Is Saurav Ganguly one of the greatest ODI batsmen ever ?

[C_C]

Because you lot come out of the closet even when he makes century against School Boys and then either go in hiding or look for excuses when he fails.

Err nobody makes excuses for him.
The point is you folks have such short-term memory that it ends up being 'pietersen = viv' after one measely series or two. Tendy has had a rough time over the last few years- but it is categorically false that he is a choker or that he cant handle good bowling etc etc.
But you are the one who imposes the 'god' label and then proceeds to make fun of everyone who doesnt say Tendy is crap.
As i said, nice going!

Spoken like the true fanatic.

There is nothing 'fanatical' about that. You may dispute that claim and thats fine - but nobody can say based on facts that he doesnt have a case to be considered the best batsman since Bradman. He is certainly in the class with the greatest since post war and that is where the 2nd greatest batsman is from.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it isnt. 10-15 ODIs is just 2-3 series squeezed in a month. Sorry, i dont set my standards so low when determining the worth of a player.

Actually unless your ricardo Powell or Wavell Hinds you dont get too many more games than those to prove your worth. Tendulkar has had 35 odd and has hardly been very successful on either of his runs, therefore the sensible move has always been to move your best player to the position that he performs best in.

False. Tendulkar once he started to open was never considered as a long-term option at the middle order. Whenever he came in, it was either because he was filling in some injured player or because the team was experimenting.

Wrong. Tendulkar has always been considered a long term option at 4 because India have always wanted him to bat till the end of an innings especially when chasing(especially during the 90s when heads used to drop after he got out). This is most obvious in his last run in 2001/02 when the Sehwag replaced him to open the batting, but because of his rather mediocre performance at 4, Ganguly had to sacrifice his position at the top and bat at 3.

Point is, Lara spent a lot of time during those years batting for a quickfire 20-25 and there were many comments on how Lara shouldnt be playing a role like that..

The logic behind your statements make absolutely no sense whatsoever. He batted in the position which by your logic is supposed to be his favorite position yet he struggled and failed during that period. His role in the side has always been pretty much the same thing, which is to bat through the entire innings after he came in. If he got out after getting 25-30, its because he actually failed to carry on with it.

I think you'll find that whether Tendulkar is the best since Bradman or not is a valid topic of discussion amongst some of the greatest commentators, coaches and players of the game so i doubt if a kid like you can really go around being sanctimonious and summarily dismissing such arguments because of an inherent personal bias.

As mentioned before i hold no bias against Tendulkar. As such im fairly certain that there are plenty of other experts who wouldnt put him down in the top 10 of all time.

False and unsupported statement.

I dont think there is a need for much support in that statement. It really is a matter of watching him bat under pressure and watching him fail 49 out of 50 times.

 

[tooextracool]

ranatunga i agree had was exceptional at placing the ball and judging the single....but regarding bevan, i have seen him do it so often, just push the ball and take off(or call for a run if he was the runner) regardless of where the ball was travelling, it would need a close-in fielder with his kind of speed plus the accuracy to throw down the stumps running to beat him over 22 yards and there were not too many of those around...he would just go for the danger end and make it comfortably....

and thats exactly why he was such a great player in that format of the game....believe it or not running between the wicket is a very big facet of the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Err there are quite a few games i personally saw where Bevan took 4-5 runs off the last over or two and didnt even TRY to hit a boundary or two. Ie, playing for his not out.

and yet as usual you are sprewing nothing other than absolute rubbish.

Yes, it is far more of a pressure situation when the batting of the side practically revolves around you and getting a team off to a good start is the crucial thing in the game.

Yet in almost all of Tendulkars successful 2nd inning 100s hes been helped by Ganguly or Sehwag at the other end which would suggest that the batting doesnt exactly revolve around him. Personally you'd have to be a complete idiot if you thought the Australian batting card of the 90s was significantly better than the Indian batting lineup. Only problem is that India consisted of chokers from 1-7 whereas the Australian one was far better under pressure.

As per your highlighted part - i know you have a tendency to morph facts to suit your argument but you youself mentioned six of those scores being against minnows. Well, care to find me how many batsmen have 7 tons chasing a score in as many games as Tendy and what their performances are ?

How many players have played anywhere near as many games as Tendulkar let alone as many as he has at the top of the order? the closest relation in that terms is Sanath Jayasuriya(in terms of matches and batting at the top of the order) who is considered a massively inferior player to Tendulkar, and even he has 7 ODI 100s in the 2nd innings, and one could easily claim that he has had far less support than Tendulkar has had with his opening partner.
No the fact is that Tendulkar has had the opportunity to bat for a significant period of time in every one of his 367 ODIs and when you think about it 7 out of 367 is a very very ordinary figure.

You are still ignoring the FACT that Tendulkar averages a mindboggling 50+ against Australia when chasing and whether they are the best team or not, it is widely accepted that chasing a total against the Aussies is the hardest thing to do in ODI cricket.

As ive said before, and i will continue to say again, exceptions dont change a general pattern. Australia may have been one of the toughest teams to play against, but that doesnt mean that performances against them have come under the most intense pressure situations.

 

[tooextracool]

He was a better runner than Tendy but not by much, as Tendy himself was one of the better runners in the game-better or equal to anyone apart from bevan,Ranatunga and Jonty from his era.

Tendulkar was a decent runner between the wickets without being anything special. Certainly in terms of pace he was far behind Michael Bevan, as was Ranatunga.

Again, an argument that 'looks good on paper but isnt reality'. I often wonder if you actually watch any cricket. As i demonstrated with 20 not out 50+ scores of Bevo, comming in 'too late' was rarely an issue for him.

Again the logic of your argument comes into question. Yes he had 20 not out scores, but the number of innings he lost by coming in too late(especially with the selectors having him bat at no 6) is incredibly large. AFAIC it really isnt a fair comparison to use when comparing a player opening to one who batted mostly at 6.

If running between the wicket is a crucial aspect, so is scoring in boundaries.
As you yourself said, the objective is to score runs. Therefore, if you are gonna bring in the argument of 'he was a better runner' to demonstrate superiority, i can most definately bring in 'he could hit boundaries a whole lot better' to counter it. And it is especially valid, since a boundary-scorer can score well during any stage of the game (as any top order batsman like Tendy-Ganguly-Ponting-Gillchrist, etc. demonstrate when they are around in the middle overs) but a single-pincher ala Bevan/Jonty/Ranatunga are distinctly unsuited to bat up the order, where scoring runs in boundaries is the way to go.

Scoring boundaries is only important when players are incapable of turning the strike over at a consistent rate. As such whenever required Bevan/Rhodes etc were more than capable of scoring at a run a ball without hitting boundaries. At the end of the day if you score at a run a ball in any position you have done your job extremely well, whether you scored boundaries or not is rather irrelevant.
Also something to note is that players like Ganguly and Tendulkar are also completely in when they bat in the middle overs, whereas Jonty and Bevan are just coming in and its often far more difficult to score boundaries when you just come in than when youve been batting for a couple of hours. Bevan has shown time and time again that when hes set hes more than capable of scoring boundaries and 6s.

 

[tooextracool]

Bevan was the BEST middle order batter ever (by middle order, I mean 4-7) and Sachin and Viv are two of the best top order players ever. Comparing them is a little (actually a LOT) tricky.


But I will tell you guys two things here:


1. I have seen Sachin bat the Bevan way and do a good job of it, but I have NEVER seen Bevan bat the SAchin way and actually do a good job of it.

There have been very very few players who have batted like Bevan and done a very good job of it. The problem is that a lot of people perceive that anyone who hits a lot of singles is automatically fulfiling the Bevan role which is equivalent to Bevan hitting a few boundaries and 6s and therefore fulfiling the tendulkar role. The Bevan role is actually precise placement in converting ones into 2s and also an ability to maintain the perfect required RR at minimum risk when chasing a target.

2. I believe Sachin would have made a better middle order batter than Bevan would have made an opener in ODIs. A number of Sachin's big knocks have come when he has rotated the strike and done it well in the middle overs, which was Bevan's speciality.

Yet when tendulkar was given the opportunity to do the Bevan role by batting at 4 he largely struggled. See the problem here is that people think Sachin was an effective middle order batsman because while opening the batting on several occasions he batted in the middle of the innings. Yet it can be said that Bevan would have been an effective opener because when he batted at 4 there were plenty of occasions when he was faced with the new ball within the first 10 overs.
The point im trying to make here is that its completely different to have 70 runs on the board when you're batting in the middle overs as opposed to having 0.

 

[tooextracool]

^^

I completely agree with the above. I gave a slight edge to Sachin/Viv, but I am by no means rating Bevan to be bad in any sense of the term. He was phenomenal.

Err and i give the slight edge to Bevan and put Richard/Tendulkar just a notch below. Doesnt mean Tendulkar wasnt phenomenal, just not as good as Bevan.

 

[Jono]

The point im trying to make here is that its completely different to have 70 runs on the board when you're batting in the middle overs as opposed to having 0.

Yeah, the guy on 70 is tired

j/k

 

[tooextracool]

Actually traditionally a lot of top order players tend to get off to a flyer and then slow down to an extent once the field restrictions are removed. As such it wouldnt be surprising if players like Tendulkar had 70 off 50 balls in the first 15 and then took another 50 balls to get to their 100. At the end of the day 100 off 100 looks very good, but its a lot different having to score at a run a ball starting from the middle overs which is what im trying to point out.

 

[Jono]

As mentioned before i hold no bias against Tendulkar.

Its hard to believe when you intentionally try and annoy Tendulkar fans by flaunting your sig around. I don't think too many people (if any) have issues with you rating Bevan above Sachin (or Viv for that matter as well), just like one would hope you don't have issues with some others possibly rating Sachin or Viv above Bevan, seeing as all 3 are obviously the best of the best. But I find it hard to believe you don't hold a bias against Sachin where you rarely praise a knock of his (even when he scores on an uneven track which Dravid fails on, who you praise as better than Sachin, Lara etc.) and then on top of that denigrate him in your sig. Its your right to do that, but its than a bit rich to claim you don't hold a bias against him.

 

[tooextracool]

Its hard to believe when you intentionally try and annoy Tendulkar fans by flaunting your sig around. I don't think too many people (if any) have issues with you rating Bevan above Sachin (or Viv for that matter as well), just like one would hope you don't have issues with some others possibly rating Sachin or Viv above Bevan, seeing as all 3 are obviously the best of the best. But I find it hard to believe you don't hold a bias against Sachin where you rarely praise a knock of his (even when he scores on an uneven track which Dravid fails on, who you praise as better than Sachin, Lara etc.) and then on top of that denigrate him in your sig. Its your right to do that, but its than a bit rich to claim you don't hold a bias against him.

Actually i rate his twin hundreds in sharjah in 97/98 as two of the best ive ever seen. If these forums(or the internet) were around in the early 90s and if i was a lot older, i would also have been putting him down in every one of the upcoming players threads that would have been made. For me he just hasnt lived up to the potential that he should have lived up to and i get annoyed when people put him down as 2nd best to Bradman or even close because i think thats where he should have been, but didnt quite make it.

 

[C_C]

Actually unless your ricardo Powell or Wavell Hinds you dont get too many more games than those to prove your worth. Tendulkar has had 35 odd and has hardly been very successful on either of his runs, therefore the sensible move has always been to move your best player to the position that he performs best in.

Giving newbie a chance to cement his spot in the team and judging a player of nearly 18 year careers are two totally different ballgames.

Again the logic of your argument comes into question. Yes he had 20 not out scores, but the number of innings he lost by coming in too late(especially with the selectors having him bat at no 6) is incredibly large. AFAIC it really isnt a fair comparison to use when comparing a player opening to one who batted mostly at 6.

Everyone has matches where they lost out on chances to score big due to curtailed overs.
Tendy has had his fair share of it too.
If you look at the actual instances where Bevan has been denied a chance to score a 50 and same with Tendy, there is very little difference.

Scoring boundaries is only important when players are incapable of turning the strike over at a consistent rate.

No, scoring in boundaries is very important too - for one, it is the best way to score in the opener's slot in ODIs- a boundary-scorer can play in the middle and succeed but a poker like Bevan would be far less likely to succeed up top if he cant score boundaries at will.
Also, players who score mostly in boundaries gives the team an extra edge because they can simply go nuts and 'explode' in a game or two- pokers do that much rarely.
As a result, you cannot be talking up the 'turning strike over' aspect and in the same breath not acknowledge that scoring boundaries are equally important.

and yet as usual you are sprewing nothing other than absolute rubbish.

And as usual, you dismiss facts that dont suit your argument as garbage.

Personally you'd have to be a complete idiot if you thought the Australian batting card of the 90s was significantly better than the Indian batting lineup.

THROUGHOUT the 90s, OZ's batting was better - after the mid 90s, India's batting had more stars but still the lone alsoran which OZ had much rarely.

No the fact is that Tendulkar has had the opportunity to bat for a significant period of time in every one of his 367 ODIs and when you think about it 7 out of 367 is a very very ordinary figure.

Except that he hasnt played 367 games chasing.

As ive said before, and i will continue to say again, exceptions dont change a general pattern. Australia may have been one of the toughest teams to play against, but that doesnt mean that performances against them have come under the most intense pressure situations.

Whatever. It means that performance against OZ has to be weighed higher than performance against various other lesser teams.

 

[silentstriker]

Err and i give the slight edge to Bevan and put Richard/Tendulkar just a notch below. Doesnt mean Tendulkar wasnt phenomenal, just not as good as Bevan.

And I never said you would be wrong. Its a difference of opinion.

But that still doesn't mean that Bevan's average isn't inflated.

 

[dubai194]

very few people actually know that ganguly made is debut way back in 1991, most people think he came around in 1996

 

[Sanz]

Err nobody makes excuses for him.
The point is you folks have such short-term memory that it ends up being 'pietersen = viv' after one measely series or two. Tendy has had a rough time over the last few years- but it is categorically false that he is a choker or that he cant handle good bowling etc etc.
But you are the one who imposes the 'god' label and then proceeds to make fun of everyone who doesnt say Tendy is crap.
As i said, nice going!

I am not talking about Tendulkar of 1989-2003 but Tendulkar of last 2 years. He sure cant handle good bowling with any decent consistency and majority of his runs in last two years have come against poor attacks and yes in last few years he has not been able to handle pressure either.

And no I didn't impose the 'GOD' level, it's the fanatics' fav. cry whenever Tendulkar makes a 100 after a series of failures.

There is nothing 'fanatical' about that. You may dispute that claim and thats fine - but nobody can say based on facts that he doesnt have a case to be considered the best batsman since Bradman. He is certainly in the class with the greatest since post war and that is where the 2nd greatest batsman is from.

Based on his last two years of performance he is miles behind Bradman.

 

[silentstriker]

Based on his last two years of performance he is miles behind Bradman.

Yes, based on Bradman's last innings, he is miles behind Tendulkar. What is your point?

BTW - no one claimed that Tendulkar - or any batsman - wasn't miles behind Bradman. Its the other guys we're talking about. Its a battle for #2 all time, not #1.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, based on Bradman's last innings, he is miles behind Tendulkar. What is your point?

Really ?? Didn't Tendulkar made ZERO in his last inning. Now I am sure Tendulkar's Zero is much more valuable than Bradmans and that means Tendulkar is miles ahead of Sir Don. I am finally convinced thatcompared to Tendulkar Bradman was infact an inferior batsman.

BTW - no one claimed that Tendulkar - or any batsman - wasn't miles behind Bradman. Its the other guys we're talking about. Its a battle for #2 all time, not #1.

Forget an all time #2, his position as a no. 1 batsman of his era is very much debatable.

 

[R_D]

Wow very mature post from a Sachin fanatic.

Yeah you're not a Schin hater.. i mean how can anyone possibly deduct that ?
Whats the problem with answering one simple question, i was just curious to test out a theory.

 

[adharcric]

Whats the problem with answering one simple question, i was just curious to test out a theory.

Didn't you hear what Sanz said? He's from way too many places to be able to answer that question. People these days and their ridiculously offensive questions ...

 

[Sanz]

Whats the problem with answering one simple question, i was just curious to test out a theory.

What theory ? Didn't you were doing research on any particular theory. Why not post the details of that theory.