Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.i smell stats manipulation. dravid has scored runs in australia before.
More generally, if you're a middle-order bat, you'd expect to find things easier on average with a stronger top 3 ahead of you than a weak one. I'm not going to say it happened with Dravid/Tendulkar because I just don't know, but as a general rule it should be true.Partnerships are the key to building an innings. Of course having other ATG batsmen in your team helps you do better. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Probably enhances Flower's record tbh.
For a casual Indian fan aged below 35, Dravid is better test batsman than everyone except Bradman (and Viv to an extent )Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.
BTW, this Dravid better than Tendulkar is such a meme opinion. Indian fans at various times have been disappointed that Tendulkar didn't achieve heights that they expected of him. Some become over defensive about missing jewels in his record (triple hundreds, 500 run series etc.). Some swing in the opposite direction and come up with nonsense like Dravid better than Tendulkar. I like Anil but I can't treat his view here as anything more than an overreaction to his failed expectations from Tendulkar.
Not When Mcgrath and Warne present.i smell stats manipulation. dravid has scored runs in australia before.
He had a point to prove, and that is Tendulkar > Dravid. I am sure most would agree to that opinion, but then he goes on to explain it a weird way. Like taking out 5 innings out of a 6 innings series and saying he averaged very high during a long period. The NZ average was also only about one test where Sachin scored only 54 runs. So a casual observer who did not follow Indian cricket during 1993-95 would think Sachin was awesome against NZ and SA during this period, after reading his opinion, which is misguided path. Instead, if he had focussed on Tendulkar's better record against a full strength SA or Aus compared to Dravid during their playing days, no one would have argued with him.He literally said 1993-1995, this is you being pedantic, not him. It's very reasonable that he simply applied a three year filter not bothering about what series ended where.
Nah, My point was whatever stats Sachin recorded before Dravid's arrival suggested an extra ordinary careeer, especially considering his age.He had a point to prove, and that is Tendulkar > Dravid. I am sure most would agree to that opinion, but then he goes on to explain it a weird way. Like taking out 5 innings out of a 6 innings series and saying he averaged very high during a long period. The NZ average was also only about one test where Sachin scored only 54 runs. So a casual observer who did not follow Indian cricket during 1993-95 would think Sachin was awesome against NZ and SA during this period, after reading his opinion, which is misguided path. Instead, if he had focussed on Tendulkar's better record against a full strength SA or Aus compared to Dravid during their playing days, no one would have argued with him.
To be honest, Tendulkar’s performances against McGrath weren’t particularly spectacular either. They weren’t bad, but certainly not spectacular, especially for someone who is considered by many as the second greatest batsman of all time.Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.
BTW, this Dravid better than Tendulkar is such a meme opinion. Indian fans at various times have been disappointed that Tendulkar didn't achieve heights that they expected of him. Some become over defensive about missing jewels in his record (triple hundreds, 500 run series etc.). Some swing in the opposite direction and come up with nonsense like Dravid better than Tendulkar. I like Anil but I can't treat his view here as anything more than an overreaction to his failed expectations from Tendulkar.
Between his 20th and 38th birthday, the lowest Tendulkar averaged anywhere was 45 in Pakistan and averaged 50+ in each of SENA countries. And this includes his big slump which came in easiest batting conditions (which is when he played all his games in Pakistan outside of teenage).Someone posted about Tendulkar averaging nearly 60 for 18 years or so. The big caveat here is that almost all his stellar performances during the time came against less-than-great attacks.
Tendulkar (20th to 38th birthday) | Mat | Inns | NO | Runs | HS | Ave | SR | 100 | 50 | 0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
in Australia | 11 | 21 | 3 | 1154 | 241* | 64.11 | 59.73 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
in Bangladesh | 7 | 9 | 3 | 820 | 248* | 136.66 | 63.36 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
in England | 10 | 17 | 0 | 1057 | 193 | 62.17 | 53.98 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
in India | 74 | 124 | 14 | 6172 | 217 | 56.10 | 53.49 | 21 | 24 | 4 |
in New Zealand | 8 | 14 | 1 | 725 | 160 | 55.76 | 63.31 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
in Pakistan | 6 | 7 | 1 | 268 | 194* | 44.66 | 56.18 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
in South Africa | 11 | 22 | 3 | 959 | 169 | 50.47 | 52.60 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
in Sri Lanka | 12 | 19 | 2 | 1155 | 203 | 67.94 | 55.79 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
in West Indies | 10 | 14 | 1 | 620 | 117 | 47.69 | 47.22 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
in Zimbabwe | 3 | 6 | 1 | 240 | 74 | 48.00 | 54.54 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Dravid did better than Tendulkar in that series, yes. That was the only time he scored a hundred in South Africa though. Tendulkar returned to score one of his best hundreds in 2001 (or so) in Sehwag's debut test and also scored 2 great knocks against red hot Steyn in 10-11. And one additional hundred back in 1992. So total of 5 hundreds I can recall (may have been one or two others) in SA and each time the attack contained at least one of Donald, Pollock and Steyn.
Reason why Dravid's effort seem to stand out more in people's mind is probably because Dravid made batting look hard.
While there's no doubt dravid was nowhere hear as good as Sachin against those two teams, what you need to keep in mind here is that dravid was repeatedly asked to bat out of position and open the batting against them on some of these tours. In 07/08 especially, he was already in dreadful form before going to Australia but was still made to open because we didn't have sehwag. Again, Tendulkar quite obviously batted better against them simply from the eye test but when one batsman is given a worse chance at success by his own team, it makes a comparison like this inherently unfair.Has scored only 1 hundred in Australia. Was good in 03-04 series but both McGrath and Warne were missing in the series. On all other tours Dravid was very ordinary.
Wow! So impressive! And yet how come he averages in 30s or lower against McGrath/Donald/Akram or even Shane Bond led attacks?Between his 20th and 38th birthday, the lowest Tendulkar averaged anywhere was 46 in Pakistan and averaged 50+ in each of SENA countries. And this includes his big slump which came in easiest batting conditions (which is when he played all his games in Pakistan outside of teenage).
Tendulkar (20th to 38th birthday)Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 0 in Australia 11 21 3 1154 241* 64.11 59.73 4 5 3 in Bangladesh 7 9 3 820 248* 136.66 63.36 5 0 0 in England 10 17 0 1057 193 62.17 53.98 3 5 0 in India 74 124 14 6172 217 56.10 53.49 21 24 4 in New Zealand 8 14 1 725 160 55.76 63.31 2 4 0 in Pakistan 6 7 1 268 194* 44.66 56.18 1 0 0 in South Africa 11 22 3 959 169 50.47 52.60 4 2 1 in Sri Lanka 12 19 2 1155 203 67.94 55.79 5 4 0 in West Indies 10 14 1 620 117 47.69 47.22 1 5 3 in Zimbabwe 3 6 1 240 74 48.00 54.54 0 2 0
I don't know about performances against "great attacks" though but will be curious to know. He never had a series like Lara had a couple of times against full strength Australia though -- that's a well known and well acknowledged fact.
I suppose if we're counting bond, we should count series against Pollock, Steyn, Walsh, Ambrose (not counting spinners so no murali or Warne)Wow! So impressive! And yet how come he averages in 30s or lower against McGrath/Donald/Akram or even Shane Bond led attacks?
In all the Test series he played against above bowlers, only once did he average above 50 (that too just barely when he averaged 50.66 against McGrath in 2001).
Now before Tendulkar's fans gang up and lynch me, I ain't saying he was bad in most of the series against these bowlers, but he was never truly spectacular (like how he was against Kasper & Daniel Fleming in 1998).
I guess that is the difference between stellar performance against a good attack and stellar performance against a "great attack".
Bond led New Zealand attack (along with New Zealand conditions) that India played in 2004 was just too tough.Bond played 18 tests in all though.
You can ignore the 1989 series since Tendulkar was 16, it won't change a thing.He faced Akram as a 16 year old which would bring his stats down.
Not really. His moments, though decent, weren't spectacular enough. Not one series against these great bowlersAnd against the other 2 he had his moments and they had their moments as you would expect.