Best current international captain

[Scallywag]

Incorrect.
Ganguly, like every captain, explained the delays to the Referee. Even if he didnt in the last occasion, he definately has in all other occasions.



There is nothing erroneous about that.
History proves that the justice system is racist and has been racist.
I am sure our lawyer friend Faaip will like to explain to you a concept called 'legal precident'

Go right ahead and show the racial injustice that Ganguly has suffered at the hands of the ICC. This will settle it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There is nothing erroneous about that.
History proves that the justice system is racist and has been racist.
I am sure our lawyer friend Faaip will like to explain to you a concept called 'legal precident'

Not sure what legal precedent has to do with it, I'm afraid.

Legal precedent is, basically, the concept that one case should be treated much the same as another when possible. If a high-ranking court decides that, say, being in a bad mood because your favourite cricket team lost is a reasonable excuse to use as grounds for leniency in a murder trial, and another court of equal or lesser rank has a similar trial where someone killed another person after their favourite cricket team lost, legal precedent suggests that, all things equal, the same principle should apply.

In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that just because A justice system (or even the same justice system) has been racist in the past means that all justice systems always will be. You have to examine things on the evidence available. If Ganguly was punished while a white player was not, you might have a case, but you can't simply say "well coloured people in sport have been descriminated against by white officials before, so they must be now as well". That's just a fallacy.

 

[King_Ponting]

And C_C's case has been dismissed

 

[C_C]

In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that just because A justice system (or even the same justice system) has been racist in the past means that all justice systems always will be.

If a justice system has been racist in the past, the onus is on the justice system to prove that they arn't anymore.

If Ganguly was punished while a white player was not, you might have a case

I am saying precisely that.

Legal precedent is, basically, the concept that one case should be treated much the same as another when possible. If a high-ranking court decides that, say, being in a bad mood because your favourite cricket team lost is a reasonable excuse to use as grounds for leniency in a murder trial, and another court of equal or lesser rank has a similar trial where someone killed another person after their favourite cricket team lost, legal precedent suggests that, all things equal, the same principle should apply.

Correct me if i am wrong, but in simple terms, legal precedent means the established pattern of justice leading up to a point.
And i dont think it is 'racist' of me to point out the fact that justice systems in most caucasian-dominated countries have set the precedent of discriminating against colored folks over the past several hundred years.
If that has changed, the onus lies with the standardbearers of the system to prove so, as is the norm when discarding any precedent.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And C_C's case has been dismissed

I'm not necessarily saying C_C is wrong, although frankly I don't see the evidence for it, just that you can't argue that because justice systems HAVE been racist that they necessarily are in any given situation.

 

[King_Ponting]

Evidence C_C......... yeh i kno in a couple of days. i shall anxiously wait this evidence.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ponting uses quick thinking and does not use delay tatics (or has never been penalised for it) in order to counteract a team which currently has the momentum over his, rather he uses inovation and clever thinking to reverse the situation. Ganguly on the other hand uses delay tatics in order to give himself more time to think of what to do in order to halt the momentum of the other team. Do u want any more reasons?

If used within reason, and not excessively, there is nothing wrong with "delaying tactics" and slowing the rhythm of the game. I can guarantee you that every captain worth their pinch of salt has done so during their tenure, although not to the extremes of Ganguly.

If Ponting was so good a captain then why did he fail to win the series against India at home when Mcgrath/Warne was out. I guess he is the first Aussie captain who failed to win a series against India in Australia.

Wasn't Waugh still captain then?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If a justice system has been racist in the past, the onus is on the justice system to prove that they arn't anymore.

That's true to a point, but more in an extreme case like say... southern America, Australia or post-apartheid South African legal systems, rather than a sporting body like the ICC. I mean, the ICC isn't exactly a body with a long history of displaying completely overt and extreme racist tendancies. I don't think they have to "prove" themselves.

Correct me if i am wrong, but in simple terms, legal precedent means the established pattern of justice leading up to a point.

That's one way of putting it yes, but it's sort of out of context the way you are using it. The pattern of justice is established when one person is treated in a certainal way in certain circumstances, and therefore unless there is a good reason it is unjust to not treat another in the same way when the same circumstances arrive. If someone gets 5 years for stealing a TV, then another guy should get 5 years for stealing a TV if the circumstances are the same. Anything else breaks the 'established pattern of justice', and is as such injust.

And i dont think it is 'racist' of me to point out the fact that justice systems in most caucasian-dominated countries have set the precedent of discriminating against colored folks over the past several hundred years.
If that has changed, the onus lies with the standardbearers of the system to prove so, as is the norm when discarding any precedent.

It's not racist of you to point it out, but it borders on racist to assume that because justice systems in most caucasian nations have mistreated non-caucasians (which is true), that therefore any body with any authority that involves white people at high level is necessarily inclined towards racism. I'm not saying that's necessarily what you meant, but that is how it read to a certain degree. The ICC doesn't have a long history of discriminating against people of colour like the South African government does, and to put them in the same basket because the leaders of both are white and some of the subjects are not is... dubious.

 

[King_Ponting]

Wasn't Waugh still captain then?

Yes, yes he was, how could i forget.

 

[marc71178]

I know you are desperste for some attention Marc but I'm busy right now. Later maybe.

So you obviously have no answer to the queries then - why am I not surprised?

 

[marc71178]

Mate, i can give you several examples where Ponting went over the limit and walked away scot free whereas for the same amount of time violation, ganguly took a hit.

Erm no, you can't.

 

[aussie]

i'm definately late on this thread, but for me its Ponting, the reason i feel fleming is rated so highly is because of what he did in Australia in 2001 with his tactics againts australia but recently those tactics haven't worked so well.

To be honest Fleming, Ponting & Vaughan are great tacticans but somehow i give Ponting the nod. Going back to Ponting he is ably assisted by players such as Gilchrist, Warne who have great cricketing minds along with a great team so his job is made so easy. Under pressure Ponting has looked good has well, so for me i haven't really seem much weakness in ponting's captaincy

Vaughan has been so impressive since becoming the england skipper and just looks a natural leader. He also doesn't portray much weakness has a skipper

 

[tooextracool]

If Ponting was so good a captain then why did he fail to win the series against India at home when Mcgrath/Warne was out. I guess he is the first Aussie captain who failed to win a series against India in Australia.

maybe its because he wasnt captain during that series?
and your last sentence is the precise reason why steve waugh is one of the most overrated captains ever.

 

[tooextracool]

Because they were flat lifeless decks? And when u get a batting line up such as indias and australias and the two teams competing on flat decks you'd be pushing it to get a result. Hence dravids scorng over 400 runs and ponting scoring over 500 runs in the series. With two consecutive double centuries.

strange then that on the same lifeless decks australia managed to lose 1 game and nearly lose another. either they played poorly or india played well.

 

[tooextracool]

And Ganguly did.
In his very first real series as captain(the two before were against bangladesh and zimbabwe),he beat the world champions in one of the biggest upsets in this millenia.
How exactly is that not 'chappell-esque' in its achievement ?
And i think its a bit narrowminded to think that a captain should lead from front especially in the trickiest situation with the bat- why bat ? why not ball ?
You are forgetting that one of the greatest captains in history of cricket -Imran Khan- was primarily a bowler.
And like i said, you cannot evaluate captaincy by achievements- its on field decisionmaking and off field management - thats all a captain can do really.
Results are far more dependent on the performance of the individuals that make up the team than on captaincy.

i find it a bit odd that you say "captaincy cant be evaluated by achievement", and in the same post claim that ganguly performed an absolute miracle by beating australia.
if we are to use results, then why not use the results that came immediately after that?
inability to beat zimbabwe, loss in SL, hammering in SA, a struggle to beat england at home and losing in the WI. how in the world is that anything but underperformance?
you can talk all about how ganguly couldnt have done anything about his bowlers, but surely underperforming is something he could have done something about?
as far as ganguly and his decisions on field is concerned, i cant believe that anyone can even claim that he is anything but poor at it. almost every commentator has commented on it.IMO ganguly has done a decent job, for reasons some of which you've already mentioned. but far more because hes managed to take control of his team, like no one has before.the only accomplishment ganguly has had that can be seen though is that hes managed to get india from being consistently useless abroad to 'inconsistent', which isnt really something as extraordinary as you are making it out to be. he was and still is the right man for the job, thats about it.

 

[badgerhair]

That's one way of putting it yes, but it's sort of out of context the way you are using it. The pattern of justice is established when one person is treated in a certainal way in certain circumstances, and therefore unless there is a good reason it is unjust to not treat another in the same way when the same circumstances arrive. If someone gets 5 years for stealing a TV, then another guy should get 5 years for stealing a TV if the circumstances are the same. Anything else breaks the 'established pattern of justice', and is as such injust.

This issue has a fairly irritating history.

It all blew up over the penalties imposed by Mike Denness in his capacity as match referee after the Port Elizabeth Test when India were there.

The outcome of that was that a recognised code of conduct with fixed penalties for different levels of offence was introduced, so that people would get the same penalties for the same offences. And it provides for increased penalties for repeat offenders.

Although at last their boards have started to see sense, until very recently, sub-continental teams played billions of games, thus giving themelves more opportunities to incur the wrath of match refs. Despite the fond imaginings of South Asian administrators and many South Asian fans, South Asian teams are just as badly behaved as those composed mostly of people of European descent, so if they get caught as often as other teams, they will pick up more penalty points, as 'twere, owing to the greater number of games.

In the meantime, McGrath or Pollock does something fairly outrageous in terms of on-field histrionics, and the South Asian contingent, who get particularly hot under the collar about this; the European teams tend to get a bit more excited about the excessive appealing so beloved of South Asian teams, so both offences get racked up in terms of seriousness.

Naturally, having already accumulated the longer charge sheets by dint of playing more often, the first offenders to trip the ratchet and get their relatively minor offences upgraded to serious ones get to be South Asians, who thus become the first victims of their own calls for a crackdown - and much wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues.

The point being that when someone produces evidence that white player X did Y and got Z while Asian player V did Y and got Z-squared, as is easily possible, it's incumbent on them also to show that X and V had an equivalent previous record and were being penalised under the same edition of the Code of Conduct.

My view is that the quest for consistency is hopeless. The circumstances of specific incidents are not identical, and when you start having fixed penalties, people end up having to over-classify various infractions because there's no way to differentiate in words why one is worse than the other, even though anyone with half a brain and a soupcon of human understanding can easily see the answer.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[aussie]

maybe its because he wasnt captain during that series?
and your last sentence is the precise reason why steve waugh is one of the most overrated captains ever.

na i dont think steve waugh was an overatted skipper, the accolades he got were rightly deserved

 

[superkingdave]

I'm sorry but this is quite funny.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s119.php?f=118&i=322714&t=322714&sid=119

 

[PY]

Score....

 

[Scallywag]

So you obviously have no answer to the queries then - why am I not surprised?

Marc you posted a whole pile of garbage, have you any idea what you are saying.