'Tendulkar should consider quitting' by Ian chappel

[silentstriker]

Indian line up in 2004 tour of Australia was better than the Aussie batting line up. The line up of 2007 is a mere shadow of what it once was and is now far far below the Aussie line up.

 

[Swervy]

Indian line up in 2004 tour of Australia was better than the Aussie batting line up.

It is debatable to be honest...what that Indian batting line up had in its favour was that it was playing against the weakest Australian line up for the last 18 years

 

[Richard]

my prejudice against Laxman, what are you on about!!!! He is/was a player who could show real class and yet never turned it on in a consistant manner. At his best he was one of those players who gets a hundred every couple of series, good but nowhere near the results provided by the likes of Dravid, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis...and the list goes on. The times I saw the guy play are when he looked brilliant (vs Australia on a few occasions, the 167 and 281 obviously stick in my mind)...or just decidedly average.

Ganguly has been a pretty good batsman at test level, but far from special, he has rarely done it vs decent pace attacks, and his ability vs the shorter ball is amongst the worst I have seen of any top flight test player. Considering he got 2 hundreds in his first two tests (vs one of the weakest bowling attacks England have put out for a number of years, although after you have proably re-appraised that bowling line up, I will be able to use the term 'over-rated'), a tally of 12 centuries in 91 tests, with an average (remember he has batted largly in a time when you have been seen to say the bowling has been crap) of 40 speaks volumes.

There are many reasons Laxman's overall career record is meaningless, in common with so many. For starters, before his taking-off in 2001 he batted mostly as an opener, and he's not an opener. These innings mean nothing. And between THAT Test in 2001 and the one at The SCG in 2003\04, he averaged well over 60. Of course, that must be taken in the context of the fact that the age was mostly one of poor bowling. But averaging 60 over 30 Tests is still a serious achievement. Add to that that, despite rarely looking the part, he's still done well in his last 12 games.

As for Ganguly, the stuff about his problems with the short ball is mostly myth. Cosmetic effect only. Any player with a problem with the short ball won't last too long, if you can't cope with a simple thing like that you've little chance of being Test class. Any fool can bowl a few Bouncers, as I've said 100 times. Sure, Ganguly's record isn't terribly crash-hot (bowling standards in general only deteriorated about halfway through his Test career, mind) but he's still better than Martyn as far as I'm concerned.

As for the England attack in the Second and Third Tests in 1996 - there have been plenty worse we've put out, shortly before then and very recently, too.

I think the point I have been trying to make is that India as a batting line up havent been as good as you think they are...you said the best of the modern era, well in all honesty, they arent. Even despite South Africa's, England's and Pakistan's weaker points in batting, I would say over the last 5 years, there has been not much between these teams and India (apart from the fact India batting always looks brilliant on paper). India in reality have only probably scored a similar number of runs over a long period of time (say the last 5 years) as those three teams...(I might have a check up on that later)

Australia's batting line up has been way off the scale in general compared to India's, no matter what combination of Australian team you look at.

That's such nonsense it beggars belief. Australia's team have been more successful, not the batting-line-up. There have been plenty of overrated batsmen in Australia's batting-line-up (Hayden virtually throughout, Martyn of times, Gilchrist in the last 4 years, Langer for much of his career, and certainly Ponting in season 2005\06 with all the luck he had) of late.

As for comparing them to the England, Pakistan and SAfrican batting-line-ups... madness. If the averages are higher, the batting-line-up WILL be scoring more runs. It's simple mathematics.

 

[Richard]

I will try to be polite...what the hell you on about Richard?

Why do you seem to consider other peoples opinion to be based on popular opinion, and not through independent thought. Whether Ganguly was popular or not doesnt mean jack to me, what does matter though is that I have formed my own opinion that technically Martyn at his best was a better test batsman than Ganguly was for most of his career, I would say your beloved averages would suggest the same, unless you want to move the goal posts like you tend to do

What to you is moving the goalposts is to me looking beyond the obvious.

I do think your low opinion of Ganguly as a cricketing persona does contribute to your refusal to rate his batting as high as Damien Martyn's. There is so much more to batting than technique, too, it's untrue.

 

[Swervy]

There are many reasons Laxman's overall career record is meaningless, in common with so many. For starters, before his taking-off in 2001 he batted mostly as an opener, and he's not an opener. These innings mean nothing. And between THAT Test in 2001 and the one at The SCG in 2003\04, he averaged well over 60. Of course, that must be taken in the context of the fact that the age was mostly one of poor bowling. But averaging 60 over 30 Tests is still a serious achievement. Add to that that, despite rarely looking the part, he's still done well in his last 12 games.

hahaha, I knew the manipulation of the stats would appear in this very post.
Look, Laxman was a fine batsman, but thats that, he didnt sustain it over long enough in my eyes, and he tended to look average a number of times I saw him...I try and base my opinion on watching players, and often he looked average...but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case. I do find it odd that you rate Laxman so highly for averageing 60 over 30 tests, but Hayden does the same and more (much much more infact) in the same era as Laxman but doesnt deserve any credit from you

As for Ganguly, the stuff about his problems with the short ball is mostly myth. Cosmetic effect only. Any player with a problem with the short ball won't last too long, if you can't cope with a simple thing like that you've little chance of being Test class. Any fool can bowl a few Bouncers, as I've said 100 times. Sure, Ganguly's record isn't terribly crash-hot (bowling standards in general only deteriorated about halfway through his Test career, mind) but he's still better than Martyn as far as I'm concerned.

No the stuff about Gangulys weakness isnt myth. Its one of the reasons why Ganguly rarely did anything against anyone with decent quick bowlers in tests. Where Ganguly made hay was vs mostly the spin of Sri Lanka (who didnt have a good fast attack), or average looking medium pacers.
And I am not just talking about bouncers , not all short bowling is classified as a bouncer, and anyway, it does take some ability to bowl a decent bouncer. The WI's of the 70s and 80's didnt make their name through bowling bouncers, they made their name by bowling high quality short stuff (amongst the other good stuff they did!!!!)

As for the England attack in the Second and Third Tests in 1996 - there have been plenty worse we've put out, shortly before then and very recently, too.

Again, you suffer from over rating a bowling attack with Dominic cork in it

That's such nonsense it beggars belief. Australia's team have been more successful, not the batting-line-up. There have been plenty of overrated batsmen in Australia's batting-line-up (Hayden virtually throughout, Martyn of times, Gilchrist in the last 4 years, Langer for much of his career, and certainly Ponting in season 2005\06 with all the luck he had) of late.

Strange how Australia are quite easily (and have been for a long time) the most consistanly high scoring team in cricket, and yet they have so many over rated players

As for comparing them to the England, Pakistan and SAfrican batting-line-ups... madness. If the averages are higher, the batting-line-up WILL be scoring more runs. It's simple mathematics.

Well I think in the last 50 tests each team has played, Australia average 44 runs per wicket lost, South Africa 38, India 37, England about 36 and pakistan about the same as well, yeah it is simple mathematics, India probably didnt have the batting line up you think they have had over the years.....Now given the fact that sachin has barely done anything consistantly for years, Ganguly hasnt either, Laxman is up and down but in general not overly high scoring, and only Dravid being the one who consistantly scores big , can you see why it looks silly for you to say that they have been the best batting line up of the modern era...especially when you compare it to Australias buch of overrated rubbish

 

[Swervy]

What to you is moving the goalposts is to me looking beyond the obvious.

I do think your low opinion of Ganguly as a cricketing persona does contribute to your refusal to rate his batting as high as Damien Martyn's. There is so much more to batting than technique, too, it's untrue.

my opinion of Ganguly as a personality has no say in what I think of him as a test batsman. I just dont rate him up with the stars as you do, and I have my reasons for it, which I have stated

 

[silentstriker]

It is debatable to be honest...what that Indian batting line up had in its favour was that it was playing against the weakest Australian line up for the last 18 years

No, I don't think it was. I am not merely saying that because they did that against a fairly toothless Aussie attack, but during that time virtually the entire lineup was averaging 50+, which is quite rare. Ponting hadn't hit his crazy post-Ashes stride, Hussey hadn't come on, and it seemed Gilly and Haydos were slowing down. It was, I think, the best batting lineup in 20 years at that point.

Right now, its not even a comparison.

 

[Swervy]

No, I don't think it was. I am not merely saying that because they did that against a fairly toothless Aussie attack, but during that time virtually the entire lineup was averaging 50+, which is quite rare. Ponting hadn't hit his crazy post-Ashes stride, Hussey hadn't come on, and it seemed Gilly and Haydos were slowing down. It was, I think, the best batting lineup in 20 years at that point.

Right now, its not even a comparison.

fair enough, however I would say there was a weakness at the top of the order, Tendulkar, despite his 241*, was not anywhere near at his best, Ganguly ,well I have mentioned what I think of him as a test batsman and the Australian bowling line up was barely equipt to expose that, etc etc. Out of all of the players right at that moment for India, I would have only had Dravid up there with the very best.

 

[Ikki]

Apart from Dravid, the rest couldn't get a place to be honest.

 

[silentstriker]

Apart from Dravid, the rest couldn't get a place to be honest.

Except we are not talking about 'right now'.

 

[Ikki]

Except we are not talking about 'right now'.

No, but it's clear I am and I was replying to the last sentence in Swervy's post.

 

[silentstriker]

In that case, I agree. No one but Dravid would make the side. And Dravid isn't in sterling form either, though his twin half centuries in the 4th west indies test is the best batting I've ever seen from him.

 

[Nishant]

In that case, I agree. No one but Dravid would make the side. And Dravid isn't in sterling form either, though his twin half centuries in the 4th west indies test is the best batting I've ever seen from him.

Yep, those were really classy. But thats the sort of player he is...he stands out more on difficult pitches because he is the only one for india, these days that can survive.

 

[Salamuddin]

It is debatable to be honest...what that Indian batting line up had in its favour was that it was playing against the weakest Australian line up for the last 18 years

But the Aussie batting lineup was up against a weaker Indian bowling attack and yet, the Indians still scored more runs.......

 

[Salamuddin]

hahaha, I knew the manipulation of the stats would appear in this very post.
Look, Laxman was a fine batsman, but thats that, he didnt sustain it over long enough in my eyes, and he tended to look average a number of times I saw him...I try and base my opinion on watching players, and often he looked average...but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case. I do find it odd that you rate Laxman so highly for averageing 60 over 30 tests, but Hayden does the same and more (much much more infact) in the same era as Laxman but doesnt deserve any credit from you

The line about conditions favouring Laxman whenever he looked good is a load of BS.....the 167 was scored on a pitch offering seam movement (I watched the innings in entirety at the SCG), the 281 came on a wearing Indian picth with the supposedly the greatest spin bowler of all time in the opposing lineup.

 

[Anil]

The line about conditions favouring Laxman whenever he looked good is a load of BS.....the 167 was scored on a pitch offering seam movement (I watched the innings in entirety at the SCG), the 281 came on a wearing Indian picth with the supposedly the greatest spin bowler of all time in the opposing lineup.

but if warne couldn't perform, he must have been injured, that could be the only rational explanation, right?

 

[Jono]

It is debatable to be honest...what that Indian batting line up had in its favour was that it was playing against the weakest Australian line up for the last 18 years

And that Australian batting line-up was batting against Nehra, Pathan on debut, an unfit Zaheer, Agarkar...

Case closed really. Gillespie, Bichel and Lee were still better than all of them by miles in 2003.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And that Australian batting line-up was batting against Nehra, Pathan on debut, an unfit Zaheer, Agarkar...

Case closed really. Gillespie, Bichel and Lee were still better than all of them by miles in 2003.

Haha, left out Brad Williams, I see

But yeah, agree with you. Although I don't think Brett Lee circa that series was any better than Agarkar.

 

[Jono]

Haha, Brad Williams was fat, and thought he was good. My most hated cricketer ever.

Lee wasn't any good that series, but AA really only bowled well in Adelaide, and whenever Langer was on strike for the rest of the series. He still averaged 40 at that time.

I still to this day am unsure how Australia got out to attacks of AA, Zaheer, Nehra and Kumble, or chuck Irfan in to replace Zaheer or Nehra, and the odd Murali Kartik here or there. Irfan bowled quite well on the third day vs. Aus (got Steve Waugh and Gilly out with corkers), but that's about it really. Was an entertaining series to say the least.

 

[Ikki]

In 2003 Warne didn't play. Kumble got 12 wickets in Sydney.