Ganguly Vs Vaughan

[Precambrian]

Saurav Ganguly (Ind) Vs Micheal Vaughan (Eng)

Who was the better player?

Ganguly, "Prince of Kolkota", "Lord of the offside" to his admirers and "Lord Snooty" to his detractors. Made a sensational debut in England with 3 100s in a row. He couldnt maintain that momentum though. However ensured that his average never fell below 40 at any time in his career. Became captain in 2000, and led his team through the mires of incompetence and match-fixing to become a world power to reckon with, with benchmark series win in 2001 against Australia and later defending the trophy in Australia with a 1-1 result. However his form deserted him, and saw himself dropped in 2005. Just when everyone had written off him, came back into the side in late 2006, and cementing his spot with a glorious 200 against Pakistan in winter 2007. He announced retirement after home series against Australia and made a swansong 100.

Michael Vaughan was sophistication personified, in both manner as well as batting. He debuted in 1999 in a less glorious fashion. However his career-making performance came in the Ashes of 2002-03 in Australia, scoring 633 runs with 3 centuries. Took over captaincy in 2003, and led his team to a historic Ashes triumph at home in 2005. culminating one of the most successful series of victories by an English Team in the modern era. However personal form suffered post captaincy, and injuries took their toll making him miss the 2006-07 Ashes. Assumed captaincy back in 2007. However bad form and failure in home series against India and South Africa, led him to taking temporary absence from International cricket. He and countless English test cricket lovers expect a Ganguly-like comeback, though his poor form in the domestic circuit suggest otherwise fllowing his exclusion in the winter touring squad of 2008 to India.

 

[Precambrian]

Personally, Ganguly better by a small margin.

 

[Salamuddin]

We're talking tests here , right ?

Can't help but feel Vaughan's underachieved as a test batsman.
When i first saw him against India in 2002, I honestly thought he'd go on to have an excellent career and average close to the 50 mark.

Injuries haven't helped.....but I still feel he is a case of unfulfilled talent.

Ganguly IMO wasn't as talented as Vaughan as a test match batsman, but to his credit he's forged a fairly decent test career, despite some obvious shortcomings in his technique.

Its a close one....I'd probably go with Vaughan though just.

 

[SJS]

• Tests - Vaughan
• ODI's - Ganguly.

 

[silentstriker]

Vaughan IMO.

 

[Precambrian]

Yes, I am comparing them in Test cricket. Because in ODIs, Ganguly's way better than Vaughany.

 

[Lambu]

Fully agree with SJS on this one.

 

[pup11]

Vaughan during the first half of his career was miles ahead as a batsman as compared to Ganguly, but post Ganguly's comeback that he made during India' tour of South Africa, he has easily been way better than Vaughan as a batsman, i just believe Vaughan has underachieved massively as a batsman when you look at the way he started off his career, with age and more maturity one thought he would only get better but as it turned out he became more and more inconsistent with every passing season, maybe his knees had something to do with it, but whatever it was he didn't do justice to the kind of potential he displayed.

When comparing these two batsmen i am not only taking their stats into contention, for me test cricket is also about mental toughness which Ganguly has displayed plenty of since his comeback and Vaughan has shown a certain lack of, so considering all of this i rate Ganguly slightly higher as a batsman as compared to Vaughan.

 

[Richard]

Are we talking as the complete player here? 'Cos we've had the captaincy debate before, in about 2005 IIRR, I found that thread the other day.

As a ODI player obviously Ganguly is one of the best ever and Vaughan one of the worst ever to play so many games, so clearly there's no comparison there.

As Test part-time bowlers they're probably about equal.

So, as Test batsmen it is. Well, a damn difficult question really. Ganguly for much of his career was a non-seaming-track bully (excellent player of spin mind), yet in the last couple of years has enhanced his standing (for those prepared to take notice and who've not refused to because they have an irrational hatred of him) immeasurably. He now goes down, for me, as a very good Test batsman.

Vaughan, on the other hand, has spent most of his career disappointing. Certainly a far more technically capable player than Ganguly, but his captain David Byas' assessment of him in 1999 when Nasser Hussain rung him to ask about him has rung true for pretty well all his Test career:

He always looks good. But he always gets out.

For those who tried to claim domestic form was irrelevant as selectors could see the class... well, they were confounded for the umpteenth time. Exactly what Vaughan spent his first 5 or 6 years in county cricket doing, he transferred to most of his international career.

The one exception, of course, was the period between May 2002 and January 2003, where Vaughan averaged 60-odd as a Test opener. Well, in the scorebook he did. But his first-chance average was little more than 40-odd, indicating a mere above-average patch (and most of this was on very flat pitches against very moderate bowling as well - the Ajit Agarkars and Stuart MacGills) rather than a truly insanely purple one.

Also, Vaughan has spent too much time yo-yoing between opening and batting in the middle. I always wish he'd just been left at four (maybe eventually moved up to three) instead of shifting around. Maybe, just maybe, then he'd have had a better chance.

Vaughan's Test career, unlike Ganguly's, is not yet certified over. Who knows, he could conceivably do a Ganguly and enhance his standing greatly in his last couple of years. Right now, I'd put Ganguly a shade ahead. But there is still, just, time for this to change.

Someone dig this thread when Vaughan announces his Test retirement and I'll vote then.

 

[Uppercut]

Ganguly for me, don't really rate Vaughan much. (As a batsman- he's an excellent captain).

 

[Jono]

Vaughan's peak was better as a test batsman, but Ganguly has had the more accomplished career as a batsman for mine, only slightly though.

As a ODI player its a no-contest, but that's not really the discussion I guess.

Captaincy debate (I can't remember it occurring but Richard seems to think there was a thread) would be awesome IMO. Vaughan for me was overall the better captain, but they have a lot of similarities in their captaincy accolades (the most significant obviously being beating Australia at home in a ridiculously epic series).

 

[four_or_six]

Ganguly for me, but I reckon they're pretty close. So I've gone Ganguly on personal preference of who I'd rather watch.

 

[fredfertang]

If Vaughan has been fully fit whenever he's played then I'd concede its Ganguly but I don't believe he has, so I rate him higher

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ganguly has been more consistent.

If that one series in Australia never happened, I doubt we'd even be discussing Vaughan the batsman.

My vote goes to Ganguly.

 

[masterblaster]

Ganguly has been one of the greatest ODI batsmen in the recent past. I would probably rate Vaughan a better test batsman though. Their captaincy I think is on par, but I always thought that Ganguly had the ability to bring together a bunch of talented, yet selfish players and develop that great sense of team unity and pride. I also loved the way he backed young guys such as Sehwag, Zaheer, Harbhajan and Yuvraj. Most of whom are pivotal members of this Indian side.

So for me, my vote goes to Ganguly but only by the slightest margins. I have a lot of respect for Michael Vaughan and what he has done for cricket.