Jacques Kallis or Rahul Dravid?

[Cricketman]

You make me lul.

Cricketman added 6 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Load of crap.

Just because Dravid plays on the defence, and Tendulkar is more attacking, doesnt make Dravid technically the better player.

Dravid's form peaked from 2001-2006, and he played two very good knocks against Australia. Other than that, he has hardly "dominated" Australia. His average of 41 against them is testimony to that.

Nobody wants to go back and think about Dravid's wretched run in Australia in 99 where he struggled against genuine pace and swing. Or his poor run recently both in Aus and Ind.

And an unselfish batsman?? LMAO. If you had watched him play some knocks of his, when watching paint dry was obviously the better option. If he is so unselfish, why is he so defensive? There are no selfless batsmen in the whole world. And it is good to be selfish, because that means you put a price on your wicket which is excellent for yourself as well as the team.

He is defensive because India are usually in a predicament practically every time he goes out to bat. Count the number of times he's saved us, just do it. Far more then Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman put together. He's doen it in the colors and the creams. Forgot the last year of cricket, it has easily been his worst. His centuries actually mean something unlike Tendulkar's, as they usually result in an Indian win.

You can't get more then 10,000 test match runs if you only play the defense. You can't get 25 hundreds, including 5 double hundreds, by only playing the defense. Saying Dravid's techinique is bad or overrated is laughable. Why is he slow? Because he doesn't need to be fast. He's got a guy like Sehwag opening ahead of him and Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, and Dhoni all to come. His job is to stay there and get the big score, and for the bulk of his career he has done just that.

 

[shravi]

Wow, this thread is seriously pissing me off.

People who say Dravid can only defend have never seen him bat. As Rohit said, you don't achieve even a quarter of the things he's achieved if all you can do is defend. That is massively underrating his ability. Similarly, I could say all Kallis practices is eating, but I don't, because both of them are valuable to their respective teams in different ways. I respect what both of them have done and I've seen a lot of both players because I do try to watch all cricket matches and if I can't watch them live, I watch the highlights. I could provide a plethora of stats, but I'm not going to because there's far too much ignorance in this thread.

 

[piriyanth]

Both of them bore me to dead(especially Dravid)

But Kallis impressed me a bit in Australia Series, so I'll say Kallis is better than Dravid

 

[sohum]

Yeah he caused the crowd the heartache last year at the SCG with how slow he was batting.

That's his style. Why should he change his style to appease Australian cricket supporters instead of helping his team play? And besides, most of the positive comments about Dravid come accounting that his last couple of seasons of Test cricket have been poor and way below standards.

Seriously, his only played 2 good innings against Australia. One was when VVS Laxman scored at over 100 runs quicker then him and the other one was on the flattest pitch in Australia (Adelaide Oval) and neither Glenn McGrath or Shane Warne were playing.

You can make as many conditions as you want to discredit Dravid. The fact is that he is still one of the leading run-scorers in the world and prior to 2007, was comparable to Ponting in terms of sheer volume of runs scored. Besides, Shane Warne is really a liability more than an asset, against India.

Dale Steyn made a mockery of Dravid's technique the last time South Africa toured India. He bowled a massively outswinger on middle stump and Dravid played all around it and lost his off peg.

If you're going by single series conclusions, then I have to claim that Ricky Ponting has one of the poorest techniques in world cricket, as exemplified by Ishant Sharma in Australia and India, using your irrational logic.

Dravid doesn't even bring his bat straight when he goes to play his shot, his technique is overrated because he blocks the majority of the balls he faces on slow subcontient pitches. Kallis or Tendulkar have the best technique in world cricket.

How is his strike rate just three lower than Kallis then? You make irrelevant claims that Dravid does nothing but block, whereas the statistics clearly show how misinformed you are.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Doesn't Dravid have one of the fastest ODI fifties of all time?

Yes he does...24th on the list...50 off 22 balls against NZ.


Must be a pretty crap blocker if he goes and does that...

 

[aussie_ben91]

That's his style. Why should he change his style to appease Australian cricket supporters instead of helping his team play? And besides, most of the positive comments about Dravid come accounting that his last couple of seasons of Test cricket have been poor and way below standards.

Hence sarcisim? Don't worry mate, no one's judging you. Atleast Dravid isn't half as bad as the likes of Ken Barrington, Geoffery Boycott and Bill Lawry who used to bat all day and make 30 not out. Or so I've been told...

You can make as many conditions as you want to discredit Dravid. The fact is that he is still one of the leading run-scorers in the world and prior to 2007, was comparable to Ponting in terms of sheer volume of runs scored. Besides, Shane Warne is really a liability more than an asset, against India.

I agree. His been one of the best batsman of his generation. Only Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and Kallis are infront of him, IMO. But he struggled against the best pacemen of this generation - Glenn McGrath.

If you're going by single series conclusions, then I have to claim that Ricky Ponting has one of the poorest techniques in world cricket, as exemplified by Ishant Sharma in Australia and India, using your irrational logic.

Funny how he can still score 100's against Sharma with the worst technique in world cricket.

How is his strike rate just three lower than Kallis then? You make irrelevant claims that Dravid does nothing but block, whereas the statistics clearly show how misinformed you are.

Kinda hard to block everything in India with the pitches being so low and slow.

 

[tech.007]

Rahul Dravid is Pure Class....Kallis is a sort of cricketer with good attitude towards the game

 

[aussie_ben91]

Rahul Dravid is Pure Class....Kallis is a sort of cricketer with good attitude towards the game

More like the other way round.

 

[tech.007]

More like the other way round.

may be everyone has a different point of view..

 

[aussie_ben91]

Well it's true.

Dravid shows more of a good attitude to the game then what Kallis does. I've never seen Dravid sledge anyone whilst Kallis shows as much arrogance on a cricket field as Matthew Hayden used to. Mind you, if I was as good as Hayden or Kallis then I wouldn't act much different. Kallis' shots oozes with class whilst Dravid looks more then less a scrappy batsman.

 

[.Mob]

wow, just wow. How anybody can call Dravid's stroke play scratchy is just really beyond me. Have you seen his cover drives? If that is scratchy then Laxman is just a street cricketer.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

A tough one this! A year ago, it would have been Dravid straightaway, but I guess now there's some room for argument. Dravid is a better bat, one pace and all, he does what he does much better than anyone else. And he's played some classic knocks over the years, in pressure situations. But Kallis' bowling is a big plus on his side, and he's a mighty fine bat too.

Overall, Dravid's slightly ahead of Kallis for me.

As for the 'boring chants' at Sydney, well, that's plain arrogance! What wouldn't Australia give to have a Dravid in their team right now!! The boot is on the other foot now, my Aussie pals! Enjoy it!

Mind you, if I was as good as Hayden or Kallis then I wouldn't act much different.

Of course not! You won't make many friends either!

 

[Precambrian]

Apologies for intervening in this conversation. But I found some points in this guy's post and couldn't restrict myself from replying.

I agree. His been one of the best batsman of his generation. Only Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and Kallis are infront of him, IMO. But he struggled against the best pacemen of this generation - Glenn McGrath.

Well, there is no question as to McGrath being the best bowler since Curtly Ambrose. And in fact every batsman has struggled against him. So Dravid's failure is not something to harp upon significantly. Didn't Kallis also struggle against him??

Funny how he can still score 100's against Sharma with the worst technique in world cricket.

Give me a break. That Sharma owned Ponting is clear as daylight. Ponting played two good innings on helpful surfaces, in Adelaide and in Bangalore on first day wickets. Otherwise in ODIs as well as tests, Sharma has caused him helluva trouble.

Kinda hard to block everything in India with the pitches being so low and slow.

Haha what? What then can explain Australia's sub-par run rate in the concluded test series in India? (No, even excluding the Nagpur 8-1 fielding). Mate, you are living in a cliched world.

Precambrian added 9 Minutes and 8 Seconds later...

You make me lul.

Great. It is hard to make people laugh these days. I take that as a compliment.

He is defensive because India are usually in a predicament practically every time he goes out to bat. Count the number of times he's saved us, just do it. Far more then Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman put together. He's doen it in the colors and the creams. Forgot the last year of cricket, it has easily been his worst. His centuries actually mean something unlike Tendulkar's, as they usually result in an Indian win.

Predicament? He has played most of his test career at No.3. That means at the fall of the opening wicket. How is that a predicament?

And he's played more matchwinning knocks than Tendulkar? LMAO.

Here are the stats : Tendulkar has 15 centuries in India's wins. Dravid has 10. Tendulkar has 50 wins as compared to Dravid's 43. That means Tendulkar has a better century/won match than Dravid.

You can't get more then 10,000 test match runs if you only play the defense. You can't get 25 hundreds, including 5 double hundreds, by only playing the defense.

Hello? Come again? This is test cricket. And I am not saying Dravid is a mediocre batsman. No, not even close. Dravid is a world class batsman, but in a league lower than that of Lara and Tendulkar. Dravid would walk into my all time Test XI anytime.

And a career SR of 41 is testimony to him being slow. Not that it is a major handicap.

Saying Dravid's techinique is bad or overrated is laughable. Why is he slow? Because he doesn't need to be fast. He's got a guy like Sehwag opening ahead of him and Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, and Dhoni all to come. His job is to stay there and get the big score, and for the bulk of his career he has done just that.

Yes. I never said he was a technically deficient batsman. I only said Tendulkar has a better technique than Dravid and that a solid defense does not automatically mean a good technique.

 

[shravi]

And he's played more matchwinning knocks than Tendulkar? LMAO.

Here are the stats : Tendulkar has 15 centuries in India's wins. Dravid has 10. Tendulkar has 50 wins as compared to Dravid's 43. That means Tendulkar has a better century/won match than Dravid.

Centuries do not always determine who wins the match. By your logic, Sachin has 9 centuries in lost matches as well, why didn't those result in victories for India? I'll tell you why. Centuries do not always determine which way a match goes. Similarly, Sachin averages 36 in Indian losses compared to Dravid's 26. Dravid has only 1 century in lost matches, yet all of these 10 centuries resulted in only losses for India. It must be noted that Dravid averages less in Indian losses, but much higher in Indian victories. Rahul Dravid averages 66, including 10 centuries and 19 fifties. Only centuries contribute to victories? Sachin may have 5 more hundreds and may average only 3 less in won matches but this statistic is largely helped by the fact that he has 14 not outs in won matches, compared to Dravid's 11. Sachin has played 10 more innings in won matches (81 in 50 matches) yet has made only 288 runs more than Rahul Dravid (71 innings in 43 matches).

Nice try, but no.

 

[sohum]

Hence sarcisim? Don't worry mate, no one's judging you. Atleast Dravid isn't half as bad as the likes of Ken Barrington, Geoffery Boycott and Bill Lawry who used to bat all day and make 30 not out. Or so I've been told...

I failed to see any "sarcisim" anywhere in my post. There is no arguing that Dravid is slow. But Kallis, at 3 more runs per 100 balls, isn't a firecracker either.

Funny how he can still score 100's against Sharma with the worst technique in world cricket.

It is your logic... interesting that you find it humorous.

Kinda hard to block everything in India with the pitches being so low and slow.

Then maybe you should go back on your judgment that he "blocks" everything. After all, the likes of Ponting find it hard to "block everything" even with "the pitches being so low and slow" and instead end up getting out cheaply.