Player of the Decade

[TumTum]

Ok, you can go on posting your stats .

lol ok

 

[mdoggie]

Fire away with your stats as much as you like, Dravid has played a very important role with the bat in many of India's test wins in the last few years and he has proven to be hands down one of the most reliable batsmen in the world.

That's the key, one of the most realiable batsman, not the most as you can see Ponting's, Kallis's ans some other players stats.

 

[rickyp]

Fire away with your stats as much as you like, Dravid has played a very important role with the bat in many of India's test wins in the last few years and he has proven to be hands down one of the most reliable batsmen in the world.

These aren't just stats, they are domination. How can you argue that "Dravid has played a very important role"? Ponting has also played a very important role, these intangibles cannot be compared so we look back at the stats to see who has them to back it up. After this, it becomes apparent who is the batsman of the decade.

 

[Harishan]

These aren't just stats, they are domination. How can you argue that "Dravid has played a very important role"? Ponting has also played a very important role, these intangibles cannot be compared so we look back at the stats to see who has them to back it up. After this, it becomes apparent who is the batsman of the decade.

Well I don't think I was stating that Dravid is a better batsman than Ponting :sarcasm. I do respect Ponting as a player and he is a very good batsmen who holds a very impressive record and he is arguably the batsmen of the decade. What I was trying to say is that Dravid's presence in India's batting lineup has been very important and a lot of people in India can't accept the fact that Dravid has been just as important as Sachin has been in our test team.

 

[Robelinda]

I would say Dravid is quite a bit more important to india than Sachin, if you have a failing number 3 you wont make 400+ or win tests very often, at 2 down for not many. The very nature of a number 4 is that of a strokemaker, Dravid has come in countless times at 1 for under 10 and done the job and building the teams innings. I'm not saying that number 4 isnt important as all top 6 positions are very important. But at number 3 Ponting and Dravid face the brand new ball more often than not, and most people forget that, and they do a magnificent job too, and have done for many a year. Its that small difference between batting 3 and 4 which makes it unfair to compare batsmen like Sachin and Ponting. Comparing players who play in the same batting position is much more revealing, and a lot more interesting and logical.

 

[Annoyingdevil]

Brain lara!!!!!

 

[King Pietersen]

Graeme Swann.

/thread.

 

[aus_maestro]

We can safely say it wouldn't be an england player.

 

[rickyp]

Well I don't think I was stating that Dravid is a better batsman than Ponting :sarcasm. I do respect Ponting as a player and he is a very good batsmen who holds a very impressive record and he is arguably the batsmen of the decade. What I was trying to say is that Dravid's presence in India's batting lineup has been very important and a lot of people in India can't accept the fact that Dravid has been just as important as Sachin has been in our test team.

Fair enough, well said

 

[Annoyingdevil]

We can safely say it wouldn't be an england player.

I 100% Agree with you

 

[BackwardPoint]

Graeme Swann maybe for player of the year, but a decade ago he was more obscure than KP

 

[Cricketdude]

Fire away with your stats as much as you like, Dravid has played a very important role with the bat in many of India's test wins in the last few years and he has proven to be hands down one of the most reliable batsmen in the world.

I agree, even though Ponting is a better batsman. India needed a man who kept the batting together and Australia needed a batsman who could play attackingly(with the strong batting line up).

 

[Robelinda]

Its a little hard to argue that Dravid needed to always hold the batting together when you had Sachin at 4, Ganguly at 5 and Laxman at 6. He couldve played a lot more attacking if he chose, Ponting didnt have the same quality lineup after him- very good players though but no Sachin/Laxman!

India have had the best top 6 in the world since about 2001.

 

[TumTum]

Its a little hard to argue that Dravid needed to always hold the batting together when you had Sachin at 4, Ganguly at 5 and Laxman at 6. He couldve played a lot more attacking if he chose, Ponting didnt have the same quality lineup after him- very good players though but no Sachin/Laxman!

India have had the best top 6 in the world since about 2001.

I don't agree with that. Australia had some great 4,5,6 batsmen over the years. And those batsmen you could count on to produce when the pressure was on, and not all collapse at the same time like Laxman/Sachin/Ganguly sometimes have done.

 

[Cricketdude]

Its a little hard to argue that Dravid needed to always hold the batting together when you had Sachin at 4, Ganguly at 5 and Laxman at 6. He couldve played a lot more attacking if he chose, Ponting didnt have the same quality lineup after him- very good players though but no Sachin/Laxman!

India have had the best top 6 in the world since about 2001.

Laxman only turns it on against australia, Ganguly is overrated(average of 42 in test), which left Sachin and Dravid the ones who had to save them numerous times. It's a good lineup but nothing like;
Hayden(average 50)
Langer(average 45)
Ponting(average 55)
Martyn(average 46)
Clarke(average 49)
Hussey(average 52)
Gilchrist(average 47)

Plus I could include Steve waugh in there, with the many batsman in the wings, Brad Hodge, Stuart Law, Bevan, Dave Hussey, and some more I can't think of right now.