How good a bats man is ganguly?

[Kimbo]

Ganguly is a very determined player, however he is very temperamental.

He has recieved much criticism for his last series in NZ on pitches which were very bowler friendly. He spent so much time talking about how crap the pitches were that he didn't think about how he might combat this. It shows he has let his moods get in the way of his talent (and he does have a lot of talent).

 

[Richard]

Re: Ganguly

Ganguly was a very good batsman before he became the captain. He only hits 50s and 100s in front of teams like kenya now. Ganguly is shining as a captain but not shining as a batsman since captainship.

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

[esgallindeion]

Need I remind u the events of the last 4 days?

Sourav Ganguly - 100 NOT OUT against New Zealand.

Give the guy a break. He's having an extended bad patch but on his day he could bat better than Tendulkar even and that's saying a lot.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Yes that 100 no..was so amazing against a full strength Kiwi bowling attack and a incredibly tough pitch to bat on :P

"He could bat better than Tendulkar on his day"

That is true depending on what kind of day SRT is having

 

[marc71178]

He looked quite good in the 1st test.

Funny how the editor of Cricinfo India blamed his batting for the fact India didn't win the match then isn't it?!

He came in far too slowly, meaning they took too much time up, and by the declaration, the follow on target was nowhere near as many as it should've been.

 

[esgallindeion]

Stop your Ganguly bashing. :P

He's hit a century in the last match. And no matter what the conditions were the fact remains that only two Indians scored a century and one of them happened to be Sourav ganguly. :rolleyes:


And India didn't lose the test due to ganguly's slow batting. That's really stupid. You'd expect Kumble and Harbhajan to take 9 Kiwi wickets in the last day of a test match in India.

 

[esgallindeion]

Yes that 100 no..was so amazing against a full strength Kiwi bowling attack and a incredibly tough pitch to bat on :P

But the fact remains that it IS indeed a 100 n.o. against a Kiwi side in a match in which only one Indian and only one Kiwi batsman outscored him.

 

[marc71178]

He's hit a century in the last match. And no matter what the conditions were the fact remains that only two Indians scored a century and one of them happened to be Sourav ganguly. :rolleyes:

He dawdled at a time when quick runs were needed, meaning they didn't have enough time to bowl NZ out twice.

It is a triumph for te NZ tactics, which strike me as being a bt similar to those employed by England.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Stop your Ganguly bashing. :P

He's hit a century in the last match. And no matter what the conditions were the fact remains that only two Indians scored a century and one of them happened to be Sourav ganguly. :rolleyes:


And India didn't lose the test due to ganguly's slow batting. That's really stupid. You'd expect Kumble and Harbhajan to take 9 Kiwi wickets in the last day of a test match in India.

It's not Kumble and Harbhajan's fault the pitch didn't turn as much as it could have.

Reasons why it's Saurav's fault:
1/ Ridiculously slow scoring rate in the first innigs
2/ Declaration that wasn't far enough thanks to the scoring rate
3/ Opening with Chopra second time round
4/ Bowling Balaji more than Zaheer
5/ Not being aggressive enough in the field after tea on day five (why take short leg out?!)

 

[esgallindeion]

Reason's why I don't agree with some of the reason's given by Neil Pickup that it was Sourav's fault that India couldn't win the match -

1. Blame Ganguly for the whole team's effort? At least he didn't get out and let India get all out for about 380 which COULD have happened.

2. At least he made the declaration when everyone felt he should. Not only the Indian commentators but the Kiwi commentators also felt that the declaration couldn't have been more well timed. 500 seemed a huge total at that time. Don't read the 1st innings on the basis of the 2nd innings while analyzing the performance of a player.

3. They could have let Tendulkar gone out but winning ONE test match isn't as important as giving confidence to an opener who could very well be playing for the next 5-6 years. (All right, this isn't really a reason. But anyway... )

4. I also couldn't believe Ganguly's tactics in not letting Tendulkar and Zaheer bowl more. But I guess with Ganguly you'll have to expect such decisions. His intuition plays a major part on the decisions that he makes. And he must have felt Balaji would do something good. Unfortunately, for him and India, he didn't. So...

5. Well, after I had seen the way the pitch was behaving for the last 4 days, I'd felt that if India didn't get 3-4 wickets in the 1st session, it would be virtually impossible. Not only I, but most of my friends also thought the same thing. We aren't any of us cricket experts but it did seem unlikely that a batsman could get out easily on the track if he scored 30-40 runs. Ganguly must have felt the same way and thought that the match was heading for a draw. He should have kept short leg in, tho.

I agree with the last 2 points, but the earlier 3 are not imo very valid reasons that Ganguly lost the victory for India.

 

[esgallindeion]

He dawdled at a time when quick runs were needed, meaning they didn't have enough time to bowl NZ out twice.

It is a triumph for te NZ tactics, which strike me as being a bt similar to those employed by England.

It wasn't a matter of time, in my opinion. Even if India had about 10-15 overs more, it would have been extremely difficult to get the kiwis out, the way things were going.

It was a matter of tactics, ie, extended use of Balaji, less use of Tendulkar/Sehwag/Ganguly. And Ganguly isn't the only one who shld take the blame. All the seniors shld be held responsible for that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally, I think Ganguly left his team with enough time to get NZ out but the bowlers just didn't bowl well enough. Plus, the NZ mid and lower order batted pretty well so there's not much you can do about that, particularly on a tortoise-slow deck.

On Ganguly, I think when he finishes his career, he'll look back and be disappointed with the way his batting ended up. When he first came onto the scene and blazed those two hundreds, he looked awfully good. He has the off-side play to die for in my opinion and has a particularly gorgeous cover-drive. In fact, anything wide outside off-stump is usually belted by him as they're obviously his pet shots. I guess the short stuff just gets to him and against short-of-a-length balls outside off-stump, he struggles.

Still, he's great to watch. Very smooth player when on song and when he gets that square-drive/cover-drive happening, it's magic. I may not have a great admiration for Ganguly the man but he's as hard-nosed a competitor as there is too.

 

[esgallindeion]

Personally, I think Ganguly left his team with enough time to get NZ out but the bowlers just didn't bowl well enough. Plus, the NZ mid and lower order batted pretty well so there's not much you can do about that, particularly on a tortoise-slow deck.

Exactly what I've been trying to say.

 

[esgallindeion]

EDIT - Have fun.

 

[esgallindeion]

On Ganguly, I think when he finishes his career, he'll look back and be disappointed with the way his batting ended up.

Unfortunately thats very true. I still remember the '99 world cup match against Sri Lanka on 26th May, the day after my b'day. He made a humongous 186 runs (Dravid made a not so modest 151 as well). Its perhaps still my favourite ODI innings by any player.

 

[anzac]

As a batsman he can be as good to watch as any on his day, but he doesn't produce them as often as he perhaps should, same criticism for Fleming although he has been improving.

As a player & Captain he has done well for India so far as his stats go, but I am not convinced that this has to do with his abilities rather than the talent at his disposal and those Home pitches (until late). It also seems to me that he can be a bit petulant at times and this has an adverse effect on his Captaincy & the team.

I think the selection of John Wright is more significant so far as leading Indian cricket into the future is concerned.