Overall there is nuthing much in this comparison, both players are matched evenly.
The debate then boils down to the fact that on what criteria is a batsman's greatness to be judged? If you say the criteria is the number of matches the batsman has won for his team, I say it is unfair. To make the debate fact based, lets take out sachin & dravid out of the picture to maintain objectivity on our goal..and compare two other batsman.
For eg..take example of Allan Border & Steve Waugh, though Border was a lefty and waugh a right-handed..they were similar in the sense that they batted in the middle-order..and were temperamentally the same types..hard, gritty players, who sacrificed style for effectiveness. Both played more than 150 test matches, scored huge amount of runs and ended with career avg of 50. Both were inspirational captains and led their teams to world cup victories, they were also occasional bowlers and on couple of times bowled their teams to victory. Once Border took 12 wickets in match against the windies. So the parameters of comparison is fair. Now who is the better Batsman.?

i will just go to cricinfo and steal a peice of data:

Waugh featured in 86 winning teams and in them his avg was 69.46
Border featured in 50 winning teams and his avg in those matches was 51.38.

So by the criteria you set down Waugh should be the better batsman?
But how about the facts that:
1. In the period 1982-1990, Allan Border was THE Australian batting, he single handedly carried the aussie batting on his shoulders. There were hardly any players to support him, boon probably, waugh was a big flop in his initial 5 yrs and only started averaging consistently over 50 in the 1990s.
2. my other point is that waugh made bulk of his runs in the last ten years..and who were the dangerous bowlers he faced in that period: srinath, kumble, murali, akram , younis, saqlain, donald, pollock, ambrose, walsh. now see the calibre of bowlers border faced:kapil dev, imran, akram, marshall, garner, holding, croft, ambrose, botham, willis, hadlee , qadir. so definitely bowlers were better in borders times.
3.Is allan border to be blamed coz he didnt have players of the caliber of hayden, langer, ponting, slater, taylor, gilchrist around him, the only pace bowler of note he had was mcdermott. Remember another fact in the current aussie test team, evrybody, evrybody averages 50+, while in border's time he was the only batsman who averaged 50+, in fact no other aussie batsman used to avg above 45.

History is littered with examples of batsmen, who were often encumbered by the frailty of their fellow players..george headley, dudley nourse, glenn turner etc.

In conclusion i say that the greatness of a batsman should not be measured by his contributions to victories, rather by the caliber of bowlers he faced, the pitch and match conditions, the style in which the runs are made, the situation in which the runs are made. Finally , defer to the judgement of the greatest cricketer ever , Bradman. If he picks Sachin as the best batsman in the world , his word is enough for me. Remember Bradman, is no sentimental old fool, in fact he once made up a team he though would beat any other team anywhere , anytime.

If I recollect correctly the team in batting order was:

arthur morris
barry richards
bradman
sachin tendulkar
gary sobers
don tallon (wicket keeper)
ray lindwall
dennis lillee
alec bedser
clarrie grimmett
bill o'reilly

Surprise , surprise, of all players who made test debut after 1975, only Sachin figures in the list.
The greatest judge of how good a player is, are his peers. Whenever somebody has drawn of a list of 11 best players since 1990, Sachin ALWAYS figures in the list (except mebbe if someone draws it up NOW).

another point of interets is, we often compare sachin-dravid, sachin-gavaskar, never dravid-gavaskar ?? why does sachin figure in both comparisons ?

To end my debate , sachin vs rahul will ever be a emotional issue...i say let history be the judge of that, and also hope that the future indian teams be recognized for team acheivements rather than individual glory.