• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

M0rphin3

International Debutant
Tendulkar averaged 63 under Ganguly, his best under all the captains he has played. Ganguly had more resources compared to Dhoni, esp at home.
Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, VVS under ganguly & dhoni

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...r_involve_type=all;template=results;type=team

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

And tendulkar under ganguly and dhoni:

ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...r_involve_type=all;template=results;type=team
 

Blaze 18

Banned
Tendulkar averaged 63 under Ganguly, his best under all the captains he has played. Ganguly had more resources compared to Dhoni, esp at home.
I am not a fan of averages and statistics, to be honest, but for those who set store by numbers, Sachin Tendulkar averages almost seventy seven under MS Dhoni.

I do not think that Sourav Ganguly had more resources at home either. He had better spinners, an inferior fast bowling attack and significantly weaker opening batsmen. In fact, I would say that MS Dhoni has an arguably better middle order as well.

The two biggest factors for me are these :

1) Sourav Ganguly was the one who kick-started India's ascent to the top. It was under him that India finally shed their "tigers at home, lambs abroad" tag. By comparison, MS Dhoni has had it easy; he was handed a team with many great players. It is a bit similar to the Steve Waugh-Ricky Ponting argument.

2) Like Morphin mentioned, the retirement of great players from other sides has allowed India to pull ahead of the rest. If you have a team that is considerably better than most others, you will win more often than not.

I must add that by saying this I do not wish to belittle MS Dhoni's achievements. In ODI's he has already achieved enough to warrant a comparison with Sourav Ganguly, but it is still early days in test cricket for him. I would like to see more of him outside the sub-continent and, more importantly, how he copes after the big three retire.
 
Last edited:

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I am not a fan of averages and statistics, to be honest, but for those who set strore by numbers, Sachin Tendulkar averages almost seventy seven under MS Dhoni.

I do not think that Sourav Ganguly had more resources at home either. He had better spinners, an inferior fast bowling attack and significantly weaker opening batsmen. In fact, I would say that MS Dhoni has an arguably better middle order as well.

The two biggest factors for me are these :

1) Sourav Ganguly was the one who kick-started India's ascent to the top. It was under him that India finally shed their "tigers at home, lambs abroad" tag. By comparison, MS Dhoni has had it easy; he was handed a team with many great players.

2) Like Morphin mentioned, the retirement of great players from other sides has allowed India to pull ahead of the rest. If you have a team that is considerably better than most others, you will win more often than not. It is a bit similar to the Steve Waugh-Ricky Ponting case.

I must add that by saying this I do not wish to belittle MS Dhoni's achievements. In ODI's he has already achieved enough to warrant a comparison with Sourav Ganguly, but it is still early days in test cricket for him. I would like to see more of him outside the sub-continent and, more importantly, how he copes after the big three retire.
That is irrelevant in any comparison of the captains of the 2000's, because we don't get to see Ganguly, Dravid and Kumble cope with a big three retirement.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
I don't think it is irrelevant because India will probably go down to number three or number four after the three retire, at least for a while. Then, and only then, will MS Dhoni have an inkling of what it is like to lead an okayish side, which is what Sourav Ganguly had when he started out as captain.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
An Indian side without Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Srinath is not comparable to one with (an in form 2001) Harbhajan, Kumble, Tendulkar, Dravid, a young Laxman, Srinath and without Sehwag and Zaheer. Ganguly started off with a much better side than Dhoni will have after the big three.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Dhoni won the T20 WC without any big names. He might be a **** tactician but he knows how to manage his resources. He won't be as woeful as people fear as a captain when the big names retire.
 

M0rphin3

International Debutant
Dhoni won the T20 WC without any big names. He might be a **** tactician but he knows how to manage his resources. He won't be as woeful as people fear as a captain when the big names retire.
Tell me you're not serious :laugh:
 

M0rphin3

International Debutant
An Indian side without Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Srinath is not comparable to one with (an in form 2001) Harbhajan, Kumble, Tendulkar, Dravid, a young Laxman, Srinath and without Sehwag and Zaheer. Ganguly started off with a much better side than Dhoni will have after the big three.
Almost all other sides were pretty gun while Ganguly took over.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
This was Sourav Ganguly's side in his first game as captain :

1) SS Das
2) S Ramesh
3) R Dravid
4) SR Tendulkar
5) SC Ganguly
6) SS Karim
7) M Karthik
8) S Joshi
9) AB Agarkar
10)J Srinath
11)Z Khan

This may be MS Dhoni's side after the big three retire :

1) G Gambhir
2) V Sehwag
3) M Vijay
4) C Pujara
5) V Kohli
6) S Raina
7) MS Dhoni
8) H Singh
9) P Ojha
10)S Sreesanth
11)Z Khan

The second side has better openers by far; the first one has a better middle order, but not by as much as it would appear at first glance. Rahul Dravid was not what he would go on to become back then and Sourav Ganguly himself was not a great test batsman. VVS Laxman, who for some reason did not play Ganguly's first test as captain, was an unknown commodity when he first played under him. Even after that legendary knock at Kolkata, he was not as consistent as he has been under MS Dhoni.

Now coming back to the two sides, the second team has the better wicket-keeper. The fast bowling attacks are identical : an ageing Javagal Srinath would cancel out an ageing Zaheer Khan; a young Zaheer Khan or a Sreesanth two-three years down the line - I am not sure, take your pick. That leaves Ajit Agarkar, who is India's version of Mohammad Sami. Ishant Sharma is probably a mile better as a test bowler. I will give you that Sourav had the edge in the spinners department.

All in all, the above two sides are comparable. I suppose you could argue for one over the other, but the difference is not as vast as is being made out.

and this :

Almost all other sides were pretty gun while Ganguly took over.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
You can't pick out a lineup that doesn't include Kumble, Harbhajan and Laxman for Ganguly just because they didn't feature in the very first test he captained (against Zimbabwe?). They were essential to his success and featured in the vast majority of tests he captained.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
I did address VVS Laxman and also mentioned that Sourav Ganguly had the better spinners; I had Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble in mind when I said that, obviously. I would not have said that had I been using Murali Kartik and Sunil Joshi for comparison.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
I think the 90's were the most all round competitive era ever. So match fixing aside, does that make Azharuddin better than them all?
India drew a series in Australia after a hiatus of eighteen years and beat Pakistan in Pakistan for the first time in their history. This is not to mention the infamous 2001 series win against Australia; remember, India were the only side to beat a full strength Australian side during their period of dominance. England came close four years later, but they beat a side without Glenn McGrath.

How does Mohammad Azharuddin even compare ?
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
India drew a series in Australia after a hiatus of eighteen years and beat Pakistan in Pakistan for the first time in their history. This is not to mention the infamous 2001 series win against Australia; remember, India were the only side to beat a full strength Australian side during their period of dominance. England came close four years later, but they beat a side without Glenn McGrath.

How does Mohammad Azharuddin even compare ?
A lot of those achievements were in spurts. India won that series at home against Australia, but drew in Zimbabwe (most teams gobbled them up even then) and were decimated by the Lankans, and then crushed by the Saffies, only to bounce back on excess home advantage against a weak English side that frustrated and scared them. Against Australia, their performance declined, as after 35 years, they lost a series at home to Australia. Then, they nearly let square a series against a weak Saffie team, then let square a series against Pakistan, then England. Their home advantage began to wane tremendously in the 2000s, while their advances away from home were practically nonexistent outside Pakistan- until the very controversial Greg Chappell took over, and after he left.

In comparison, Azhar's team was virtually unbeatable at home for a very long time, in Tests as well as ODIs- with the only real competition coming from Sri Lanka and Pakistan. They were pushovers away from India, dubious selections notwithstanding, but that was a time when most teams would struggle outside of home or similar conditions. The kind of home advantage that Azhar's team possessed just doesn't exist in the Ganguly/Dravid/Kumble/Dhoni teams of the 2000s.

Moreover, a whole lot of talented players were lost in the 2000s, particularly lately. While some 1990s selections were quite dubious, we'd often see the best team play most of the time, and good players worthy of a long run, brought back after an absence. Here, so many players have been scrapped virtually for good, even with the replacement not being good enough at all.
 

M0rphin3

International Debutant
I think the 90's were the most all round competitive era ever. So match fixing aside, does that make Azharuddin better than them all?
Nope, because he's done nothing noteworthy, plus was abysmal outside India.
 
Last edited:

M0rphin3

International Debutant
india drew a series in australia after a hiatus of eighteen years and beat pakistan in pakistan for the first time in their history. This is not to mention the infamous 2001 series win against australia; remember, india were the only side to beat a full strength australian side during their period of dominance. England came close four years later, but they beat a side without glenn mcgrath.

How does mohammad azharuddin even compare ?
awta.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
I am not a fan of averages and statistics, to be honest, but for those who set store by numbers, Sachin Tendulkar averages almost seventy seven under MS Dhoni.

I do not think that Sourav Ganguly had more resources at home either. He had better spinners, an inferior fast bowling attack and significantly weaker opening batsmen. In fact, I would say that MS Dhoni has an arguably better middle order as well.
Sourav had better bowlers in Srinath, Zaheer, Bhajji and Kumble. That they didn't perform or Sourav couldn't get them to perform as well as we would have liked is a different matter and that is a credit to Dhoni that he has gotten the best out of his bowlers even the mediocre ones.

The two biggest factors for me are these :

1) Sourav Ganguly was the one who kick-started India's ascent to the top. It was under him that India finally shed their "tigers at home, lambs abroad" tag. By comparison, MS Dhoni has had it easy; he was handed a team with many great players. It is a bit similar to the Steve Waugh-Ricky Ponting argument.
I am a big Sourav fan but to say that Dhoni has had it easy is really an understatement. Sourav kick started the process, but it is Dhoni who took it really to a totally different level. Dhoni wasn't handed the team when India was on Top. Dravid isn't the player he was under Ganguly, Kumble has retired.

To put him in the Ponting category is really ridiculous.


2) Like Morphin mentioned, the retirement of great players from other sides has allowed India to pull ahead of the rest. If you have a team that is considerably better than most others, you will win more often than not.
Indian greats have retired too, some of them aren't performing like greats either. So that sort of logic is basically denying Dhoni the credit for his success.

I must add that by saying this I do not wish to belittle MS Dhoni's achievements. In ODI's he has already achieved enough to warrant a comparison with Sourav Ganguly, but it is still early days in test cricket for him. I would like to see more of him outside the sub-continent and, more importantly, how he copes after the big three retire.
It is the other way round, in the ODIs he needs to a lot more to be compared to Sourav. Sourav took his team to WC final and lost to arguably the greatest ODI team ever. Dhoni hasn't gotten close.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
Dravid isn't the player he was under Ganguly; but Tendulkar, Sehwag and Laxman are all better; Gambhir is a bonus.

Harbhajan only had that one great series in 2001; he has been mediocre ever since with a sporadic noteworthy match here and there. Zaheer Khan under MS Dhoni has been a much better bowler than he was under Ganguly; Srinath was at the fag end of his career. Kumble, yes, made a difference.

And India was a relatively weak side back then, relative to the rest that is. That is not the case now. I don't see how that is denying Dhoni credit for his success ?

Lastly, I would agree that MS Dhoni has not surpassed Sourav Ganguly as an ODI captain, but he has done enough to warrant a comparison. To quote an earlier post of mine from another thread :

India have beaten pretty much everyone over the last two-three years : Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka (twice), Australia in Australia (tri series), New Zealand in New Zealand, West Indies in West Indies, Asia Cup 2010, South Africa in India, Sri Lanka in India, England in India, Australia in India - the latest one if you count that as a "series". The only real blots on the record are a 3-4 loss to England in England and a home series loss to Australia in 2009.


As far as I remember, India have performed spectacularly every time they have fielded their first choice ODI XI over the last two-three years.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
A lot of those achievements were in spurts. India won that series at home against Australia, but drew in Zimbabwe (most teams gobbled them up even then) and were decimated by the Lankans, and then crushed by the Saffies, only to bounce back on excess home advantage against a weak English side that frustrated and scared them. Against Australia, their performance declined, as after 35 years, they lost a series at home to Australia. Then, they nearly let square a series against a weak Saffie team, then let square a series against Pakistan, then England. Their home advantage began to wane tremendously in the 2000s, while their advances away from home were practically nonexistent outside Pakistan- until the very controversial Greg Chappell took over, and after he left.

In comparison, Azhar's team was virtually unbeatable at home for a very long time, in Tests as well as ODIs- with the only real competition coming from Sri Lanka and Pakistan. They were pushovers away from India, dubious selections notwithstanding, but that was a time when most teams would struggle outside of home or similar conditions. The kind of home advantage that Azhar's team possessed just doesn't exist in the Ganguly/Dravid/Kumble/Dhoni teams of the 2000s.

Moreover, a whole lot of talented players were lost in the 2000s, particularly lately. While some 1990s selections were quite dubious, we'd often see the best team play most of the time, and good players worthy of a long run, brought back after an absence. Here, so many players have been scrapped virtually for good, even with the replacement not being good enough at all.

India's home record has almost always been phenomenal. It was playing away from home that was a problem. It was under Ganguly that India started winning overseas, the series win against Pakistan being a huge turning point for obvious reasons. They followed it up under Dravid with series wins in West Indies and England; MS Dhoni has added to the collection with the win in New Zealand last year.

However, Ganguly's home record was not bad at all. He captained India in nine series at home, losing just the one series against Australia in 2004 and winning six : Zimbabwe in 2000 and 2002, Australia in 2001, England in 2001, West Indies in 2002 and South Africa in 2004. They drew two series : New Zealand in 2003 and Pakistan in 2005.

Mohammad Azharuddin's record at home was impressive too but not superior to Ganguly's as you are insinuating. He captained India in nine home series, losing just the one series in 1999. India drew twice under him at home : West Indies in 1994 and Pakistan in 1999. The wins were against Sri Lanka in 1990 and 1994, England in 1993, Zimbabwe in 1993, New Zealand in 1995 and Australia in 1998.

They were equally good at home. The big difference, like I said, was away from home.
 

Top