Dravid averages 61 at no. 3 (to Ponting’s 64 prior to the Sydney test) having played 121 innings (20 more than Ponting) there.
Dravid’s lowest average against any team is a near-40 against South Africa.
Better still, Dravid doesn’t average less than 40 in any of the lands he has visited.

Moreover Ponting’s career average falls marginally below 50 while playing away from home, tellingly unlike Rahul whose bat gets broader when the going gets tough (which it invariably does when India tours). The new Indian skipper averages 63 in away matches, no less.

Want some more? Dravid doesn’t have the world’s best opening duo coming ahead of him (Remember how Ponting’s performance suffered when Langer-Hayden stopped normal services during these Ashes?) Nor does the Indian captain have any reason yet to shout from his Bangalore rooftop that one of these days a handy 5-down of his in the form of Parthiv/ Dhoni / Karthik is going to displace the Aussie keeper as an automatic selection in any “greatest ever XI” after the Don.

To top it all Rahul is armed with a last word quite equivalent to the one that did Viv’s claims to being the world’s greatest bat more harm than that last straw did to the proverbial camel’s back. Ricky Ponting never played the best team in the world in his entire career!

Mention must be made of a last bit of info regarding the importance of Rahul Dravid. After an eternity – couldn't resist the overstatement though ‘since his debut’ would be more appropriate - India had to field a team without Rahul Dravid in Ahmedabad a few weeks back. It might only be a coincidence but in both innings of the match Team India failed to get on the right side of 100 without losing 5 wickets.

The last time this had happened was in the second test in NZ of that seamers-take-all series preceding the 2003 world Cup. And I cannot recall any match other than this above-referred Ahmedabad peculiarity from the recent past that saw such a double-ignominy being inflicted on the top order of this team on Indian soil.

To draw a contrast of that one-off Dravidless collapse with Australia’s ‘final frontier’ series win in India during Ponting’s absence last season would be an insult to the latter’s contribution to his world champion team, but the hammer would not be too far from the nail-head if it be summarised that Dravid is somewhat more valuable to the best top order in the world than Ponting is to the best team in the world.

Now we have probably had enough of one way mud-slinging. Rahul too has his own demons to conquer. He is yet to prove that the national captain's crown rests easy on him. He averages 22 as skipper - the lowest average that any grouping of his stupendous international career data has returned barring his abysmal opening stints and the ICC Super test! In any case, the Rahul of last 15 months was a much more manageable player to the opposition than the Ponting of the last couple of years.

No one grudges Ponting’s current form and supremacy as a batsman. But it does look a tad unfair when a genuine great is denied mention as if he did not exist on the face of Planet Cricket.

(concluded)

PS: The Indian lower order however did an equally unprecedented job in that strange match at Motera in Dec 2005. Their first innings heroics are highlighted here, and then they added over 200 splendid runs after the fall of 5th wicket in the 2nd essay as well to make it a half-thousand for the lower half in that topsy-turvy Test! That just reminds me of something quite the ‘reverse’; promise to come back with that 1992 voodoo from the two W’s before the Indo-Pak first Test!

My dad has been watching cricket for nearly 50 years now, and he says that Ponting is the streakiest player he has ever seen. This makes me wonder how well he would have done in virtually any other era. Dravid, on the other hand, has a far tighter technique, meaning that he WOULD succeed in any other era. As such, he must get the title of All-Time Great well before Ponting. And at least Dravid has too much class to go days without shaving.

Buy the way, I'm Australian.

Problem is, the world is split into 2 camps( Stand Up if you miss West Germany!). In the world of Batting, there are Socialists and Free Marketeers, too. The Left prefers the Altruistic( The Walls, the Rocks, the Barnacles) and the Right prefers the Individuals (The Entertainers, gamblers, risk takers, gun-slingers, non-shavers). And yes, the twain never shall meet( except for Inzamam-ul-Haq)so the debate will carry on into the next century, in the present case, there's no doubt who is harder to dismiss-Dravid- and there is no doubt who is more fearless-Ponting-but that is why a coin has 2 sides.
The only stat that I'm interested in is Inzy's stat of scoring 17 tons in 24 Pak wins(Tests)I read this recently so I think I'm correct. Put Dravid's and Ponting's stats apropos this then we'll know who is more important to their country.
P.S. While you're at it check Sachin's and Ganguly's, too. Thanks.

Feroz's suggestion will undoubtedly start a free-for-all. We will keep naming a hundred other greats who batted in varying eras and at all sorts of batting positions. In short we would be shouting ourselves hoarse with innumerable sets of parameters for measuring greatness.

The basic point of the post: By the same parameters and cold stats specified in that piece [batsmen in the late 90's to mid 2000 era, prolific form in the latter half of career, preferably batting predominantly at no. 3] Dravid should have walked into the evaluation.

As for value of Inzamam being greater to his team than Dravids and Pontings Feroz, one of our DS mates can dare thrash it out on another post. In my opinion Dravid (post 2000) and Sachin (pre-2000) can give Inzy stiff competition in the only race that he can possibly win. But where do you start the debate? For example, Do you think Inzamam would return the same 17-in-24 stats had he played for WI like the Prince?

I suggest the following links for those interested in past coverage on the subject of evaluating worth of a player: http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/220537.html & http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/211234.html

Another info: A friend of mine is planning to propose this subject of evaluating a cricketer's individual worth as a subject of post-grad stats in our statistical institute! God bless him.

Feroz

I think your claim of associating political camps with bating styles is too general. I don't prefer Dravid because I'm socialist (I'm not) but because Dravid doesn't abuse umpires and players alike, is a genuine gentleman, AND is a much classier and generally better batsman.

Dear Marcus and Angshu,
The year is only a week old, and I'm still in a Holiday mood-both of you you gentlemen are too serious!- I had my tongue firmly in cheek when I spouted off my Socialism/Capitalism silliness. As the Americans say, it was a stretch; in fact, as soon as I hit post I thought "Oh boy! Socialism?" nobody will buy that rubbish!
I agree with your Dad, Marcus, about the streakiness of Ponting(add Gilchrist, too)and I agree with Angshu that Dravid should NOT have been ignored in the first place, and good point about the W.Indies,too.
My( badly-directed) point was don't worry if you or your favourites are ignored, look at the "Cricket Awards" Garbage, look at the selection of Boucher over Sangakkara in the World Test team, I could go on ad infinitum, if you ask me, I would pick Dravid over Ponting in my team 10 times out of 10, but I don't work for Rupert Murdoch or the Late Kerry Packer and that's the way the Chocolate Chip cookie crumbles.

Both type of players have their utility in a team. So just because player X scores faster than player Y, it wouldnt put him ahead in a test match.

Its a 5 day match and a team game and to build a score, a sheet anchor, anattacking player - all are useful.

A common arguement which people give to rate Ponting ahead of Dravid - in a scenario where quick runs are needed Ponting will be more useful - he is a far more attacking batsman with a higher strike rate.

1) Even in that scenario a Dravid at an end could be useful for the attacking players to pile the runs from the other end having the assurance of one player keeping an end safe.

2) There are scenrios where you have to play a defensive role (when encountering difficult weather conditions for instance where there is excessive swing, unfavourable conditions to pile the runs) and Dravid would be more useful there. Playing a defensive role in an inning or 2 sessions can contribute as much to a winning cause as an attacking inning.

It is too close to call but I would have Dravid because he adds solidity if I were to choose one.

But Dravid's record has a little hole. Apart from the 180 in Kolkatta, his performance when both McGrath and Warne have played is pretty average. 861 runs at 37.4

couldnt help myself here, but given the ref to Dravid v the Aussie strike bowlers, Mr Ponting has a certain figure attached to his Indian travels as well- thats 12.28 , and its his batting average in India.

This paragraph from Pierik's article seemed to scream out in particular:

"Tendulkar has never batted at No. 3, because he knows how tricky a position it can be. There's often pace, swing and seam with the new ball to contend with and, sometimes, spin."

Probably the closest he came to mentioning Dravid in the piece, but chose to hide behind a bogus claim: Tendulkar's not batting at number 3 has little to do with it being a tricky position for him (his record as an opener in ODIs should remove any doubts about his ability to face the new ball) and more to do with the fact that Dravid has made the place his own.