****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread

[C_C]

I'd give you WI, ZIM (of today) & Bangladesh but not NZ. Steak yes was top class no question, Strang was very good, while Olonga was pretty inconsistent at test level and those were only 3 bowlers. NZ since 2001 have had Bond/Cairns/Tuffey/Vettori/Franklyn/Martin/Wiseman etc, who overall make a better attack than Zim for sure.

I am not willing to count Bond in the equation - he hardly plays at all and as such, the standard Kiwi attack doesnt include Bond 80% of the time so far. And without him, I'd say that the Zimbok bowling lineup of the mid 90s-early 2000s were atleast as good as New Zealand's today. Streak and Strang were standout bowlers, while the current Kiwi lineup has no one thats a standout bowler really...Vettori is good but he isnt worldclass in my books. The kiwis have more depth to their bowling for sure ( their 4th bowler for eg is significantly better than Zimbok 4th bowler of that period) but overall quality is pretty even.

 

[C_C]

not true....shastri was an exceptional all-rounder for a large part of his career in one dayers....a very good one day bowler, he was a pressure player as a batsman as well....you haven't watched too many one dayers in the 80s if you say shastri wasn't that good....for a period he was too slow as a batsman, but he corrected that and started tonking the ball real hard and he was always good as a one day bowler....as a fielder he wasn't great but he wasn't poor as well...

You are correct, i havnt watched too many ODIs involving India in the 80s ( i've watched a fair amount of tapes from the early 80s Indian ODI team and virtually nothing from the mid-late 80s period) but Shastri always struck me as the doughty allrounder than someone who's a good ODI bat in the same ballpark as most current middle order ODI batsmen.

 

[Anil]

You are correct, i havnt watched too many ODIs involving India in the 80s ( i've watched a fair amount of tapes from the early 80s Indian ODI team and virtually nothing from the mid-late 80s period) but Shastri always struck me as the doughty allrounder than someone who's a good ODI bat in the same ballpark as most current middle order ODI batsmen.

he was good both as an opener and as a middle order batsman in one dayers....he used his 6'4" height to good advantage as a left arm spinner and was an excellent restrictive bowler in the middle overs for india....did not pick up a lot of wickets but was instrumental in choking up the runs at one end and creating wicket opportunities for bowlers at the other end...and although he wasn't a very althletic fielder he used his considerable wingspan to good use in the field as well...

 

[aussie]

I am not willing to count Bond in the equation - he hardly plays at all and as such, the standard Kiwi attack doesnt include Bond 80% of the time so far. And without him, I'd say that the Zimbok bowling lineup of the mid 90s-early 2000s were atleast as good as New Zealand's today. Streak and Strang were standout bowlers, while the current Kiwi lineup has no one thats a standout bowler really...Vettori is good but he isnt worldclass in my books. The kiwis have more depth to their bowling for sure ( their 4th bowler for eg is significantly better than Zimbok 4th bowler of that period) but overall quality is pretty even.

fair enough, but the fact is up to 2001 Dravids record vs Zim really helped him to average 50. If Ponting had played againts Zimbabwe a during that time as well he could have had a 50 average as well..

 

[silentstriker]

fair enough, but the fact is up to 2001 Dravids record vs Zim really helped him to average 50. If Ponting had played againts Zimbabwe a during that time as well he could have had a 50 average as well..

How about this: From now on, only records made against England and Australia will count. The rest are just johnny-come-latelies anyway.

 

[aussie]

How about this: From now on, only records made against England and Australia will count. The rest are just johnny-come-latelies anyway.

err, i made a valid point in that i am suggesting that we look at runs scored againts the better attack of the 90s & overall Zimababwe woud not make the mark.

 

[marc71178]

False. One was averaging over 50, the other two below 45.

I removed the gimme games.

Makes things a lot more accurate.

 

[marc71178]

Zimbabwe of Streak,Olonga and Strang were a better bowling lineup than NZ, WI, ZIM, BD of today.

No, they still only had 1 decent bowler and then dross.

 

[C_C]

fair enough, but the fact is up to 2001 Dravids record vs Zim really helped him to average 50. If Ponting had played againts Zimbabwe a during that time as well he could have had a 50 average as well..

Irrelevant
The point of excluding Zimboks and Bangles now is that their batting and bowling are far below international standard. As such, this does not apply to Zimbabwe of mid 90s-early 2000s, where they were test class- still not earth shaking good but good enough to be considered test class.

As far as i am concerned, Ponting and Kallis are worse than Dravid as Test batsmen and definately behind Lara-Tendulkar in both ODIs and tests.
Ponting's just about faced the easiest bowling opposition of any batsman in the last 40 years for almost half of his career, which 'coincidentally' is also on level with his 'good form'.
The later is a flawed argument really, considering how many batsmen have hit 'good form' in the same period.
Maybe Ponting did come into his peak in the last 4-5 years. But it still doestn take away from the fact that the runs he's scored arnt worth half the runs scored in the 40 years preceeding this period.

 

[C_C]

I removed the gimme games.

Makes things a lot more accurate.

Except that Zimbabwe in the mid-late 90s were less 'gimme' than West Indies, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh today and on par with NZ.

No, they still only had 1 decent bowler and then dross.

Streak was an excellent bowler and Paul Strang was good too. Olonga was ordinary but so are Franklin, Oram, Mills, etc etc. so far

 

[marc71178]

I can't see how the likes of Franklin, Oram and Mills can be coupled with someone with 68 wickets from 30 Tests as a team's second seamer...

 

[C_C]

I can't see how the likes of Franklin, Oram and Mills can be coupled with someone with 68 wickets from 30 Tests as a team's second seamer...

I can.
He didnt get freebies from the current-lot zimboks or bangladeshis either.

 

[aussie]

Irrelevant
The point of excluding Zimboks and Bangles now is that their batting and bowling are far below international standard. As such, this does not apply to Zimbabwe of mid 90s-early 2000s, where they were test class- still not earth shaking good but good enough to be considered test class.

Overall they were test class & that is helped mainly by the solid batting they had. Streak & Stranf were good but if you compare that to the attacks the other major nations had its still a huge gap in quality.

As far as i am concerned, Ponting and Kallis are worse than Dravid as Test batsmen and definately behind Lara-Tendulkar in both ODIs and tests.
Ponting's just about faced the easiest bowling opposition of any batsman in the last 40 years for almost half of his career, which 'coincidentally' is also on level with his 'good form'. The later is a flawed argument really, considering how many batsmen have hit 'good form' in the same period.
Maybe Ponting did come into his peak in the last 4-5 years. But it still doestn take away from the fact that the runs he's scored arnt worth half the runs scored in the 40 years preceeding this period.

So hasn;t dravid faced this same attack over since 2001 & made cashed in on them as well (baring Australia at full-strenght)? Why not use the same argument towards him as well?

I agree that up to 2001 that Dravid was the slightly better batsman because Ponting had his struggled in India, but Dravid wasn't that fantastic vs spin either, when Australia were in India in 98 while most of the Indian smoked Warne he struggled, when Pak went to Indi in 99 Saqlain caused him much problems & he has never dominated Murali, Ponting did that in 99. But i'd give you Dravid was slightly better still.

But over the last year or so Ponting has faced some good attacks in England & South Africa in testing condtions & has done well, something that i think you should consider

 

[C_C]

Overall they were test class & that is helped mainly by the solid batting they had. Streak & Stranf were good but if you compare that to the attacks the other major nations had its still a huge gap in quality.

Not really. I still rate the Zimboks attack of that period to be atleast on par with the Kiwis of that era and Kiwis today, not to mention superior to that of Zim,Bangladesh and west indies today.

So hasn;t dravid faced this same attack over since 2001 & made cashed in on them as well (baring Australia at full-strenght)? Why not use the same argument towards him as well?

Oh he's cashed in too- which is why i rate Dravid below Lara and Tendulkar as well.
But a 50 ave ----> 57 ave facing the same alsorans plus McGrath-Warne-Gillespie is nowhere as much of 'cashing in' as 42-43 ave------> 58 ave as Ponting or 41-42 ave--->56 ave as Kallis.

But over the last year or so Ponting has faced some good attacks in England & South Africa in testing condtions & has done well, something that i think you should consider

The South Africa attack is a pretty poor one- an excellent Ntini with next to nobody with him( pollock has faded so much that it aint funny). The English attack is good today but still behind the WI-RSA-PAK-AUS attack of 90-2001 or so.
Just putting it into perspective.

Ponting is a great bat, but in the list of 'alltime great batsmen', his name is somewhere near the bottom of the pile as far as i am concerned.

I agree that up to 2001 that Dravid was the slightly better batsman because Ponting had his struggled in India, but Dravid wasn't that fantastic vs spin either, when Australia were in India in 98 while most of the Indian smoked Warne he struggled, when Pak went to Indi in 99 Saqlain caused him much problems & he has never dominated Murali, Ponting did that in 99. But i'd give you Dravid was slightly better still.

Dravid is very very good- much better than Ponting against spin ( who is at best decent on the most favourable conditions for him and dismal in spinning conditions. Dravid played a lot in spinning conditions and has done excellently).
Ponting is better when the ball is bouncing but Dravid again, is better when the ball is moving around.

 

[parttimer]

Not really. I still rate the Zimboks attack of that period to be atleast on par with the Kiwis of that era and Kiwis today, not to mention superior to that of Zim,Bangladesh and west indies today.



Oh he's cashed in too- which is why i rate Dravid below Lara and Tendulkar as well.
But a 50 ave ----> 57 ave facing the same alsorans plus McGrath-Warne-Gillespie is nowhere as much of 'cashing in' as 42-43 ave------> 58 ave as Ponting or 41-42 ave--->56 ave as Kallis.



The South Africa attack is a pretty poor one- an excellent Ntini with next to nobody with him( pollock has faded so much that it aint funny). The English attack is good today but still behind the WI-RSA-PAK-AUS attack of 90-2001 or so.
Just putting it into perspective.

Ponting is a great bat, but in the list of 'alltime great batsmen', his name is somewhere near the bottom of the pile as far as i am concerned.



Dravid is very very good- much better than Ponting against spin ( who is at best decent on the most favourable conditions for him and dismal in spinning conditions. Dravid played a lot in spinning conditions and has done excellently).
Ponting is better when the ball is bouncing but Dravid again, is better when the ball is moving around.

I'd be interested to see how you go about proving that..IMO Dravid looks like a walking wicket when the balls moving around, against good opposition. His tendancy to dab the ball down across the line from just outside off would make him cannon fodder in conditions such as those of the last Ashes

 

[Sanz]

I'd be interested to see how you go about proving that..IMO Dravid looks like a walking wicket when the balls moving around, against good opposition. His tendancy to dab the ball down across the line from just outside off would make him cannon fodder in conditions such as those of the last Ashes

Headingly 2002. I woule like you to watch that innings again.

 

[C_C]

I'd be interested to see how you go about proving that..IMO Dravid looks like a walking wicket when the balls moving around, against good opposition. His tendancy to dab the ball down across the line from just outside off would make him cannon fodder in conditions such as those of the last Ashes

You've obviously not seen much of Dravid then. He sure handles English bowlers in English conditions ( where the ball moves around a fair bit compared to around the world) far far better.
Dravid is never a walking wicket and anyone who claims that, knows diddly squat about cricket.
You wanna see a walking wicket, i suggest you check out Ponting in India.

 

[parttimer]

You've obviously not seen much of Dravid then. He sure handles English bowlers in English conditions ( where the ball moves around a fair bit compared to around the world) far far better.
Dravid is never a walking wicket and anyone who claims that, knows diddly squat about cricket.
You wanna see a walking wicket, i suggest you check out Ponting in India.

Handled rubbish England bowlers, yes. The current lineup? Yet to be seen

 

[C_C]

Handled rubbish England bowlers, yes. The current lineup? Yet to be seen

Same bowlers, dear boy, same bowlers!

And he also handled these so-called 'rubbish bowlers' significantly better than Ponting has.

 

[parttimer]

Jones, Flintoff have come along massively since then. I doubt anyone could dispute that..