Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting

[PhoenixFire]

I was just browsing through the Test Run scorers list, and noticed a striking resemblence (sp?) in the careers of Ricky Ponting and Rahul Dravid.

Dravid has played 1 less match
Ponting has scored 2 more runs
Dravid's high score is 13 more than Ponting's
Ponting's average is 1.83 runs higher than Dravid's
Ponting has scored 9 more 100s

I guess that it's the 100s count that will mean that Dravid is considered a lesser player than Ponting, but what are your thoughts?

 

[Fiery]

Ponting > Dravid...Dravid is a real fighter but Ponting the more complete batsman

 

[Manee]

I was just browsing through the Test Run scorers list, and noticed a striking resemblence (sp?) in the careers of Ricky Ponting and Rahul Dravid.

Dravid has played 1 less match
Ponting has scored 2 more runs
Dravid's high score is 13 more than Ponting's
Ponting's average is 1.83 runs higher than Dravid's
Ponting has scored 9 more 100s

I guess that it's the 100s count that will mean that Dravid is considered a lesser player than Ponting, but what are your thoughts?

But Dravid has 11 more fifties

In all seriousness, Ponting will be remembered by history as the greater batsman but I rate Dravid just as highly. When in a tight spot, Dravid can get you out with his late defence and strong leg side play. He seems also to be devout of poor seasons...

season 1996            2    3   0   187  95   84    8   62.33   0   2   0
season 1996/97        12   20   3   852 148   92   81   50.11   1   6   0
season 1997            2    3   0    77  69    6    2   25.66   0   1   0
season 1997/98         6    9   0   527  93   92   86   58.55   0   6   0
season 1998/99         7   13   1   752 190  118  107   62.66   4   1   1
season 1999/00         8   16   0   426 144   48   37   26.62   1   0   1
season 2000/01         6   11   3   839 200* 180  162  104.87   3   2   0
season 2001            5    9   2   373  75   68*  61*  53.28   0   3   0
season 2001/02        12   19   2   700 144*  91   87   41.17   1   5   0
season 2002            4    6   0   602 217  148  115  100.33   3   1   0
season 2002/03         5    9   2   279 100*  76   39   39.85   1   1   0
season 2003/04         9   16   3  1241 270  233  222   95.46   3   4   1
season 2004/05        11   17   2   841 160  135  110   56.06   3   4   2
season 2005/06        11   18   3   857 128* 103   98   57.13   2   6   1
season 2006            4    7   1   496 146   81   68*  82.66   1   4   0
season 2006/07         3    6   0   125  47   32   29   20.83   0   0   0
season 2007            2    3   0   192 129   61    2   64.00   1   1   0

with just three poor seasons in 17 years.

 

[Ikki]

Dravid is quite unlucky that such a batsmen of Ponting's stature is playing with him in the same era - or maybe he is lucky, considering it will give his achievements more legitmacy.

But Dravid is a fantastic batsman who will also go down as one of the best batsmen of all time and it's unfortunate for India that whilst he and Sachin were in the side there wasn't more success.

 

[open365]

There was a thread about this with a poll a while ago, it's one of those questions that are so close you examine the question more than the answer.

Ponting and Dravid are both fantastic players with fantastic records, what ever detail you go into from there imo focuses more on what you mean by 'lesser player' than the merits of the players.

I think they're brilliant in their own ways, Dravid's technique and mental strength means he plays some fantastic innings in tough conditions when others fail while i see Ponting more as a match winner because he pulls out some fantastic agressive innings such as his two hundreds in his 100th test against SA and his 166 at Old Trafford.

 

[Woodster]

For me Ponting gets the edge, mainly because of the way he can dominate attacks, something Dravid is not as competent at. Therefore Dravid will need more time at the crease to make those big scores, which in itself shows a great mental strength and concentration, however, I rate Ponting higher as he is the more complete match winner.

 

[Richard]

I've never been the one for rating the faster scorer as better just because he's a faster scorer, myself. Ponting bats the way he bats, Dravid bats the way he bats. They both do the job equally well, though.

Personally I think Dravid's the more complete player and always have done. I'd back him against a good attack before I'd back Ponting, I'd much prefer Ponting against a poor attack because while they'd be equally likely to score Ponting'd probably get a higher single-innings score.

 

[Fiery]

I've never been the one for rating the faster scorer as better just because he's a faster scorer, myself. Ponting bats the way he bats, Dravid bats the way he bats. They both do the job equally well, though.

Personally I think Dravid's the more complete player and always have done. I'd back him against a good attack before I'd back Ponting, I'd much prefer Ponting against a poor attack because while they'd be equally likely to score Ponting'd probably get a higher single-innings score.

So scoring fast = scoring slow then?

 

[Pup Clarke]

WTF?.

 

[Woodster]

I've never been the one for rating the faster scorer as better just because he's a faster scorer, myself. Ponting bats the way he bats, Dravid bats the way he bats. They both do the job equally well, though.

Personally I think Dravid's the more complete player and always have done. I'd back him against a good attack before I'd back Ponting, I'd much prefer Ponting against a poor attack because while they'd be equally likely to score Ponting'd probably get a higher single-innings score.

My point is not simply because he scores faster, he dominates the attack. Bowlers simply do not know where to bowl to him. He makes them change their lines and lengths, he makes the bowlers do things they don't want to do.

It is different with Dravid, they can bowl to Dravid, keep him quiet, not let the side get away. I am not disputing his quality simply explaining my reasons for thinking Ponting is the marginally superior batsman.

 

[Richard]

So scoring fast = scoring slow then?

WTF?.

I'll second the WTF, TBH.

 

[Richard]

My point is not simply because he scores faster, he dominates the attack. Bowlers simply do not know where to bowl to him. He makes them change their lines and lengths, he makes the bowlers do things they don't want to do.

It is different with Dravid, they can bowl to Dravid, keep him quiet, not let the side get away. I am not disputing his quality simply explaining my reasons for thinking Ponting is the marginally superior batsman.

Oh, yes, undoutedly so. But me, I'm happy for runs to be scored. I don't mind if the bowlers feel intimidated or not. It doesn't impact on the way I rate the batsman.

 

[Fiery]

I'll second the WTF, TBH.

wtf's so difficult to understand?

 

[Richard]

I don't understand why you're saying "is that what you're saying?" because I can't see anything in the post in question where I appeared to say it, TBH.

 

[Fiery]

I don't understand why you're saying "is that what you're saying?" because I can't see anything in the post in question where I appeared to say it, TBH.

Richard: "I've never been the one for rating the faster scorer as better just because he's a faster scorer, myself. Ponting bats the way he bats, Dravid bats the way he bats. They both do the job equally well, though.

Personally I think Dravid's the more complete player and always have done. I'd back him against a good attack before I'd back Ponting, I'd much prefer Ponting against a poor attack because while they'd be equally likely to score Ponting'd probably get a higher single-innings score."

It's ludicrous to suggest that rate of scoring is irrelevant in comparing players, and to suggest Dravid is a better batsman than Ponting is equally ludicrous...but then again you think Hussain's > Hayden so maybe it's some Australian thing you have going on ?

 

[Richard]

Eh? What's being Australian got to do with anything? That'd be why I rate Stephen Waugh, Michael Slater, etc. so highly would it?

I don't mind if someone scores quickly or slowly, or whether they intimidate attacks or not. All I mind about is if they score. It's totally unfair to say a batsman's worse than another because he happens to have a natural style of scoring slower than someone else IMO.

Test-matches last 5 days. It's not like you have to score at 5.5-an-over.

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks there's daylight between Ponting and Dravid. As I say, Dravid is the more likely bet against good bowling-attacks IMO - strokeplayers are often a recipe for trouble against said good attacks.

 

[Fiery]

Eh? What's being Australian got to do with anything? That'd be why I rate Stephen Waugh, Michael Slater, etc. so highly would it?

I don't mind if someone scores quickly or slowly, or whether they intimidate attacks or not. All I mind about is if they score. It's totally unfair to say a batsman's worse than another because he happens to have a natural style of scoring slower than someone else IMO.

Test-matches last 5 days. It's not like you have to score at 5.5-an-over.

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks there's daylight between Ponting and Dravid. As I say, Dravid is the more likely bet against good bowling-attacks IMO - strokeplayers are often a recipe for trouble against said good attacks.

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?

 

[Richard]

Scoring at a fast rate doesn't insure you against loss - quite the opposite.

Sure, it gives you a better chance of winning but I'm not going to rate a batsman with a SR of 60 ahead of one with 50 just because of that, there's no particularly significant difference.

If it was 23 and 65, sure. Because that does make a difference.

I am equally happy to have a batsman in my side who averages 55, regardless of whether his strike-rate is 50 or 60. It's extremely unlikely the slightly slower scoring-rate is going to lead to many failures to win series that would otherwise have been won.

 

[Athlai]

A test lasts 5 days, scoring at a rate of 5.5 an over is a lot more runs (if you can keep that rate up over a length of time) then someone who scores at 2 an over. Being able to get your team to 400 in no time at all is what wins tests and lets you tear apart the opposition in your own time.

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

 

[Richard]

That's the thing, though - the difference between 5.5-an-over and 2-an-over is not something that's going to be realistically seen. No teams ever score that slowly at the current time.