CMS Test XI of last 50 Years- Number 3.

[Arthur Crabtree]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

These are runs scored in Australia since 65. Dravid and Lara average the same. But these aren't really satisfactory. If anyone toured in the eighties, or the turn of the noughties/teens, the attack was weak. And lately the pitches have been flat. I'll isolate 1990 to 2008.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

That gives us a lot of runs by Indian bats. Because they played Warne so well.

[sussexpob]

These are runs scored in Australia since 65. Dravid and Lara average the same. But these aren't really satisfactory. If anyone toured in the eighties, or the turn of the noughties/teens, the attack was weak. And lately the pitches have been flat. I'll isolate 1990 to 2008. That gives us a lot of runs by Indian bats. Because they played Warne so well.

Id like to see how many of those Indians scored a lot of runs in 2003/04. I believe Dravid's only productive series in Australia was in 2003/04. He scored a big double hundred at Adelaide that series, on a typical slow and flat Adelaide 600 plays 600 in the first, 200 in the 3rd wins you the game pitch. Ponting scored his best career knock after.

The key difference on why those runs feel empty though was down to the fact that Australia had a B team attack out. McGrath I believe missed the whole of that series, and Warne was serving his ban and came back the series after. Brett Lee missed half the series, and I also believe Gillespie missed at least one test.

Lara had a few blanks in Australia, but then the pitches in 1996/97 were tough for everyone (at Melbourne particularly) and in 2000 it was after the whitewash to South Africa and then the New Zealand tour that they really struggled in, and everyone was really getting into Lara, who was forced to quit as captain and was a marginal figure. The Australians battered the Windies that tour as they wanted blood for the away series, and Lara if anything looked lost in his own head.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gillespie and McGill played in that series. Dravid's ton was the only one he got in Australia. He got a few nineties. But, his average was wrecked by his last tour there, when he was pretty much finished, so that can also be allowed for.

England is a hard tour for Indian bats, same as the other way round. Dravid had a good record here, and was heroic in 2011. That was the kind of series that really makes an impression.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Lara went on too long. His record suffered in his last few years. He kept edging behind in England in 04. Though he had his days even at the fag end of his career.

[Dr Cricket]

Tough List but went for dravid for one simple reason really. he faced the most number of ball in Test cricket and is probably the most solid batsman in the world.
Stats show he is one of the most difficult batsman to get out.
123 balls per dismissal.

Really want my number 3 to be a solid batsman and the rest to bat around him.
Stats would show dravid was the best at this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 56766.html

Dravid record in SA/Aus could be misleading anyway unless you are Don bradman or Tendulkar everyone has gaps even the Great lara had gaps on his record but it should be noted during 2007-2011 period dravid wasn't in great form and actually struggled a lot I always remembered him as someone that was struggling to get a score and all he could do was block and survive 100 balls.
But during the 2001-2005 period he was a gun batsman scored loads of runs and never really looked like getting out, he was probably one of the reason why india were a top team during his time.

Really wish Lara available at 4 and 5 as well.

[Gingerfinch]

I always thought Dravid had an easy job, being the glue in a very good Indian batting line up. He did that job very well of course, and was a great player, just not as good as some, imo.

[sussexpob]

Dravid was a good player, but the stats provided are meaningless in the discussion. Dravid batted with Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Gahmbir and Sehwag, inbetween about 90 test hundreds worth of talent between the openers and arguably the best player of all time. Its easy to sit and do a job holing an end when its Tendulkar or Sehwag at the other end spraying the ball to all parts.

The only meaningful stat there is the fact that when the openers put on the most runs, Dravid averages higher. Not that this is exclusive to Dravid, I would say that this is a pretty natural consequence of having better players to bat with. Lara had the luxury of brilliant openers like Sherwin Campbell, Stuart Williams, Wavell Hinds, Daren Ganga to keep him from the new ball for the majority of his career.... surprisingly, he played very little partnerships with Gayle. The period of overlap between Greenidge, Richardson and Desmond Haynes Lara batted at 3 for 25 tests at the start.... averaged a shade under 60 over a near 5 year period. Quality openers supporting him brought out the best in Lara.

One glaring stat that indicates just how bad the Windies team were under Lara, Ridley Jacobs is one of the top players to share innings with Lara in his career (about 5th most frequent), despite Jacobs batting at 8 and only playing 50 odd tests together, in 40-45% of those tests Lara batted with him. To put that into perspective, Gilchrist batted 11 tests in the top 5, 75 at 7 for Australia, and only shared a partnership with Ponting 6 times in his career.

Relative pitches and conditions can also be factored in. The average wicket per game in Lara's career was 29 runs. Dravid 37.... A full 320 runs more per completed test.

[shankycricket]

Greg Chappell.

[sussexpob]

Greg Chappell.

Very convincing argument... but seeing as though you were minus 30 when he retired, I understand it

[Arthur Crabtree]

Chappell didn't bat at three much, he'll feature at 4&5. Great player though. I'll take your vote for Greg at three.

[sussexpob]

Chappell didn't bat at three much, he'll feature at 4&5. Great player though. I'll take your vote for Greg at three.

And averaged 17 less than Lara when he did.

[sussexpob]

This is why these sorts of studies annoy me so. If people vote for players they never even seen pick up a bat, then whats the point?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd vote for Bradman at three, if it was all time.

The stats are there. And for this last fifty years, the players can be watched online.

[Gingerfinch]

I never saw Chappell bat but he was pretty damn decent according to those who did.

[Arthur Crabtree]

This is why these sorts of studies annoy me so. If people vote for players they never even seen pick up a bat, then whats the point?

I thought Greg had done a bit better than his record at three. And Ian did better than I expected.

I need someone to separate Viv and Dravid.