Is Ganguly good enough to play test cricket ?

[sledger]

in my opinion, he is a disgrace considering his current form (current form meaning past two years)

his form has been as good as michael vaughns, does that mean michal vaughn is a disgrace? methinks not

 

[Pratters]

his form has been as good as michael vaughns, does that mean michal vaughn is a disgrace? methinks not

The English batting line up and Indian batting line up are two different things. I am not saying one is stronger or weaker here to lucidly prevent an arguement on the same here.

But most English players do average lower because of lower runs scored in tests in England than in India due to batting friendly pitches in India and Indians batting well at home.

And I doubt that Michael Vaughan has been averaging around the low 30s vs teams apart from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in recent times.

 

[honestbharani]

He has basically got just one more innings and few ODIs to redeem himself. I said that before in this thread, he deserves a longer rope than the other players because he has done so well as captain and that skill has to be taken into account as well. But, the way he is going and given his record over the last couple of years, I think it is time for him to call it quits too.

 

[nikhil1772]

Mr. Ganguly,quit ODI's altogether says I,if u dont learn to play the short ones or bouncers...(now is an impossible stage to learn though)

As for the tests,test him for opener slot which mite open the gates for a middle order batsman...If he fails then too,he sure is tired and shudn't continue anymore

Alas the selectors dont think this way and SG wont quit coz there's so much money in Cricket...Bloody Commercialism!

 

[tooextracool]

But you get to score over 500 on a spin friendly wicket eh ?

depends on what you call a spin friendly wicket.on a pitch that offers turn and bounce you'd be lucky to get even close to 300. on a slow turner you could, if you applied yourself.

clearly explained by several of his innings on seamer friendly wickets.

Actually only a fool would argue that pitches in IND are much flatter than the ones in ENG....it shows your lack of understanding of cricket.... ENG is a seamer-friendly country and IND is predominantly a spinner-friendly country.....infact to think that the subcontinent is less pacer-friendly is erroneous in itself.... it just is different condition than ENG/AUS/WI/RSA.....

no, its clearly obvious to everyone, that india produces far more flat wickets and high scoring games than places like england. to simply dismiss india as spin friendly country, even though most of the wickets produced there are either slow turners or extremely extremely flat is ludicrous.

Oh and hey- here is a bit of trivia for you... Almost every single pacer from the subcontinent.... Imran Khan, Kapil, Srinath,Waqar, Wasim Akram(even though he is very well balanced), Fazal Mahmood, Akhtar,Vaas,Aaqib Javed,Prasad,Ghavri, etc. average better AT HOME than away with the ball....Conversely, an overwhelming majority of non-subcontinental pacers crap all over the place when it comes to bowling in the subcontinent.... This implies that all this 'flat pitch/unconductive to pace pitch' etc are a whole pile of crap and that the subcontinent is simply a different condition to the 'bouncy/seaming' wickets of ENG/AUS/RSA... it is no more pace friendly or pace unfriendly on the whole as ENG or AUS are......

yes because most of them were incapable of using swing and seamer friendly conditions to their favour, and since they had more experience on home soil, they were more capable. a large number of them were actually assisted by having spinner friendly bowlers bowling at the other end - srinath and vaas in particular. wasim, imran and waqar thrive on slower wickets at home, largely because the opposition players were less capable of scoring on slower wickets than they were in their home country. like it or not just like indian batsman are more capable of scoring at home, english batsman are more capble of scoring in english conditions, hence they dealt with wasim akram and waqar younis a lot easier at home than they did on slower wickets.

 

[C_C]

no, its clearly obvious to everyone, that india produces far more flat wickets and high scoring games than places like england. to simply dismiss india as spin friendly country, even though most of the wickets produced there are either slow turners or extremely extremely flat is ludicrous.

It is 'obvious' to the ones who go only by scorecard and dont watch the game. Subcontinent is NOT just a batting paradise..no more than australia or england is.
It simply has different conditions than rest of the world where outside-bowling tends to struggle to adapt....
if the subcontinent was a batting paradise, practically every other batsman would have better batting stats in the subcontinent than outside

yes because most of them were incapable of using swing and seamer friendly conditions to their favour, and since they had more experience on home soil, they were more capable.

which is PRECISELY the reason why most saffie/english/aussie/kiwi/windian bowlers bowl well in those conditions as opposed to in the subcontinent...
the subcontinental conditions are much different than WI/AUS/ENG/RSA/NZ etc. and bowlers from these nations are much more 'at home' in any of these nations than in the subcontinent.
Which is why the subcontinental bowlers often struggle outside and non subcontinental bowlers often struggle in the subcontinent....this whole 'flat track' is a buncha moronic garbage...its simply different conditions that otehrs fail to adapt with as well as homeboys do.

wasim, imran and waqar thrive on slower wickets at home, largely because the opposition players were less capable of scoring on slower wickets than they were in their home country. like it or not just like indian batsman are more capable of scoring at home, english batsman are more capble of scoring in english conditions, hence they dealt with wasim akram and waqar younis a lot easier at home than they did on slower wickets.

precisely the reason why IND is 'no more batting friendly' than ENG or AUS is....just different.

 

[tooextracool]

It is 'obvious' to the ones who go only by scorecard and dont watch the game. Subcontinent is NOT just a batting paradise..

no its obviously not just a batting paradise, like every other place there are variations in pitches. but it doesnt change the fact that run scoring is easier in india than it is in england.

no more than australia or england is..

australia in the last 5 years or so yes, in fact id argue that australia has the flattest conditions anywhere in the world.
england NO.

It simply has different conditions than rest of the world where outside-bowling tends to struggle to adapt....
if the subcontinent was a batting paradise, practically every other batsman would have better batting stats in the subcontinent than outside

no not every ground in the subcontinent is a paradise, certainly SL has produced some serious turners in recentl history. india have certainly not prepared them with anywhere near the frequency.
and batting stats depends on the situation, bowlers and batsmen vary in each place.

which is PRECISELY the reason why most saffie/english/aussie/kiwi/windian bowlers bowl well in those conditions as opposed to in the subcontinent...
the subcontinental conditions are much different than WI/AUS/ENG/RSA/NZ etc. and bowlers from these nations are much more 'at home' in any of these nations than in the subcontinent.

yes largely because as you've already said, the sub continent suits the spinners far more often. a slow turner for example is helpful for a spinner, while it does not make him devastating, but its not for a pace bowler.

Which is why the subcontinental bowlers often struggle outside and non subcontinental bowlers often struggle in the subcontinent....this whole 'flat track' is a buncha moronic garbage...its simply different conditions that otehrs fail to adapt with as well as homeboys do.

no because there are helpful tracks for bowlers everywhere in the world. however it must be said that there have been less in australia than there have been in india, and there are less in india than there have been in england.

 

[C_C]

no its obviously not just a batting paradise, like every other place there are variations in pitches. but it doesnt change the fact that run scoring is easier in india than it is in england.

no it isnt.Runscoring is easier for english batsmen in england than in IND...IND scores better in IND than in ENG....thats simply familiarity of the surroundings....
You get the disproportionate stats because there are only three nations in the subcontinent with similar type of pitches and 5 other with similar pitches(ENG-OZ-RSA-NZ-WI)...
so obviously there are more players comfortable with the non-subcontinental conditions than subcontinental conditions.

australia in the last 5 years or so yes, in fact id argue that australia has the flattest conditions anywhere in the world.
england NO.

Disagree

yes largely because as you've already said, the sub continent suits the spinners far more often. a slow turner for example is helpful for a spinner, while it does not make him devastating, but its not for a pace bowler.

And ?
this is the typical anglo-centric view of cricket......if it doesnt carry good bounce and isnt seaming a long way, its not helping pacers and therefore is a flat batting paradise.
Logically and factually inaccurate.

no because there are helpful tracks for bowlers everywhere in the world. however it must be said that there have been less in australia than there have been in india, and there are less in india than there have been in england.

Disagree.

 

[tooextracool]

no it isnt.Runscoring is easier for english batsmen in england than in IND...IND scores better in IND than in ENG....thats simply familiarity of the surroundings....
You get the disproportionate stats because there are only three nations in the subcontinent with similar type of pitches and 5 other with similar pitches(ENG-OZ-RSA-NZ-WI)...
so obviously there are more players comfortable with the non-subcontinental conditions than subcontinental conditions.

except that even the english players dont score prolifically in english conditions, except for this year of course, where we've had plenty of flat tracks.
in india, unless the pitch is turning severely, both teams usually score big.

And ?
this is the typical anglo-centric view of cricket......if it doesnt carry good bounce and isnt seaming a long way, its not helping pacers and therefore is a flat batting paradise.
Logically and factually inaccurate.

except ive already denied that spinner friendly wickets arent as helpful wickets arent as helpful as pace friendly ones. im simply pointing out that spinner friendly wickets are rare, rather you get slow turning ones or and sometimes dead flat wickets.

 

[C_C]

except that even the english players dont score prolifically in english conditions, except for this year of course, where we've had plenty of flat tracks.
in india, unless the pitch is turning severely, both teams usually score big.

That is because there are more players around the world who are 'at home' in the english conditions relative to the subcontinental conditions.....
take ENG vs NZ/WI/RSA/AUS for example.... the 'familiarity factor' for these teams are a LOT closer than subcontinental vs non subcontinental teams...
so obviously you have a higher proportion of players performing in ENG than in the subcontinent...

And IND's problem is compounded by the fact that IND hasnt produced a good balanced attack...ever...by the time Kapil became good, the spin cupboard was threadbare.

But look at Pakistan's case...they've had an excellent bowling attack for most of their history and they've clobbered teams at home for low totals...and IND-PAK pitches are almost essentially the same.

 

[SJS]

Is Ganguly good enough to play test cricket ?

Yes. Of course he is good enough to play test cricket but he is not SO good as to never be dropped

 

[tooextracool]

That is because there are more players around the world who are 'at home' in the english conditions relative to the subcontinental conditions.....
take ENG vs NZ/WI/RSA/AUS for example.... the 'familiarity factor' for these teams are a LOT closer than subcontinental vs non subcontinental teams....

WI who produced flat wickets, game after game after game until the eng- WI series last year?

so obviously you have a higher proportion of players performing in ENG than in the subcontinent....

what do you mean? if they are performing, then one would imagine that both sides(the batsmen and the bowlers) perform, given that they are both home to the conditions. so it evens out.

And IND's problem is compounded by the fact that IND hasnt produced a good balanced attack...ever...by the time Kapil became good, the spin cupboard was threadbare.

while foreign teams have struggled to produce any spinners.

But look at Pakistan's case...they've had an excellent bowling attack for most of their history and they've clobbered teams at home for low totals...and IND-PAK pitches are almost essentially the same.

pakistan have clobbered teams at home to a less severe extent than india have. certainly india have been more successful against australia than pakistan have, which would suggest it was because of their spin bowlers as opposed to their pace bowlers.

 

[C_C]

WI who produced flat wickets, game after game after game until the eng- WI series last year?

seriously...how long have you watched cricket ?

WI has in all seriousness, only two flat wickets : Guyana and Antigua....Sabina Park, TT, Barbados etc.are all haunting grounds for pace bowlers throughout the years and at their flattest(against OZ) they still had quiete a bit in if for batsmen.

what do you mean? if they are performing, then one would imagine that both sides(the batsmen and the bowlers) perform, given that they are both home to the conditions. so it evens out.

What i meant is, given the familiarity of conditions for both sides, both sides perform well and the gap is less... as opposed to a subcontinental team vs non subcontinental team matchup... where one of the sides is almost always strugging to adapt to the conditions...
thats why you get disproportionate 'gap' in subcontinental players performing overeas with the home team and overseas players performing in the subcontinent with the home team.

pakistan have clobbered teams at home to a less severe extent than india have. certainly india have been more successful against australia than pakistan have, which would suggest it was because of their spin bowlers as opposed to their pace bowlers.

again...how long have you watched cricket for ?
Pakistan has been overall MUCH more successful than IND over the years and up until the decline of the Two Ws, PAK were extremely competitive at home against everyone...PAK is the most successful home team historically....

Simple matter is, subcontinent is a different set of conditions than overseas and its a myth that subcontinent isnt suitable for pacers...if it wernt, you wouldnt have almost all subcontiental pacers doing better at home than away.... you just bowl with a different philosophy and different line/length.

And since most of the test playing nations have relatively similar conditions compared to the subcontinent, the subcontinent often gets misinterpreted and misrepresented as 'flat tracks, bad tracks etc etc'...its no flatter or bowler friendly than other places in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

seriously...how long have you watched cricket ?

WI has in all seriousness, only two flat wickets : Guyana and Antigua....Sabina Park, TT, Barbados etc.are all haunting grounds for pace bowlers throughout the years and at their flattest(against OZ) they still had quiete a bit in if for batsmen.

over the years? WI pitches have over the last 5-6 years have been dead flat, nothing more or less. there was a time, which seems a long time ago now, when they did have seamer friendly wickets, but its quite obvious that there isnt anymore. infact WI pitches are similar to subcontinental wickets in that they are slow and sluggish than they are to any england or SA wciket.

What i meant is, given the familiarity of conditions for both sides, both sides perform well and the gap is less... as opposed to a subcontinental team vs non subcontinental team matchup... where one of the sides is almost always strugging to adapt to the conditions....
thats why you get disproportionate 'gap' in subcontinental players performing overeas with the home team and overseas players performing in the subcontinent with the home team.

err sub continental teams play each other too you know. i dont know what this has to do with anything, but my point is that in india at least the indians score runs, in england, even the english players dont score runs and thats despite being used to the conditions.

again...how long have you watched cricket for ?
Pakistan has been overall MUCH more successful than IND over the years and up until the decline of the Two Ws, PAK were extremely competitive at home against everyone...PAK is the most successful home team historically....

which has relation to what? india has been more successful than pakistan at home in the 90s, and thats because they have quality spinners in their side, not quality pace bowlers. certainly SA had no problems defeating pakistan at home in 97-98, neither did australia.

Simple matter is, subcontinent is a different set of conditions than overseas and its a myth that subcontinent isnt suitable for pacers...if it wernt, you wouldnt have almost all subcontiental pacers doing better at home than away.... you just bowl with a different philosophy and different line/length..

i;ve already explained the reasons behind that. to have a quality spinner at the other end is crucial, as if the suitability of the batsmen to the wickets.

And since most of the test playing nations have relatively similar conditions compared to the subcontinent, the subcontinent often gets misinterpreted and misrepresented as 'flat tracks, bad tracks etc etc'...its no flatter or bowler friendly than other places in the world.

no its not, nor did i claim that it was. IMO WI and australia have the flattest in the world. pakistan, india, and SA come in next. and then you have england, SL and NZ.

 

[C_C]

over the years? WI pitches have over the last 5-6 years have been dead flat, nothing more or less. there was a time, which seems a long time ago now, when they did have seamer friendly wickets, but its quite obvious that there isnt anymore. infact WI pitches are similar to subcontinental wickets in that they are slow and sluggish than they are to any england or SA wciket.

Now i *KNOW* that you dont watch cricket.
Sabina park in 99 was flat ? barbados in 99 was flat ?
Port of Spain 2001 was flat ?
Bridgetown 2001 was flat ?
Sabina park 2001 was flat ?
Bridgetown 2002 was flat ?

The answer is a vehement NO for ALL those cases.
WI pitches are NOT flat.... the OZ series was an aberration-like Perth recently- because right before OZ toured, Bridgetown and Sabina Park were relaid and hadnt settled.

WI pitches are nowhere CLOSE to subcontinental wickets...they are more like aussie/saffie wickets where there is always disconcerting bounce.

err sub continental teams play each other too you know. i dont know what this has to do with anything, but my point is that in india at least the indians score runs, in england, even the english players dont score runs and thats despite being used to the conditions.

exactly..and which is why you see LOT closer competition amongst subcontinental sides throughout the times...because to them, its home conditions or near home conditions and therefore not much adjusting needs to be done...thanks for making my point!

which has relation to what? india has been more successful than pakistan at home in the 90s, and thats because they have quality spinners in their side, not quality pace bowlers. certainly SA had no problems defeating pakistan at home in 97-98, neither did australia.

Like i said, quit using selective stats and see the entire picture...PAK have been reliant on pace bowlers far more than spin bowlers and since they've produced pace bowlers pretty well along with some excellent spinners and thus a much superior bowling attack over the years, you will find that teams visiting pak score a lot less than in IND... even though the conditions are pretty similar and the differential between pak scores and visiting team scores in pak is almost the same as in IND...despite pak having a weaker batting lineup.

no its not, nor did i claim that it was. IMO WI and australia have the flattest in the world. pakistan, india, and SA come in next. and then you have england, SL and NZ.

England pitches are definately up there currently...... you are talking about the past 2-3 years..i am talkin historically..ie, everything TO DATE.

 

[tooextracool]

Now i *KNOW* that you dont watch cricket.
Sabina park in 99 was flat ? barbados in 99 was flat ?

sabina park was flat for half the game, only towards the end did it get lower and slower.
barbados 99 was dead flat, and i cant believe you coudlnt see that.

Port of Spain 2001 was flat ?

yes it was, for the same reason as sabina park 99 was.

Bridgetown 2001 was flat ?

again it was dead flat for the first 2 innings, before there was uneven bounce and plenty of turn towards the end. more of a subcontinental wicket than any wicket could possible be.

Sabina park 2001 was flat ?

no it was not

Bridgetown 2002 was flat ?

and you accuse me of not watching? you;d have to be a complete joker if you thought that that wicket was not flat. because absolutely every commentator and every expert who watched that game wondered how any team could do so miserably, when there was only the slightest bit of seam movement. and even that seam movement lasted for about a session, by which team india had already managed to bury themselves.

The answer is a vehement NO for ALL those cases.
WI pitches are NOT flat.... the OZ series was an aberration-like Perth recently- because right before OZ toured, Bridgetown and Sabina Park were relaid and hadnt settled.

and the games against NZ? and the entire series against india? the entire series against pakistan? and several games against SA were on all flat wickets.

WI pitches are nowhere CLOSE to subcontinental wickets...they are more like aussie/saffie wickets where there is always disconcerting bounce.

this is the biggest joke i've ever heard. just watch any games pre 2004 in the WI, and find me these wickets that were bouncy wickets or provided seam movement like we see in SA. WI wickets have been over the years slower and sluggish, they've offered plenty of turn and theyve offered uneven bounce. gee what does that remind me off?
where were you when everyone was so completely stunned by the difference in conditions of the england-wi series in 04, largely because it was completely different from anything they'd seen for a long long time.?

exactly..and which is why you see LOT closer competition amongst subcontinental sides throughout the times...because to them, its home conditions or near home conditions and therefore not much adjusting needs to be done...thanks for making my point!.

err what? if you see closer competition between sub continental sides due to similarilty in conditions, then why shouldnt there be closer competition between say eng vs SA because of similarity in conditions. i just realised that you have no point here at all.

Like i said, quit using selective stats and see the entire picture...PAK have been reliant on pace bowlers far more than spin bowlers and since they've produced pace bowlers pretty well along with some excellent spinners and thus a much superior bowling attack over the years, you will find that teams visiting pak score a lot less than in IND... even though the conditions are pretty similar and the differential between pak scores and visiting team scores in pak is almost the same as in IND...despite pak having a weaker batting lineup.

wonder how long it will take you to realise that pak pitches have generally offered more for the pace bowlers than either SL or india have? no surprises that it was to suit the nature of their pace bowlers.

England pitches are definately up there currently...... you are talking about the past 2-3 years..i am talkin historically..ie, everything TO DATE.

even though that has absolutely no relation to ganguly?

 

[Arjun]

No point arguing.......all of the Bangalore crowd know he's not good enough anymore, certainly not in ODI's.