Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting

[sohummisra]

Perhaps Dravid has not been recognized as a match-winner because India are not a team that put themselves in a position of winning matches that often. So I think it is incorrect to claim Ponting is the better batsmen simply because he is a matchwinner, especially given that you need 20 wickets to win a test match, which Ponting does not really control (except with a phenomenal catch or two).

 

[Perm]

I rate Ponting as the better batsman personally, but as Richard said I think Dravid would be the safer bet against a strong attack.

 

[Perm]

Perhaps Dravid has not been recognized as a match-winner because India are not a team that put themselves in a position of winning matches that often. So I think it is incorrect to claim Ponting is the better batsmen simply because he is a matchwinner, especially given that you need 20 wickets to win a test match, which Ponting does not really control (except with a phenomenal catch or two).

Both batsman are match winners, but Ponting gets labelled as a match winner more often because he plays the big knocks when he needs to, and usually scores at a faster rate which gives his team more time to bowl the opposition out.

 

[sohummisra]

Both batsman are match winners, but Ponting gets labelled as a match winner more often because he plays the big knocks when he needs to, and usually scores at a faster rate which gives his team more time to bowl the opposition out.

Yup, but my point is that Dravid doesn't get the opportunity to be a matchwinner because many times when he comes in, the bowlers have failed to stop the opposition from getting a huge score, or wickets have fallen quickly around him. He is thus reduced to the role of match-saver rather than match-winner.

 

[Perm]

Yup, but my point is that Dravid doesn't get the opportunity to be a matchwinner because many times when he comes in, the bowlers have failed to stop the opposition from getting a huge score, or wickets have fallen quickly around him. He is thus reduced to the role of match-saver rather than match-winner.

Which can at times be a more valuable asset. I guess this is one reason that some people would rather have Rahul Dravid batting for them if their team was in a tough spot or facing a good attack, rather than Ricky Ponting.

 

[sohummisra]

Which can at times be a more valuable asset. I guess this is one reason that some people would rather have Rahul Dravid batting for them if their team was in a tough spot or facing a good attack, rather than Ricky Ponting.

Yup, debating whether that is valuable or not is what I am attempting to do. I'm just saying that it's hard to be labeled a match-winner when your team is not winning matches, especially since the bowlers play a huge role in achieving that feat.

 

[Ikki]

An optomist is someone who buys a ticket to the fifth day of an Ashes test.

HAHAHAHAHA .

 

[Woodster]

Get your head out of your ass mate. The quicker you score, and as long as you score heavily (which is what Ponting does) the greater your chances of winning games...end of story. How many tests do Australia lose?...and is it just coincidence that they score at the rate much faster than anyone else?

I fully agree (the getting your head of your ass may be a bit harsh mind!). It does make a difference to the outcome of matches. If at the end of day 1, Australia are say 8 wickets down, but Ponting has batted all day, you would be confident they have reached a decent score of around 350. If they same is said of India and Dravid, the game would be in favour of the bowling side, more than likely.

I think the fact we are discussing this point does show the small difference between the two players batting credentials as individuals. Both outstanding, but still Ponting for me.

 

[andmark]

Dravid > Ponting imo.

 

[Richard]

I fully agree (the getting your head of your ass may be a bit harsh mind!). It does make a difference to the outcome of matches. If at the end of day 1, Australia are say 8 wickets down, but Ponting has batted all day, you would be confident they have reached a decent score of around 350. If they same is said of India and Dravid, the game would be in favour of the bowling side, more than likely.

I think, personally, that you have to take account of the fact that said situation is far more likely for Dravid than Ponting, though. Ponting is not the sort of player who can often stand on the burning bridge while all around him is collapsing (not to say he never has, of course, that Old Trafford 2005 innings was IMO the best of his career even if in the end it had no impact on the destination of The Ashes), whereas Dravid is, and has done quite a few times.

You're right that if it did you'd imagine Ponting's team would be in a better position, but as I say - I think that's balanced-out by the fact that he wouldn't do it anywhere near as often as Dravid.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps Dravid has not been recognized as a match-winner because India are not a team that put themselves in a position of winning matches that often. So I think it is incorrect to claim Ponting is the better batsmen simply because he is a matchwinner, especially given that you need 20 wickets to win a test match, which Ponting does not really control (except with a phenomenal catch or two).

Yup, but my point is that Dravid doesn't get the opportunity to be a matchwinner because many times when he comes in, the bowlers have failed to stop the opposition from getting a huge score, or wickets have fallen quickly around him. He is thus reduced to the role of match-saver rather than match-winner.

Yup, debating whether that is valuable or not is what I am attempting to do. I'm just saying that it's hard to be labeled a match-winner when your team is not winning matches, especially since the bowlers play a huge role in achieving that feat.

I fully agree with everything you say here - bowlers win matches, and labelling batsmen as better just because his side's won more games is ignoring how matches are won, and judging a batsman on his bowlers. Very unfair.

And Tendulkar suffered from it for most of his career too.

 

[Richard]

An optomist is someone who buys a ticket to the fifth day of an Ashes test.

That alone made it worth 20 series' worth of buying last-day tickets.

 

[Ikki]

You're right that if it did you'd imagine Ponting's team would be in a better position, but as I say - I think that's balanced-out by the fact that he wouldn't do it anywhere near as often as Dravid.

How can you be sure of that? When he's needed to play such a knock he has. The fact is the Australian cricket team is rarely in that kind of position to begin with - the opportunity to keep doing that is not there for Ponting. Instead, he demolishes the attacks.

 

[sohummisra]

How can you be sure of that? When he's needed to play such a knock he has. The fact is the Australian cricket team is rarely in that kind of position to begin with - the opportunity to keep doing that is not there for Ponting. Instead, he demolishes the attacks.

Do you think Ponting would have been as "match-winning" if he played for India? I think not. Coming into bat when the opposition bowled out for just about 200 is a luxury that most batsmen in the world would kill for and Ponting has had that luxury throughout his career.

 

[Richard]

How can you be sure of that? When he's needed to play such a knock he has. The fact is the Australian cricket team is rarely in that kind of position to begin with - the opportunity to keep doing that is not there for Ponting. Instead, he demolishes the attacks.

Sorry, I could name you a few - just a few, not that many - occasions where Australia's top-order was run through cheaply and Ponting had the chance to play that sort of innings but did not.

Ponting is not the sort of batsman that will often play that sort of innings, simple as.

 

[Ikki]

Do you think Ponting would have been as "match-winning" if he played for India? I think not. Coming into bat when the opposition bowled out for just about 200 is a luxury that most batsmen in the world would kill for and Ponting has had that luxury throughout his career.

Moreso than Dravid, I do think so. He is a much more dominant player.

But again, Ponting plays for the best team in the world and he is a match-winner, with his innings being quite definitive. The fact that the batting is also reliant to the bowling here is key. Ponting has had the best bowlers in the world too. So, inversely, just like Ponting has had a lack of opportunity to show that he can rescue his team - i.e. Ashes 05 - Dravid has had a lack of opportunity to go out there and be dominant.

One more thing though, I think Australia is less likely to be in a position where Ponting is needed to save an innings whereas India hasn't had the weakest batting line-up, and would have more likely enabled Dravid to be a bit more imposing.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, I could name you a few - just a few, not that many - occasions where Australia's top-order was run through cheaply and Ponting had the chance to play that sort of innings but did not.

Ponting is not the sort of batsman that will often play that sort of innings, simple as.

Well, I am sure you could also name me a few times where Dravid couldn't save his team either. If they did, almost everytime, then they'd never lose. Ponting isn't the sort to play that innings because Ponting never has to. He's had one of the greatest opening partnerships playing with him. By the time he comes in he can do what he wants, and he does it well and consistently. Can't fault him for that. I think he certainly has that ability to play that gritty innings and I think he has the toughest mentality of the lot ,in the Aussies.

 

[Manee]

I dont think it is right to judge the players on 'what ifs' and they should be more judged on how they have played with the teams and situations they have been given.

 

[sohummisra]

Moreso than Dravid, I do think so. He is a much more dominant player.

But again, Ponting plays for the best team in the world and he is a match-winner, with his innings being quite definitive. The fact that the batting is also reliant to the bowling here is key. Ponting has had the best bowlers in the world too. So, inversely, just like Ponting has had a lack of opportunity to show that he can rescue his team - i.e. Ashes 05 - Dravid has had a lack of opportunity to go out there and be dominant.

One more thing though, I think Australia is less likely to be in a position where Ponting is needed to save an innings whereas India hasn't had the weakest batting line-up, and would have more likely enabled Dravid to be a bit more imposing.

Well, this is simply a matter of opinion. I think that if Ponting played for a team that did not have a history of winning and came in to bat when the score was less than 20 for a wicket or two, he would play in a much more subdued manner. Dravid does not regularly have the opportunity to dominate the bowling and when he gets in, he stays in and scores big. I think we both just have to agree that we are clutching at the air, because both of our arguments are based on hypothetical situations.

 

[sohummisra]

Well, I am sure you could also name me a few times where Dravid couldn't save his team either. If they did, almost everytime, then they'd never lose. Ponting isn't the sort to play that innings because Ponting never has to. He's had one of the greatest opening partnerships playing with him. By the time he comes in he can do what he wants, and he does it well and consistently. Can't fault him for that. I think he certainly has that ability to play that gritty innings and I think he has the toughest mentality of the lot ,in the Aussies.

That's the key point. And your last sentence is just a theory based on the way he plays in conditions that are unlike how he normally plays.