'Tendulkar should consider quitting' by Ian chappel

[Francis]

My point was that he's calling Lara greater based on Sachin having a bad patch when both men have had bad patches. I really didn't respond to all of Chappell's comments, but might as well now.

He was saying that Lara, for better or worse, hasn't changed the way he batted and was still batting in a way that would maximize the chances of his teams' success.

I sort of agree. If Chappell's point is that Lara, in good form or not, always tried to do what the team needed... then he has a valid point. I agree because Lara always tried to bat the way he team needed him to bat, sometimes he failed, other times he didn't. While there have been times when I've seen Sachin retreat inside a little shell and really struggle.

 

[Swervy]

Nice work judging on 1 innings out of 6...

and you make a judgement on 5 innings out of 50

 

[Swervy]

Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly is one of the best batting-line-ups of the modern era, if not THE best. And all certainly still have plenty to offer.

I would have to place most of the Australian batting line ups as superior to be honest, of course it depends on when you beleive the modern era to span. India,very good on paper, but only Dravid and Tendulkar could be considered all time greats. Ganguly not close and Laxman didnt do it consistantly.

 

[Anil]

I would have to place most of the Australian batting line ups as superior to be honest, of course it depends on when you beleive the modern era to span. India,very good on paper, but only Dravid and Tendulkar could be considered all time greats. Ganguly not close and Laxman didnt do it consistantly.

absolutely...i don't know what richard is on about with that...

 

[silentstriker]

I would have to place most of the Australian batting line ups as superior to be honest, of course it depends on when you beleive the modern era to span. India,very good on paper, but only Dravid and Tendulkar could be considered all time greats. Ganguly not close and Laxman didnt do it consistantly.

I don't really disagree with you, but is anyone except Ponting an 'all time great' in the Aussie line up?

 

[Ikki]

I don't really disagree with you, but is anyone except Ponting an 'all time great' in the Aussie line up?

Gilchrist and Hayden?

 

[silentstriker]

Gilchrist and Hayden?

Not as purely batsmen, no. Gilly of course as a wicket-keeper batsmen, and Hayden cracks the top 25-30 of batsmen but not 'all time' (which I qualify as top 15 or 20 max).

 

[Richard]

I am pretty sure they have hit their primes and gone back already, Richard. And sadly, I think it is the truth, although I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to be proved wrong on this one.


Laxman basically seems to have lost his love for the game with his repeated exclusions from the WCs and his being the first on the chopping block whenever another batsman does well and is going to break into the test side. He just looks like he is disillusioned with the game itself, at the moment.


Ganguly, I am not sure who he is playing for, esp. if rumours about how he was asked to accelerate his scoring rate a bit and he didn't do so on purpose, are true. Sachin, we all want to see Sachin at least play at 75% of his normal self, but we will have to wait and see if that happens. And Dravid, I am not sure how much will be left in his tank after recent events. It won't surprise me if he even quits, considering all that he has gone through. Of the four, I would only back Sachin to be anywhere near as good as he used to be.

I don't dispute any of that for a second - but nonetheless, if I picked a middle-order tomorrow and those 4 were one of the choices, they'd be the one I'd go for.

 

[Richard]

and you make a judgement on 5 innings out of 50

Those being the most recent is significant.

 

[Ikki]

To be frank, does it matter if they were/weren't all-time greats?

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh

trumps the aforementioned Indian batsmen.

 

[Richard]

I would have to place most of the Australian batting line ups as superior to be honest, of course it depends on when you beleive the modern era to span. India,very good on paper, but only Dravid and Tendulkar could be considered all time greats. Ganguly not close and Laxman didnt do it consistantly.

I've said it before, your prejudice against Laxman beggars belief, he did it consistently for 3 whole years, barely looking out of nick once in that time! Ganguly has been a superb Test batsman bar a period of 14 Tests just after taking the captaincy.

It's sheer nonsense to say "they were only good on paper". They scored a whole hatful of runs for ages, that's reflected both on paper and on the field!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, they're not as good as Boon-MWaugh-Border-SWaugh-Healy, but that's the only line-up that trumps them. From Border's retirement on, there's always been a weak link in the Aussie batting, whether it was Blewett, Bevan, Langer, Ponting (yes! He was a weak link for a short time!), Lehmann (yes, he was too!), Mark Waugh, Stephen Waugh (yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even he was eventually!), Love, Symonds, Clarke, or someone else

 

[Richard]

To be frank, does it matter if they were/weren't all-time greats?

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh

trumps the aforementioned Indian batsmen.

Crap does it.

All are better than Langer, Hayden and Martyn in their sleep - and we're not talking about openers, anyhow.

 

[Richard]

Not as purely batsmen, no. Gilly of course as a wicket-keeper batsmen, and Hayden cracks the top 25-30 of batsmen but not 'all time' (which I qualify as top 15 or 20 max).

Gilchrist was as a batsman for the first half of his career - arguably better than anyone above him.

 

[Ikki]

Crap does it.

All are better than Langer, Hayden and Martyn in their sleep - and we're not talking about openers, anyhow.

You said the best batting lineup. You suddenly changed that to best middle order lineup. Still, I'd take Ponting, Martyn, Waugh and Gilchrist over the Indian line-up you posted.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, my mistake with the initial post. But no, not at the time Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Gilchrist was the middle-order - Waugh was a weak link by then, and Martyn was nowhere near as good as any of the Indian four at any time in his career IMO.

 

[social]

We were talking originally about SA - India 2007

Their batting lineup TODAY is extremely average with only Dravid a world-class player

 

[Swervy]

I've said it before, your prejudice against Laxman beggars belief, he did it consistently for 3 whole years, barely looking out of nick once in that time! Ganguly has been a superb Test batsman bar a period of 14 Tests just after taking the captaincy.

It's sheer nonsense to say "they were only good on paper". They scored a whole hatful of runs for ages, that's reflected both on paper and on the field!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, they're not as good as Boon-MWaugh-Border-SWaugh-Healy, but that's the only line-up that trumps them. From Border's retirement on, there's always been a weak link in the Aussie batting, whether it was Blewett, Bevan, Langer, Ponting (yes! He was a weak link for a short time!), Lehmann (yes, he was too!), Mark Waugh, Stephen Waugh (yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even he was eventually!), Love, Symonds, Clarke, or someone else

my prejudice against Laxman, what are you on about!!!! He is/was a player who could show real class and yet never turned it on in a consistant manner. At his best he was one of those players who gets a hundred every couple of series, good but nowhere near the results provided by the likes of Dravid, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis...and the list goes on. The times I saw the guy play are when he looked brilliant (vs Australia on a few occasions, the 167 and 281 obviously stick in my mind)...or just decidedly average.

Ganguly has been a pretty good batsman at test level, but far from special, he has rarely done it vs decent pace attacks, and his ability vs the shorter ball is amongst the worst I have seen of any top flight test player. Considering he got 2 hundreds in his first two tests (vs one of the weakest bowling attacks England have put out for a number of years, although after you have proably re-appraised that bowling line up, I will be able to use the term 'over-rated'), a tally of 12 centuries in 91 tests, with an average (remember he has batted largly in a time when you have been seen to say the bowling has been crap) of 40 speaks volumes.

I think the point I have been trying to make is that India as a batting line up havent been as good as you think they are...you said the best of the modern era, well in all honesty, they arent. Even despite South Africa's, England's and Pakistan's weaker points in batting, I would say over the last 5 years, there has been not much between these teams and India (apart from the fact India batting always looks brilliant on paper). India in reality have only probably scored a similar number of runs over a long period of time (say the last 5 years) as those three teams...(I might have a check up on that later)

Australia's batting line up has been way off the scale in general compared to India's, no matter what combination of Australian team you look at.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, my mistake with the initial post. But no, not at the time Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Gilchrist was the middle-order - Waugh was a weak link by then, and Martyn was nowhere near as good as any of the Indian four at any time in his career IMO.

BS...Martyn I can easily say was a better batsman in tests than Ganguly..and not being funny here Richard, but Waugh??? I tell you, if I was to have a weak link in my batting line up like Waugh, I would be a damned happy man

 

[Richard]

Not really - a weak link is a weak link is a weak link, doesn't matter who it is.

Ganguly was IMO a better Test batsman than Martyn. Only difference was Martyn was an oppressed psycho, Ganguly was an unsurpressed one and hence far, far less popular.

 

[Swervy]

Ganguly was IMO a better Test batsman than Martyn. Only difference was Martyn was an oppressed psycho, Ganguly was an unsurpressed one and hence far, far less popular.

I will try to be polite...what the hell you on about Richard?

Why do you seem to consider other peoples opinion to be based on popular opinion, and not through independent thought. Whether Ganguly was popular or not doesnt mean jack to me, what does matter though is that I have formed my own opinion that technically Martyn at his best was a better test batsman than Ganguly was for most of his career, I would say your beloved averages would suggest the same, unless you want to move the goal posts like you tend to do