Talking about Test cricket here, no doubt he is one of the best ODI openers ever.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.
My shocker.Talking about Test cricket here, no doubt he is one of the best ODI openers ever.
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Yes any fool can bowl short deliveries. But it takes skill and effort for a really good bouncer at nose or head high.Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries.
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 paceI 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)
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.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
Haha. Fascinating how well opinion is divided - we've got loads offering polar-opposites here.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.