Another one of those A vs B threads

[Migara]

Ganguly, because of his longevity

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ganguly, absolutely no question. Hayden was actually an absolutely brilliant ODI opener for a year or so (which was far more than he ever was in Tests), starting from that tour of New Zealand in 2006/07. Ganguly, on the other hand, was such a thing for 6 years 1996-2002. He then lost his place at the top of the order as Tendulkar insisted on batting there and Sehwag was retained for 6 years of utter uselessness based on 1 year of brilliance.

Even plenty of Australians didn't think that much of Hayden the ODI player until that tour. He'd had the odd good spell (2002/03) but mostly had done precious little of note.

Hayden's average is so high because, like Paul Collingwood, when he was hot he was so sensationally hot it disguised the fact that when he was moderate he was actually moderate for a very long time indeed. Though clearly Hayden > Collingwood as when he was good he was better, for longer.

On the relatively rare occasions Ganguly got to open again after 2002, he was nowhere near the force he had been.



Obviously we'll never know how Hayden would've fared had he batted three and four (or even six and seven) because he virtually never had to do it.

Actually your comments are probably fair re: him vs Ganguly in one-dayers, I chose Hayden thinking about his good form later in his career. I think you're underplaying his abilities in tests though.

 

[Richard]

Well clearly there's a fair few people who think that. I don't though, else I wouldn't play it such.

 

[Richard]

Cricinfo Statsguru - SC Ganguly - One-Day Internationals - Batting analysis

For the three years from 2003 to 2005, he averaged just 25 in 48 games against the top teams of the world.

And the reality of that is it's actually just 2005 in which he performed poorly (and was dropped because of this, and it didn't end his career). In 2002/03 he had a diabolical tour of New Zealand and a (outside games against substandard sides) terrible World Cup. Between April 2003 and the end of calendar-year 2004, he averaged 32.60, which while below his lofty standards of previously was far from utter crap with only substandard-side bashing keeping him in the team. Also, he did not often open the batting in this time, so thus was batting out of position.

Next argument please.

Err, you might want to try looking at things properly before trying patronising statements like those.

 

[Richard]

Ganguly is husgely overrated here in my honest opinion.

He has always been a minnow basher and struggled against the best teams of his time, barring perhaps SA.

Exclude his records against minnows, and the average comes down to 38 at SR of 73.

For Hayden, the corresponding figures are 43 and 78 respectively.

Clearly, there is daylight between Hayden and Ganguly. And I can say that Ganguly held on to his place for so long despite his turgid record mainly because :

1. He had formed a useful opening alliance with Tendulkar, who ensured that Ganguly's mediocre efforts were papered over with some incredible knocks from the other end.

2. He was captain.

There's quite a bit wrong with this post. For starters, Zimbabwe weren't substandard until 2003. For seconds, Ganguly's first 77 ODIs as captain produced an average of 41.72. Hardly the captaincy keeping a moderate player in the side. For thirds, when opening with Tendulkar between 1996 and 2002 he averaged 44.42. Although Tendulkar may have been slightly better still, Ganguly was a considerable way above "mediocre".

Finally and most vitally, to describe an average of 38.57 as "turgid" is belief-defyingly inaccurate.

 

[Top_Cat]

There's quite a bit wrong with this post. For starters, Zimbabwe weren't substandard until 2003.

Their bowling was, always has been and this is relevant. Heath Streak made them competitive but the rest were always pretty ordinary, their strength when they did relatively well definitely in their batting.

 

[Richard]

Teams are either Test\ODI standard or they aren't. It doesn't come in terms of batting or bowling.

Zimbabwe's Test bowling was usually poor when Streak wasn't playing and fairly poor even when he was (though the likes of Eddo Brandes and Paul Strang weren't the worst you'll see by any stretch). But they were a Test-standard team between 1992 and 2002 and a ODI-standard one between 1983 and WC2003. As for their ODI bowling, they had a number of practitioners who could vary between good and dreadful - John Rennie, Gary Brent, Henry Olonga, Neil Johnson.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well clearly there's a fair few people who think that. I don't though, else I wouldn't play it such.

Clearly.

 

[martin88]

There's quite a bit wrong with this post. For starters, Zimbabwe weren't substandard until 2003. For seconds, Ganguly's first 77 ODIs as captain produced an average of 41.72. Hardly the captaincy keeping a moderate player in the side. For thirds, when opening with Tendulkar between 1996 and 2002 he averaged 44.42. Although Tendulkar may have been slightly better still, Ganguly was a considerable way above "mediocre".

Finally and most vitally, to describe an average of 38.57 as "turgid" is belief-defyingly inaccurate.

Huh? What were the averages of Zimbo ODI bowlers till 2003? Streak was World Class, but the others?

 

[martin88]

And the reality of that is it's actually just 2005 in which he performed poorly (and was dropped because of this, and it didn't end his career). In 2002/03 he had a diabolical tour of New Zealand and a (outside games against substandard sides) terrible World Cup. Between April 2003 and the end of calendar-year 2004, he averaged 32.60, which while below his lofty standards of previously was far from utter crap with only substandard-side bashing keeping him in the team. Also, he did not often open the batting in this time, so thus was batting out of position.

I really don't know what you are trying to say.

And at your suggestion of him being poor only in 2005. So averages of 24 and 28 are not poor (which he did in 2003 and 2004)?

 

[Richard]

I really don't know what you are trying to say.

That the length of time Ganguly was poor in ODIs for is being grossly exaggerated.

And at your suggestion of him being poor only in 2005. So averages of 24 and 28 are not poor (which he did in 2003 and 2004)?

As I showed, between April 2003 and December 2004, he averaged 32. Far from outstanding, but certainly not utterly dreadful.

 

[Richard]

Huh? What were the averages of Zimbo ODI bowlers till 2003? Streak was World Class, but the others?

I couldn't care less what they were. Fact is, Zimbabwe were a ODI-standard side between 1983 and WC2003. Therefore games involving them should be classified as ODIs.

After WC2003, games involving them should not, because they were no longer ODI-standard.

You can't pick-and-choose - a side is either up to standard (and games involving it are classified as Test\ODI) or it is substandard (and games involving it are not). Simple as that.

 

[weldone]

Certainly he was a far better Test batsman after coming back in 2006/07 than he'd ever been, but in ODIs after coming back he wasn't the same. He still scored runs, but he was one-paced; it was anchor only. Where, as you say, previously he'd been capable of both anchoring and blitzing (as of course had his partner).

Yeah, true...

With regards to the thread question, I would say yeah not a bad comparison but Ganguly snatches it for me over Hayden...