Rahul Dravid vs Kevin Pietersen (talent)

[DrWolverine]

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.

Absolutely. All 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) are far ahead of someone like Becker in terms of all-surface dominance and longevity. In any era, they’d find a way to win Slams on all surfaces. That said, Federer’s game is best suited to 1990s fast courts, giving him a slight edge in that environment. Nadal would still dominate clay in any era and his 14 RG titles speak for themselves. Djokovic with some adaptation, would still be a major threat everywhere due to his return and consistency.

 

[DrWolverine]

Even if the Big 3 were transported to the 1990s, Wimbledon would likely still belong to Pete Sampras. The ultra fast and low bouncing grass was tailormade for his explosive serve, flawless volleys and aggressive net play. While Federer may challenge him and Djokovic’s return game might test him, none matched Pete’s pure dominance in those conditions and Nadal would have no chance against Pistol Pete.

 

[Thala_0710]

Even if the Big 3 were transported to the 1990s, Wimbledon would likely still belong to Pete Sampras. The ultra fast and low bouncing grass was tailormade for his explosive serve, flawless volleys and aggressive net play. While Federer may challenge him and Djokovic’s return game might test him, none matched Pete’s pure dominance in those conditions and Nadal would have no chance against Pistol Pete.

I don't think so. Fed would be the favourite imo, with Pete and Djoko just behind. Rafa probably would still find a way to pick up 1-2 though ig

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Federer easily starts as the favorite. He was better than Sampras on faster courts. Federer, Sampras and Djokovic. That’s the order.

 

[Johan]

Pietersen more unorthodox but Dravid more talented.

 

[ma1978]

This talent stuff is totally crap. These are the worst yet. Talent makes you a better cricketer. If you are not better you have less talent

 

[subshakerz]

Pietersen more unorthodox but Dravid more talented.

What sort of natural talent are we talking about with Dravid?

 

[sayon basak]

What sort of natural talent are we talking about with Dravid?

Having the talent of actually being better.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Having the talent of actually being better.

I guess that’s the only talent that matters

 

[subshakerz]

Having the talent of actually being better.

He wasnt better because of natural ability but application.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

 

[sayon basak]

He wasnt better because of natural ability but application.

Being able to apply what you have is probably the biggest talent one can have.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What sort of natural talent are we talking about with Dravid?

Without even getting into whether stuff like temperament, discipline, etc. are talents, I'd say the entirety of Dravid's career, he played the moving ball brilliantly and he didn't do it in a textbook manner. I've pointed out before how so much of his technique was down to his own unconventional method (especially how much he used his bottom hand on his cover drives, and how much he would reach out to play his drives). If it's not coming from a textbook or a coaching manual, surely it's his own innate ability at play.

 

[subshakerz]

Being able to apply what you have is probably the biggest talent one can have.

Not really a talent. We are talking about things that are instinctual and not the result of pure training.

 

[honestbharani]

I think I kinda understand the talent part. In school, very often if there was a sudden pop quiz or test, I would easily be at the top but when we had actual planned tests (what we call exams in India) quite a few kids would score more than me coz they would prepare better, put in more effort and time unlike me who can be pretty lazy. I guess the question here is something similar.

There seem to be batsmen who can just wake up and walk in and still go better against test match bowlers than others who can be pretty clueless without full preparation. Of course, its just our imagination most of the time as we do not always know how much players practice etc. So it can well be a visual illusion that is created in our heads. I heard that Joe Root does not do much nets two days from the game or so, just a few knocks to feel the ball in the middle of the bat. Whereas folks like Virat can be pretty meticulous in their preparations. I guess its stuff like that, even though, as I said earlier, its most likely either hearsay or just some illusions based on how folks bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Without even getting into whether stuff like temperament, discipline, etc. are talents, I'd say the entirety of Dravid's career, he played the moving ball brilliantly and he didn't do it in a textbook manner. I've pointed out before how so much of his technique was down to his own unconventional method (especially how much he used his bottom hand on his cover drives, and how much he would reach out to play his drives). If it's not coming from a textbook or a coaching manual, surely it's his own innate ability at play.

Even if we grant that, I don't think it matches up to ABDs natural cricketing assets.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Even if we grant that, I don't think it matches up to ABDs natural cricketing assets.

What. I thought we were talking about Pietersen?

 

[DrWolverine]

What sort of natural talent are we talking about with Dravid?

Scoring more runs..

 

[subshakerz]

What. I thought we were talking about Pietersen?

Sorry KP.

 

[subshakerz]

Scoring more runs..

Guarantee you that if training and discipline are taken out of the equation for both, KP scores more runs