But in the modern game, anybody can tell you that a counter attacking batsman is best suited at #3. Don't buy your Dravid suited at #3 more than Punter argument at all, completely bull**** tbh.
Last edited by TumTum; 11-12-2010 at 08:09 PM.
Regrading your second assertion, I have little doubt that most people would prefer a counter attacking number 3. My point is that the batsman should have sufficient versatility to play the role of a defender as well. Ponting has it, but rarely if ever brings forth that aspect of his game. Dravid has it and brings it forth perhaps once too often. I would rather err on the side of Dravid than Ponting if my team is weak in a lot of other aspects. The Ponting role only fits teams with a strong opening and a middle order to cover up the damages. Australia has neither at the moment.
Australia aren't as weak as you are suggesting. Actually the batting is not as strong as it was before which coincides with Ponting losing form (can't call it losing form tbh, just getting out), if he was getting the runs we wouldn't be discussing this today.
Even at the stage we are in, I would still take Ponting over Dravid any day of the weak. Maybe if our batting was in the dumps and we were scoring 200 every innings then I might reconsider.
Even that though still doesn't prove why Dravid's runs will become more important than Ponting's when for example the rest of the batting order were averaging in the 20s. Because then you would be assuming Dravid would average higher than Ponting, which isn't the case.
Last edited by TumTum; 11-12-2010 at 08:29 PM.
The openers are strong, in fact probably as consistent and prolific as any opening partnership going around international cricket right now (with Katman there that is). It's just the erratic and inconsistent middle order that is our problem.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
If he was getting runs? The fact is, he is not. And the only time he got those runs was when he was in a dream batting plus bowling line up. Except for '02-'06, Ponting's average is around 40 - this in a day and age of the best batting conditions of the last 40 years.
Don't know if you realize, but Australia's batting is scoring 200 odd runs in any crucial test innings. Yeah, the overall numbers are not bad, but the last 3 years have seen so many collapses from the Aussie line up to rival with only Pakistan.
The difference between Dravid and Ponting's average is not much. Will you change your opinion if Dravid starts averaging more than Ponting? It might happen just within the next year.
For your last paragraph my answer is definitely, if Dravid was averaging significantly higher than Ponting, he obviously would have been a significantly better player. The reality is he doesn't average higher and he is not a better player than Ponting.
Ooooh I don't know about that... that's a massive call. I'd say Sehwag tips the scales decisively in India's favour.
How much is significant? Dravid and Ponting have pretty much the same career averages, and at number 3 the difference is a bare 3-4 points, which is pretty insignificant considering the proportion of home games Ponting has played compared to Dravid and for a good 4-5 years had a dream team to be batting in.
On a player for player "talent" basis then there's a fair comparison to be made. However our problem is that our team has not been performing at a team basically since 2007.
Last edited by Spark; 11-12-2010 at 08:57 PM.
Last edited by Hit Wicket; 11-12-2010 at 09:58 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)