Talk:Rahul Dravid

To the user who added this article:

The Wikipedia has a strict copyright policy. Unless the author of any material agrees to release it into the public domain or under the GNU Free Documentation License, it has come out of copyright, or it comes under fair use, we can't use that material. Factual material cannot be copyrighted, and so the tabled information is ok, but that description can be and is copyright Wisden and I doubt they've given permission for use. See Wikipedia:copyrights for more information.

If you feel you can, write your own description of Rahul Dravid. Feel free to insert "arrogant" and "snobby" liberally ;) --Robert Merkel, a proud supporter of the Aussies.

^^ If you're part of the team with that attitude, I feel sorry for it. i think he is the wall in the Indian Cricket team that true

The Wall

The article states that the wall is borrowed from an ad,i am not so sure,Jammy was from an ad,can somebody who is sure about this just tell me which ad it is.Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateek01 (talk • contribs)

The nickname comes from the fact that he played for the India Cements team (A second division team) for some time. I do not know of any TV/Newspaper commercial/Ad where Dravid appeas for India Cements. But It is well known that the name comes from this.

I strongly believe that the article is now neutral. So, shouldn't the tag be removed now?

Bias

A talented (even great) batsman, no doubt. But really, those first 3 paragraphs in the section "Dravid's style" reads like fan mail. I'm not quoting eveything that I found objectionable, but here's a sample...

"In cricket a player is judged by his performances in unfamilar conditions. Rahul is best when he plays in unfamilar conditions, backed by his sound technique, tempermant and attitude." (Source? Statistics?)

"Rahul Dravid is regarded as one of the brilliant thinkers of the game." (Source?)

"He has almost always saved the Indian team from bad phases by performing at his best, as he is the most dependable and consistent player India has ever produced." (People like Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar might want to dispute that one.)

"Arguably the best Indian batsman of his era..." (There is a certain Sachin Tendulkar who belongs to Dravid's era, you know.)

• I am not fan of Rahul Dravid. But I find everything that quoted in that article to be true!! I love Sachin..I feel that he is the best thing to happen to Indian Cricket for the past century...but even Sachin can't steal Rahul's share of glory.... Rahul Dravid has definetly been India's Most Successful player Overseas...and has played a major role in India's good performances both outside and inside India in the recent past. We do need to given the Devil its due!!! - PSRAMANUJ

My opinion is that Tendulkar is the greatest batsman produced by India. The current wave of declarations of Dravid being "India's best ever" is based on his exceptional performances in the last few years, and Tendulkar's (relative) lack of the same in this period. The opinions of the public and the newspaper columns on who's the "best ever" are almost always dependent on the recent past.

Anyway, so much for my opinion. Now, for some facts. Tendulkar was in both Richie Benaud's and Don Bradman's best elevens of all time. Some of the greatest bowlers of this era - Shane Warne, Allan Donald, Muttiah Muralitharan (who also named Brian Lara alongside him) - have named Tendulkar the greatest batsman they've ever bowled to - these are bowlers who have played against both Dravid and Tendulkar. And I have named but a few from amongst the current lot and former players who rate Tendulkar so.

Point is, while a statement like "Dravid is arguably the best Indian batsman of his era" will have its supporters, you will find legions of others (including great cricketers of the past and the present) affirming otherwise. Which is why that quote does not belong in the article. It is not NPOV. 202.80.59.3 07:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with you to a large extent, especially 'arguably the best' part. Try if you can improve it . If not, I'll give it a try in a week or so. thanks, Tintin 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't have access to statistics, and besides I'm not an authority on Dravid. It's probably best if I refrained from degrading the article even more.202.80.59.3 13:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Dravid averages about 63 away and 50 at home, which indicates that he does well adapting to "non-native" conditions. He has an overall average of 58, with an average in the first innings of about 65 and in the second of 50? For most other players, their second innings average is significantly lower than the first, because the pitch becomes scratched and physically damaged, so that the ball bounces more unpredictable, eg Virender SEhwag, another Indian averages 75 in first innings and 25 in the seond innings. If you check the articles on Pakistani players, for example Shoaib Malik, this gives you an indication that many cricket bios are written by fans Blnguyen 03:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The way you have put it is very good and is the way that is should be in the article. The way it currently is in the article (the first of the quotes above) sounds like a fan's adoring words.

P.S. - That Shoaib Malik article is indeed very bad. But that doesn't mean that this article should plumb the depths of that one. 202.80.59.3 07:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• As a general comment, please try to avoid putting statistics that are likely to change very often in the main body of the article. At the moment there is something about RSD's career average in Tests and the average since 2000 and to keep the article accurate, these will need to be updated after every Test match. When you add the stats, keep them in some way that they will be fairly stable over time. Tintin 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of late, Rahul Dravid seems to have become an Arrogant person - after becoming the captain. Its just time before he goes to the dustbin...

The dude who's mentioned Sachin Tendulkar seems to be biased. Sachin is great but in terms of dependability is nowhere close to Dravid. Sachin and Dravid are two different players. Dravid typically is the backbone of the team aroudn which the innings are built. Today there are seveal players in the team who could replace Tendulkar but I'm not sure any of them could replace Dravid's role in the lineup

NPOV

This article has been getting a lot worse over recent days, especially the first paragraph under the contents box, and I've put an {{NPOV}} marker on it.

All statements need to be sourced and written from a neutral point of view. Among those which aren't at the moment:

He is an intensely committed,hard working,intelligent cricketer and a complete team man

He has proved that he is one of finest batsmen to have played the game

Most Indian victories have come with Dravid playing a significant role

There are many who feel that he has received the respect that he should have received in the first place

Along with Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, Jaques Kallis and Adam Gilchrist he is among the best batsman playing the game now

Recently he has also won many accolades for his intelligence and inspiring captaincy

All of these are simply fans praising him, with no facts to back up whether the statements are true or false. Anyone want to have a go at rewriting this introduction?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen! Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The boy who always stood first??

A book with that title & that too by Chappell? No offense, but live in India & saying that I live off cricket wouldn't be entirely wrong. So I highly doubt that a book of that title exists. There does exist a book called "The Nice guy who Finished First" by Devendra Prabhudesai which is a biography of dravid released in 2005. But a month in Wikipedia has taught me one thing - There are always guys who are smarter & know much more than you. So just to be safe I googled the book title in question. And as expected it turned up nothing except the Wikipedia article, a few other obscure sites & one very offensive MILF article! On the other hand the book I have mentioned has been read by me (google it if you dont trust me). So if I have pulled the rope a lot longer than it is, Please enlighten me! Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! If it's wrong, go ahead and remove it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely no such book. And why is everyone advertising the book "The Nice guy who finished first"? There are so many books on Dravid. There is a biography on him written by Vedam Jaishankar the sports journalist of the daily, The Indian express. I think the reference to the book "The Nice guy who finished first" being released in Dravid's Timeline ought to be removed.

Criticism

Removing the criticism about VVS Laxman and Anil Kumble dropped from the team, since the Indian captain has no role in team selection. Mssnlayam 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tell whether the following statement is against NPOVDoctor Bruno 14:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong move as a captain

It is Dravid’s burden that he will forever be asked to account for that Multan declaration. And with this step,[1] his Mr Nice Guy image has taken a beating.

Doctor Bruno and POV

I think that Doctor Bruno's edits do not portray a fair picture of Dravid.

• Especially where you have compared Dravid's fourth innings record to Tendulkars record in the second innnings (in thes sense of 3rd and 4th innings). They are not the same thing. Perhaps if you look at the averages, Dravid is about 50 in the fourth innings and Tendulkar is about 35.
• The Multan incident (I know you didn't add this originally but you expanded it?) is about Dravid's attitude to Tendulkar's personal milestone - India won the game by an innings and it set up the series, so it isn't fair as an example of poor captaincy.
• Srikeit has already removed some of the stuff about the Mumbai test, but "And with this step,[2] his Mr Nice Guy image has taken a beating" is original analysis which cannot be deduced from statistics and not from a proper opinion poll - in any case this is not particularly relevant as it is about strategy and not a lack of sportsmanship
• Dravid's finest innings - these appear to have been disretionally selected, and as such is to be avoided if possible

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already told that it an unintentional mistake about the fourth inning in the talk pages.

I did not tell about Multan incident. It was the opinion of a lot of people including Ganguly. I have just quoted it

I have added the finest innings, because it was not there in the page. Also I have just started and it needs to be expanded Doctor Bruno 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • That's OK I put many messages up simultaneously.I'm not trying to run you down. I mean that it is difficult to have a "select" group of innings, because you would have to justify why some scores which are numerically higher, were actually of lesser skill. He's made 5 200s, but three of them aren't there. I fully realize that some of the small scores were more skillful than the 200s, but it is hard to write this up without coming to POV. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a fact that Dravid lost much of his mister Nice Guy image when he declared only 6 runs short of Tendulkar's double century, this is judging by opinion columns in newspapers at the time. However, I don't think the point about the third test in Mumbai is valid, it sounds very much like India lost because of Dravid (judging by this article). But I don't think it is our job to count a captain's mistakes in a match and put it against him. I do not see Ricky Ponting's page filled with criticism on how he couldn't defend 434 in an ODI, yet I see criticism of Dravid in a series in which I think he was top scorer and won a match too. Anyway, saying India should've batted first leads to IF and EVENIF which I'm sure isn't part of Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the nice guy, but should that be moved to another section- because it is not technically about the effectiveness of his captaincy, rather more so about his rewarding of his players.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Third test

The statement "Right from making the wrong decision at the toss, to persisting with the mistaken 5-bowler strategy, to leading an ultra-defensive response to England's target, this has been Dravid's nadir as a leader" though cited tilts the NPOV scales. Calling this match the lowest point in his captaincy is a bit harsh & a bit too soon. Only if the tour ends disastrously for India or if this leads to Dravid getting axed at some later point of time can this statement be kept. Otherwise one must wait for the end of the tour before making such statments.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The series has alreasy ended. Please see Geof Boycott's article in Hindu today. He has also said the same thing . I am not against Dravid. When there is a critism para in one player's article, I thought it should be there is every player's page. After all no one is perfectDoctor Bruno 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that Dravid has had a very GOOD record. And in a series of GOOD RECORDS, a single loss is a downpoint in his record I did not tell that the match is the worst match by any Indian captain. The remarks was made in context with Dravid. If you have to rank Dravid's captaincy, this match will certainly be last on the list. Please understand that every player will have a nadir as a captain. There is NO captain in test history who does not have a nadir, and an encyclopedia should record both the high points as well as the nadirs.

We need not want Dravid to be axed, to call his one match as a low match. For example, the series where Bradman averaged 50 runs will be a low point in his career even though it may be a fantastic score for others.Doctor Bruno 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this might be a nadir in Dravid's captaincy record. But he has still got a very young record as captain. As Blnguyen says in the Sachin Tendulkar talk page, we are not a news paper or magazine but an encyclopedia albeit a rapidly updated one. Stats are the only info that can be rapidly updated without worrying about NPOV or any such stuff. But about performances, one must comment about a event that is remembered over a period of time. Reporting is not the job here, fact-finding & presenting it in a neutral way is. That is why I said that the topic must be touched after the tour (including ODIs) ended. Also you keep forgetting that citations are good but NPOV must be maintained.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun. Any Dravid fan will sincerely hope that this should be his nadir. (In other words, he should have only positive features here after)Doctor Bruno 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bring to NPOV

After a long drawn debate about some NPOV violations, I think the article has finally returned to some semblance of normalcy. I think except some subtle NPOV violations, the article mostly is OK. So if someone could help remove them, we can get this tag of this page.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a few NPOV violations from the page & I feel that the page is ready to lose the tag. Does anyone think otherwise?

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "Test team of the year" a reference to the ICC World Test XI? If so, the information given there is inaccurate. Sachin Tendulkar was a part of both the World XIs, and missed out only due to injury. Cricket Crazy 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the ICC Test team of the year was declared at the ICC Awards while the ICC World XI wre a separate team who played test matches & ODI's against Australia. Sachin was part of the World XI while Dravid was part of the Test team of the Year. (see ICC Awards)

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Cricket Crazy 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dravid a Maharashtrian

Someone has put Dravid into this category. It appears he was born in Madhya Pradesh, and has been operating out of South India. So how is he a Maharashtrian?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

his mother is Maharashtrian born in indore, his father family from south india but living in peswa indore became Maharashtrian but called Dravid as they came from south india, his family still has south indian and Maharashtrian members .

his wife is Maharashtrian, her family in nagpur.

=====================================

Actually Dravid is a Maharashtrian Brahmin surname afaik... Rahul's mothertongue IS Marathi..

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, his family had no surname, like many South Indians. When his ancestors moved to Indore, they had to adopt one as per the local convention. So they chose 'Dravid' as they were from the South.

It is like his ancestors are from Tamil Nadu, the last four generations have lived in Madhya Pradesh, one side of his family is from Maharashtra and they currently live in Karnataka. IMHO, it would be better to live with this ambiguity than insist on classifying him as one or the other. Tintin (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

REwrite

This article is dreadful. I'm trying to completely rewrite it at User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid. Pls feel free to have a look and comment at User_talk:Blnguyen. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

An example of Unimportant Record

Recently there has been a discussion regarding important records in cricket and useless records. One example of a useless record is

1. He has the record for least number of innings required to score 1000 runs against West Indies by an Indian (26)

• The only person who has got it in less innings in international cricket is Jacques Kallis (25)

An Example for Key record will be  Doctor Bruno Talk 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)