Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
No way KP is alpha. Such a posturing try-hard of a bloke.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best test match number 3 since 1970?
- Thread starter England First
- Start date
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nearly half of all runs that Dravid scored at 3 against England were in that 2002 tour.
I'm not writing it off, but using it as conclusive evidence that Dravid was better than Ponting in swinging conditions is dubious logic at best. The fact is that England's bowling was at a low ebb, between the Gough attacks of the late 90s-00s and the Flintoff/Hoggard attacks of the mid 00s.
Anyone scoring 600 odd runs in a series has done excellently. But it's more a sign of a batsman in form and at their peak than a particular ability against a certain type of bowling.
It's like saying that Hayden was a master of spin simply because of 2001 in India when in reality his results against spin weren't really any better than against pace on the whole.
And it didn't stop Clarke, who was best against spin, from smacking around a ridiculously good South African pace attack in South Africa. Sometimes a batsman is just in great form and using one series to show that they are superior against a specific type of bowling is poor logic.
About 2011... Dravid did that mostly opening. We're talking about batting number 3 here. And yes, he had an excellent tour in 2011 but this discussion is about batting at number 3. And the point remains that a huge proportion of Dravid's runs against England were scored in that 2002 tour (around 1/3 of his total runs).
If we want to start talking about who is the best batsman since 1970 we could bring Steven Smith into the argument given he's batted at 3 (and scored 8 hundreds there) and is better than anyone else on this list. But we're specifically talking about the best number 3 in this thread.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Dravid's 148 in Headingly 2002 was one of the finest exhibitions of batting against swing bowling ever. India was trailing 0-1 in the series, lost the toss, were put in to bat under extremely cloudly conditions and lost Sehwag early. Over the next day and a half, it was peak Dravid, battling the most trying conditions like a true champ. You would have had to see it to believe it. Highlights package or the score board doesn't tell the full story.
No wonder that he was the player of the match, as the jury felt that his contribution was more valuable to Sachin and Saurav show on day 2.
Dravid vs Ponting is closer than many believe. While Ponting may be ahead, to make it look it there is no comparison at all is unfair to The Wall.
No wonder that he was the player of the match, as the jury felt that his contribution was more valuable to Sachin and Saurav show on day 2.
Dravid vs Ponting is closer than many believe. While Ponting may be ahead, to make it look it there is no comparison at all is unfair to The Wall.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Also Ponting's struggle against India in 2001 shouldn't count as he wasn't batting at #3 either
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I don't ?
England First
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
You’ve nailed him there mate. Wow epic
There are several points you have made here and I happen to disagree with many of them
1. Dravid better batsman in swinging conditions than Ponting is absurd for you and your point of argument is that dravid did well in England in only one tour in 2002 against a poor bowling line up...that's the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time...out of his 4 tours in England he was damn great in 3 of them, his debut series and that one in 2011...that century he scored in Headingly I will never forget, a prime example of how you should bat when the ball is moving...and also that Lord's ton in 2011, mind you he got 2 more in that series...and that 76 and 39 he scored in N.Z in that dreadful tour...I have never seen anyone playing swing bowling better than that, forget about Ponting, who was little better than average against moving ball, I would say, in that generation Dravid was the greatest when it came to facing swing bowling, better than Lara, better than Sachin, better than Kallis...better than anyone....Ponting should not even be compared to him in that regard, daylight between them.
2. After some shallow arguments you seem to have agreed that Dravid was better in turning tracks...so not going further with that...
3. Minnow bashers? These are too superficial and simplistic terms you are using here...you considered Pakistan a minnow in that time, why? Dravid and probably Ponting also initially faced Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib, Saqlin, Mustaq, Kaneria, Ameer, Asif...Pakistan in the 90's and 00's was a minnow! And when India toured N.Z in 2002, Darrell Tuffy looked more dangerous than Richard Hadlee...matches were ending in one and half days mate...you gotta be more subtle than that...Dravid scored about 500 runs in West Indies in his first tour down there and was the highest run getter for India, Walsh and Ambrose were bowling then, and by the way, do you remember that post of Spain track in 2006? By using that word 'minnow' you are losing a lot really...
4. You are getting your figures wrong too, Dravid got 6 centuries in England, not 5.
5. Of course Ponting was more aggressive, sheer difference in strike rate would surely prove this but Dravid batted for survival! I I don't think so. Nobody gets 13000 runs in tests batting for survival. Dravid took more time to settle down for sure, but once he was in, he was fluent with his strokeplay and had every shot in the book...really baffling that one still has to argue this here...
6. Ponting was considered with Sachin and Lara 3 years before his retirement, with Hayden, Kallis, Dravid a notch below! Well, then there is no argument if that already has been decided...fair enough...just wondering, who decided that! Surely God didn't have a part to play in this! Or did he?
7. I watched them play fairly well, from your post it seemed you didn't watch much...it was very disappointing, biased, shallow and simplistic.
And lastly, there were few times in the past I had this discussion here about Dravid and Ponting, and they all said Ponting was clearly better, but when asked why, they always came up with shallow arguments and never presented a solid reason...yours was probably the worst though...
England First
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Again top post my friend. Taking him to school regarding Dravid and ponting.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Richards, yes. I think Ponting gets votes either from Australians or because of the higher percentage of matches he played at Number 3.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Probably because Lara played 90 odd matches at #4.
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Stupid argument, because in the end all of these deliberations are based on "just coz" across generations. I am not afraid to think that anyone surpassed him, but all arguments are generally because you fear the player you rate is worse than him, just coz.
possibly the silliest argument I've seen here since Richard, not surprised it's picked up a few likes.
Yet everyone knows the people you rate between about years 10-22 are going to be faves coz that's when you are fresh and enthusiastic. So fully willing to believe Viv isn't in reality the "best I've ever seen", but to me he was, and will probably always will be.
Yet I have kinda discarded as greats many of my eighties loves, I rarely try to rate Gatting better than Hayden for instance, to try to prove my fave player is better than someone who averaged 14 more in a different era. then coming up with bizarre theories to surmount that well unsurmountable gap, as that would make me a ****ing idjit
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I perhaps should have rebutted the premise that there are only three types of wickets in the world (which is nonsensical) instead of focus on rebutting the idea that Dravid's England record somehow made him better in swinging conditions than Ponting.
1. I'm quite willing to concede that Dravid was better in England. He clearly has a very good record there over 3 tours. I'll even take your word for it that it was swinging around corners when he made all of his runs. That doesn't make him necessarily better in swinging conditions than other batsmen. It makes him better in England, which isn't the be all and end all of swing.
I only brought up 2002 because that's the series where he made the majority of his runs in England and in that series the bowling attack didn't have Gough or Fraser, Flintoff or Jones. It was a time when England were between generations. It's the same argument that gets brought up to discredit batsmen like Hayden all the time - that the bowling he scored runs against was consistently weak (even though it's not true at all). I think it's fair to point out that the series Dravid made a huge portion of his runs against England in was their lowest bowling ebb for a decade.
But fair point that he was great against England in 2011 as well, even if he did most of that opening. England's bowling had Anderson and Broad by that point which is as good as anything outside the 05 Ashes attack.
Given Dravid and Ponting's records in South Africa and New Zealand and against Pakistan it's not clear that Dravid was actually any better than Ponting against swing anywhere other than England.
It would be a much more reasonable argument that Dravid was better on slower decks than Ponting, while Ponting was better in wickets that had more pace. But against swing? Not unless England is the be all and end all of swing.
2. Neither Dravid nor Ponting were particularly good on turning tracks. Dravid was probably a bit better given his record in India, though I wouldn't take either of them. My point here is that there are much better options than either on turning tracks so it's a spurious argument.
3. Why this wasn't taken as the joke it was is beyond me. Of course Pakistan, the West Indies and New Zealand aren't minnows.
4. Not batting at 3. Most of his 2011 runs were scored at opener, including one of his hundreds.
5. Dravid was no Pujara but he batted slowly for his era. There's a reason his nickname was "the Wall" and not "the Smasher".
6. Most people and analysts who watched them play. In fact, you can tell how people perceive them by how they're drafted in drafts. Ponting goes way earlier than Dravid most of the time.
7. I'll happily admit I haven't watched a huge amount of Dravid outside Australia tours (though I have watched some). But I'd wager that the reverse is true about most fans - the majority of tests they watch involve their own country.
And lastly, you'll find the same "shallow arguments" for people who regard Viv to be the best. Sometimes you just need to see them. Dravid was a great batsmen, almost certainly in the top 7 of his generation, behind Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting and in the same group as Sehwag, Hayden and Kallis.
Last edited:
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Vas and Murali never were alpha charachters, on or off the field. They were very laid back, calm charachters. Jayasuriya and Ranatunga definitely with all their on and off field antics.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's spurious because they were both not very good on them. Runs scored in other conditions dramatically outweighed those scored in turning conditions for both batsmen. Their relative strengths on other types of pitches outweigh their weaknesses on spinning decks.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
If Dravid was an Australian, he would have been one of the best players of spin in that team. Just because he wasn't as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Sehwag or Laxman against spin, it doesn't mean that he was mediocre against spin. Certainly a tier or two above Ponting on turning tracks.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
For stephen to look at Dravid's career and go "he was weak in spin conditions" simply means he didn't watch his career or simply means he is too far invested in defending Ponting in the debate (who doesn't even need his defending). He was more than good. Better than Ponting by a fair margin.
srbhkshk
International Captain
There were zero Indian batsman bad against spin in that era, in fact zero who were even average, they were all at either good or great, anyone who wasn't that would never make it the senior team as they wouldn't survive the Ranji trophy.
Dravid was pretty darn good against spin. There's a reason he averages 50+ in India.
Dravid was pretty darn good against spin. There's a reason he averages 50+ in India.