1996 is an exageration, He did not really establish himself since 2001, he was not really an established test cricketer till 2001.
WHAT?! You ARE kidding? Dravid between 1996 and 2001 (ie, England tour to Sri Lanka tour) averaged
53.56 in 47 Tests (1 against Bangladesh excluded). He actually started 2001/02 (the time when several other batsmen, like Ponting and Kallis, begun to gorge themselves silly) poorly, averaging less than 30 in his first 6 games (though 35 when not opening). But between the West Indies tours of 2002 and 2006, he was beyond superlative, averaging just a fraction under 70 as non-opener and even 66 in his unfavoured opening slot.
Dravid 1996 to 2001 was waaaaaaay above anything Chanderpaul achieved 1994 to 2001. Chanderpaul's first 49 Tests up to 2001 brought him an average of a fraction under 40 - Test-class, sure, good player, sure, but no hint of the sort of scoring he was going to display later. However, after a couple of iffy Tests in 2001/02, same as Dravid, he like Dravid started to score prolifically in the WI-Ind series in 2002. Since then, he's averaged 60 in 55 games against Test-standard sides.
As I say, Dravid >>>> Chanderpaul 1994(\1996) to 2001. Dravid > Chanderpaul 2002 to 2006. And Chanderpaul >>> Dravid 2006/07 to the current time. That's 10 years of Dravid being better (notably better for 6 of them) and 2 of Chanderpaul being notably better. Nothing will ever erase that and it's exceptionally unlikely anything will happen from now to redress that balance.
2001-2006 was his golden period and he faded out since then, I will give you that. My argument is that Chanderpaul will sustain his golden period 2004-2008 a little longer because he doesn't fight so many battles as Dravid what with the demmand from the public and his own demmands of himself where as Chanders appears to be a relatively calm customer who knows how to deal with situations and deals with each situation accordingly and doesn't take failure to heart and infact improvises and makes the most of the next opportunity.
I don't think Chanderpaul's mental capacity is really the important thing. What generally starts to decline in batsmen around the age of 34-35 is
physical capability, not mental. There's precious little you can do to arrest such a decline - though the odd person, like Graham Gooch, is simply lucky and the normal is reversed.
I don't think it's remotely likely that Chanderpaul will continue to average 60 (as he has since 2002) for much longer, if any longer at all. There's a tiny outside chance he might, of course, because there always is, there are exceptions to every rule. But I'm expecting Chanderpaul to perform a much more moderate role for the next... well, however long until he decides to retire. If he averages, say, 43 for the next 3 years, he'll have done damn well - far better than any ordinary batsman would be able to do to the age of 37-38. Of course, he might decide to retire sooner - he has been playing international cricket since he was 18 and there comes a time when almost everyone wants a change of scenary. The Chanderpaul story from here has precious few certainties.
Chanderpaul also has done something which Dravid never did, that is to emerge more or less emerge as the lone savior of the team and that is a burden Dravid never had to carry. Chanderpaul has done this admirably with a great deal of success.
Believe it or not, some people actually consider this a negative, not a positive, on Chanderpaul. That people know they don't really need to try to get him out as they can just chip away at the other end. Me, I consider it works both ways equally. Like being a lone-hand bowler and bowler in a pack of excellence, being a lone-hand batsman and having a powerful line-up around you both have their advantages and disadvantages. And IMO, they cancel each-other out.
