Don't think time was a constraint way too often the times Lloyd played in, given the % of draws. In a majority of situations, I will argue grinding while shielding the tail is better than bashing; and no one did so better than Waugh
Kallis doesn't have many iconic knocks, but I think Dravid struggled more v HTD than Kallis did against any bowling type. For the comparison as a whole, I just think the South African quartet has the higher floor.
Would need to conduct research on who was more prolific in those situations before making a conclusion there but the strength of the tailenders they were batting with would also make an impact so it would be hard to judge. I am a big fan of Thorpe and he accumulated a lot of not outs too but his scope in all manner of tough conditions holds up very well as Waugh's does too.
So now its Waugh getting underrated.
who was it before?
The opposite of this. A middle order bat has plenty of opportunity to strike farm or swing. They bat with a bunch of worse bats. For a No 11, the game may be over before they have faced a ball.
I think Dravid makes up for his struggles with his iconic and crucial knocks, even to HTD. They both struggled in SL, Dravid has a Great knock there. Kallis struggled in England, Dravid in SA. For the whole comparison, think the 4 Indians just are of better quality overall and it's not particularly close at all. SA might have an inch higher floor, but a significantly lower ceiling.
Indian lineup pretty easily imo. Probably the second or third best batting lineup overall in cricket history.
Kallis shouldn't be compared with Dravid in this comparison since they batted in different positions.
Smith and Sehwag is significantly closer than Dravid and Amla, and Laxman and ABD I will think is about as much different as Sachin and Kallis, but them being the elites widen the gap for me.
SA also scored everywhere. I can think of more series where the entire lineup underperformed for India than SA.
Despite having a much much crappier bowling lineup, India pretty much managed to win everywhere SA did (except Australia) because their batting kept them in games.
Yes. The batting is close. Tendulkar is the best bat of them all. But slightly more vulnerable to collapse if conditions are against them
Dravid was also goodly to swing. I honestly can't think of any Series where all 4 of them played and all 4 sucked for India. This India as a lineup also scored pretty much everywhere.
I think what I and OS are saying is that the batting is NOT close.
Sorry but to say it's not close is frankly ridiculous when you look at the track record of that SA batting lineup. It's definitely close. And you tend to focus on Indian lineups advantages but the reality is that the Indian lineup was slightly more collapse prone and had a slightly softer underbelly.
Again, SA lineup doesn't have a weakness per se and were more consistently scoring together. And Smith was still much ahead of Sehwag in SA.
Sorry it's simply isn't Close on quality. That SA batting line-up got some ridiculously flat tracks in Australia, India and England, which you are forgetting somehow. Not saying it was all flat or India did not had its fair share of roads, but the Indians individually have scored tough runs way more often, like all 4 of them than them all 4.
He wasn't actually. Averages 34 at Home without minnows, that too inflated by weak teams; 25 vs Australia. In SA, they were equal. The only place this SA team has any advantage is in places like England/New Zealand, but Dravid and Sachin are ballistic there so nothing significant Even.
Dravid's limitations v HTD and Sehwag&Laxman's significant weaknesses v swing&seam hand the advantage to South Africa as their quartet possessed no significant weaknesses and were ruthless in their own right.
