Who Is The Second Greatest Batsman Ever?

[Zinzan]

famous how, exactly?

For his volatility & arrogance at times. Gotspin's already listed several instances along with his Wikipedia biography.

Here's something to support that reputation The Awkward XI | Cricket Features | Wisden Cricketer | Cricinfo.com

Quite an interesting article incidentally

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, he just wasn't that good an umpire, as Zaremba has said.

Of course I'm biased mate, and sadly very often wrong, I admit it. But I don't see conspiracy in every dodgy lbw or caught behind decision against my team (only some ).

Sometimes I perceive (as an outsider) that there's a massive victims complex in the culture of Indian cricket (not everyone obviously).

I may be completely wrong in that regard, and if I am so be it. But the level of conspiracy theory and stories of apparently being so hard done by and so often screwed over - very often reported as deliberate acts by either opponents or officials over so long, whenever there's been a defeat - staggers me.

Again, I may well be wrong in that perception, and if I am well I'm sorry. But as an outsider, there always seems an excuse, always a poor decision, always something nefarious by either opponent or umpire, when India has lost. Rarely that they were beaten fairly, and even more rarely an acknowledgement that the better team won. This was perhaps more so in the past than nowadays, and certainly India is not alone in that - heaven knows there are enough from my own country who think and sound the same. Of course that doesn't include 05, when we were robbed by Murray Mints!

But I'm finding the conspiracy theories and alleged anti-India bias is a bit like me really... beginning to get just a little old .

well, I am not accusing everyone of anti-India bias... But you are failing to see the point and you end up reading what you think has been written that what is actually being written, mate..


My point was, when an international coach and captain make accusations of a certain umpire behaving badly with them all the time and on purpose, it HAS to be taken seriously.


For which, the jibes coming back from Got_Spin have been on the lines of "but Ganguly is universally regarded as a bad guy" and my issue is, when there seems to be an issue and a perception by the leading men of a cricket team that an umpire is biased against them and instances happening lending further credence to such a theory, why not investigate it?

 

[GotSpin]

Matthew Engel over Lara, Sachin and Murali? And I am the one who is being "childish"????


the kettle is black, right?

Did you read my post at all.

Those players you've mentioned aren't exactly prime examples of cricketers who speak their mind in regards to another player, be it former teammate or rival on the field. Fairly pointless to bring them up.

BTW, you didn't manage to reply to the rest of my argument...Don't let that minor detail stop you though

 

[GotSpin]

For which, the jibes coming back from Got_Spin have been on the lines of "but Ganguly is universally regarded as a bad guy" and my issue is, when there seems to be an issue and a perception by the leading men of a cricket team that an umpire is biased against them and instances happening lending further credence to such a theory, why not investigate it?

Because it's typical of a character like Ganguly to complain and sulk about anything that doesn't bode well with him. I've given you a history of pre-2003 examples to show this and you still maintain the whole ICC should be jumping hoops everytime he raises an issue while dragging the reputation of all umpires through the mud, not just Bucknor. You probably can't see beyond your own petty complains that bringing up the issue of bias umpires would have far reaching ramifications

 

[GotSpin]

The problem as see I it, is that Bucknor has been misconstrued as being bias, while in reality, he is simply a poor umpire. By accusing Bucknor of being bias against India, the flood gates are opened for any Umpire that makes a few wrong decisions against a singular nation to be seen as bias as well.

 

[honestbharani]

For his volatility & arrogance at times. Gotspin's already listed several instances along with his Wikipedia biography.

Here's something to support that reputation The Awkward XI | Cricket Features | Wisden Cricketer | Cricinfo.com

Quite an interesting article incidentally

As I keep saying, if the perception of a Wisden journalist carries so much weight, why not try what blokes like Harsha Bhogle, G Vishwanath, Vijay Lokapally, S Dinakar and so many other journos, who actually travel with the team and interact quite frequently with the players, matter?

 

[honestbharani]

The problem as see I it, is that Bucknor has been misconstrued as being bias, while in reality, he is simply a poor umpire. By accusing Bucknor of being bias against India, the flood gates are opened for any Umpire that makes a few wrong decisions against a singular nation to be seen as bias as well.

Got any real reason for his behaviour reg. Dravid or Parthiv? Or not gonna let these minor things called facts block your argument that the only reasn Ganguly is blaming Bucknor is because India were losing.


And FYI, India have lost numerous other matches when bad decisions played a part.. Asoka De Silva comes to mind and so do quite a few of the other umpires, including Billy Bowden and Daryl Harper. But how come Sourav and John Wright never bothered to complain about them? Sourav only sulks reg. Bucknor, is it?

 

[honestbharani]

Because it's typical of a character like Ganguly to complain and sulk about anything that doesn't bode well with him. I've given you a history of pre-2003 examples to show this and you still maintain the whole ICC should be jumping hoops everytime he raises an issue while dragging the reputation of all umpires through the mud, not just Bucknor. You probably can't see beyond your own petty complains that bringing up the issue of bias umpires would have far reaching ramifications

So which other umpires have had the same complaints raised against them by this stupid sulker Ganguly who only blames umpires because his team loses games?

 

[honestbharani]

For his volatility & arrogance at times. Gotspin's already listed several instances along with his Wikipedia biography.

Here's something to support that reputation The Awkward XI | Cricket Features | Wisden Cricketer | Cricinfo.com

Quite an interesting article incidentally

several instances of what? Ganguly did that at Lords coz Flintoff did that in Mumbai. Or not happy at being given back what you dish out????


And the rest were basically to tick off one guy who had already ticked him off and it worked. And I believe it is all part of playing "hard but fair" coz no rules were broken... Wasn't it something that was propagated by the great Steve Waugh? So any word he says should be discredited as well... His complaints and views? Lets throw them to the dustbin!!!

 

[Zinzan]

As I keep saying, if the perception of a Wisden journalist carries so much weight, why not try what blokes like Harsha Bhogle, G Vishwanath, Vijay Lokapally, S Dinakar and so many other journos, who actually travel with the team and interact quite frequently with the players, matter?

So you give no credence to Flintoff's quote from their days at Lancashire either?

 

[honestbharani]

So you give no credence to Flintoff's quote from their days at Lancashire either?

you give no credence to Sachin or Lara or Murali's quotes about Ganguly?


And FWIW, I think Flintoff is no angel either... So while he may have been right about Ganguly at Lancashire, I think there was substantial improvement in the way he moved with players from the time he became captain, a fact that has been mentioned by many. And of course, it could just be that Freddie and Sourav both had BIG egos and it was always gonna clash.. I don't see why I should give more credence to what Flintoff said over what Lara or Murali or Sachin said...

 

[Zinzan]

you give no credence to Sachin or Lara or Murali's quotes about Ganguly?


And FWIW, I think Flintoff is no angel either... So while he may have been right about Ganguly at Lancashire, I think there was substantial improvement in the way he moved with players from the time he became captain, a fact that has been mentioned by many. And of course, it could just be that Freddie and Sourav both had BIG egos and it was always gonna clash.. I don't see why I should give more credence to what Flintoff said over what Lara or Murali or Sachin said...

I don't know him personally, maybe you're right, perhaps he's just misunderstood. Just seems strange he'd have this reputation if all of it was blatantly untrue.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know him personally, maybe you're right, perhaps he's just misunderstood. Just seems strange he'd have this reputation if all of it was blatantly untrue.

See.. there are two points here.


Firstly, whether or not he behaved as someone with a chip on his shoulder SHOULD NOT necessarily matter when you see frequent complaints of this sort by one team management against one particular umpire...


Secondly, while Ganguly was no angel there was no way that he was as bad as Got_Spin seems to portray.. I have seen MUCH MUCH worse behaved players in my time of watching cricket than him and his suggestion that Ganguly's complaints against Bucknor were just him whining coz his team lost is absurd and stupid and obviously completely baseless...

 

[zaremba]

See, Z, the point is... he is not the worst guy in the world and when he, being the captain of an international cricket team, actually accuses an umpire acting in a bad manner towards his team, it HAS to be at least considered before being dismissed.


But then again, if people want to believe that Bucknor never acted bad against India inspite of having NEVER watched him or the games in question, and just wanna have their cheap shots at Ganguly, who, at least, got a better testimonial from his own players than someone like Steve Waugh...

I agree that Ganguly isn't the worst guy in the world. Actually I have no first-hand knowledge of him, and even if I'd ever met him I would be unlikely to get a particularly complete picture of his character. It's obvious that all human beings are flawed and most have many good characteristics too. There's a danger of this argument becoming oversimplified into "A says Ganguly is a great guy; B says Ganguly is an idiot; I prefer A's view to B's" when the reality is much more complicated and nuanced than that, and when both A and B might both be expressing legitimate and informed views. If we are going to talk in broad generalisations, though, I'd be happy to say that what is beyond question is that a lot of people like Ganguly, and a lot of people don't.

I also agree that Bucknor may have "acted in a bad manner against India". My point is simply that, if you want to look at things in those kind of terms, he's "acted in a bad manner" against every other team in the world. He was just quite a poor decision-maker. Of course this is just my perspective - you're welcome to accept it, reject it or ignore it.

Now, if what you're saying is that Bucknor was biased against India, I am sceptical about that, partly for the reasons expressed by Burgey. Ganguly may have been a respected international captain but part of what he was trying to do as captain was to mould a tough cohesive unit (and the same goes for John Wright). Part of that can involve trying to develop in the team a sense of "it's us against the world". We see it in football managers blaming the ref, making insinuations of bias or decisions tending to favour the opposition, etc. All such allegations need to be taken with a pinch of salt, for three reasons. First, because these things are often said when passions are running high. Second, because as I've said they are said in order to foster team unity. Third, because even if the individual making the accusation genuinely believes that there was real bias against his own team, he may not be best-placed to judge whether or not that is a fair accusation to make: he's too intimately involved to be objective, and he doesn't necessarily have the broader picture of how the umpire/ref behaves towards other teams.




Now, where's that footage of Shakeel Khan triggering Mike Gatting?

 

[honestbharani]

I agree that Ganguly isn't the worst guy in the world. Actually I have no first-hand knowledge of him, and even if I'd ever met him I would be unlikely to get a particularly complete picture of his character. It's obvious that all human beings are flawed and most have many good characteristics too. There's a danger of this argument becoming oversimplified into "A says Ganguly is a great guy; B says Ganguly is an idiot; I prefer A's view to B's" when the reality is much more complicated and nuanced than that, and when both A and B might both be expressing legitimate and informed views. If we are going to talk in broad generalisations, though, I'd be happy to say that what is beyond question is that a lot of people like Ganguly, and a lot of people don't.

I also agree that Bucknor may have "acted in a bad manner against India". My point is simply that, if you want to look at things in those kind of terms, he's "acted in a bad manner" against every other team in the world. He was just quite a poor decision-maker. Of course this is just my perspective - you're welcome to accept it, reject it or ignore it.

Now, if what you're saying is that Bucknor was biased against India, I am sceptical about that, partly for the reasons expressed by Burgey. Ganguly may have been a respected international captain but part of what he was trying to do as captain was to mould a tough cohesive unit (and the same goes for John Wright). Part of that can involve trying to develop in the team a sense of "it's us against the world". We see it in football managers blaming the ref, making insinuations of bias or decisions tending to favour the opposition, etc. All such allegations need to be taken with a pinch of salt, for three reasons. First, because these things are often said when passions are running high. Second, because as I've said they are said in order to foster team unity. Third, because even if the individual making the accusation genuinely believes that there was real bias against his own team, he may not be best-placed to judge whether or not that is a fair accusation to make: he's too intimately involved to be objective, and he doesn't necessarily have the broader picture of how the umpire/ref behaves towards other teams.




Now, where's that footage of Shakeel Khan triggering Mike Gatting?

It could be, Z.. But I think his constant complaints, backed up by this many respected players and a respected coach, should have warranted an investigation at the very least... That is all I ask.

 

[Cevno]

I agree with most of what you say Zaremba ,but to say that there is no exception to the normal and that nor referee or Umpire is biased is pretty naive. There have been cases where let alone biased they have been proven to be corrupt( football referees) .It is not always a case of developing a siege mentality therefore.
Afterall,the umpires are human too,and are not devoid of human feelings or human limitations.

Even Court judges in the past ,have been proven to be biased and corrupt ,so to say that no umpire can be that is untrue.
And if people accept that umpires can also be biased ,which some people find hard to accept as it will affect and undermine their perfect and morally correct world.Then Bucknor's case of being biased against India has to be one of the most compelling cases.

But it cannot be proven conclusively either way ,so sometimes it is futile arguing about it. Just that since India (many past and present players,commentators ,experts,public etc..) had that feeling about him since a way back ICC should have not used him for India Matches if anything to avoid controversy like in 2008 .It had done the same with srilanka and Hair.
As for the argument about Ganguly and India moaning about every umpire,it iS completely nonsense.Even John wright agreed with them as the coach and complained to madugalle barging into his office. It was not as if Bucknor was the only one making wrong decisions against India ,but still there was a reason why he was always complained about unlike other umpires. Most of it was also his attitude towards Indian players versus the opposition players as has been claimed by many Indian players.

As for Bucknor being a "poor" umpire in general ,then i have to say the ICC system is completely flawed,or the observations of other captains and the match observants is completely flawed .Because he was pretty highly rated by the ICC system for most of his career.Even deemed fit for a extension after retirment age. If he was as poor as he was agaisnt India then ,it is a surprise that he lasted so long and why wa she chosen time and again for Important series like India -aus and India-pak again and again. And it is also surprising that why only Indian captains gave him damning reports and why indian players only objected to him again and again and why only him.
Either way ICC was not doing their job properly.

 

[analyst]

No great surprise that Tendulkar is ahead of everyone else, I would still rate Chris Martin personally. He is an all condition cricketer, his averages have never declined like other greats mentioned. Surely if consistency is the key, Martin is right up there.

 

[zaremba]

Cevno, I'm not privy to the captain's match reports on Bucknor, so I can't comment. As I've said, all I can give is my own personal perspective, and you can do what you like with it - reject, accept, ignore.

As for saying that some football referees and some judges are corrupt, you need to tread quite carefully. Yes, some football referees have been found to be corrupt, and yes some judges also. But it is a very very serious allegation to level at anyone. Are you going to suggest that Steve Bucknor is corrupt? If not, I'd leave those comparison alone (and if you are going to make that suggestion I would advise you to get some pretty compelling evidence before you do so).

Leaving corruption to one side, let's turn to bias. Bias is much more common than corruption (you can't be subconsciously or accidentally corrupted, but that's not true of bias). But it is still a very serious allegation to make. The world would be a better place if people restrained themselves from flinging those sorts of allegations around quite as freely as sometimes happens. It's always better to give people the benefit of the doubt, and in Bucknor's case that means assuming that he's error-prone (some would say incompetent) rather than biased; an assumption which he readily proved correct in most matches I've ever seen him umpire, whether involving India or not.

 

[Sir Alex]

No need for that, thanks. Burgey's managing to turn the thread away from cheap sniping, we don't need you to return it to that.

Really excellent intervention vic. Thanks.

Excellent summarisation of bucksnore's goof ups. While I don't agree with a conspiracy theory, he indeed was way past his peak and yet icc somehow persisted with him for too long.

Further that Aktar Sachin run out wasn't exactly bucknor's mistake but the third umpire's. Sachin infact grounded his bat, but due to his collision with aktar involuntarily made his bat go up in the air when the ball hit the stumps. According to laws he should be not out as he had grounded his bat and subsequently left the ground to avoid injury.

 

[Sir Alex]

Because it's typical of a character like Ganguly to complain and sulk about anything that doesn't bode well with him. I've given you a history of pre-2003 examples to show this and you still maintain the whole ICC should be jumping hoops everytime he raises an issue while dragging the reputation of all umpires through the mud, not just Bucknor. You probably can't see beyond your own petty complains that bringing up the issue of bias umpires would have far reaching ramifications

Hold on, he reported the umpiring was terrible and not that bucknor was a conspirator against india right?

Further I find it laughable that captain become universally derided because he made the opposing captain to wait. Or because he showed his upper body naked in the holy shrine of cricket, the Lords balcony.

And the man he made to wait was the epitome of gentlemanly behaviour as well.

Is it a coincidence that the sty also happened to be our most succesful captain and the only captain to have hot under the skin of the best team then!