Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Against non-minnows in tests..
--

Average               
Player            SRT        RD       VVS      VS        SG   
Career ----    52.02   49.58   45.74   50.52   41.24
2001-2009   47.83   51.24   50.85   50.52   38.89
2001-2005   50.31   59.94   52.76   54.75   33.7
2006-2009   44.63   41.56   48.51   45.98   46.04         
      
Strike Rate               
Player            SRT      RD     VVS      VS       SG 
Career ----    N/A   40.46   48.36   78.74   51.46
2001-2009   53.52   41.45   49.08   78.74   54.33
2001-2005   52.22   43.01   50.19   73.5   50.25
2006-2009   55.52   39.18   47.67   86.66   59.19
               
>50% (>50s / total # of innings)               
Player            SRT        RD        VVS        VS         SG   
Career ----    35.8%   33.3%   31.3%   28.3%   26.0%
2001-2009   33.3%   33.1%   34.4%   28.3%   22.5%
2001-2005   34.8%   36.7%   36.8%   32.8%   18.8%
2006-2009   31.5%   29.2%   31.7%   23.6%   27.7%
               
Conversion ratio (100s/>50s)               
Player            SRT        RD        VVS        VS         SG   
Career ----    41.9%   29.6%   25.5%   46.9%   29.5%
2001-2009   34.1%   32.0%   26.7%   46.9%   24.0%
2001-2005   37.5%   37.9%   28.0%   52.6%   25.0%
2006-2009   29.4%   23.8%   25.0%   38.5%   23.1%

[LosingNow]

My key conclusions..
1. While Sachin has the greatest career average, Rahul, VVS and VS have carried the baton for India since 2001
2. VVS has been more consistent over this period than RD..who had a dream 2001-2005 but has slumped since
3. 2001-2005 were led by RD, VVS and VS..but 2006-2009 were led by VVS, SG and VS
4. VS' average, >50% and conversion ratio all have fallen in 2006-2009 ..but his SR has gone up. Is he trying to score too fast and become more of a  hit(actually a huge one at that)-or-miss player?
5. RD is the slowest of all of them (he is 8 % points below his closest peer).. and in his recent slump he has become even slower (or to be fair, reverted to his career SR).
6. Ironically SG retired when he was having his best batting average and SR
7. VS' conversion ratio is outlandish despite the recent drop

[LosingNow]

Further RD and VVS have played most tests during 2001-2009

Tests played               
Player            SRT  RD    VVS    VS      SG   
2001-2009    72     84     79     64     65
2001-2005    41     46     43     34     40
2006-2009    31     38     36     30     25

SRT (due to injuries) , SG & VS (due to drops) have missed tests.

[ramshorns]

Great work WN.  Applause.

[WicketView]

Against non-minnows in tests..
--

Average               
Player            SRT        RD       VVS      VS        SG   
Career ----    52.02   49.58   45.74   50.52   41.24
2001-2009   47.83   51.24   50.85   50.52   38.89
2001-2005   50.31   59.94   52.76   54.75   33.7
2006-2009   44.63   41.56   48.51   45.98   46.04         
      
Strike Rate               
Player            SRT      RD     VVS      VS       SG 
Career ----    N/A   40.46   48.36   78.74   51.46
2001-2009   53.52   41.45   49.08   78.74   54.33
2001-2005   52.22   43.01   50.19   73.5   50.25
2006-2009   55.52   39.18   47.67   86.66   59.19
               
>50% (>50s / total # of innings)               
Player            SRT        RD        VVS        VS         SG   
Career ----    35.8%   33.3%   31.3%   28.3%   26.0%
2001-2009   33.3%   33.1%   34.4%   28.3%   22.5%
2001-2005   34.8%   36.7%   36.8%   32.8%   18.8%
2006-2009   31.5%   29.2%   31.7%   23.6%   27.7%
               
Conversion ratio (100s/>50s)               
Player            SRT        RD        VVS        VS         SG   
Career ----    41.9%   29.6%   25.5%   46.9%   29.5%
2001-2009   34.1%   32.0%   26.7%   46.9%   24.0%
2001-2005   37.5%   37.9%   28.0%   52.6%   25.0%
2006-2009   29.4%   23.8%   25.0%   38.5%   23.1%

What is the colour coding?

[LosingNow]

Greens for  high points, reds for low points.. either in a row or column...highlighted to draw attention..when appropriate

[WicketView]

Greens for  high points, reds for low points.. either in a row or column...highlighted to draw attention

OK the conversion rate to 100s column 2006-2009 should be red too then? 

[RicePlateReddy]

There is good correlation between Dravid's average and SR. When he averaged higher, his SR is higher. It makes intuitive sense -- when he has struggled, as in the recent past, he has become more defensive and goes into his shell.

To a lesser extent (the shell part does not hold, of course), this correlation is true for VVS also.

[LosingNow]

There is good correlation between Dravid's average and SR. When he averaged higher, his SR is higher. It makes intuitive sense -- when he has struggled, as in the recent past, he has become more defensive and goes into his shell.

To a lesser extent (the shell part does not hold, of course), this correlation is true for VVS also.

In viru's case the opposite appears to be happening

[WicketView]

There is good correlation between Dravid's average and SR. When he averaged higher, his SR is higher. It makes intuitive sense -- when he has struggled, as in the recent past, he has become more defensive and goes into his shell.

To a lesser extent (the shell part does not hold, of course), this correlation is true for VVS also.

In viru's case the opposite appears to be happening

Yes, and it may even be the case for SRT. For example take this series: VS has been in top form dominating all the bowlers till he got out. With Dravid however, this has not been the case in recent times when his form has been bad.

[RicePlateReddy]

There is good correlation between Dravid's average and SR. When he averaged higher, his SR is higher. It makes intuitive sense -- when he has struggled, as in the recent past, he has become more defensive and goes into his shell.

To a lesser extent (the shell part does not hold, of course), this correlation is true for VVS also.

In viru's case the opposite appears to be happening

Which also adds up intuitively -- when he is out of form he tries to whack himself out of trouble 

VS is not out of form this series. And IMO he needs to be slapped silly for overdoing it. His run in this test series reminds me of his travails in ODIs a few years ago, where he overdid his aggressiveness. He tries hard to bring himself down to Afridi's level sometimes.

[ganavk]

I personally would never take out minnows anyway especially when comparing the data over a career. it gets averaged out and it is not fair also. if we consider that case then we can prove that even Bradman was not as good as he was made out to be after all he played only against Eng during his time and against other two minnows namely India and SA.
Anyway..it would also be interesting to know the minnow including data and also the home and away record ( which I think is as important as any other statistics especially for a poor travelers like us)

[justforkix]

I personally would never take out minnows anyway especially when comparing the data over a career. it gets averaged out and it is not fair also. if we consider that case then we can prove that even Bradman was not as good as he was made out to be after all he played only against Eng during his time and against other two minnows namely India and SA.
Anyway..it would also be interesting to know the minnow including data and also the home and away record ( which I think is as important as any other statistics especially for a poor travelers like us)

Commentators were discussing this today. RD is 47 home, 57 away, VVS is 46 home, 44 away. SRT is 54 home, 54 away. Veeru is 51 home, 49 away.

[WicketView]

I personally would never take out minnows anyway especially when comparing the data over a career. it gets averaged out and it is not fair also.

The last two statements are contradictory. If the minnow stuff gets 'averaged out' (which is not accurate ... it does not contribute because the number of minnow matches is low compared to the rest of matches in a long career) ,  then it can't be unfair.

To be pedantic, I agree that minnows were at different levels throughout the careers of said players.

if we consider that case then we can prove that even Bradman was not as good as he was made out to be after all he played only against Eng during his time and against other two minnows namely India and SA.
Anyway..it would also be interesting to know the minnow including data and also the home and away record ( which I think is as important as any other statistics especially for a poor travelers like us)

Yes. This is an important grouping. And we should pay attention to this. As JFK points out this is where Dravid did really well ... his reputation was not built on being  aflat track bully but as one who could stand up in the most adverse of conditions.

[willow]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains.

in the long run RD has helped us win/save more matches than anyone...including SMG AND SRT.

[justforkix]

My key conclusions..
1. While Sachin has the greatest career average, Rahul, VVS and VS have carried the baton for India since 2001

this is a grossly incorrect interpretation and conclusion. The average difference between Sachin and the max (RD) is 3.41. Sachin and VVS and VS are even lesser.

[12th_Man]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains.

in the long run RD has helped us win/save more matches than anyone...including SMG AND SRT.

An excellent observation. One would not like to have 5 VS's or 5 RD's playing for the team. RD is there to mitigate the risk that VS brings.  Each player brings his respective strenghts to the team.

[ganavk]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains.

in the long run RD has helped us win/save more matches than anyone...including SMG AND SRT.

An excellent observation. One would not like to have 5 VS's or 5 RD's playing for the team. RD is there to mitigate the risk that VS brings.  Each player brings his respective strenghts to the team.

agree and that's what I meant in the other thread when I mentioned that each of the players have a role to play in this team and they are effectively executing it and performing better as a team.

[RicePlateReddy]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains

No cribbing from me, but the amazing part is VS is scoring at that elevated rate at a slightly smaller average. And I feel if he reduces that scoring rate by 10-15% especially by calming down a little against spinners, his average could rise by 10-15%.

[WicketView]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains.

in the long run RD has helped us win/save more matches than anyone...including SMG AND SRT.

Are we talking about the past or the present? Past: Absolutely agree.

[ramshorns]

I think this discussion is academic. just like we accept that VS scores at a higher rate and with a low average we should accept RD scoring at a higher average and low SR. when rd wasnt doing it ~ 2 years there was reason to crib, but in this series he has been doing what he is there for, so there shouldnt be any complains.

in the long run RD has helped us win/save more matches than anyone...including SMG AND SRT.

It is not academic.  It is only a myth that RD helped win/save more games than VVS.  The ratio of the number of matches played to the number of games each played a vital role in pretty much seals the deal and will bust that myth.

The work by WN and Kban done on various threads to shed some light into the last 8 years when most of the famous wins happended bring that fact to the fore.

VVS and RD and SRT are all in the same breath in terms of  accomplishments in Test cricket playing under varying conditions with RD and SRT scoring mariginally over VVS in terms of consistency and SRT over everyone in terms of longevity and VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

[RicePlateReddy]

VVS and RD and SRT are all in the same breath in terms of  accomplishments in Test cricket playing under varying conditions with RD and SRT scoring mariginally over VVS in terms of consistency and SRT over everyone in terms of longevity and VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

In your mind and hardly any one else's.

[ramshorns]

VVS and RD and SRT are all in the same breath in terms of  accomplishments in Test cricket playing under varying conditions with RD and SRT scoring mariginally over VVS in terms of consistency and SRT over everyone in terms of longevity and VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

In your mind and hardly any one else's.

Really??? How so? I know that is something of a trait which is so attached to statistical fanatics.

And who cares who's mind's it is in.  Like you have a crystal ball into all minds.

[RicePlateReddy]

Really??? How so? I know that is something of a trait which is so attached to statistical fanatics.

And who cares who's mind's it is in.  Like you have a crystal ball into all minds.

Forget the stats. Ask a majority of cricket followers. In the small sample set I have interacted with, this DG included, my contention is proved true. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge that you belong to a minority group, opinion wise.

[ramshorns]

Really??? How so? I know that is something of a trait which is so attached to statistical fanatics.

And who cares who's mind's it is in.  Like you have a crystal ball into all minds.

Forget the stats. Ask a majority of cricket followers. In the small sample set I have interacted with, this DG included, my contention is proved true. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge that you belong to a minority group, opinion wise.

Why should I do that?  Who is to say that group you interacted with are not fanatical about couple of players. 

Now you are clutching on the straws saying things like you are a minority or as such.

What if I am dismissive and say majority do not understand the game or go beyond certain numbers to see what VVS really is as a Test player and what he brings to the table and is capable of and performing in every stage or condition a Tendulkar or Dravid did.

IMO any person with proper undersanding of the game and without bias would see and acknowledge that VVS is as good as a Tendulkar or Dravid in Test cricket.

Beyond that I give two hoots on what the majority you know says.

Even I met a lot more people than you did from this DG and they admitted to me that VVS is as or more valuable for the team as  Dravid or a Tendulkar.

[RicePlateReddy]

I suppose your  argument bashing SRT's place in the ODI team on other threads has absolutely nothing to do with the sentiments expressed here in tests?

[ramshorns]

I suppose your  argument bashing SRT's place in the ODI team on other threads has absolutely nothing to do with the sentiments expressed here in tests?

Nothing whatsoever.  You are right because I like Tendulkar as much as anyone perhaps excepting I do not see any value from a Team perspective for his continuance in ODI's for all the reasons I clearly outlined so many times.  Just because a Lara or a Inzy or a Gilly can still play and score like Tendulkar when they chose to give up in ODI's does not mean they have to continue when that place can be used to build a young career especially in a team like India which has so many veteran ODI players.  Anyway we dwelt on that enough.

[inoc]

very nice thread

when i left we were discussing things other than cricket, it seems we are back in track now.

when i left we were talking about how VVS and RD won/saved us matches. now it seems we are discussing who amongst them won/saved us more matches. interesting.

we should start with matches won and drawn and the respective scores of RD and VVS.

since kolkata 2001, excluding minnows,  dont know why but that seems to be an accepted start off point.

VVS first RD second. W indicates matches won.

W        59   281                                        25   180
W           65   66                                        81   4
W                                                      15   75
           89   DNB                                          2   87
W           28   DNB                                        86   DNB
           75   DNB                                           7   26*
           12   -                                           3   -
           69   -                                      144*   -
W          69*   74                                         67   36
         130   -                                         91   -
           22   14                                         13   115
W             6   -                                       148   -
           40   -                                       217   -
W           45   -                                       100*   -
W           24   DNB                                         11   6*
           48   154*                                 14   17
           64   44                                        222   73
         104*  67*                                            13   5
           75   24*                                            1   43*
W         148   32                                          233   72*
         178   DNB                                            38   91*
W           29   -                                              6   -
W           71   -                                          270   -
             4   DNB                                            26   DNB
W             1   69                                            31*   27
             9   -                                            54   -
W           38   DNB                                            80   47*
           58   DNB                                            50   DNB
W             0   24                                            110   135
             5   -                                              32   -
W           69   11                                              24   53
W         104   5         
           0*   -                                            128*   -
          90   8*                                            103   5*
W            0   0*                                              40   71
                                                            95   42*
          29   31                                              49   62
            0   -                                            146   -
        100   63                                              22   68*
W          18   16                                              81   68
W          28   73                                              32   1
          15   39                                                2   9
W          54   DNB                                              37   11*
          51   46*                                              55   12
W          72*   6*                                              38   34
        112*DNB                                              50   8*
            5   14*                                              19   42
W          27   79                                              93   3
          51   12                                              18   11*
          39   -                                            111   -
W          50   DNB                                              29   18*
W          39   13                                                2   44
            0   42*                                               51   5
W          12   DNB                                               39   DNB
       200*     59*                                            11   11
W          64   4                                                 0   3
W          24   26                                                 3   4
            0   15                                             136   0
W          30   DNB                                               66   8*
          76   124*                                            83   62

a cursory glance suggests that RD played an important part in more matches than VVS. more double hundreds, more hundreds, more fifties. we can quantify this with points type of scoring.

will look into that.


               

[LosingNow]

inoc..
Welcome back.

I am having a tough time reading your #s.. I know it is tough to format while posting here. I was planning to do a match by match analysis this weekend ..unfortunately events took over.

Will wait for your analysis first

[ganavk]

a cursory glance suggests that RD played an important part in more matches than VVS. more double hundreds, more hundreds, more fifties. we can quantify this with points type of scoring.

will look into that.

Not new. it is a well known fact that RD averaged highest in the matches ( with daylight second) we won when SG captained us. In this case be prepared to hear the statement that it is because RD played at #3 and so he is supposed to have that number and statistics does not talk anything about how crucial a 20 run partnership is and how strokeplay is better than runs scored etc especially from those who also believe in winning at every cost!

[ganavk]

VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

Not true at all. SRT is way better since he can play shots all around the wicket where VVS is certainly is very good on leg side and RD in his prime was very good on off side. Just on top of my head I can remember the following strokes as their memorable ones
VVS's on drive/ or any other drive on leg side/ pull when he plays  ( which he rarely does)
RD's straight/on drive/cover drive/Short arm pull ( Which he used to play earlier and has almost stopped now)
SRT - any shots off back foot especially the punches on off drive/straight drive/cuts/flicks on leg side/patented paddle sweep/pull

[ramshorns]

VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

Not true at all. SRT is way better since he can play shots all around the wicket where VVS is certainly is very good on leg side and RD in his prime was very good on off side. Just on top of my head I can remember the following strokes as their memorable ones
VVS's on drive/ or any other drive on leg side/ pull when he plays  ( which he rarely does)
SRT - any shots off back foot especially the punches on off drive/straight drive/cuts/flicks on leg side/patented paddle sweep/pull

I do not think SRT is way better than VVS.  It is your lack of observation that VVS is only good on the onside.  Actually it is the offside strokes that are more pleasing to the eye be it the on the rise cover drive or on the toes waft between the slip cordon and the point region.  He plays the off drive or the straight drive with equal ease and pull and cut with elan that make people gasp in the stands.  And his on side flicks and wrist work is legendary perhaps rarely seen on a cricket field.

RD's straight/on drive/cover drive/Short arm pull ( Which he used to play earlier and has almost stopped now)

I do not find any joy in any of the strokes RD plays.  They come across to me as laborious in comparision to VVS or a SRT which is more easy on the eye.

Anyway if you find RD more pleasing than VVS good for you and enjoy the show the rarity with with which they come given his S/R these days in Tests.

[ramshorns]

a cursory glance suggests that RD played an important part in more matches than VVS. more double hundreds, more hundreds, more fifties. we can quantify this with points type of scoring.

will look into that.

Not new. it is a well known fact that RD averaged highest in the matches ( with daylight second) we won when SG captained us.

What are under those averages.  Let us examine.  We will find out if there is daylight between the averages or is a there a day's light missing on your part to see those numbers in your obsession for one or two players.

In this case be prepared to hear the statement that it is because RD played at #3 and so he is supposed to have that number and statistics does not talk anything about how crucial a 20 run partnership is and how strokeplay is better than runs scored etc especially from those who also believe in winning at every cost!

That's right.  You have heard nothing thus far.  You will hear more to see afterall the players who you think are the only great ones is utter BS and there are others who contributed equal if not more to India's cause over the last 8 or so years.  I know it does not look too good for players who shamelessly played on borrowed time when others carried the load for them.  So turn around and put down others with a view that our hero's shortcomings are washed away.

[inoc]

inoc..
Welcome back.

I am having a tough time reading your #s.. I know it is tough to format while posting here. I was planning to do a match by match analysis this weekend ..unfortunately events took over.

Will wait for your analysis first

dont know whether this analysis will be bought by everybody but it seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

score 10 points for the highest score in an innings and 0 for the lowest score.

looking at the matches we won since the proverbial kolkata test:

excluded the three tests india won when both did not play... mostly because it would have skewed the numbers in RDs favour.


v Australia   Kolkata   Test # 1535

vvs 10 +10 =20
rd     9 +  9 = 18

v Australia   Chennai   Test # 1539

vvs  7 + 10 = 17
rd    8 +5    = 13

v England   Mohali   Test # 1574

vvs 4
rd   8

v West Indies   Port of Spain   Test # 1599

vvs  9+ 9 = 18
rd    7+7 =14

v England   Leeds   Test # 1613

vvs 4
rd 10


v West Indies   Mumbai   Test # 1616

vvs 7
rd 9

v West Indies Chennai   Test # 1618

vvs 5
rd 3

v Australia   Adelaide   Test # 1673

vvs 9 +7 =16
rd 10 + 10 =20

v Pakistan   Multan   Test # 1693

vvs 6
rd 5

v Pakistan   Rawalpindi   Test # 1697

vvs 9
rd 10

v Australia   Mumbai   Test # 1720

vvs 2 +10 = 12
rd 10+ 8 = 18

v South Africa   Kolkata   Test # 1724

vvs  6
rd  9 ……..10

ignoring the second innings RD score for final calculations since VVS did not bat...probably unfair to RD but nevertheless.


v Pakistan   Kolkata   Test # 1741

vvs 0 +6 =6
rd 10 +10 = 20

v Sri Lanka   Delhi   Test # 1776

vvs 9 + 4 = 13
rd    7+ 8 = 15

v West Indies   Kingston   Test # 1808

vvs 7 + 8 = 15
rd 10 + 10 = 20

v South Africa   Johannesburg   Test # 1823

vvs 7 + 10 = 17
rd  8 + 2 = 10

v England   Nottingham   Test # 1841

vvs 6
rd 5………9
vvs didn’t bat second innings so ignoring rd score here again.


v Pakistan   Delhi   Test # 1849

vvs 10 ……
rd 8 ………

vvs not out 6 so not comparing 2nd innings scores, RD would have come off better here as before...


v Australia   Perth   Test # 1862

vvs 6 + 10= 16
rd 10+ 3 =13

v South Africa   Kanpur   Test # 1873

vvs 9
rd 7……..
rd second inn score not included since vvs didn’t bat


v Sri Lanka   Galle   Test # 1884

vvs 7 + 4 = 11
rd 4 +8 + 12

v Australia   Mohali   Test # 1889

vvs 4
rd 6


v Australia   Nagpur   Test # 1892

vvs 7 +3 =10
rd 10 +2 =12

v England   Chennai   Test # 1898

vvs 6+5 = 11
rd 1+4 = 5

v New Zealand   Hamilton   Test # 1915

vvs 4
rd 8



adding up:

vvs 256
rd   278

this is ignoring quite a few of RDs innings because either VVS was not playing the match or didnt bat in that innings. despite that RDs score is better, this with his more 200s, 100s, 50s and better average in matches won seems to point to the fact that RD was better even if marginally than VVS in providing us with victories.

open to all.

[ramshorns]

Sorry I do not buy into this giving points to each innings business.

I would never give a 18 to Dravid in that Eden Test in 2001 and a 20 to VVS.

Also in the 2007 Delhi Test in a win against Pak. VVS 72* in the context of the match got 10 while Dravid got 8.  I would not grade it that way.

That is not how I would look into it.

While at it what are marks given to for example for VVS's efforts in 2001 Port Elizebeth Test when his 89 saved the follow that could have altered the game.

What about his efforts to save the Mohali Test in 2003 that he saved.  Numbers or points can never justify the value there.

And how about his partnership with Tendukar in which he scored 42* that saved the Bangalore Test against the Aussies last year.

These are things I just remember on top of my head.

The value of a player does not and cannot be just based on numbers.

Whichever way we look at it VVS is good if not better if we take the the entire 2001-2008 timeframe while RD comes out better if it is just 2001-2006.

There are no favors done here whatsoever to give the benefit of doubt to VVS.  If at all it is the other way around.
 
VVS is as good a Test player as Tendulkar or Dravid and a vital cog in all the glory that Indian Test cricket experienced starting with his magnum opus in Kolkatta 2001.

[inoc]

Sorry I do not buy into this giving points to each innings business.

fair enough - dont

if possible try and find another way in which we can possibly discuss this 'business' without having to discuss each and every match individually.

I would never give a 18 to Dravid in that Eden Test in 2001 and a 20 to VVS.

again dont.

but also remember that the VVS innings wouldnt have ever happened without the RD knock.

Also in the 2007 Delhi Test in a win against Pak. VVS 72* in the context of the match got 10 while Dravid got 8.  I would not grade it that way.

again feel free to grade it as you like - i am sure similar gradations can be visualised/thought of in other innings when RD performed much better than VVS. this was an attempt to try and quantify the relative performances in addition to the already available comparatives - average/200s/100s/50s, where RD is clearly superior.

That is not how I would look into it.

i know that

While at it what are marks given to for example for VVS's efforts in 2001 Port Elizebeth Test when his 89 saved the follow that could have altered the game.

What about his efforts to save the Mohali Test in 2003 that he saved.  Numbers or points can never justify the value there.

And how about his partnership with Tendukar in which he scored 42* that saved the Bangalore Test against the Aussies last year.

These are things I just remember on top of my head.

my post was in relation to indian victories. we can have another discussion relating to matches saved. you are welcome to produce such a list/discussion.

The value of a player does not and cannot be just based on numbers.

of course not.

you are however quick to adapt averaging techniques like - average SR to qualify VVS as a better scorer, while any other averaging technique does not qualify unless we look into each and every match, when VVS seems to be at the receiving end of such averages. may be I am wrong in my interpretations but that is the feeling that comes across.

we can dissect each and every match.....no problems with that - if that is the way you want to go ahead.

Whichever way we look at it VVS is good if not better if we take the the entire 2001-2008 timeframe while RD comes out better if it is just 2001-2006.

if you accept this then there isnt much to discuss here. RD hasnt played well since 2006 and it seems he is getting over his slump now, whether the slump is reason enough to get rid of him despite his better performances now is absolutely another discussion.

There are no favors done here whatsoever to give the benefit of doubt to VVS.  If at all it is the other way around.

i am not asking for favours, just wanting to have a discussion in a level field.

VVS is as good a Test player as Tendulkar or Dravid and a vital cog in all the glory that Indian Test cricket experienced starting with his magnum opus in Kolkatta 2001.

i have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

[RicePlateReddy]

Great work, inoc and welcome back.

[ramshorns]

again dont.

but also remember that the VVS innings wouldnt have ever happened without the RD knock.

And none of Dravid's knocks would not have happened without others applying the same analogy if I extend it we should never have a man of the match since everyone's knock would not have happened without the others.

again feel free to grade it as you like - i am sure similar gradations can be visualised/thought of in other innings when RD performed much better than VVS. this was an attempt to try and quantify the relative performances in addition to the already available comparatives - average/200s/100s/50s, where RD is clearly superior.

Why should a 200 get a bigger grade if scored under a lesser demanding conditions as opposed to a 70 in tougher conditions or a 50 to a 30 applying the same.   I do not see RD to have any ascendency whatsoever based on what you said here given that he is the one that has the better postion at 3 in comparision to a 5 or 6.  That in itself is a mark of VVS's greatness to adapt and deliver.

my post was in relation to indian victories. we can have another discussion relating to matches saved. you are welcome to produce such a list/discussion.

Why?  A vital knock cannot be just in wins it could be in achieving draws or in avoiding a follow on.  These are all the factors I took in to determine VVS to be such a great Test player like a Dravid in some others assessment.

of course not.

you are however quick to adapt averaging techniques like - average SR to qualify VVS as a better scorer, while any other averaging technique does not qualify unless we look into each and every match, when VVS seems to be at the receiving end of such averages. may be I am wrong in my interpretations but that is the feeling that comes across.

we can dissect each and every match.....no problems with that - if that is the way you want to go ahead.

Leaving aside your jabs at me that I am not willing to consider things unless it favors VVS I think we should dissect each match based on conditions, type of attacks, number of wickets that fell before that player rose to the occasion to defy the odds.

if you accept this then there isnt much to discuss here. RD hasnt played well since 2006 and it seems he is getting over his slump now, whether the slump is reason enough to get rid of him despite his better performances now is absolutely another discussion.

I clearly said in various posts over the last eight years VVS has proven an equal to any great in Indian cricketer irrespective of that player in comparision having a lean patch or not.

[ramshorns]

VVS is as good a Test player as Tendulkar or Dravid and a vital cog in all the glory that Indian Test cricket experienced starting with his magnum opus in Kolkatta 2001.

i have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

OK then there does not seem much to discuss here since we agree on the basic premise.  The rest are all academic and for statistical buffs which I am not that concerned.

[ganavk]

VVS over everyone when it comes to style and strokeplay with SRT closely behind.

Not true at all. SRT is way better since he can play shots all around the wicket where VVS is certainly is very good on leg side and RD in his prime was very good on off side. Just on top of my head I can remember the following strokes as their memorable ones
VVS's on drive/ or any other drive on leg side/ pull when he plays  ( which he rarely does)
SRT - any shots off back foot especially the punches on off drive/straight drive/cuts/flicks on leg side/patented paddle sweep/pull

I do not think SRT is way better than VVS.  It is your lack of observation that VVS is only good on the onside.  Actually it is the offside strokes that are more pleasing to the eye be it the on the rise cover drive or on the toes waft between the slip cordon and the point region.  He plays the off drive or the straight drive with equal ease and pull and cut with elan that make people gasp in the stands.  And his on side flicks and wrist work is legendary perhaps rarely seen on a cricket field.

RD's straight/on drive/cover drive/Short arm pull ( Which he used to play earlier and has almost stopped now)

I do not find any joy in any of the strokes RD plays.  They come across to me as laborious in comparision to VVS or a SRT which is more easy on the eye.

Anyway if you find RD more pleasing than VVS good for you and enjoy the show the rarity with with which they come given his S/R these days in Tests.

sure now we can add how many people gasp in the stand also as one of the factors!. In that case sub continent players are always the greatest players of all time compared to all those 'cut and pull and hook' players from Australia/SA.  by this logic one can prove that even RPonting is a flat track bully as he has rarely had a great record against a good bowling attack and that too on flat Australian pitches.