Steve Waugh vs Rahul Dravid (Tests)

[Burgey]

"Tendulkar could have been better than Waugh between 93 and 01, but he just kept getting out."

 

[h_hurricane]

I would have thought Waugh takes this relatively comfortably, surprised by some of the responses

If anything, I am surprised that people rate Waugh convincingly better than Dravid, which he was not. Most people would not be having any problem if Steve is rated slightly higher than Rahul provided both are in the same ballpark. This is inspite of Dravid scoring some 2300 more playing around the same test matches. It is not as if Dravid was some flat track bully.

 

[stephen]

It's fair to say Tendulkar had the better record in the 90s.

In Australia both batsmen were equal. In the subcontinent Tendulkar is miles ahead. Both batsmen brutalized the English in England but Tendulkar pounded them harder. Against Pakistan and South Africa Waugh is a long way ahead. Against the West Indies Waugh is ahead but more due to weight and context of his runs than on raw averages.

It's fair to say that Tendulkar was better during the 90s but it's also fair to say that Waugh was better against fast bowling attacks and made more runs in winning efforts.

Their records are virtually identical from 1994 onwards until the end of Waugh's career (2004). The most notable differences being Waugh's performances in Sri Lanka and against New Zealand and Tendulkar's performances against South Africa and Pakistan.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If anything, I am surprised that people rate Waugh convincingly better than Dravid, which he was not. Most people would not be having any problem if Steve is rated slightly higher than Rahul provided both are in the same ballpark. This is inspite of Dravid scoring some 2300 more playing around the same test matches. It is not as if Dravid was some flat track bully.

I'm hesitant to say he's convincingly better. I think they are around the same ballpark, but Waugh is definitely superior. That's what I meant by "relatively comfortably", not that he's a lot better, but that he's definitely at least a little better.

if that makes sense

 

[h_hurricane]

omg can this just die

I think this matters when we are talking about disproportionate amount of not outs. I wouldn't say Steve Waugh did not deserve his 50 + average. He obviously was a great player, but the not outs did help him.

Steve Waugh Career Average - 51
Steve Waugh Runs per innings - 42

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tendulkar v S Waugh isn't a competition. Tendulkar wins, even if you're just talking about Tests.

You could argue that Waugh maybe has the better legacy, and was a better cricketer/team player but as batsmen alone Tendulkar is the clear winner.

I think this matters when we are talking about disproportionate amount of not outs. I wouldn't say Steve Waugh did not deserve his 50 + average. He obviously was a great player, but the not outs did help him.

Steve Waugh Career Average - 51
Steve Waugh Runs per innings - 42

no, we've had this discussion many times on here, and tbh I find the opinion that an average "inflated by not outs" is somehow worth less, absolutely absurd

If anything it's a sign that your innings is being cut off after you've played yourself in and you have to start again from scratch next innings. It would make more sense to say the opposite tbh, the more not outs you have, the less you've feasted on making big scores while you've got your eye in. I'm not saying that's definitely the case but it would be much more logical than what you're doing.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's fair to say Tendulkar had the better record in the 90s.

In Australia both batsmen were equal. In the subcontinent Tendulkar is miles ahead. Both batsmen brutalized the English in England but Tendulkar pounded them harder. Against Pakistan and South Africa Waugh is a long way ahead. Against the West Indies Waugh is ahead but more due to weight and context of his runs than on raw averages.

It's fair to say that Tendulkar was better during the 90s but it's also fair to say that Waugh was better against fast bowling attacks and made more runs in winning efforts.

Their records are virtually identical from 1994 onwards until the end of Waugh's career (2004). The most notable differences being Waugh's performances in Sri Lanka and against New Zealand and Tendulkar's performances against South Africa and Pakistan.

Tendulkar's record against SA is superb. Played some ATG innings against Donald and Pollock and handled peak Steyn better than anyone else (maybe bar Clarke). He's probably the only subcontinent batsman ever to do that well in SA (until kohli). Other SC greats like Sanga, Dravid, have miserable records there.

 

[Burgey]

It's fair to say Tendulkar had the better record in the 90s.

In Australia both batsmen were equal. In the subcontinent Tendulkar is miles ahead. Both batsmen brutalized the English in England but Tendulkar pounded them harder. Against Pakistan and South Africa Waugh is a long way ahead. Against the West Indies Waugh is ahead but more due to weight and context of his runs than on raw averages.

It's fair to say that Tendulkar was better during the 90s but it's also fair to say that Waugh was better against fast bowling attacks and made more runs in winning efforts.

Their records are virtually identical from 1994 onwards until the end of Waugh's career (2004). The most notable differences being Waugh's performances in Sri Lanka and against New Zealand and Tendulkar's performances against South Africa and Pakistan.

You're wrong. Tendulkar was a spud compared with Waugh between 93 and 01. So was Lara. So was everyone. Waugh was the batsman of the 90s. He'd have walked into every other side and would have been their best player. Tendulkar and Lara were flashier, but they weren't better. Particularly Chokedulkar, who had myriad opportunities to get his side over the line in clutch situations and habitually failed. But he lookd pretty doing it, so well done him.

Sachin and I spoke of this many times when I was living in the late 90s/ early 2000s, and he agreed with me.

 

[stephen]

omg can this just die

Yeah people thinking that not outs inflate averages have little idea of how cricket works.

You're far more likely to get out between 0 and 20 than at any other period in your innings. Not outs are runs lost, not gained.

 

[h_hurricane]

"Tendulkar could have been better than Waugh between 93 and 01, but he just kept getting out."

Most people would agree that Tendulkar's legacy was built in 1990s. I personally do not rate him that high post 2003. So if he kept getting out in his peak period, what would that make him ? A good player, a decent player ?

 

[stephen]

Tendulkar's record against SA is superb. Played some ATG innings against Donald and Pollock and handled peak Steyn better than anyone else (maybe bar Clarke). He's probably the only subcontinent batsman ever to do that well in SA (until kohli). Other SC greats like Sanga, Dravid, have miserable records there.

And yet his record is substantially worse than Steve Waugh's record against them. Because Steve Waugh was bloody brilliant. He was a large part of the reason South Africa couldn't beat Australia in a series until after his retirement.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Most people would agree that Tendulkar's legacy was built in 1990s. I personally do not rate him that high post 2003. So if he kept getting out in his peak period, what would that make him ? A good player, a decent player ?

I feel like should warn you in case you aren't already aware, that Burgey is in all likelihood not exactly being entirely serious

 

[OverratedSanity]

And yet his record is substantially worse than Steve Waugh's record against them. Because Steve Waugh was bloody brilliant. He was a large part of the reason South Africa couldn't beat Australia in a series until after his retirement.

Did Waugh have to face the #pressure Dravid and Sachin had to face? Absolutely not. He never choked like chokedulkar did because he never had to face that #pressure.

 

[J_C]

Waugh averaged a miserable 25 in 4th innings of Tests. So much for him being a "clutch" player.

 

[stephen]

You're wrong. Tendulkar was a spud compared with Waugh between 93 and 01. So was Lara. So was everyone. Waugh was the batsman of the 90s. He'd have walked into every other side and would have been their best player. Tendulkar and Lara were flashier, but they weren't better. Particularly Chokedulkar, who had myriad opportunities to get his side over the line in clutch situations and habitually failed. But he lookd pretty doing it, so well done him.

Sachin and I spoke of this many times when I was living in the late 90s/ early 2000s, and he agreed with me.

No doubt Steve Waugh was gigantic and had a knack of scoring runs when they mattered the most. But for the first three and a half years of the 90s he was rubbish. If he'd been more than a spectator against the Windies in 92/93 we'd have toppled them then, at home (he made one good score in the entire 5 test series).

When viewed in its totality, Tendulkar was the better batsman of the 90s. Between 93 and 01 I agree that Waugh was a more valuable batsman than Tendulkar. He won a lot of memorable series off his bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did Waugh have to face the #pressure Dravid and Sachin had to face? Absolutely not. He never choked like chokedulkar did because he never had to face that #pressure.

never performed in the Nidahas trophy either.

 

[Burgey]

He usually won games in the first, second and third innings. As opposed to Sachin, who kind of never really won any games for his side.

 

[Burgey]

No doubt Steve Waugh was gigantic and had a knack of scoring runs when they mattered the most. But for the first three and a half years of the 90s he was rubbish. If he'd been more than a spectator against the Windies in 92/93 we'd have toppled them then, at home (he made one good score in the entire 5 test series).

When viewed in its totality, Tendulkar was the better batsman of the 90s. Between 93 and 01 I agree that Waugh was a more valuable batsman than Tendulkar. He won a lot of memorable series off his bat.

If a bloke is a better batsman than someone else for seven of the 10 years of a given decade, then he's the better player in that period.

 

[J_C]

Against non-minnows, Mark Waugh scored 7939 runs in 208 innings (RPI of 38.16).

Against non-minnows, Steve Waugh scored 10381 runs in 255 innings (RPI of 40.7).

That's less than 3 runs more per innings compared to M. Waugh who was considered an under-achiever. He was basically an upmarket Chanderpaul who played for a much better side .

 

[OverratedSanity]

In all seriousness, Dravid and Waugh were two guys who had a ton of respect for each other. Both had similar strengths in that they'd grit it out and get tough runs even when not being in good form, played some amazing innings in difficult to bat conditions (probably the two best at this that I've seen). Waugh was dravid's role model as a young batsman and used to go to him for advice and after that Adelaide win in Waugh's last series, he raved about dravid's performance even though it would've been a disappointing loss. And he also chose Dravid to write the foreword for his book. They clearly have a bit of a bromamce going on.

Also strange how a lot of Australian fans seem to like dravid more than Sachin (not necessarily as batsmen but just as blokes) despite both being similarly mild mannered. And Indian fans absolutely adore Waugh and despise Ponting despite both being ****s on the field.