Rahul Dravid vs Kevin Pietersen (talent)

[PlayerComparisons]

Just to see how people judge talent

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[DrWolverine]

* The timing of this quote is important.

For years Roger Federer was seen as the epitome of natural talent while Novak Djokovic was viewed as the perfect blend of athleticism and raw power. Rafael Nadal made this statement after surpassing both in the Grand Slam race perhaps making a mic-drop moment.

 

[subshakerz]

KP is easily more talented than Dravid.

 

[Randomfan]

KP

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

* The timing of this quote is important.

For years Roger Federer was seen as the epitome of natural talent while Novak Djokovic was viewed as the perfect blend of athleticism and raw power. Rafael Nadal made this statement after surpassing both in the Grand Slam race perhaps making a mic-drop moment.

I actually used to have Djokovic no.1. I think he still takes it but by a small small margin. Courts slowing down as time went by did happen to have lots of negative impact to Federer. His game wasn’t really perfect for the 2010s ish tennis. And at that level when the difference is so small, age also must have played some role. Rafa did happen to be in between the two reign and still ended with 22!

Still Novak probably still takes it especially his achievements, Fed ofc everyone’s favourite including mine.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

KP was a good player. But Dravid easily.

Someone like ABD probably had the most talent since Bradman.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Someone like ABD probably had the most talent since Bradman.

Or Sachin perhaps

 

[sayon basak]

Or Sachin perhaps

Jacob Bethel.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

KP was a good player. But Dravid easily.

Someone like ABD probably had the most talent since Bradman.

Viv Richards. Always succeeded with not a great technique and hitting across the line was his major area.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

KP was a good player. But Dravid easily.

Someone like ABD probably had the most talent since Bradman.

Sobers

 

[OverratedSanity]

Talent isn't just ball striking ability. Dravid looked like he belonged at the highest level from a very young age which won't happen if you aren't insanely talented.

 

[DrWolverine]

Courts slowing down as time went by did happen to have lots of negative impact to Federer.

Not really. Federer himself accepted he benefitted from homogenisation of tennis courts in 2000s and that’s why he was able to break Pete’s records easily.

Dubai Press Conference 2019

Q. Do you think your record of 20, numbers of weeks at the top, are threatened by Djokovic or Nadal?

A : I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras by having the surfaces be more equal.

 

[DrWolverine]

Someone like ABD probably had the most talent since Bradman.

Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman I’ve seen.

A teen prodigy who started as a fearless stroke-player, later became a master accumulator and adapted to every format and era.

A 16 year old kid who scored a half century in his 2nd Test against Imran, Akram and Waqar. Also thrashed Abdul Qadir for 4 sixes in an over.

A 20 year middle order batsman who became arguably the greatest one day batsman after being promoted as an opener.

A 31 year old with tennis elbow who played with extreme restraint in his worst phase and scored a double century in Sydney.

An aged legend in his 21st year of cricket becoming first batsman to score a double century in ODI and top scoring in IPL.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Not really. Federer himself accepted he benefitted from homogenisation of tennis courts in 2000s and that’s why he was able to break Pete’s records easily.

Dubai Press Conference 2019

Q. Do you think your record of 20, numbers of weeks at the top, are threatened by Djokovic or Nadal?

A : I think, like before, as the surfaces get more equal, everybody can pile up more Grand Slam wins, like I did. It was the reason for me probably to pass Sampras by having the surfaces be more equal.

Federer was being humble imho. He would have easily pass Sampras and imho most definitely have the slams record if the courts didn’t keep on getting slower. His game was just way more suited to faster pace than anyone really.

Anyway as much as I love Federer, I have Novak no.1.

 

[subshakerz]

Folks here are nuts if they think Dravid is more naturally talented then KP.

KP along with ABD are the two most naturally talented bats of the millennium so far. KP was a creative genius as far as shot making goes, much better reflexes against pace and bounce than Dravid, very inventive against spin. More power too.

Dravid was more disciplined which is why he had a better career.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Pietersen more physically talented

Dravid more mentally talented

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman I’ve seen.

A teen prodigy who started as a fearless stroke-player, later became a master accumulator and adapted to every format and era.

A 16 year old kid who scored a half century in his 2nd Test against Imran, Akram and Waqar. Also thrashed Abdul Qadir for 4 sixes in an over.

A 20 year middle order batsman who became arguably the greatest one day batsman after being promoted as an opener.

A 31 year old with tennis elbow who played with extreme restraint in his worst phase and scored a double century in Sydney.

An aged legend in his 21st year of cricket becoming first batsman to score a double century in ODI and top scoring in IPL.

At the age of 25 he was the leading century maker in International Cricket.

 

[DrWolverine]

Federer was being humble imho. He would have easily pass Sampras and imho most definitely have the slams record if the courts didn’t keep on getting slower. His game was just way more suited to faster pace than anyone really.

Anyway as much as I love Federer, I have Novak no.1.

In the last 25 years, tennis at the Grand Slam level has undergone a huge shift and nowhere is this more evident than at Wimbledon. Around 2000 or 2001, the decision to switch the grass composition from 70% ryegrass to 100% ryegrass changed the character of the tournament. The surface became slower, the bounce higher and rallies longer. As a result, the serve-and-volley game that once defined Wimbledon was all but erased making way for the rise of baseline dominance.


This transformation opened the door for players like Rafael Nadal whose topspin-heavy, grinding style would have struggled to survive in the lightning fast conditions of 1980s or 1990s Wimbledon. If Nadal had played during the Becker-Edberg or Sampras era sticking to his usual game, he likely wouldn’t have won.
Of course, a player of his caliber might have adapted but without change success on that old grass would have been a long shot.

I consider Novak Djokovic the greatest of all time. But if Fed, Nadal and Djokovic were transported to 1990, I believe Federer would have been the most successful. The 1990s demanded adaptability and the surfaces varied drastically. Players had to adjust not just their strategies but their entire game depending on the surface. Federer was the most naturally versatile of the three. His all-court game, elegant footwork, compact strokes and ability to transition between baseline exchanges and net play would have allowed him to thrive in that diverse, surface-driven era.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

In the last 25 years, tennis at the Grand Slam level has undergone a huge shift and nowhere is this more evident than at Wimbledon. Around 2000 or 2001, the decision to switch the grass composition from 70% ryegrass to 100% ryegrass changed the character of the tournament. The surface became slower, the bounce higher and rallies longer. As a result, the serve-and-volley game that once defined Wimbledon was all but erased making way for the rise of baseline dominance.


This transformation opened the door for players like Rafael Nadal whose topspin-heavy, grinding style would have struggled to survive in the lightning fast conditions of 1980s or 1990s Wimbledon. If Nadal had played during the Becker-Edberg or Sampras era sticking to his usual game, he likely wouldn’t have won.
Of course, a player of his caliber might have adapted but without change success on that old grass would have been a long shot.

I consider Novak Djokovic the greatest of all time. But if Fed, Nadal and Djokovic were transported to 1990, I believe Federer would have been the most successful. The 1990s demanded adaptability and the surfaces varied drastically. Players had to adjust not just their strategies but their entire game depending on the surface. Federer was the most naturally versatile of the three. His all-court game, elegant footwork, compact strokes and ability to transition between baseline exchanges and net play would have allowed him to thrive in that diverse, surface-driven era.

Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are also lot better than someone like Becker tho. Lot. I think all 3 would have won grandslam in all the surfaces any era.

Federer was definitely the best player in faster courts. It would be close if all 3 were same age in a different era too regardless, of surface except Nadal on clay ofc. Nadal might actually win the most slams tbh. He is gonna get his 14 in RG regardless.