Well said.Originally Posted by Dasa
Well said.Originally Posted by Dasa
Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."
lara is not better than dravid. dravid is a better player than lara. it looks like this:Originally Posted by social
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
"Forums" meaning all areas where cricket is discussed - print, tv, radio, pubOriginally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
Ive seen Read keep on a number of occasions and he is very good but certainly not an absolute stand-out in this area alone. If he was, it would be sufficient to compensate for any weaknesses in his batting, particularly when Jones has been performing so poorly with the gloves.
Agreed, the 3 you mention are above average but so is Gilchrist.
Ill believe that when Dravid can:Originally Posted by tooextracool
a. dominate an attack rather than win a war of attrition;
b. rotate the strike; and
c. score runs consistently against McGrath.
Lara gives you more chances but slaughters attacks when in and, in doing so, has an average comparable to a "blocker" like Dravid.
Genius vs technician = Lara > Dravid
because all of a sudden, thats the way to become a good batsman! you dont need to dominate an attack at all, and there are times when grinding out the opposition comes in handy.Originally Posted by social
a)what does this have to do with test match cricket?Originally Posted by social
b)dravid has shown that hes perfectly capable of it in both test and ODI cricket off late.
hes already scored runs against mcgrath, yes hes also failed against him, but just because you have a few failures against a particular bowler it doesnt mean that you cant be great.Originally Posted by social
so what? why does an attacking batsman have to be a better player than someone who is more defensive? that theory is absolute garbage. are you going to tell me that ponting is a better player than waugh because he plays more aggresively?Originally Posted by social
Dravid is the top batsman in the world right now, but that doesn't mean he is ultimately the best among all the players currently playing. Lara at his best is better than anybody else around at the moment, and even today he's in the top few. Tendulkar, similarly, is a much better player than the last couple of years would suggest. The top batsmen in the world right now are Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Lara and Martyn. The top batsmen at their relative peaks among all who are still playing are Lara and Tendulkar, in that order.Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
The gap between Dravid and Ponting is not anywhere near as big as tec is making out either. I agree that he is slightly better right now, but Ponting scores over Dravid in several important categories and not a long way behind at all.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
If player A and player B have similar overall records but:Originally Posted by tooextracool
1. player A converts his starts into bigger scores;
2. player A scores at a substantially higher rate;
3. unlike Player B, Player A has succeded consistently against the world's best;
4. unlike Player B (who is more consistent - dare I utter the letters "FTB"), player A saves himself for the bigger occasions; and
4. unlike Player B, Player A has played some of the greatest test innings in test history,
then give me player A (Lara) every time.
Last edited by social; 24-04-2005 at 11:06 PM.
i think the thing that saves gilchrist is that he is so good at diving. too often, he doesn't get his feet into position at all and has to dive to reach balls that the best keepers wouldn't have to.
The way I look at it, every top batsman in world cricket has some sort of criticism levelled at him... except Dravid. Ponting - they say he can't play spin; Lara - less production in the second innings; Tendulkar - out of sorts for a while now; Hayden - weakness v the swinging ball. Dravid? Near perfect.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
1. He can obviously play spin and pace superbly.
2. The man scores runs everywhere he bats.
Avge 64.72 in Oz
Avge 76.33 in Bangladesh
Avge 87.66 in England
Avge 51.43 in India
Avge 64.57 in New Zealand
Avge 77.25 in Pakistan
Avge 42.11 in South Africa
Avge 46.55 in Sri Lanka
Avge 63.66 in the West Indies
Avge 75.00 in Zimbabwe
3. He scores runs against the best (Avge 51.08 v Australia).
4. He scores big hundreds. 9 of his 20 hundreds have been over 150. He has 5 double hundreds in the bunch.
5. He contributes to victory. In games that India has won, Dravid averages 79.08 with 9 hundreds and 12 fifties. Only 1 duck.
6. He balances his gameplay. Dravid averages 51.16 in the second innings with 5 hundreds in 62 tries. Ponting is 40.64 with 1 hundred in 62 tries and Tendulkar is 46.48 with 9 hundreds in 77 tries.
7. Sheer weight of runs. In his last 34 Test matches, Dravid has averaged 70.14 with a century about every 3 Tests and a conversion rate of almost 48%. He's been dismissed for a duck 3 times in 56 innings.
Admittedly Ponting and Lara both have awesome stats in the period too, but what really is the weakness in Dravid's game? He has tremendous technique, temperament and is just a fine allround batsman.
In the modern world of cricket, no wicketkeeper can be good enough with the gloves to claim a place in a Test side with an average of 15. 'Keeping gets you so far these days. Without some batting talent, it doesn't matter how well you are behind the stumps.Originally Posted by social
Ask Glenn McGrath - he obviously has not found it too difficult to find.Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
Seriously, he's a fine player but Lara and Tendulkar are in a different league talent-wise.
not neccesarily, they have the most flair, but dravid beats them hands down technically, he is the most technically correct batsman there is.
dravid is not a blocker, that is absurd. if he is a blocker then the same must apply to any other player who is capable of making a scrap and digging in. The fact that he can make huge scores seems to contradict this theory of him being a "blocker"Originally Posted by social
Technically correct, thats a funny description.Originally Posted by sledger
Does that mean he cant produce something out of the ordinary or cant make a shot from a technically good ball. Is he not creative and imaginitive, Most players that are refered to as technically correct are slow scorers who have no flair in their batting.
Not correct, he has flaws like all players and is certainly not as correct technically as Kallis, for example.Originally Posted by sledger
The Australians exploited his propensity to play from the crease with an angled bat (a flaw which sees him inside edge more than most) and he also plays very "low" against the spinners. Fortunately, he is gifted enough to overcome these on most occasions.
My main criticism of him is that he is a "one tempo" player. He'll grind away and hit bad balls for runs but can be contained. Against McGrath, this tactic fails more often than not and explains his relatively ordinary record against Australia when McGrath is playing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)