World wicket keepers, your rankings.

[superkingdave]

He's never played at Headingley in a test match, so what's your point?

http://statserver.cricket.org/link_...N_ENG/SCORECARDS/IND_ENG_T3_22-26AUG2002.html

 

[social]

So he averages 33 against Aus with McGrath on, in general, flat decks.

Hardly comparable to Lara.

In fact, it is understandable why he was on the verge of being dropped prior to his 180, given his performances.

 

[tooextracool]

Would you care to explain why Dravid has a relatively poor record against McGrath and Warne..

so what?
lara's average against waqar and wasim stands at 30.31. then again how many people say that he couldnt play those 2?
and as someone else mentioned averaging 35 in all games including both mcgrath and warne isnt exactly very poor, its ordinary by his standards.

As for his 180, to quote an Australian expression, "he scratched around like an old chook" for well over 120 runs of his eventual total and should have been out several times before 50. It was a major contributor to a great Indian result BUT he rode his luck and it was hardly a great innings.

thats ridiculous, he never gave a single chance in that inning, except for maybe one possible run out when he was near his 100, which again has nothing to do with his not being able to play warne or mcgrath. he looked a little uncomfortable against shane warne early on, but really id much rather see someone work for his runs and then slowly start to dominate, which is exactly what dravid did.

Your claim as to his proficiency on seaming wickets is equally without merit. He has NEVER encountered anything other than batsmens' paradises in Australia and FAILED when faced with seaming conditions in NZ.

really?
what part of that series did you watch then?
he averaged 33,2nd only to richardson(who got worser bowler) in near unplayable conditions, scored a 76 in the first game too.

And FYI, scoring the same amount of runs at a faster pace gives your bowlers more time to bowl the opposition out.

and FYI getting out quicker means that the opposition has a better chance of winning the game.

At present, he is a magnificent player but he can be contained, is ordinary between the wickets, and has been worked out by McGrath. Hardly the stuff of legends when you think about it.

he has been worked out by mcgrath hasnt he? thats certainly why he scored the 180 and 81 against him in 01.

 

[tooextracool]

So he averages 33 against Aus with McGrath on, in general, flat decks.

Hardly comparable to Lara.

In fact, it is understandable why he was on the verge of being dropped prior to his 180, given his performances.

he was about as close to being dropped before his 180 as lara was in 2000.

 

[social]

so what?
lara's average against waqar and wasim stands at 30.31. then again how many people say that he couldnt play those 2?

so you had to go back 10 years to find a comparable - back to when those bowlers were at their peak and Lara wasnt. Thats hardly comparable.

and as someone else mentioned averaging 35 in all games including both mcgrath and warne isnt exactly very poor, its ordinary by his standards.

I said "relatively poor"

thats ridiculous, he never gave a single chance in that inning, except for maybe one possible run out when he was near his 100, which again has nothing to do with his not being able to play warne or mcgrath. he looked a little uncomfortable against shane warne early on,

It was scratchy for a large proportion of the innings. Laxman played a truly great innings AND he had great support from Rahul - unfortunately Dravid's innings will be mentioned as a foot-note to it in future. It is hardly comparable to the majority of great innings that Lara has played

but really id much rather see someone work for his runs and then slowly start to dominate, which is exactly what dravid did.

Fine, you prefer Larry Gomes, I prefer Viv



really?
what part of that series did you watch then?
he averaged 33,2nd only to richardson(who got worser bowler) in near unplayable conditions, scored a 76 in the first game too.

The NZ series were played on pitches unfit for Test Cricket. However, can you name me another occassion that Dravid has played on seaming wickets on more than the odd, isolated occasion.

NO?

Then I guess there is no basis for your claim that he is a better player on seaming tracks. In fact, all of your claims that people (e.g. Hayden) cannot play on seaming tracks are nonsense as there are insufficient to form a reliable judgement.

and FYI getting out quicker means that the opposition has a better chance of winning the game.



he has been worked out by mcgrath hasnt he? thats certainly why he scored the 180 and 81 against him in 01.

And has been becalmed to the point of damaging his own side on many other occasions. When was the last time that one of the world's leading batsmen was accused of benefitting the opposition team by playing as he was as Dravid was in the test series vs Aus last year?

 

[tooextracool]

so you had to go back 10 years to find a comparable - back to when those bowlers were at their peak

umm yea, isnt that obvious? or would you rather look at them when they are past their prime?

and Lara wasnt. Thats hardly comparable.

rubbish, lara averaged over 60 from 90-96. that was the best period of his entire career!

I said "relatively poor"

how is that supposed to prove anything?
so bradman averaged 74.50 against WI, which is below his career average.
so obviously he isnt great.

It was scratchy for a large proportion of the innings.

rubbish, did you watch that inning at all? he was scratcy against warne until he got 50, which was expected given that warne had caused him all sorts of problems during that series. absolutely everyone who watched that game talks about how dravid and laxman played every bowler with absolute ease.

Laxman played a truly great innings AND he had great support from Rahul - unfortunately Dravid's innings will be mentioned as a foot-note to it in future. It is hardly comparable to the majority of great innings that Lara has played.

yes so laxman's inning was better, how in the blue hell does that make dravid's inning not great?
you said he hadnt played any great innings, im saying he has, even if they werent as great as laras 153, and seriously, how many great players have played remotely as good innings as that one?

Fine, you prefer Larry Gomes, I prefer Viv.

difference being that gomes doesnt even average 40 in test match cricket.
have you heard of steve waugh?
now go ahead and tell me how many innings he played where he didnt scratch around early on.

The NZ series were played on pitches unfit for Test Cricket. However, can you name me another occassion that Dravid has played on seaming wickets on more than the odd, isolated occasion.

NO?

Then I guess there is no basis for your claim that he is a better player on seaming tracks. In fact, all of your claims that people (e.g. Hayden) cannot play on seaming tracks are nonsense as there are insufficient to form a reliable judgement.

who said i cant?
there are other occasions too- such as his 81 in SA(same game where he scored his 148).

And has been becalmed to the point of damaging his own side on many other occasions. When was the last time that one of the world's leading batsmen was accused of benefitting the opposition team by playing as he was as Dravid was in the test series vs Aus last year?

rubbish, dravid wasnt benefitting the opposition at all. he didnt score many runs, but to say that he helped the opposition is absolute tripe.

 

[social]

umm yea, isnt that obvious? or would you rather look at them when they are past their prime?

Lara was hardly at his peak when facing Wasim and Waqar.

rubbish, lara averaged over 60 from 90-96. that was the best period of his entire career!



how is that supposed to prove anything?
so bradman averaged 74.50 against WI, which is below his career average.
so obviously he isnt great.

33 is not 74.5. If your happy with his performances against McGrath then its obvious that you're easily satisfied - probably explains your bias towards Dravid really

rubbish, did you watch that inning at all? he was scratcy against warne until he got 50, which was expected given that warne had caused him all sorts of problems during that series. absolutely everyone who watched that game talks about how dravid and laxman played every bowler with absolute ease.

Entire innings actually.

Many Aussies did as it was one of the most important series in recent memory.

Every cricket fan still talks about Laxman's innings.

You and Dravid's mum still talk about his.

yes so laxman's inning was better, how in the blue hell does that make dravid's inning not great?
you said he hadnt played any great innings, im saying he has, even if they werent as great as laras 153, and seriously, how many great players have played remotely as good innings as that one?

Obviously, this is the crux of the matter. You prefer the modern day definition of "great" which encompasses everything form above average to excellent. I am a little more selective.

difference being that gomes doesnt even average 40 in test match cricket.
have you heard of steve waugh?
now go ahead and tell me how many innings he played where he didnt scratch around early on.

Dravid's career is hardly comparable to Steve Waugh's at this stage.





who said i cant?
there are other occasions too- such as his 81 in SA(same game where he scored his 148).

Ooooooooooh, 2 whole tests


rubbish, dravid wasnt benefitting the opposition at all. he didnt score many runs, but to say that he helped the opposition is absolute trip.

Watch the series and then comment.

 

[tooextracool]

Lara was hardly at his peak when facing Wasim and Waqar.]

and thats why he was averaging 60 from 90-96 isnt it?
played 4 tests against them in that period.

how is that supposed to prove anything?
so bradman averaged 74.50 against WI, which is below his career average.
so obviously he isnt great.

33 is not 74.5. If your happy with his performances against McGrath then its obvious that you're easily satisfied

you said that 33 is not a failure, but a relative failure. hence 74.5 was a relative failure to bradman.

- probably explains your bias towards Dravid really

uhh huh, so now im biased towards indians

B]Entire innings actually.

Many Aussies did as it was one of the most important series in recent memory.

Every cricket fan still talks about Laxman's innings.

You and Dravid's mum still talk about his.[/B]

your pathetic. instead of making ridiculous statements, try and watch some cricket.

Obviously, this is the crux of the matter. You prefer the modern day definition of "great" which encompasses everything form above average to excellent. I am a little more selective.

so lara is better than richards and waugh, because he played better great innings than them, even though hes been far less consistent.

Dravid's career is hardly comparable to Steve Waugh's at this stage.

even though he averages far more, has scored runs on all pitches, against every country and has saved india on many occasions.

Ooooooooooh, 2 whole tests

well duh, you dont see players succeed on seamer friendly wickets every day of the week at the international level. its a rarity when they even encounter seamer friendly wickets in this era.

Watch the series and then comment.

learn about cricket and then we'll talk.

 

[a massive zebra]

so lara is better than richards and waugh, because he played better great innings than them, even though hes been far less consistent.

How was Richards consistent? His batting may have been great in many ways, but consistency is not one of them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

rubbish, lara averaged over 60 from 90-96. that was the best period of his entire career!

Someone should tell him that, because I think he'd favour the period of 01-05 when he averaged 68.10.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So he averages 33 against Aus with McGrath on, in general, flat decks.

Hardly comparable to Lara.

And yet Lara is outdone by Dravid against other some of the other teams. Your point?

 

[mofo123]

Had Dravid been in the same situation on the same pitch, I have no doubt he would have done it. Dravid's capabilities and ability to perform under pressure shouldn't be discredited.

im sorry...for one im in no way doubting dravids ability he is awesome...not as good as lara tho if lara was batting in kolkata he would have got another huge score. lara is the best in the world in our era...i dont see how u cant see that? 277, 375, 400...not forgetting 501* in first class!

 

[mofo123]

oh and lara has the best cricket game EVER named after him

 

[social]

And yet Lara is outdone by Dravid against other some of the other teams. Your point?

Lara has proven himself against everyone whilst Dravid hasnt.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lara has proven himself against everyone whilst Dravid hasnt.

Pretty simple really.

At the moment I don't think there can be any doubt that Dravid is as good a player as Lara, at the very least. If you consider that Brian Lara is in his prime, it comes down to whether Dravid has lower troughs in a consideration of who is greater when all is said and done.

You'd also be well-advised to know that Lara averages 37.66 against India.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

im sorry...for one im in no way doubting dravids ability he is awesome...not as good as lara tho if lara was batting in kolkata he would have got another huge score. lara is the best in the world in our era...i dont see how u cant see that? 277, 375, 400...not forgetting 501* in first class!

I'm as big a Lara fan as anyone, but not a blind one. I think that Dravid's abilities are underestimated because he doesn't look like a great player. It's sort of like Hayden, though I think Dravid is a better batsman than he.

 

[tooextracool]

How was Richards consistent? His batting may have been great in many ways, but consistency is not one of them.

i meant that he was more consistent than lara, and well if you look at his career till 85-86 after which he really should have retired, he was extremely consistent. lara certainly has had more low scoring series and followed them up with big scoring ones.

 

[tooextracool]

Someone should tell him that, because I think he'd favour the period of 01-05 when he averaged 68.10.

yes and thats playing against poorer bowling attacks on flatter wickets. ok so lara has been playing extremely well off late, and maybe you could divide his career into 2 primes, but surely you must be out of your mind if you thought that he wasnt in his prime from 90-96 when he was easily the best batsman in the world.

 

[social]

I'm as big a Lara fan as anyone, but not a blind one. I think that Dravid's abilities are underestimated because he doesn't look like a great player. It's sort of like Hayden, though I think Dravid is a better batsman than he.

Im not saying that Dravid is not a great player - he obviously is.

I just dont think that anyone can unequivocally state that he is a better player than Lara or, for that matter, Tendulkar. The latters' records over extended periods of time give lie to that claim.

I also object to statements being made that cannot be backed up by any evidence, such as so-and-so being a better player on seamer-friendly tracks. At least in the cases of Dravid's record against a McGrath-led Aus or Ponting in India, the facts are there for all to see.

 

[Top_Cat]

yes and thats playing against poorer bowling attacks on flatter wickets. ok so lara has been playing extremely well off late, and maybe you could divide his career into 2 primes, but surely you must be out of your mind if you thought that he wasnt in his prime from 90-96 when he was easily the best batsman in the world.

Surely you mean from '94 (or maybe '93 at best, if you count domestic form); Lara only played his first Test in December 1990 and didn't play another Test until April 1992 then played his third Test against the Aussies in November 1992. He scored the 277 (his first Test hundred) in that series in January 1993 and then didn't really start to dominate until early 1994 when he scored a hundred before his 375 against England. The rest is obviously history.

Check it out:

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype