Is it time for Ganguly to hang his boots?

[wahindiawah]

I'm pained to see Ganguly continuing to play cricket and lead his side when his performance is totally pathetic. Even if India wins the OD series, it doesn't change the fact that Ganguly is like a non-playing captain in Indian team and even his captaincy has not been too impressive lately ( probably it got effected by his poor form with his bat)

Do you guys think that Ganguly should retire from cricket? If he himself vacate the post of Captaincy (to Dravid) then obviously he won't be able to retain his place in the side as there are atleast a dozen batsmen in India that are better than Ganguly.

I think Ganguly should either just retire from cricket or maybe he should just take a break from it (for say 4-6 months) and consentrate on his form in domestic matches.The way he is playing now a days, he will soon become a butt of a joke in cricket world.

 

[wahindiawah]

BTW, i remember Ganguly's good friend steven Waugh suffereing from a bad patch when he was captain of Aus team .There was pressure then on Waugh and on Aus selectors to drop Steven, but Steven somehow came out of the shell and delivered in style .

But then again Waugh was a great captain, and even in his bad patch he wasn't as worse as Ganguly is now a days.Ganguly reminds me of Inzamam in WC'03.. oh that was so fun!

 

[deeps]

in his last 15 tests, he averages 42 in tests.. he's played a variety of teams, including australia, new zealnd, pakistan


but only 2 centures, but is it really as bad as it's made out to be?

 

[wahindiawah]

in his last 15 tests, he averages 42 in tests.. he's played a variety of teams, including australia, new zealnd, pakistan


but only 2 centures, but is it really as bad as it's made out to be?

In his last 15 matches even Saqlain has incredible test matches figure, maybe he should be brought back to Pak team a.s.a.p!!

Forget what Ganguly did earlier, the fact is that he has been struggling lately and has only put a pressure on Indian team. There are men in Kaif and Yuvraj who are better and far more deserving.

And a qs to Australians, would ACB had persisted with Ganguly had the guy been playing for Australian cricket side in similar situation??

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And a qs to Australians, would ACB had persisted with Ganguly had the guy been playing for Australian cricket side in similar situation??

Yes. Both Waugh and to a far greater extent Taylor had big form slumps while captain and were not dropped. Ganguly would be persisted with for a LONG time yet. As has been shown, he averages higher than his career average over the last 15 tests, so his slump is not that bad at all.

 

[SJS]

Is it time for Ganguly to hang his boots

YES.

ganguly should hang up his old boots and get new ones which wont move till the ball is delivered.

 

[wahindiawah]

Yes. Both Waugh and to a far greater extent Taylor had big form slumps while captain and were not dropped. Ganguly would be persisted with for a LONG time yet. As has been shown, he averages higher than his career average over the last 15 tests, so his slump is not that bad at all.

Alright then maybe i'm wrong and Ganguly should be left alone and sort out the mess himself.

However i do believe that unlike Waugh and Taylor, Ganguly isn't a good test batsman. He has shown some weakness, and looks rather ordinary against pacers really.

But i hope he comes into form soon.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

And a qs to Australians, would ACB had persisted with Ganguly had the guy been playing for Australian cricket side in similar situation??

No.. because Australians possess more depth in their talent.. Ie backup players who would more than die for an international spot.. and when given.. peform big on most occasions..

 

[nikhil1772]

YES.

ganguly should hang up his old boots and get new ones which wont move till the ball is delivered.

Good One..SJS...and by the way when is he going to get new thigh pads?

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Good One..SJS...and by the way when is he going to get new thigh pads?

When he gets more than 1?....

 

[nikhil1772]

No.. because Australians possess more depth in their talent.. Ie backup players who would more than die for an international spot.. and when given.. peform big on most occasions..

I think India too has great depth of talent...only unlike Australia our selection system is pathetic

 

[SJS]

I think India too has great depth of talent...only unlike Australia our selection system is pathetic

Count three fast bowlers, two spinners, three middle order batsmen and two openers who havent played ever and who judtify this claim.

Please also tell what is the basis of considering them so highly because if it is just their record in domestic cricket, it doesnt make sense. You cant rate Indian batsmen and bowlers in domestic cricket to be great by assessing their performances against each other.

Me and my sons are the three greatest cricketers ever in my family

 

[Adamc]

Count three fast bowlers, two spinners, three middle order batsmen and two openers who havent played ever and who judtify this claim.

Please also tell what is the basis of considering them so highly because if it is just their record in domestic cricket, it doesnt make sense. You cant rate Indian batsmen and bowlers in domestic cricket to be great by assessing their performances against each other.

Me and my sons are the three greatest cricketers ever in my family

What India tend to do (IMO) is to give promising players a few games, and if they fail, they get cast aside indefinitely. Australia tend to give promising players a chance, and if they fail, they still associate closely with the 1st XI, even if they don't get a game for years on end. You only need to look at the cases of players like Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Katich, Kasprowicz etc. to see the advantages of this system. I can't think of an equivalent player for India (ie. one who made an unsuccessful start, was left out of the team for a few years, then returned successfully), though I'm sure there are some.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No.. because Australians possess more depth in their talent.. Ie backup players who would more than die for an international spot.. and when given.. peform big on most occasions..

Recent evidence suggests otherwise. Mark Taylor averaged 30.13 or less three of his first four years as captain, and between the start of 1996 and the end of 1997 he scored 938 runs @ 27.59 in 20 tests with just two centuries. At the same time he was going through a shocking run of form in ODIs where he could barely make a run. Steve Waugh also went through a major form slump while captain, Ponting had a minor one, and going a bit further back Greg Chappell was also hurt by the captaincy and had a poor time of hit with his run of ducks.

Cricket Australia would NOT drop a captain on a run of 10 or so poor tests. Not in a million years, even if he got nothing but ducks.

 

[Arjun]

What India tend to do (IMO) is to give promising players a few games, and if they fail, they get cast aside indefinitely. Australia tend to give promising players a chance, and if they fail, they still associate closely with the 1st XI, even if they don't get a game for years on end. You only need to look at the cases of players like Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Katich, Kasprowicz etc. to see the advantages of this system. I can't think of an equivalent player for India (ie. one who made an unsuccessful start, was left out of the team for a few years, then returned successfully), though I'm sure there are some.

Balaji had a horrific start to his career, but came back a lot later, still did nothing of note, and is shaping up well only now. Dinesh Mongia's often dropped and recalled, and so is Murali Karthik.

You're right about the way youngsters/fringe players in India get cast aside very early, for a long time. Indian selection policies are too club-like. In a country with a population as large as this, you can pick two teams which are as good as one another, or at least pick four reserves competent enough to replace those on the India bench. But the selectors seem to like some players a little too much, or the captain just sticks to his best (read YES) men. Worse, some players get picked out of nowhere, but consistent performers for more than one domestic season, or even A-team successes, don't get a fair try.

 

[Arjun]

Recent evidence suggests otherwise. Mark Taylor averaged 30.13 or less three of his first four years as captain, and between the start of 1996 and the end of 1997 he scored 938 runs @ 27.59 in 20 tests with just two centuries. At the same time he was going through a shocking run of form in ODIs where he could barely make a run. Steve Waugh also went through a major form slump while captain, Ponting had a minor one, and going a bit further back Greg Chappell was also hurt by the captaincy and had a poor time of hit with his run of ducks.

Cricket Australia would NOT drop a captain on a run of 10 or so poor tests. Not in a million years, even if he got nothing but ducks.

In both cases, the Aussies made a habit of winning tournaments.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In both cases, the Aussies made a habit of winning tournaments.

Sure, but that doesn't alter the fact that Taylor was in simply woeful form and many people were calling for him to be dropped, probably even more than are calling for Ganguly's head now, but the selectors stuck by him because he was a quality player and a fantastic captain, in the top 10 of all time almost without question.

I am not suggesting Ganguly is that good a captain, but he's certainly served India pretty well and it would be a poor decision to drop him after he has averaged 42 in his last 15 tests, given that he only averages 39 in his entire career and they've picked him so far!

 

[SJS]

What India tend to do (IMO) is to give promising players a few games, and if they fail, they get cast aside indefinitely. Australia tend to give promising players a chance, and if they fail, they still associate closely with the 1st XI, even if they don't get a game for years on end. You only need to look at the cases of players like Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Katich, Kasprowicz etc. to see the advantages of this system. I can't think of an equivalent player for India (ie. one who made an unsuccessful start, was left out of the team for a few years, then returned successfully), though I'm sure there are some.

You know, thats only partly true. The fact that we have today Nehra, Balaji and Irfan in addition to Zaheer who came earlier and Agarkar is a clear indication that we do give chances.

In the middle order, we have had some very strong players who dont need naming. Clearly, fwere players, striving for places in the middle order can be tried. So Laxman has been dropped at times, inspite of his obvious talent and not inconsiderable performance. Still Kaif and Yuvraj get opportunities now and then and Mongia and Badani had protracted spells before this.

Same applies to spin. With Harbhajan and Kumble, how many other spinners can we try. You actually end up dropping even one of thse two who would play for most sides in the world.

Our real problems have been in opening for test matches, for an all rounder and for a wicket keeper. We have tried many youngsters for openers and keepers slot. I think for keeper we have not been able to decide whether we want a good keeper or an average keeper who bats very well. This has made us discard good keepers and persist with a bad keeper like Patel who was, however, a very good bat.

In the case of an all rounder the struggle is ongoing. Sodhi who was given chances turned out pretty ordinary at the highest level bar his fielding. Irfan is not yet there. Maybe, now, JP Yaadav will get an opportunity.

In the opening slot again, we are not able to decide whether we want a solid batsman like Chopra or Bangar or another Sehwag. Both for the opener and the keeper's slot, we are confused between the needs of the limited over and the longer version of the game.

If we had not done that, we would have been better off.

As for the youngsters who seem to be knocking on the doors

, as I said before, either they have to perform against worthy opposition or the selectors, on seeing them, have to feel, so-and-so is really good. We have to assume that the selectors ARE going around looking at the youngsters.

 

[marc71178]

Balaji had a horrific start to his career

I think we all remember that well!

He was apparently the bowler who when added to the side would make India the best side in the World...

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think he is better than Kaif or Yuvi on present form, but I think he deserves a long rope.