India Top Two ODI batsmen

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid always been worst batsman in the team throughout the career.

Now that's just completely incorrect.

Hot take: I'd take Dravid of the mid 2000s in a heartbeat instead of present day Dhoni for the role he currently attempts to perform.

 

[cnerd123]

Peak Dravid would be perfect at 4 for us right now wouldn't he?

 

[h_hurricane]

Dravid vs Ganguly is interesting. Ganguly better only by an average of 1.5 runs and strike of 2. Both were poor against the best team of the generation. Dravid has a better average in WCs and Ganguly only slightly better strike rate. On second thought, I would put both in the same tier, with Ganguly only slightly ahead.

 

[stephen]

Yes. Dhoni better .
Dhoni better than Lara and Ponting.. beven not.

You are welcome to your opinion and you're even welcome to share your opinion. Of course, just like an anti-vaxxer, sharing your opinion doesn't stop it from being wrong.

Bevan was a better batsman than Dhoni. He was miles ahead of the next best for over half a decade.

Of course you'll cite statistics or appeal to some obscure authority to back yourself up but having watched them both play for a very long period of time it's clear that Bevan was a more versatile and capable batsman than Dhoni, despite Dhoni being almost as good as Bevan.

Bevan was the best batsman in the hardest era of ODI batting (an era in which all teams had strong bowling attacks) and second place wasn't even close.

 

[trundler]

Give me that PFK Vs Stephen cage match already, mods!

 

[akilana]

You are welcome to your opinion and you're even welcome to share your opinion. Of course, just like an anti-vaxxer, sharing your opinion doesn't stop it from being wrong.

Bevan was a better batsman than Dhoni. He was miles ahead of the next best for over half a decade.

Of course you'll cite statistics or appeal to some obscure authority to back yourself up but having watched them both play for a very long period of time it's clear that Bevan was a more versatile and capable batsman than Dhoni, despite Dhoni being almost as good as Bevan.

Bevan was the best batsman in the hardest era of ODI batting (an era in which all teams had strong bowling attacks) and second place wasn't even close.

Not true.

 

[cnerd123]

Handy addition to the undercard of CW mania I reckon

 

[Malcolm]

Dravid vs Ganguly is interesting. Ganguly better only by an average of 1.5 runs and strike of 2. Both were poor against the best team of the generation. Dravid has a better average in WCs and Ganguly only slightly better strike rate. On second thought, I would put both in the same tier, with Ganguly only slightly ahead.

DWTA.
If you look at their stats till '02,
Ganguly - 43 at 75
Dravid - 39 at 69

Unfortunately, Ganguly declined thenceforth when the ODI batting was getting easier, while Dravid improved his stats exploiting the condition.

IMHO, Ganguly is clearly a rung or two above Dravid.

 

[trundler]

Handy addition to the undercard of CW mania I reckon

They'll make you job to Burgey again.

 

[OverratedSanity]

DWTA.
If you look at their stats till '02,
Ganguly - 43 at 75
Dravid - 39 at 69

Unfortunately, Ganguly declined thenceforth when the ODI batting was getting easier, while Dravid improved his stats exploiting the condition.

IMHO, Ganguly is clearly a rung or two above Dravid.

He's better than dravid but ignoring dravid's best years will obviously do him no favours.

 

[trundler]

Those early Dravid figures look like Darren Bravo's.

 

[stephen]

Not true.

How so?

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[Pratters]

Bevan was good every where while Dhoni was better in subcontinent.. so Bevan is better than Dhoni for me..

 

[trundler]

The Dhoni/Bevan thing will never be resolved. Stephen's childlike reverence for his hero is unlikely to see otherwise. Nor is any Indian going to blaspheme against their WC winning captain.

Also, Sachin was indisputably and unarguably the best batsman of the 90s.

 

[h_hurricane]

DWTA.
If you look at their stats till '02,
Ganguly - 43 at 75
Dravid - 39 at 69

Unfortunately, Ganguly declined thenceforth when the ODI batting was getting easier, while Dravid improved his stats exploiting the condition.

IMHO, Ganguly is clearly a rung or two above Dravid.

So Dravid gets 0 points for playing well after 2002 where as Ganguly does not get points deducted for not being that good in that period. Their overall stats look remarkably similar. Both debuted around same time(if you ignore one ODI which Ganguly played in 1992) and finished around same time. Both were thrash against Aus (one of the yardsticks you would measure them). Given the above, one should simply compare their overall record.

Ganguly was better at hitting sixes and still had around the same strike rate as Dravid which means he was poorer in rotating the strike. Also he was a poorer runner between the wickets(close to Inzi level) and a poor fieldsman as well. Never rated Dravid highly in ODIs by the way.

 

[stephen]

The Dhoni/Bevan thing will never be resolved. Stephen's childlike reverence for his hero is unlikely to see otherwise. Nor is any Indian going to blaspheme against their WC winning captain.

Also, Sachin was indisputably and unarguably the best batsman of the 90s.

Where did the meme about Tendulkar being the best of the 90s come from? It's not even statistically true, which is usually the crutch that Indian fans lean upon.

 

[trundler]

I can trace the Bevan meme to a Roger Harper full toss, however.

Unless you're going by the only WC finals count meme position it's fairly clear cut. Tendulkar was the synthesis of Greenidge and Jayasuriya. Bevan no doubt mastered a new role too but c'mon, Tendulkar went big and went fast.

Nvm you think Bevan is somehow way better than Dhoni but Waugh was only a moderate downgrade from Tendulkar.

 

[Malcolm]

So Dravid gets 0 points for playing well after 2002 where as Ganguly does not get points deducted for not being that good in that period.

Dravid never "played well" after 2002. His numbers improved slightly because of the easier batting conditions.
Yes, I do count that against Ganguly, and that is why I don't regard him as an ATG.

Their overall stats look remarkably similar. Both debuted around same time(if you ignore one ODI which Ganguly played in 1992) and finished around same time. Both were thrash against Aus (one of the yardsticks you would measure them). Given the above, one should simply compare their overall record.

Ganguly was way better than Dravid during 96-02.
Dravid was better than Ganguly during 03-07 ( which was Ganguly's decline stage ).
I respect your opinion, but Ganguly >> Dravid any day for me.

Ganguly was better at hitting sixes and still had around the same strike rate as Dravid which means he was poorer in rotating the strike. Also he was a poorer runner between the wickets(close to Inzi level) and a poor fieldsman as well. Never rated Dravid highly in ODIs by the way.

I Agree with this. He indeed was poor at running between the wickets and a liability as a fielder. But, I'd assume his low SR is also because of his slow starts. He could accelerate once he was set. IMO, Dravid clearly lacked this quality too.

 

[Burner]

How so?

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Heh, it's baffling someone would argue Bevan was better than Tendulkar based on the stats you just posted. One has 5 centuries, the other 27 ffs.

 

[h_hurricane]

Dravid never "played well" after 2002. His numbers improved slightly because of the easier batting conditions.
Yes, I do count that against Ganguly, and that is why I don't regard him as an ATG.



Ganguly was way better than Dravid during 96-02.
Dravid was better than Ganguly during 03-07 ( which was Ganguly's decline stage ).
I respect your opinion, but Ganguly >> Dravid any day for me.



I Agree with this. He indeed was poor at running between the wickets and a liability as a fielder. But, I'd assume his low SR is also because of his slow starts. He could accelerate once he was set. IMO, Dravid clearly lacked this quality too.

Fair enough