Rahul Dravid: The Great Wall of India

[ahamedirshad123]

Rohit Brijnath on Rahul Dravid


Rahul Dravid: The gift of reassurance

At the core of the great athlete often resides a self-centred animal. Lit up by the spotlight, the rest of the world falls into his shadow. Once, a former cricketer, his nationality irrelevant, dined at my house and was staggeringly oblivious to my other guests. He was prepared to be questioned, he simply did not have any for them. As if they were the distant, faceless crowd in a tiny stadium.

It is here, for me, that Rahul Dravid found his point of difference. Life intrigued him, even yours. When he once came to Singapore, he charmed my friends (one gave him batting advice; he smiled). What are you reading, he’d ask. What do you think, he’d query. Not about cricket, but tennis, toughness, politics. He’d linger in bookshops, stroll into theatres, sit in wildlife parks. One year he opted to go and learn from a visual skills specialist in South Africa; last summer, he drove to Chelsea FC to wander through their Mind Room. From his wide interests emerged cricket’s most interesting man.

He wore polished shoes but never an aura. In a world of Gods, he preferred his humanness, an unadorned man battling his own imperfections with a low-key dignity. He was forever conscious of the families he represented (his own, the team, the fans, the game at large) and owned an authentic decency we crave in athletes but rarely find.

My mother is not given at all to cricket watching, yet sent me a mail after his retirement press conference which included the words “poised”, “grace”, “dignity”. If the old-fashioned among us have a quaint notion of what the athlete should represent, then he met it for us. Greatness can be worn gently, a man can stay true for 16 years to the idea that desire and sportsmanship, ambition and etiquette, are not virtues in conflict. We needed a reminder that even amidst the over-indulgence and over-worship of modern sport a man need not lose himself.

Dravid was precocious that way, always the grown-up cricketer. He had a conscience and in a way became ours. There is for me an irony in the mourning for him in a time of Virat Kohli worship. Perhaps we realise what we are losing, perhaps the time of such men has passed. He was teased recently that it was fortunate he was not 22 for he would be a misfit: Dravid with his hair jelled, a tattoo of his wife Vijeeta on his forearm, retinue in tow, snarling, is an image both amusing and obscene.

Dravid took cricket seriously but not always himself. Or you. During the 1999 World Cup, on watching me take a few casual swipes with his bat, he fell off his hotel bed laughing and offered this advice: “Please, don’t ever write about technique”. His batting could be classical, yet he never viewed himself as the classical hero. As he said: “My only qualification is that I come on television more than a nurse or a soldier or a teacher. Anyway, I don’t think sportsmen can really be considered heroes.” Indeed, in the evening after his retirement press conference, he suggested with amusement that his immediate future included “practising my new sweep shot with a broom”.

I met him first in 1996, a slim young man, shirt tucked in, hair parted, and his method on the field would be as fastidious. He saw the nylon cages of the pratice nets as his university and practiced like a man pursuing a degree he might never earn. There, and on the field, it was the discovery of himself, this uniquely private moment, which he most relished. For him, and you’d groan when he repeated his favourite word, it was about the “process”.

There were many batsmen in Rahul Dravid. The worst one once found him the most applause. In some forgotten one-dayer, he smashed a quick fifty (these very words must make him shiver) and he joked that he received more handshakes for it than anything before. Of course, he could be a picture of balanced harmony, his shots all refined architecture, and this was becoming. But the cussed Dravid, a man of team cause not crowd, was my favourite, playing to his own scholarly sheet music.

Laxman offered me art, Sehwag liberation, Tendulkar consistent genius, but Dravid taught us that reassurance is a gift. For such a neat man, he loved an ugly scrap. Runs might emerge in unsightly dribbles -- sometimes it was as if to be uninhibited was an act of immodesty for him -- but he’d keep going, a leave, a block, a block, a leave, and this should have been boring -- and well, yes, sometimes it was -- except by the end he’d built a lead, or rescued a situation, or offered us a winning chance and you’d look at this man, shirt bound by sweat, ferocious in his concentration, and just think, bloody hell. Struggle, in all its forms, was his hymn.

And so even as he spoke easily with journalists, his finest conversations were his internal dialogues, which on request he would articulate. After his brilliant match-winning innings in Adelaide 2003, he said: “You can’t concentrate for 10 hours, you switch on and off, you push yourself, your mind wanders, you bring it back, you steel yourself. That’s the real beauty, when you win the battle against yourself.” And he wanted to win, and if he took defeat manfully he also did so painfully. On the night after India had exited the 2007 World Cup under his captaincy, on the phone he sounded as if he was dying.

I liked him for this and for his willingness to discuss his own and sufficient imperfections. Because he wouldn’t flinch from honesty and you could challenge him on his thinking as captain or get him to laugh at his own unhurriedness. Because he understood talent is only lent to you for a while and that only ceaseless industry can allow for its consistent expression. Because he has a strong sense of himself, for even as kind bloggers would call him “unsung”, he’d say, no, enough has been sung about me.

Who he was more than just a cricketer and it was evident in our last meeting in October last year. He had been invited to a discussion on the sporting mind to inaugurate the Bangalore launch of Olympic shooting gold medallist Abhinav Bindra’s autobiography.

“No speech, right?” he insisted, for that would mean a month’s dutiful hard labour for him. No, I promised. Only a discussion.

Except on launch day, in the evening, he took me aside. “I’d like to make a short speech, is that OK?”

And so he did, a charming, generous introduction about Bindra and his virtues and the challenge of the Olympics. He is 10 years older than the shooter and far more celebrated, but this was not his moment, he wanted the shooter to have the sun and being in the shadows anyway held no fear for him. It was not Dravid at his best, it was simply just Dravid being himself.

http://www.livemint.com/Articles/201...t-of-reas.html

[freelance_cricketer]

Post one article at a time so that we can at least read and discuss it.

[ahamedirshad123]

Discuss what? SRT vs Dravid?

[90MPH]

Goodbye Dravid. Best Test bat from India. True match winner.

[BoomBoomCricket]

The greatest quality of his batting was his RELENTLESSNESS. The ability to trust himself, back himself, being strict with himself, absorbing the pressure & sticking by his limits in tough situations.

[adit_sh]

Originally Posted by Lethalweapon 1.I saw that Perth test. Dravid's 93 was not flawless, he struggled half the time eventually got out to a part timer.SRT's 71 was better, got a rough decision otherwise would have been a ton , Laxman's 50 in 2nd innings was better. In Adelaide,Dravid was dropped by Gilchrist on the last day, SRT (who scored quicker btw),did not have that luck 2. Credit those wins to the bowlers (SRT took 2 big wkts. in Adeaide too). Indians like you only know to obsess about the batting and brand India's bowlers as weak ? Dravid had a good bowling unit at his peak (apart from the captain)which won India games, SRT only had Srinath (and Prasad at times did well in tests), how did those Indians expect their team to win with one bowler at SRT's peak ?

Guys - none of us forgot what SRT gave us in 90's but this is a different discussion.

At the end of the day, fans remember the highest scorers , MoM or biggest impact players of test match wins. Indian bowlers rarely gave chances to batsmen to win test matches abroad. So when they give batsmen needs to cash in. Adelide was one of that test wins which came out of nowhere where Chagarkar surprise everyone with 6fer and Dravid cashed in or vice versa. Same is the case in Perth but ofcourse SRT's 70 and Lax's 70 was very crucial too and so was IK's crucial wickets but Dravid's innings had the max impact on the test match.

There are lots of test matches where SRT takes credit for wins like Eng in 2007 where he was the highest scorer in Nottingham test. But in Australia, to me, the credit goes to Dravid because he made biggest impact in those games.

Another ex - Series Win in WI in 2006 where Dravid was the highest scorer in both ininings of the 4th test

[Saurav]

Originally Posted by Romali_rotti I cant help if ppl takes offence to my post without reading it properly, I stated 2 facts; 1) he struggled on bouncy wickets, 2) that he was a great of the game, I didnt for once be-little any of his achievments on this thread and believe me it has nothing to do with SRT or supposedly because Dravid is stealing limelight away from him ( in my eyes no one can steal the limelight from SRT), this I can safely swear on my mother's life. Also I dont worship SRT lol, I know Pakistanis have this notion as such however you are wrong;;; Its pure appreciation for what he has done during the 90's when he was a one man show........AGain lets end the SRT discussion, I have already said this plenty of times already this is a thread about Dravid and ppl keep bringing SRT...

problem is not what u said,its the timing.ur saying hes great proves nothing as it is a fact n anybody denying it is stupid.harshest of critics would also acknowledge that on his retirement day.as an Indian cricket fan,lot more his expected out of you regarding his contribution,but ur not saying that n adding he wasnt good on bouncy pitches proves u r some else before that.

not the best analogy,but wen even the mostcorrupt politician dies,people talk about served the nation.nobody talks that he looted people.its called sense of ocassion

[Mcgrath]

Definitely an ATG, probably the best test batsman ever from India and the second best overall.

[Lethalweapon]

Originally Posted by adit_sh Guys - none of us forgot what SRT gave us in 90's but this is a different discussion. At the end of the day, fans remember the highest scorers , MoM or biggest impact players of test match wins. Indian bowlers rarely gave chances to batsmen to win test matches abroad. So when they give batsmen needs to cash in. Adelide was one of that test wins which came out of nowhere where Chagarkar surprise everyone with 6fer and Dravid cashed in or vice versa. Same is the case in Perth but ofcourse SRT's 70 and Lax's 70 was very crucial too and so was IK's crucial wickets but Dravid's innings had the max impact on the test match. There are lots of test matches where SRT takes credit for wins like Eng in 2007 where he was the highest scorer in Nottingham test. But in Australia, to me, the credit goes to Dravid because he made biggest impact in those games. Another ex - Series Win in WI in 2006 where Dravid was the highest scorer in both ininings of the 4th test

I mentioned it, I was following the OP's style. The Post 6 has that comparison which derailed this thread, no one has noticed that?

In 2008 Aus, you forgot the highest wkt. taker RP Singh dropped after 4 months of that tour for 3 yrs. Indian way of misusing talent?

Aus and Eng find positives when they lose, for India it is the 'end' when the batting fails, doesn't matter whether the bowlers do well or not, CB series is a good example.



'Indian bowlers rarely gave chances to batsmen to win test matches abroad.'

Bowlers did very well overseas from 2001-2008, it is unfair and shows India's poor cricketing culture if bowlers are blamed for not winning matches. eg. NZ 2002,WI 2002,SA 2006 none of these 3 losses can be blamed on bowlers.

[adit_sh]

Originally Posted by Lethalweapon I mentioned it, I was following the OP's style. The Post 6 has that comparison which derailed this thread, no one has noticed that? In 2008 Aus, you forgot the highest wkt. taker RP Singh dropped after 4 months of that tour for 3 yrs. Indian way of misusing talent? Aus and Eng find positives when they lose, for India it is the 'end' when the batting fails, doesn't matter whether the bowlers do well or not, CB series is a good example. 'Indian bowlers rarely gave chances to batsmen to win test matches abroad.' Bowlers did very well overseas from 2001-2008, it is unfair and shows India's poor cricketing culture if bowlers are blamed for not winning matches. eg. NZ 2002,WI 2002,SA 2006 none of these 3 losses can be blamed on bowlers.

To me, the bowlers who win matches on their own on foreign pitches are like Mcgrath, Warne, Lee, Wasim, Wagar, Walsh, Ambrose, Akhtar, Pollock, Donald, Steyn etc.....Revisit the history and you will find that Indians never got any of those. The one who comes close probably is ZK. Not de-meaining RP's 4 wickets in Perth in 4th inning but he was having 400 runs to defend created by batsmen lead by Dravid.

[AdeelSabih]

When Rahul Dravid walked into the dressing room of the St Lawrence ground in Canterbury on a cold spring morning, you could tell he was different from all the others. He did not swagger with cockiness or bristle with macho competitiveness. He went quietly round the room, shaking the hand of every Kent player - greeting everyone the same, from the captain to the most junior. It was not the mannered behaviour of a seasoned overseas professional; it was the natural courtesy of a real gentleman. We met a special human being first, an international cricketer second.

The cricketer was pretty good, too. Dravid joined Kent for the 2000 season, and I spent much of it at number four, coming in one after Dravid (not that he was the departing batsman very often). That meant I had some wonderful opportunities to bat alongside the player who became the highest scoring No. 3 of all time.

What did I learn? I learnt that real toughness takes many different forms. Dravid could appear shy and slightly vulnerable off the pitch; in the middle, you sensed a depth of resilience. Many overseas players liked to set themselves apart from the county pros - as though they had to swear more loudly and clap their hands more violently to prove that international cricketers were tougher than the rest. Not Dravid. He never paraded his toughness - it emerged between the lines of his performances. Instead, he always talked about learning, about gathering new experiences - as though his cricketing education wasn't complete, as though there were many more strands of his craft to hone. His journey, you could tell, was driven by self-improvement.

One word has attached itself to Dravid wherever he has gone: gentleman. The word is often misunderstood. Gentlemanliness is not mere surface charm - the easy lightness of confident sociability. Far from it: the real gentleman doesn't run around flattering everyone in sight, he makes sure he fulfils his duties and obligations without drawing attention to himself or making a fuss. Gentlemanliness is as much about restraint as it is about appearances. Above all, a gentleman is not only courteous, he is also constant: always the same, whatever the circumstances or the company.

In that sense, Dravid is a true gentleman. Where many sportsmen flatter to deceive, Dravid runs deep. He is a man of substance, morally serious and intellectually curious. For all his understatement, he couldn't fail to convey those qualities to anyone who watched him properly.

I last bumped into Dravid late last year at a charity dinner at the Sydney Cricket Ground. He was the same as he always has been - warm, self-deprecating, curious about the lives of others. As ever, he made a point of asking about my parents - their health and happiness - although he has never met them. Family and friendship, you sense, are central to his life and his values.

In the q&a that followed his speech, one answer got close to the core of his personality. What motivated him still, after all these years and so many runs? Dravid said that as a schoolboy, he remembered many kids who had at least as much desire to play professional cricket as he did - they attended every camp and net session, no matter what the cost or the difficulty of getting there. But you could tell - from just one ball bowled or one shot played - that they simply didn't have the talent to make it. He knew he was different. "I was given a talent to play cricket," Dravid explained. "I don't know why I was given it. But I was. I owe it to all those who wish it had been them to give of my best, every day."

What a brilliant inversion of the usual myth told by professional sportsmen: that they had unexceptional talent and made it to the top only because they worked harder. Dravid spoke the truth. Yes, he worked hard. But the hard work was driven by the desire to give full expression to a God-given talent.

On the field, what set Dravid apart was a rare combination of technical excellence, mental toughness and emotional restraint. He was restrained in celebration, just as he was restrained in disappointment - exactly as the true gentleman should be. And yet his emotional self-control co-existed with fierce competitiveness and national pride.

Dravid has single-handedly disproved the absurd argument that tantrums and yobbishness are a sign of "how much you care" or, worse still, "how much you want it". Dravid was rarely outdone in terms of hunger or passion. And he was never outdone in terms of behaviour or dignity. Those twin aspects of his personality - the dignified human being and the passionate competitor - ran alongside each other, the one never allowed to interfere with the other. He knew where the boundaries were, in life and in cricket.

I am an optimist by nature. I do not think that sport is perpetually declining from some mythical golden age. But sometimes I cannot avoid the sense that a certain type of sportsman is an increasingly endangered species. I have that feeling now, as Dravid declares his innings closed. No longer will he take guard with that familiar hint of politeness, even deference. No longer will he raise his bat to the crowd as if he is genuinely thanking them for their applause - the bat tilted outwards in acknowledgement of the supporters, not just waved frantically in an orgy of personal celebration. No longer will he stand at first slip, concise and precise in his movements - a cricketer first, an athlete second. No longer will the high Dravid back-swing and meticulous footwork link this generation with the great technicians of the past.

It would be nice to argue that no cricketer is irreplaceable, that sport is defined by continuity rather than full stops, that there will soon be another Dravid, another champion cricketer of timeless steel and dignity. But I don't think there will be. I think Dravid will be remembered as the last in a great tradition of batsmen whose instincts and temperament were perfectly suited to Test match cricket. It is not an exaggeration to say that a whole strand of the game - a rich vein that runs through the game's poetic heart - departs the scene with India's greatest ever No. 3. Playing Twenty20 cricket won't teach anyone to become the next Rahul Dravid.

In years to come, perhaps too late, we may realise what we have lost: the civility, craft and dignity that Dravid brought to every cricket match in which he played.

- Ed Smith Played for Kent & England

[Statsman]

Very nice read.

What motivated him still, after all these years and so many runs? Dravid said that as a schoolboy, he remembered many kids who had at least as much desire to play professional cricket as he did - they attended every camp and net session, no matter what the cost or the difficulty of getting there. But you could tell - from just one ball bowled or one shot played - that they simply didn't have the talent to make it. He knew he was different. "I was given a talent to play cricket," Dravid explained. "I don't know why I was given it. But I was. I owe it to all those who wish it had been them to give of my best, every day."

Amazing! Applies to all kinds of talents!

[Sandeep99]

touching,,!!!great player...

[Statsman]

What a gentleman, thanking PCB too



"Hope to be back soon!"

watch from 1:08:38

[freelance_cricketer]

Must have been looked after really well

[Fireworks11]

Wonderful player with impeccable stats. Will be hard to replace.

[freelance_cricketer]

Steve Waugh my role model, says Rahul Dravid

BANGALORE: Rahul Dravid on Wednesday said former Australian captain Steve Waugh was his role model and he used to imitate his mannerism to get into the right frame of mind. "I saw in Steve Waugh my roadmap to build my career," Dravid, who recently retired from international cricket, said at a function organised by Karnataka State Cricket Association to felicitate him. Though Waugh didn't have an array of strokes like some other batsmen including Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara, Dravid said the Australian was a role model who suited his style of game. Waugh was a gritty player and did not throw away his wicket easily. "He is someone who valued his wicket," he said. Dravid said he used to imitate Waugh's mannerism so as to get into the frame of mind that the Australian was famous for so that it could be easy for him to be in the same state when he walked out in the middle to take guard. "Steve appeared to relish the big occasion, seemed to thrive in such situations, he added. Dravid said he did not regret retiring from international cricket. "I have been doing it (playing for India) for over 16 years and five years before I arrived on international scene. I am privileged to be part of cricket," he said. Reacting to a commentators remarks to see Dravid occupying his seat next to Kapil Dev for being an all rounder himself, Dravid said he could never fit into the shoes of India's great all-rounder. "I always ask Javagal Srinath how he could bowl fast and bat. It requires special skills," he said. "I cannot bowl fast ... I could have done anything on a cricket field, but not bowl fast. It was not my cup of tea." Asked which sport he loved other than cricket, Dravid said he liked hockey and played as a centre-half. "To be honest, hockey was never a choice... I played hockey for fun." On VVS Laxman, Dravid said he was privileged to have had great partnerships with him not only in international, but domestic matches too. "We knew each other very well," he said. The speciality of batting with Laxman was, Dravid said, that he never discussed technique with him while playing together. "We only spoke of supporting each other." When asked to choose top five batsmen in the world, Dravid said it was a very difficult job. However, Sunil Gavaskar and GR Vishwanath were his childhood heroes. "There were also Vivian Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and others, whom I loved watching," he said.

[Mcgrath]

Waugh and Dravid, both will credit their success more to hard work and dedication than just natural ability.

[freelance_cricketer]

Good on BCCI for arranging a felicitation ceremony for Dravid.

[cricket_crazy]

One day we might have another Dravid. Maybe.

[freelance_cricketer]

^ We will NEVER have another Dravid. His style of batting is almost extint. He was the last of his kind.

[Moh@n]

Brilliant writing, and a fantastic tribute to the wall:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine...ry/557122.html

[IgnitedMind]

Watching Rahul Dravid speak about cricket is always a joy. It not only shows how much he knows about the game but also how much he loves it. And now that he has retired, he even smiles a little more. The former Indian skipper, who is also the second highest run-getter in Test cricket, was in Mumbai to release a book ‘Timeless Steel’, which is a collection of stories about Dravid’s amazing career. Excerpts from the interaction between Dravid, Sanjay Manjrekar and Harsha Bhogle. On his obsession with technique There are many who would say that. But look at it this way, I wasn’t ever the best striker of the ball or the most talented player in any team. Even in school, while others would strike the ball well, I would struggle. So that was something I had to work very hard at. So yes, to a certain extent I was obsessed but I also felt that I needed to be that way – I was desperate to succeed. But then again, there were points when I felt I went overboard or some senior would come and tell me that I need to smile a little – Srinath and Anil did that a lot. So that was a red flag point for me. But in much the same way – the red flag for a talented stroke-player was that at time, he could become maybe just too casual. On being ‘less’ talented I guess talent in cricket has been judged in different ways. For us talent always meant someone who could play pretty shots and make it look easy. That was the definition. It was never about determination or mental strength or more such categories. For example, I remember playing a match against Vinod Kambli, who was one of the cleanest strikers of the ball I had ever seen, at Baroda. First ball of the innings, Anil Kumble was bowling and Kambli waltzed down and hit him for six. Baroda, in those days, had a stone wall and I remember watching the ball bounce back into the ground and thinking to myself, ‘Wow.’ That was talent. But then again, when it came to determination or mental strength, Sachin probably had a lot more in those categories than Kambli. I would probably say that I was probably a little blessed in those categories as well. On captaincy Let me say, it’s been a great honour and privilege to captain India. In some ways, I had a taste for it. I was vice-captain for 4 years with a few matches where I was captain and when I had the opportunity, I took it up with a certain amount of energy. And over a period of time, I discovered it was gone. The World Cup loss probably played a big part in it and it took a big toll on me. I would wake up on some morning and say, ‘Oh god, another game of cricket.’ I had never felt that way about it. I like to believe I did a pretty decent job of it. If some of those results had gone better, I would have probably stayed in the job for a bit longer like Sourav or Dhoni. On Greg Chappell He was fantastic to talk cricket with. He really knows the game and in essence, he grew up with the sport. They would talk about cricket all the time – after the match, at home, in the bar. It was cricket all the time. There was a lot there. He knew batting. He understood it. Chappell is a very strong personality and he comes across like that. But it was my team. At no moment did he say we should do things in a particular way. Never felt that he was trying to hard drive something that I didn’t want to do it and he did. If he had something to say, he would say it. He was Australian. On getting angry My control of my anger was partly natural. I never really got angry too much because I realised early that when I did get angry… when someone managed to get inside my balloon, I would never play well. When I though of trying to get even, I would never play well. The only time I did get angry in the dressing room was during a Test match against England in 2006. I had won the toss and elected to bowl (which in hindsight was not a good decision) and then we had gone on to lose the match. We had come into the match leading the series 1-0 and then to see ourselves capitulate to defeat on the last day made me really angry. I was partly angry with myself. (Laughing) I did absolutely crush the chair though. On the attitude of youngsters in cricket today I was never much of TV watcher. I would prefer a book. It allowed me to escape. Nothing else afforded me the same luxury. And when we would have the time, we would sit and listen to the seniors and veterans talk about the game. But these days the distractions are a lot more. There is so much more to do. Who would want to spend time in a smelly dressing room? They probably talk about cricket a ‘little’ less. They may get together and still be talking about the game in their rooms. As a young cricketer, I remember taking the long journey from Bangalore to Calcutta and listening to Vishy and Kirmani and other seniors talking about the game. A lot of my cricket learning came from there. We would talk to them or eavesdrop when they were talking. People still do that. We probably don’t notice them as much. On getting bowled in Australia In Australia, my timing just went off. And by that I refer to the timing of the bat coming down to meet the ball. I lost that timing, it was a tough tour and I didn’t have much time to sit and analyse what seemed to be going wrong. There are some things I tried to rectify and I did. Even though it was the T20 format (IPL), you still had bowlers trying to bowl as straight as possible to get me bowled. It didn’t happen as often as Australia, did it? On fielding in the slips I love fielding in the slips, especially when the tailenders were batting. There was always a chance and you needed to be alert to that. I started off at short-leg and silly-point though – like all juniors – for Karnataka. But luckily I didn’t spend too much time there. There was another youngster who made it to the team and I quickly moved into the slips. And I worked very hard at staying there. I was blessed with large hands and that helped. On governance in cricket Nobody can do anything about the governance of the game…. I am joking. But there are things were are doing right – for example, in India, our juniors play a lot of cricket, a lot more than any other country around the world. And there are signs that things are starting to become more professional. Just give it some time. On a future in cricket Will I be India’s cricket coach? I don’t know. Will I be part of the governing council? I don’t know. Will I be the CEO for cricket operation for the BCCI? I don’t know. I don’t know where all this seems to be coming from. I want to be involved with the sport in some way but I don’t know what that form will be. Sometimes, it is not a bad idea to step away and I believe that it will be good for me to step away and live a ‘real’ life.

http://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/...Dravid_AFP.jpg

[mastermind_quad]

We(Indian) are very thankful to Rahul Dravid for his great service to Indian cricket...

Thankyou Rahul....Hats off to you...

And its a very good read ...thanks navroks123 for sharing it ...

[avidlearner]

One of the best ever sportsman to have represented our country at the international arena. So proud to have him as our player.

[PakPrince]

legend!

[FusedBulb]

Originally Posted by navroks123 I was Desperate to Succeed -- Rahul Dravid http://www.firstpost.com/wp-content/...Dravid_AFP.jpg

Hats off!
He NEVER showed this "desperation for success" in a public statement or in a press conference or in a talk show or in an interview. He had a mountain load of concentration in his mind and fire to succeed in his belly BUT his lips were TIGHTLY CLOSED !! He let his sublime character and his performance do the talking.

And now, he has spoken about his success ONLY after it has been achieved. What a genius !!

These guys are at a whole different level of IQ in contrast to Pakistani players who are mostly a classical example big boast little roast. .. "I will do this and I will do that" ... and then end up humiliated and left in cold.

[leatherface58]

classy player and classier guy. it was a privilege to watch him play

Sent from my MT11i using Tapatalk 2

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by avidlearner One of the best ever sportsman to have represented our country at the international arena. So proud to have him as our player.

India should be proud, he was a great cricketer and a credit to his country.

[trogger]

Dravid is one Indian i would love to see made ICC president in the future, we need people like him in positions of power or test cricket is doomed.

[LegCutter]

Originally Posted by trogger Dravid is one Indian i would love to see made ICC president in the future, we need people like him in positions of power or test cricket is doomed.

Dravid should stay as far away from administrative roles as possible; the last thing cricket needs is for another player's legacy getting tarnished because of off-field issues. Such as Mohsin Khan, Waqar Younis, Sarfraz Nawaz....

[Lethalweapon]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie India should be proud, he was a great cricketer and a credit to his country.

I wonder what you think about Ganguly? he is lesser cricketer I know.
I find Dravid too sweet , his 'politically correct' statements (talking to the Foreign media) just not what I like to see. he sounds so fake atleast to me.
English media uses him to put Ganguly ,SRT down (by comparing them).

[velu]

Originally Posted by Lethalweapon I wonder what you think about Ganguly? he is lesser cricketer I know. I find Dravid too sweet , his 'politically correct' statements (talking to the Foreign media) just not what I like to see. he sounds so fake atleast to me. English media uses him to put Ganguly ,SRT down (by comparing them).

sachin tries to be politically correct and most of the times avoids giving any views
but dada is dada

dravid falls somewhere in between them