Sourve Ganguly is he underachiever?

[LA ICE-E]

Sourav Ganguly is over-rated in everything he does now. Good thing is he plays for India where he can use his political clout to stay in the team and contribute to his team's failure in the best possible way.

Edited. the comments about the thread.

He isn't over-rated.

 

[Manee]

Well, since his comeback, he has been all but poor and overrated.

He scored a hard earned 30 on his preliminary comeback and since then has dominated the one day game with 50 after 50 after 50 and is on 82 currently going at a fine strike rate of 62.

 

[Swervy]

Tying him in knots - but the delivery he got him out with (all 1 of them - Hoggard dismissed him in a very similar manner the Test after) was actually one that moved away off the pitch.

forget which ball took what wickets, the definition of troubling a batsman doesnt always go in line with getting a batsman out. The work one bowler does can often lead to a wicket for another bowler.

In that series Ganguly was all over the place against Flintoffs pace.

Remember in WC03, Flintoff again bowling fast , shorter than a good length (not bouncers!!!) at Ganguly, and Ganguly looked like a joke player

 

[Richard]

How many times? It doesn't matter if you look bad if you don't get out!!!!!!

Quite why it's only the Flintoff cases you mention, too, I don't understand, Flintoff's not the only bowler by any remote stretch of the imagination to try said tactic.

 

[Salamuddin]

How many times? It doesn't matter if you look bad if you don't get out!!!!!!

Quite why it's only the Flintoff cases you mention, too, I don't understand, Flintoff's not the only bowler by any remote stretch of the imagination to try said tactic.

<sigh> because our friend Swervy thinks Flintoff is the greatest cricketer since Bradman......

 

[Richard]

Scathing...

 

[Swervy]

How many times? It doesn't matter if you look bad if you don't get out!!!!!!

Quite why it's only the Flintoff cases you mention, too, I don't understand, Flintoff's not the only bowler by any remote stretch of the imagination to try said tactic.

because they are simply two examples which spring to mind..

 

[Swervy]

<sigh> because our friend Swervy thinks Flintoff is the greatest cricketer since Bradman......

right...yeah of course I do.

 

[Swervy]

Scathing...

barely

 

[Perm]

barely

Indeed. He may as well just have posted "+1" or something similar.

 

[Swervy]

its funny how a number of people on this thread are quick to dismiss others opinions as to why Gangulys batting average is low (in an era supposedly poor bowling , flat wickets etc), without offering a possible reason why.

The guy has a definate weakness against the shorter ball, anyone who doesnt pick up on that is really missing something.

If the shorter ball doesnt get him out that much Richard, then he must be failing against other types of bowling, that stands to reason surely (or could it be that the shorter stuff sets him up for getting out in other ways?)

All I am saying really is add something to the debate, otherwise, stay quiet, because so far, you really havent actually said anything of note

 

[alternative]

Dada has a thread and i didn't notice it till now

He is a total gun, don't care what others say in this regard.

Yes he had his share of problems with the short pitch deliveries, but that alone can't make him an over rated player. He IMO has been quite an under achiever in Test match cricket due to the pressure of captaincy.

 

[Jono]

its funny how a number of people on this thread are quick to dismiss others opinions as to why Gangulys batting average is low (in an era supposedly poor bowling , flat wickets etc), without offering a possible reason why.

The guy has a definate weakness against the shorter ball, anyone who doesnt pick up on that is really missing something.

If the shorter ball doesnt get him out that much Richard, then he must be failing against other types of bowling, that stands to reason surely (or could it be that the shorter stuff sets him up for getting out in other ways?)

All I am saying really is add something to the debate, otherwise, stay quiet, because so far, you really havent actually said anything of note

I think the point is, even with his short-ball weakness (which is obvious as has been countlessly mentioned), there are still worse batsman in cricket over the last 15 years that have at least averaged 43-45.

Ganguly has underachieved IMO, and that is partly to do with his attitude, and partly captaincy.

 

[Swervy]

I think the point is, even with his short-ball weakness (which is obvious as has been countlessly mentioned), there are still worse batsman in cricket over the last 15 years that have at least averaged 43-45.

Ganguly has underachieved IMO, and that is partly to do with his attitude, and partly captaincy.

yeah there may well have been batsmen with slightly higher averages who have been worse batsman (off the top of my head I am struggling to think of many).

There is a bit of over rating Ganguly that has gone on through the years however. People clump him in with Dravid and Tendulkar and say that that trio (with probably Laxman) make up this incredible middle order...the reality is Dravid and Tendulkar are/were streets ahead, and Ganguly got the benefit of lazy thinking by some of those people.

The truth of the matter is Ganguly for pretty much most of his career has been a fairly average test cricketer who will be more remembered for captaining India to probably the most success they have had in tests (I still dont consider him to be a very good captain however), and a very very fine ODI player

 

[Pratters]

Ganguly's test stats:

Over all average: 40.86

v Australia 16 28 2 844 144 73 66 32.46 1 4 0
v South Africa 14 26 2 736 73 66 60 30.66 0 5 3
in New Zealand 4 8 1 194 101* 48 17 27.71 1 0 0

On bouncier pitches, he has had his fair share of problems. What is glaring is that even in India, he has an ordinary record:

in India 40 65 7 2111 173 136 125 36.39 5 9 4

Did captaincy play a part? I would imagine so..

as captain 49 75 7 2561 144 136 128 37.66 5 13 4
not as captain 42 71 6 2874 173 147 136 44.21 7 14 5

When he wasn't captain, earlier on, he looked very much a batsman who deserved an average of around 43-46. Look at his first 5 years:

season 1996 2 3 0 315 136 131 48 105.00 2 0 0
season 1996/97 10 16 1 453 73 66 60 30.20 0 3 2
season 1997 2 3 0 192 147 45 0 64.00 1 0 1
season 1997/98 6 9 1 523 173 109 99 65.37 2 2 0
season 1998/99 7 14 2 554 101* 78 62* 46.16 1 4 0

Later, his batting declined but without captaincy, he does have one last chance to improve his average by a bit at least. Ganguly has certainly underachieved as a batsman in his career till now but he was by no means a batsman who should have averaged, say, in a 47-50 range.

 

[Richard]

There is a bit of over rating Ganguly that has gone on through the years however. People clump him in with Dravid and Tendulkar and say that that trio (with probably Laxman) make up this incredible middle order...the reality is Dravid and Tendulkar are/were streets ahead, and Ganguly got the benefit of lazy thinking by some of those people.

I don't think anyone really overrates Ganguly by putting him in an order alongside Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman (and, earlier, Azharuddin), any more than people do with, say, Gus Logie by putting him in an order with Richardson, Richards and Gomes. Fact is, all four orders were excellent, even if there were stupendous and merely good players contained.

 

[Richard]

its funny how a number of people on this thread are quick to dismiss others opinions as to why Gangulys batting average is low (in an era supposedly poor bowling , flat wickets etc), without offering a possible reason why.

Don't forget, not all Ganguly's career fell within said period, and some of it which did came at a time when (almost undoubtedly partly due to the captaincy) he was completely out of nick. His record from when he got back into nick during the period of poor bowling is indeed unflattering, 39 (which is his average in that time) but it shouldn't be forgotten that he averaged 50 before he lost his form for those 2 years. Not all those matches, of course, were against high-class seamers but it'd be fair to say a few were.

The guy has a definate weakness against the shorter ball, anyone who doesnt pick up on that is really missing something.

No-one's disputing he doesn't play it too well, but nor did Stephen Waugh, and to suggest he had a weakness with it would be ludicrous.

If the shorter ball doesnt get him out that much Richard, then he must be failing against other types of bowling, that stands to reason surely (or could it be that the shorter stuff sets him up for getting out in other ways?)

If so it'd be obvious, too - and while I haven't seen every Ganguly series it's not hard to spot patterns of bowlers who can bowl some quick short stuff resulting in low scores. As I've already mentioned - in the "middle" period he was getting low scores against anything and everything, and in the other two he has undoubtedly scored some runs against such bowling.

 

[Richard]

barely

Indeed. He may as well just have posted "+1" or something similar.

Just like to clarify, the "scathing" post of mine was in jest...

 

[Arjun]

Under-achiever? Maybe a planning issue as well. He could have contributed a lot as a change seamer, supporting the two frontliners, which would allow the team to play two spinners instead of one so often. Also, given his success as an opener in ODI's, against Test-class bowling (the attacks he faced included McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Akram, Waqar, Akhtar, Gough, Caddick, Pollock and Donald), he could have opened in Tests as well. We've seen lesser players who've opened in one-dayers also doing a good job at the top in their Test teams. At least one of two problems persistently plaguing the Indian team could be solved, had there been some innovative thinking and hard decisions taken.

And of course, he was a major under-achiever as a fielder, and that weakened the Indian ODI side, despite the runs scored.

 

[Swervy]

Just like to clarify, the "scathing" post of mine was in jest...

another 'in jest' post !!!!