Top 10 Matchwinners for India with the bat

[Shehezaada]

yup, superbly played!

[Predator_05]

Just to remind folks that batsmen do win matches. And how! Shabash Ganguly! That was a career defining knock.

Nope. Ganguly's innings brought India on an even keel, but it didn't win India the match. His effort would have counted for nothing if India's bowlers hadn't bowled out SA for a measly 121. ...and as good as this innings was, his 98 not out at Kandy back in '01 was much better. That could be termed as being a match-winning knock, since he scored it in the 4th innings while India were chasing 260. How many teams have successfully chased a target of 260 in the subcontinent ?

[Dhondy]

Nope. Ganguly's innings brought India on an even keel, but it didn't win India the match. His effort would have counted for nothing if India's bowlers hadn't bowled out SA for a measly 121.

Yes, and but for him, we's be chasing 200 instead of 60. An entirely different proposition. This was a track loaded in favour of bowlers. That was the knock that decided the match.

[Bumper]

Nope. Ganguly's innings brought India on an even keel, but it didn't win India the match. His effort would have counted for nothing if India's bowlers hadn't bowled out SA for a measly 121. ...and as good as this innings was, his 98 not out at Kandy back in '01 was much better. That could be termed as being a match-winning knock, since he scored it in the 4th innings while India were chasing 260. How many teams have successfully chased a target of 260 in the subcontinent ?

90% of the job in bowling SA out for 121 was taken care of by the pitch. You can replace the Saffies with any other opponent, they'd have likely not crossed 150 in the innungs. Ganguly was the difference between the two teams.

[The Outsider]

How many times do you find conditions so heavily loaded in favor of the bowlers? Rarely. So, yes on these rare occasions batsmen can play what one might vaguely argue to be "matchwinning" innings but it is so rare that the general adage that bowlers win test matches still holds true.

[Guest whineleg]

Break free of no-SRT/SG-criticism, and you will be free

[Shehezaada]

Nope. Ganguly's innings brought India on an even keel, but it didn't win India the match. His effort would have counted for nothing if India's bowlers hadn't bowled out SA for a measly 121. ...and as good as this innings was, his 98 not out at Kandy back in '01 was much better. That could be termed as being a match-winning knock, since he scored it in the 4th innings while India were chasing 260. How many teams have successfully chased a target of 260 in the subcontinent ?

If Ganguly hadn't made 87 we would have been behind by 27 runs already. Saffers would have played a lot more freely and put more runs on the board. Ganguly was the clear difference, his attitude in particular, that runs can be made on this pitch if you go out and look for them. True match winning knock.

[Shehezaada]

How many times do you find conditions so heavily loaded in favor of the bowlers? Rarely. So' date=' yes on these rare occasions batsmen can play what one might vaguely argue to be "matchwinning" innings but it is so rare that the general adage that bowlers win test matches still holds true.[/quote'] are you saying bowlers are more of match winners then batsmen? If a team is rolled out for 100, how are your bowlers going to win you the match? Similarly if your bowlers concede 350 + scores all the time, how will the batsmen keep up? Batsmen and bowler's should be given equal importance because ultimately they gotta clean up/set up things for each other.