so early! while I was only fighting your post with reason and logic. It did piss me off a little. Kindly refrain from making such comments. Someone can have a different opinion about matters, and not see things the way you do. That's what makes the world a beautiful place.

Ok

 

[Flem274*]

Stupid argument, because in the end all of these deliberations are based on "just coz" across generations. I am not afraid to think that anyone surpassed him, but all arguments are generally because you fear the player you rate is worse than him, just coz.

possibly the silliest argument I've seen here since Richard, not surprised it's picked up a few likes.

Yet everyone knows the people you rate between about years 10-22 are going to be faves coz that's when you are fresh and enthusiastic. So fully willing to believe Viv isn't in reality the "best I've ever seen", but to me he was, and will probably always will be.

Yet I have kinda discarded as greats many of my eighties loves, I rarely try to rate Gatting better than Hayden for instance, to try to prove my fave player is better than someone who averaged 14 more in a different era. then coming up with bizarre theories to surmount that well unsurmountable gap, as that would make me a ****ing idjit

putting aside the massive wahhhh you're having equating me to richard (thanks again bro), your defense here isn't anything i haven't already said.

i have zero issues with someone putting viv in an all time side full stop tbh, i can see the appeal of a hyper aggressive atg batsman in the middle order im not the fun police geez, i just can't stand the actual arguments people put forward for viv because they're all so vague and wanky.

 

[Flem274*]

also stephen have a spell if you don't think dravid can be compared to ponting. dravid here in 2002 and in england several times left a pretty strong impression on me. he's easily one of the greatest players, if not the greatest, player of the moving ball i have ever seen. truly earned his nickname, and id take him every time on a green deck despite my personal rating of ponting overall being slightly higher.

 

[grecian]

putting aside the massive wahhhh you're having equating me to richard (thanks again bro), your defense here isn't anything i haven't already said.

i have zero issues with someone putting viv in an all time side full stop tbh, i can see the appeal of a hyper aggressive atg batsman in the middle order im not the fun police geez, i just can't stand the actual arguments people put forward for viv because they're all so vague and ****y.

As others have said you are using the worst arguments for him, and putting them in an inarticulate way. There are plenty of statistical reasons, and achievements he had for Team and Country that means he can and should be rated highly.

It smacks of Richardism, who put the worst arguments against Viv in this thread and elsewhere.

To cite annoying fanboys as a reason not to like someone, I'd probably hate most decent Kiwi players from the irritating fanboyism on here.

 

[Flem274*]

mate im not the one continuing to whine and accuse people of being richard after someone has said there are good reasons to love viv and rate him super high.

 

[Coronis]

Tbh I kinda love the fact that after Bradman, there is no consensus on who is the best batsman (til Smith finishes his career at least) and you can make legitimate arguments for 10+ other batsmen, including Viv.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

With 5 minutes' thought:

Haynes
Sehwag
Viv (c)
Lara
Pietersen
K Miller
Flintoff
Marsh (+)
Warne
Ambrose
Lillee

h_hurricane to list Kapil, Migara to refer to Vaas and Murali (the latter's fielding in particular)

I have a feeling Jamieson will make this side in a few years.

 

[Red]

Tbh I kinda love the fact that after Bradman, there is no consensus on who is the best batsman (til Smith finishes his career at least) and you can make legitimate arguments for 10+ other batsmen, including Viv.

Personally I think Sobers is second best after Bradman, including Smith. His all round capabilities diminish his legacy as a batsman perhaps, but he was clearly a cut above imo.

I still think Sachin, Viv and Sobers are the ones who follow Bradman in an ATG team. My thoughts on Viv have been expressed in this thread, and I think people universally agree with Sobers' inclusion. To me Tendulkar is still the best batsman against any attack in any conditions I've ever seen, and tbh I find it hard to imagine someone surpassing him. He is the absolute exemplar of what orthodox batting should look like, hence his success everywhere against everyone. They're the three for me.

 

[Red]

I include Hutton with those guys but tend to categorise openers separately

 

[thierry henry]

Man I can’t belief 15 years later I’m reading incomprehensible pro-Viv comments on CW again. Might have to go update my livejournal

 

[Daemon]

You seem to have corrected some of the loose and emotional comments you made in your earlier post and that's good to see.

About the points you have made in this post

1. You are "quite willing to concede that Dravid was better in England" and though you agree it swung "around corners there when he made all of his runs" but that "doesn't make him necessarily better in swinging conditions than other batsmen" - this is hard stuff. The question is, if this doesn't then what will? That he scored his runs when the ball was "swinging around corners" only makes him a better player in England and not against swing bowling - it's, if you permit the word, a ridiculous argument.

Just don't go by the name of the bowlers. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Darrell Tuffy looked more lethal than Richard Hadlee in 2002. Do take into account other things as well. A mediocre bowler would deliver a great spell given a favorable condition.

Throwing one more argument here. The kind of wicket England prepared for India in 2011 or N. Z did in 2002, they would have never done so if the touring side was Australia or South Africa ( India have also prepared half done tracks for touring sides that didn't have quality spinners). In that test match in Hamilton both teams got out below 100 in their first innings, India for 99 and N.Z for 94. It happened for the first time in test cricket history and I don't think it happened since. Not a single batsman from both sides got a half century in that match, in fact no one scored 40 (very mediocre bowling line ups from both sides, mind you), Dravid's 39 was the highest score in that test match...all these records are probably holding still (I don't know where cricket pundits would be rating that 76 in the first test and that 39 in the second). Anyway, the argument here is being in a side that didn't have great pace bowling line up, Dravid and Indian batsmen in general had to face more adverse conditions overseas.

By the way, one can run a poll here asking 'Who was better against genuine swing bowling, Ponting or Dravid?' I am sure in spite of all that Ponting bias here, members would vote for Dravid in this one. Hands of biggest Ponting devotees would be shaking when casting vote for Ponting in that poll.

You accepted England bowling line up in 2011 was "as good as anything outside the 05 Ashes attack", still you didn't mention Dravid's performance in that tour because he mostly opened in that series. If you remember this discussion we are having here from the beginning...it all started when I wrote Dravid better option than Ponting in turning and swinging conditions and you are trying to tell me that he scored 3 centuries in that series when balls were moving in all directions and that too against a potent bowling line up (that you agree) doesn't necessarily prove his caliber of playing swing bowling because he was opening in that series and not batting at number 3! Well, another of those arguments of yours really....

2. Well, yes, neither was greatest in their generation when it came to playing turning ball. But that doesn't mean I can't say that Dravid was better. Of course he was. Not only better, better by a country mile and his ability to play spin improved over time.

3. Sorry, I absolutely didn't get that you meant it as a joke only. My mistake. Bad joke though mind you. Don't make jokes about good sides in a serious argument. Can be misleading.

4. Already talked about this.

5. I have talked about this in the earlier post.

6. Not following drafts, can't tell.

7. Yes, that you haven't watched much of Dravid was evident in your post but the main problem is whatever that you watched or knew, you suppressed and manipulated to a great extent to fit your argument.

Don't talk on others behalf mate. I don't watch cricket as much as I used to before, don't get much time at all. But during that period (say, from late 80's to 2010) I had watched everything around the globe, irrespective of my country's participation...followed both Dravid and Ponting's career very very closely and I am a fan of both of them.

I never said you need to have watched Dravid more to know what he was kind of stuff. I don't make arguments like that. Yes, Dravid was a great batsman and so was Ponting and I don't know from where you gather these ratings of yours. They are your ratings, right? You present them in such an ominous and omnipotent way, they almost scare me. In that generation the greatest cricketer was Jacques Kallis. If only test batsmanship is taken into account, Sachin and Lara way ahead of everyone. Ponting, Dravid and Kallis followed in the same league. Absolutely thin line between these three...Hayden and Sehwag should not pop up in this discussion. And this is just my opinion only.

Lastly one more thing mate, from the beginning of this conversation you have accused me of bias saying that outside India i will find it hard convincing anyone that Dravid was in the same class as Ponting at 3. Then you said, it's either partisan bias or based on something that didn't watch them play...so many judgements so early! while I was only fighting your post with reason and logic. It did piss me off a little. Kindly refrain from making such comments. Someone can have a different opinion about matters, and not see things the way you do. That's what makes the world a beautiful place.

1. Ricky Ponting is the best cricketer

2. He is one day and test cricketer

3. Who's better Ponting or Lara?

4. Pontiing's better, bad is rest cricketer

5. When Lara went to Auntralia

6. Ponting defeated the west cricketer

7. Ponting had really great abilities

8. So those who hate him, hate abilities