Mohd Yousuf vs Rahul Dravid

[TruSachFan]

dont worry about it,
go back to topic

the yusuf vs dravid debate

sure

since u cant defend ur point whichever that was

ill go back to the topic

 

[Gunner786]

sure

since u cant defend ur point whichever that was

ill go back to the topic

i could defend it but that is for another time and another thread,
if you want to continue then make another thread and i will defend my point happily in that thread

 

[TruSachFan]

i could defend it but that is for another time and another thread,
if you want to continue then make another thread and i will defend my point happily in that thread

no need

ure the one who said dravid increased his average by scoring against minnows like kenya and etc..

and then somehow u managed to bring sachin in

 

[sohum]

Dravid, although if he continues his current form for much longer then his average will start slipping (already it's dropped from almost 60s to low 50s).

 

[Gunner786]

Dravid, although if he continues his current form for much longer then his average will start slipping (already it's dropped from almost 60s to low 50s).

and into 30's from mid 40's in odi's

 

[Leggie]

Ya, I remeber him averaging summat like 43 and now its 39 I think, thats quite big IMO...

Whereas Yousuf has only only excelled in the ODI Format...

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Thread like this must get end like this.
Why we are allowed to post such thread?

means does it make sense, X From India Vs Y from Australia?
Because all Indians would support X and all Aussis would support Y despite of facts who is great?
Crap.

 

[arkapd]

After 20 years, I dont know whether people will remember cricket or not, thanks to T20. And even if people remembers, they wont remember tests or odis. So its very unlikely they will remember either of these two.

But if cricket remains as it is now, it is going to be Dravid no doubt. I am sure that his legacy will increase after he retires. He will be remembered as the most technically correct batsman in this era, or for that matter, may be the LAST TECHNICALLY CORRECT BATSMAN WHO EXISTED.

People does not remember averages after 20 years. Do we discuss players of 20 years ago with their stats only?

 

[Gunner786]

After 20 years, I dont know whether people will remember cricket or not, thanks to T20. And even if people remembers, they wont remember tests or odis. So its very unlikely they will remember either of these two.

But if cricket remains as it is now, it is going to be Dravid no doubt. I am sure that his legacy will increase after he retires. He will be remembered as the most technically correct batsman in this era, or for that matter, may be the LAST TECHNICALLY CORRECT BATSMAN WHO EXISTED.

People does not remember averages after 20 years. Do we discuss players of 20 years ago with their stats only?

yes we do,
bradman,sobers although bradman definetly cos noone who was alive then is alive now.
but alot of players of the 80s are judged nowadays purely by their stats

 

[Jit]

look people pakistan has been playing minnows like zim and bangladesh why dont they ever face aussies i dont get that thats why yousuf averages but still he is a great and dravid faces tough challges than yousuf and they have the same role for there teams but dravid is better in tests and yousuf is better in odi

 

[Dare]

look people pakistan has been playing minnows like zim and bangladesh why dont they ever face aussies i dont get that thats why yousuf averages but still he is a great and dravid faces tough challges than yousuf and they have the same role for there teams but dravid is better in tests and yousuf is better in odi

where have you been for the last 2-3 months or so, Aussies refused to tour Pakistan and have not done in 9 years and in that span Pakistan have gone to Australia only a few times.

 

[arkapd]

yes we do,
bradman,sobers although bradman definetly cos noone who was alive then is alive now.
but alot of players of the 80s are judged nowadays purely by their stats

Yes average/stats is a parameter of course. But if average was everything, we would not consider Kapil Dev as a great cricketer, or Qadir as a great leg spinner, or Gower as a fine left handed batsman. Stats wont do any justice to the greatness of a certain Viv Richards.

 

[sohum]

and into 30's from mid 40's in odi's

He's not in the ODI team currently anyway, so it hardly matters. Dravid was always a decent ODI batsman, nothing extraordinarily special. However, Test cricket is the highest level and the one that people remember more, thankfully.

yes we do,
bradman,sobers although bradman definetly cos noone who was alive then is alive now.
but alot of players of the 80s are judged nowadays purely by their stats

Nope---Bradman is remembered because he was one in a million; the fact that he played on uncovered pitches without a helmet (if I got my facts correct) are also used as justification that he is better than the current crop of batsmen. As for Sobers, he is remembered because he is probably the greatest all-rounder to have played the game.

 

[Gunner786]

He's not in the ODI team currently anyway, so it hardly matters. Dravid was always a decent ODI batsman, nothing extraordinarily special. However, Test cricket is the highest level and the one that people remember more, thankfully.


Nope---Bradman is remembered because he was one in a million; the fact that he played on uncovered pitches without a helmet (if I got my facts correct) are also used as justification that he is better than the current crop of batsmen. As for Sobers, he is remembered because he is probably the greatest all-rounder to have played the game.

which are backed by statistics
if bradman had a average of 50 would he be called the don?
what im implying is that his average plays a major role in how people judge him,
half the world probably doesnt even think of the points you just made about uncovered pitches etc.
they just look at his stats and think he is the best batsman ever

 

[sohum]

which are backed by statistics
if bradman had a average of 50 would he be called the don?
what im implying is that his average plays a major role in how people judge him,
half the world probably doesnt even think of the points you just made about uncovered pitches etc.
they just look at his stats and think he is the best batsman ever

Your argument was that we only use stats to decide if a batsman in the past was great. It is quite obvious that we use more than stats to decide that. You may use just stats but I cannot be held responsible for your misinformed opinion.