Sourve Ganguly is he underachiever?

[haroon510]

i just saw the average of Sourve Ganguly in test matches. it is only 40.86. i thought he is underachiever considering his talent. what do u guys think about this?

 

[Perm]

He has never been a great Test batsman, his weakness against the short ball was exploited by the bowlers much more than it was in ODI cricket, which is understandable given the restrictions on bouncers and short pitched bowling in the limited form of the game. When he was on-song he was beautiful to watch.

 

[Craig]

One of the great ODI batsmen in the 90's and of course his combination with Tendulkar at the top of the order. Bowling wise he at times was a handy partnership breaker.

There I said it.

 

[Perm]

One of the great ODI batsmen in the 90's and of course his combination with Tendulkar at the top of the order. Bowling wise he at times was a handy partnership breaker.

There I said it.

Talking about Test cricket here, no doubt he is one of the best ODI openers ever.

 

[Craig]

Talking about Test cricket here, no doubt he is one of the best ODI openers ever.

My shocker.

Then to the answer to the question then yes he is.

 

[Richard]

He has never been a great Test batsman, his weakness against the short ball was exploited by the bowlers much more than it was in ODI cricket, which is understandable given the restrictions on bouncers and short pitched bowling in the limited form of the game.

I disagree. If it was as simple as bowling a few Bouncers he'd never have done what he has, and that what he has is considerable. After 54 innings he was averaging over 50. Sadly he was given the captaincy just as he'd had a few bad innings, and that didn't help matters at all, and he then went 2 years and 32 innings averaging less than 23 with just 2 half-centuries. More recently, though, he's been back to a reasonable standard, averaging over 39 in his last 55 innings.

(All periods exclude substandard sides)

 

[Perm]

I disagree. If it was as simple as bowling a few Bouncers he'd never have done what he has, and that what he has is considerable. After 54 innings he was averaging over 50. Sadly he was given the captaincy just as he'd had a few bad innings, and that didn't help matters at all, and he then went 2 years and 32 innings averaging less than 23 with just 2 half-centuries. More recently, though, he's been back to a reasonable standard, averaging over 39 in his last 55 innings.

(All periods exclude substandard sides)

It was a big generalisation, but I think it's fair to say that Ganguly had a flaw against the short pitched delivery that was exploited by bowlers throughout his career. The captaincy issue was a big factor in why his average is so low, quite right.

 

[Richard]

It's got him out a few times and he usually looks uncomfortable against it, but if dismissing him really was as simple as bowling a few Bouncers he'd never have got an average of 50, or 39. Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries.

 

[Perm]

It's got him out a few times and he usually looks uncomfortable against it, but if dismissing him really was as simple as bowling a few Bouncers he'd never have got an average of 50, or 39. Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries.

Indeed, but it takes a fair bit more to bowl a good bouncer. Just because you pitch the ball short it doesn't mean that the batsman will have trouble playing it.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think he's overachieved, actually. As has been mentioned, he has a glaringly obvious and exaggerated technical flaw that the whole world knows about tries to exploit - yet he has still managed to forge such a good career. Credit to him, IMO.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries.

Yes any fool can bowl short deliveries. But it takes skill and effort for a really good bouncer at nose or head high.

 

[Richard]

Hmm.

 

[Pup Clarke]

 

[Richard]

I don't really have the time to argue the case right now, TBH - I have a report to be compiling throughout today's play.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Right.

 

[Sanz]

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.

 

[Jono]

Unnecessary Sanz, this is a legitimate topic, because I reckon it can be argued either way.

I've seen worse batsman than Ganguly average higher than Ganguly averages over his career, so at test level I'd say he's underachieved a bit. Part of that is the pressure of being Indian captain IMO, only part though.

 

[Swervy]

I disagree. If it was as simple as bowling a few Bouncers he'd never have done what he has, and that what he has is considerable. After 54 innings he was averaging over 50. Sadly he was given the captaincy just as he'd had a few bad innings, and that didn't help matters at all, and he then went 2 years and 32 innings averaging less than 23 with just 2 half-centuries. More recently, though, he's been back to a reasonable standard, averaging over 39 in his last 55 innings.

(All periods exclude substandard sides)

short balls arent always bouncers...if you will remember Flintoff tying Ganguly in knots in India about 5 years ago (?), not with bouncers just shorter than a good length bowling at pace
He does have quite severe limitations vs against fast bowling which is of a shorter length than good (depending on the pitch obviously). Over the years he has been exposed quite a lot on that front. Its a major reason why, for someone with obviously a bit of talent, hasnt really bossomed in the test arena. For me, his average is a fair reflection of how good a player he is.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd say that his average is right about where it should be. He's a pretty average player, and considering his flaws, he has actually done very well for himself.

 

[Richard]

short balls arent always bouncers...if you will remember Flintoff tying Ganguly in knots in India about 5 years ago (?), not with bouncers just shorter than a good length bowling at pace

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.

He does have quite severe limitations vs against fast bowling which is of a shorter length than good (depending on the pitch obviously). Over the years he has been exposed quite a lot on that front. Its a major reason why, for someone with obviously a bit of talent, hasnt really bossomed in the test arena. For me, his average is a fair reflection of how good a player he is.

Haha. Fascinating how well opinion is divided - we've got loads offering polar-opposites here.