India was the better side---Ganguly/Hussain!!

[warrioryohannan]

Email Story | Printer Friendly



India is a better side than England, says Ganguly
Press Trust of India
London, September 09

Though the four-match Test series against England finished in a 1-1 deadlock, Indian captain Sourav Ganguly was quite sure who the better among the two teams.

"We won the Test series in India 1-0, drew the one-day series 3-3 and then claimed the NatWest Trophy before drawing the Test series here. I think it would sum up who is the better side," Ganguly said on Monday referring to India's upper edge in the home and away series against England this year.

For a change, his England counterpart, Nasser Hussain, also seemed to agree with the assessment.

"They are a tough side and they should win more. Their batting line-up and their quality of spin is special. They are a very competitive side," Hussain said.

"I found it very difficult by the end of the summer to get 20 wickets against such a fine batting line-up."
8D

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hussain hasn't actually said they were the better side there.

And why are so many of your topics straight copy from websites?

As for Hussain's judgement anyway...

 

[Anil]

Both sides had a good batting series, both had an equally poor bowling series. It's difficult to quantify which bowling attack sucked more. Both are average test sides and look more or less equal in strength to me.

 

[marc71178]

England's bowling was better, but the one true "English" type pitch they played on was whe they all left their brains at home.

And since when has "They are a tough side and they should win more. Their batting line-up and their quality of spin is special. They are a very competitive side,"

translated into "They're a better team than us" ?

 

[nehrafan]

This English team is so pathetic that Aussies are going to make an example of them.Half of the English side looks more like a club side to me.India played poor cricket, had they played better they should have won by 3-0 margin.

 

[Gotchya]

Infact, this Indian team reminds me of the Pakistani team of the 1970's, meaty batting but a frail bowling lineup with medium pacers and spinners, then it was the only solution against strong teams (it was not until Imran and Sarfraz that we could call it a bowling attack). Lets see wether india can find their own.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

England are a good team and really played the better cricket.

The question is that if India didn't have one or two players playing well, would they have done as well?

Australia is a quality team because they always have one or two players standing up, in both areas. But neither India or England are in that league, yet.

 

[aussie_beater]

The question is that if India didn't have one or two players playing well, would they have done as well?

Doesn't the question apply for England's case as well ? like, what if Vaughan wasn't born ?

This talk about who was the better side after a series has been drawn is a subjective one and Ganguly's claim is to be taken from that angle.If we take the three tests last winter and four this summer and judge the teams based on these two back to back contests, I would say India is a marginally better team and the stats would give you a 2-1 victory in favour of India.

 

[luckyeddie]

had they played better they should have won by 3-0 margin

Oh dear. Silly season's started again. Couldn't you have gone the whole hog and made it 4-0?

The fact that England were at times missing their entire first-string seam attack is irrelevant in the 'what-if' stakes, eh?

The series finished 1-1.

Ganguly could hardly have said "England's bowling was rubbish but we just weren't capable of beating them", could he?

A fair result between two sides whose attacks were pretty inept.

 

[Anil]

England's bowling was better, but the one true "English" type pitch they played on was whe they all left their brains at home.

Exactly. Even their second string attack potentially had more quality than India's, but except for Lords, they really sucked, didn't they? The Indian "attack" was expected to suck(especially after the 1st test) and it did, except to some extent for the spinners.

That's why I said, batting wise, both sides had a good series, bowling wise, both sucked big-time. Except for Gough, all the top English bowlers bowled at one point or the other in the series, didn't they? None of them made that big an impact. Do you think Gough alone would have made all the difference? I know it is pure conjecture at this point, but I would say no, the result would have been probably the same.

 

[marc71178]

I actually think a fully fit Gough would have made a big difference. He makes things happen and never gives up.

He's now missed 13 Tests but is still rated number 12 in the World (bear in mind you lose 1% of your rating for each game you don't play in, so he's lost about 12.25 % of his rating and is still there)

But, having said that, the players we had should have done the job, and they didn't, although Caddick showed how well he can bowl when he's got some overs behind him in the 4th Test. If he'd played the full series, we may very well have seen a different outcome.

 

[royGilchrist]

This is why I call Ganguly an idiot, what an idiotic thing to say. I expect this type of analysis (the one Ganguly presented for India being better than England) to be produced by the media, and critics, but not the captain of the Indian team.

If the result is 1-1 then then both the teams were equally good (or equally bad), thats the bottom line. The guy lacks doesnt have any class whatsoever.

Although the point about Gough and Caddick missing parts of the tour is a valid point, but if Hussain had brought that up, and said based on this that England are a better side, as they drew the series even without their strike bowlers, that would be stupid.

Ganguly seems to be desperate to keep his job (captaincy) as I think he realizes that one bad series (i.e. failing to reach the later stages of the WC) could spell the end for him. So he is just trying to build up his resume, hoping it will negate any future mishaps.

 

[Anil]

This is why I call Ganguly an idiot, what an idiotic thing to say. I expect this type of analysis (the one Ganguly presented for India being better than England) to be produced by the media, and critics, but not the captain of the Indian team.

He just gave his statement based on the numbers from both the home series and the away series against England and the numbers do back him in both the test and one day format, don't they? If according to your own submission given below, the bottom line is the final result, exactly how does that make him an idiot?

If the result is 1-1 then then both the teams were equally good (or equally bad), thats the bottom line. The guy lacks doesnt have any class whatsoever.

Same argument as above. He made a statement which is atleast numerically true and that means he lacks class? :I

Although the point about Gough and Caddick missing parts of the tour is a valid point, but if Hussain had brought that up, and said based on this that England are a better side, as they drew the series even without their strike bowlers, that would be stupid.

Hussain would have been talking about this series only and Ganguly was talking about both the series. I wouldn't discount it as stupid if Hussain brought it up because that argument has its points. However, I was arguing with Marc about his point that a fully fit English attack would have made a difference because of the following reasons:

India crumbled on a flat pitch against a second-string attack in Lords. In all the other tests, England had a better attack than at Lords, but the Indian top-order had run into some kind of form by then and countered them better. By the 3rd and 4th tests, the Indian batting machine was performing really smoothly. Another reason why the Indian batting clicked was because of some indisciplined bowling by the English, dropped catches and conservative captaincy by Hussain. My point is that these factors would have been there(especially Hussain's captaincy) even if Gough had played and that's why I feel it would not have affected the outcome of this particular series. It is arguable, it is pure guesswork, it is hindsight, but it's just that I have my opinion just as Marc has his.

Ganguly seems to be desperate to keep his job (captaincy) as I think he realizes that one bad series (i.e. failing to reach the later stages of the WC) could spell the end for him. So he is just trying to build up his resume, hoping it will negate any future mishaps.

Could be true to a certain extent, but there are really no other candidates for the captaincy other than maybe Dravid, and I have my own doubts on how good a change that is going to be.

 

[royGilchrist]

Giving results from previous series is just not needed. At the end of the India/Aus series in India, if S Waugh had said Aus is the better team because they won 3-0 in Aus, and hence overall the result was 4-2, that would be silly. The bottom line in that case was that India were the better team in India, and Aus dominated in Aus. Now if a circket writer wrote that type of a thing it will be okay, but it just doesnt suit the captain of one of the teams. From this it almost shows that India's goal was to draw the series, so that on aggregate they will be better, sounds pretty silly doesnt it?

 

[Anil]

The question posed to him was which was the better team? He just pointed to the last two series between the countries and combined the results. Since, both series happened within the period of an year and were played in 2 very different conditions, there is a certain relevance to comparing the 2 teams for the combined series. Remember how everyone was looking at the combined result of the recent Aus-SA clash both in Aus and SA rather than the individual series? Agreed, the series had an added significance of being the unofficial world test championship and they were played one after the other, but pretty much the same logic can be applied in this case too. If the Indian series had been played say, a couple of years ago, it wouldn't have been as relevant.

What Ganguly said needs to be disputed on the basis of some other facts:

India were expected to overwhelm England at home, but barely managed to squeak through in the tests and were held to a draw in the one dayers. The English dominated the 2nd and 3rd tests and with some luck could have atleast squared the series. So, while India won the numbers game, the actual events show that it wasn't quite as simple as that.

In England, England were expected to win the test series handily and was a good contender for the Natwest trophy, but India surprisingly won the one day trophy and came from behind to square the test series.

The results from both series are inconclusive, to say the least. The most accurate way to call this would be to say that the honours are even.

 

[full_length]

"This is why I call Ganguly an idiot"

I'm sure anyone could speculate on whether this really is the reason you say what you do, or even if you generally need reasons..
Anyhow, Ganguly's train of thought is not very difficult to follow really.

Waugh's Aussies beat India in Aus. They lost to India in India. Head-to-head they haven't proven to be a better team than India. That's what the test series results tell us.

Hussain's England lost in India. But they couldnt beat India in England. That should be enough to say that Ganguly's men have proved to be the better test team.
Like I told you.. simple!

Another example: The Windies have a clear edge over India. They drew their last series in India, and beat India both times we went there in recent times. So, again, results show that the Windies have been a better test team than India over this period of time. The coming tour will tell us some more about how the two particular teams involved compare.

Now if we were to talk about who we really think is the better team, then that is independent of the series results. That's why you can still call Aus the better team than India. And then, I believe that India is a better team than the Windies. Now this is based on what I have seen of the two teams.

When your mind is less clouded with the name of the country you are discussing, you will probably make more sense out of this, a very simple point: one can choose to judge based on which team seems to be better, or use series results, home and away (or neutral).

Clearly, Ganguly couldnt have come out saying India is better than WI even if he thinks so.

IMO, if you are to disregard series results/match results, then clearly India is much much better than England in ODIs, and there's very little to choose between the two sides in tests.

Word of caution: before coming up with daft replies to the above, keep in mind the fact that transitive laws dont hold in cricket (millionth time?). Also that head to head comparisons are different than performance evaluations over a period of time of various teams. Just trying to save everyone the onerous task of sifting through dozens of pointless replies.

 

[marc71178]

Hussain would have been talking about this series only and Ganguly was talking about both the series. I wouldn't discount it as stupid if Hussain brought it up because that argument has its points. However, I was arguing with Marc about his point that a fully fit English attack would have made a difference because of the following reasons:

India crumbled on a flat pitch against a second-string attack in Lords. In all the other tests, England had a better attack than at Lords, but the Indian top-order had run into some kind of form by then and countered them better. By the 3rd and 4th tests, the Indian batting machine was performing really smoothly. Another reason why the Indian batting clicked was because of some indisciplined bowling by the English, dropped catches and conservative captaincy by Hussain. My point is that these factors would have been there(especially Hussain's captaincy) even if Gough had played and that's why I feel it would not have affected the outcome of this particular series. It is arguable, it is pure guesswork, it is hindsight, but it's just that I have my opinion just as Marc has his.

My point was that the Indian's would've found it a lot harder to get into batting form if they'd been up against an opening pair of Caddick and Gough as supposed to Hoggard and Cork/Flintoff/Tudor.

In fact you yourself said one of the reasons for the finding of form was indiscplined bowling. If Caddick had been fit throughout the series we wouldn't have seen any of the indiscplined stuff from him.

 

[Anil]

A lot of the short pitched stuff was aimed at the Indians for unsettling them, a lot of negative tactics were employed to curb the flow of runs all under Hussain's instructions, right? ...all of which fell flat on its face. Do you think Gough would have gone against his captain's orders and bowled differently or are you saying Gough's bouncers would have been more effective than Caddick's and Hoggard's and Flintoff's....?

True, Caddick bowled well in the last test and had a return of 4 wickets, but the Indians still managed to score 508 runs. Assuming that the Indian batting wouldn't have run into any kind of form if Gough and Caddick had been operating is just that, a big assumption.

Mate, we can only guess at it, both points are arguable. Atleast I admit that mine is.

 

[aussie_beater]

This is why I call Ganguly an idiot, what an idiotic thing to say.

Well, you can call him whatever you want to, but what he said has to be taken with a grain of salt.Otherwise you are letting people call you the same.He was being pompous and he had reasons to be.Remember India was supposed to lose in England and all the talk after the last series in India between the two nations was that when India tours England, that's when the real test is and it would be pretty hard for India to come out of it unscathed.

The guy lacks doesnt have any class whatsoever.

Now what does Ganguly owe this one to ? Because he waves his shirt after a victory or because he uses the f-word too loosely in the field.Whichever it is, I think you need to set your perspectives right.

Ganguly seems to be desperate to keep his job (captaincy) as I think he realizes that one bad series (i.e. failing to reach the later stages of the WC) could spell the end for him. So he is just trying to build up his resume, hoping it will negate any future mishaps.

No one sees a threat to his captaincy right now.I don't know where you get your info.Maybe it was there before he embarked on this tour of WI and England, but now he has been strengthened by the results that his team has shown.No threat in sight.Period.

 

[royGilchrist]

Anil: The results from both series are inconclusive, to say the least. The most accurate way to call this would be to say that the honours are even.

Exactly! And if Ganguly was asked point blank which was the better team, he should have said something similar to this. Thats all Im trying to say.

Aussie_beater: Well, you can call him whatever you want to, but what he said has to be taken with a grain of salt.

So u r admitting that what Ganguly said is not correct and cannot be interpretted literally; I agree with this statement of yours completely. But I think its clear that Ganguly meant it literally.

AB: Remember India was supposed to lose in England and all the talk after the last series in India between the two nations was that when India tours England, that's when the real test is and it would be pretty hard for India to come out of it unscathed.

This is a good point.

AB: Because he waves his shirt after a victory or because he uses the f-word too loosely in the field.

So now u r making fun of Ganguly I never said anything.

AB: No one sees a threat to his captaincy right now.I don't know where you get your info.

I think I phrased my sentence poorly, what I meant to say was I personally dont think Ganguly's captaincy is threatened, but from his own comment I got the feeling that Ganguly himslef might be feeling threatened, just a hunch, maybe I'm wrong.

FL: When your mind is less clouded with the name of the country you are discussing

Chill out! I dont know why u seem to think that I have some hatred for India. I dont. But if thats what u want to think then I cant help it. Ur comments awhile back about me being like Great India and Mo, only my hatred is cloaked in deceny (or something like that anyway) was quite hilarious really.