dada vs dhoni

[The Outsider]

I dont dictate anything. I do find it quite amusing that, when rating the legacies of captains, you'd sort of simply gloss over their accomplishments in the forms of the game other than test cricket. This when two of our crowning achievements since we have been part of the international game have been in the limited overs format. Go figure! And to think you started factoring in ODI cricket into this discussion as an afterthought! And yes, I know this aint an opportunistic stand from you. Like I said, this is not the first time I have seen exhibit this tendency (and sure not the last either).

Well for me the limited over format is far inferior to test matches in all respects. Imran isn't rated as a better captain than Kapil because both won ODI WCs but because Imran was able to win test series in England and India, and draw in WI.

What Dravid did was an extension, and in some occasions, an improvement of what ganguly was able to do before. I wouldnt call them 'firsts' in the real sense.

Where was this extension of Ganguly? Why didn't he declare at Sydney? Why did he not enforce the follow on at Sydney? Why did the team catapult in '02 against WI despite having a lead? Why couldn't Ganguly win the series in NZ despite having numerous opportunities to do so in '02? Yeah, Dravid did not enforce the follow on at the Oval, but he was 1-0 up, why didn't Ganguly do it at Sydney? Who sat out of a test match at the sight of a green top at Nagpur? Who opened the innings at Karachi to find a space for Ganguly? We can go on for such rhetoric the entire night!

[The Outsider]

Like I said before my man' date=' I do not need to resort to cricinfo statsguru to know what i am talking about. I watched these games. I did not claim the 2003-05 was the 'best' golden era of Indian ODI cricket. I said it the was the [b']first true golden era of Indian cricket. Of course, Yoda-esque corrected me saying that would be the 83-85 era, but like I said, I wasnt even born then, so i wouldnt know.

But does that make Kapil and Gavaskar better captains than Ganguly because they ushered the first Golden Era which you were unaware of, but are aware of now?

[Ram]

And how was I saying anything different? I was saying that the peak of Tendulkar was gone before Ganguly became captain. Please read again what I've written above.

Which makes Ganguly's accomplishments even more remarkable, does it not? Btw, I was originally responding to your following statement -

Tendulkar's performance actually wasn't as great during those years as in the years when India was losing.

This is factually incorrect. While Sachin was at his best as a batsmen we had 1) the worst defeat in South Africa in the last 17 years. 2) the worst performance in England in the last 17 years 3) The worst loss in Australia in the last 15 years.

You don't care about results? In your first post in the thread you started boasting about results under Ganguly And yeah, I'll agree with you that the '03-'04 performance of the team would be the highlight of the last decade along with the 2001 win at home against Australia. But since you don't care about the results, can you tell me how much can it be attributed to Ganguly?

I said you have to consider 'everything', and not just go by things like 'on-field tactics'. When I rate somebody as a captain, I obviously try to calibrate the ratings to suit the circumstances. Ganguly took over at a time when our cricket was going thru its biggest crisis. He put a floor under the crash. Its not an accident that our single best test series win (98 against Australia) was under ganguly's captaincy. We drew in England in 2002 when nobody expected us and gave Australia a run for their money when they were marauding over everyone else. Same with 2003 WC - We hardly entered the tournament as the favorites. Of course, it is quite true that after 2004, Ganguly's batting became quite a liability when ultimately led to him being dropped for 2006.

[Ram]

But does that make Kapil and Gavaskar better captains than Ganguly because they ushered the first Golden Era which you were unaware of' date=' but are aware of now?[/quote'] Stupid Logic. Ganguly did not become captain 1986, right after Kapil and Gavaskar put us on a pedestal. You are comparing captains across two different eras, with completely different personnel. As a general rule, I NEVER claim to be compare players (and their achievements) across different eras (or) if I have not personally watched them in action.

[The Outsider]

Which makes Ganguly's accomplishments even more remarkable, does it not?

How is it related to Ganguly's achievement? Please don't pull an anu_d on me that Ganguly had some mystical inspirational powers! Tendulkar was not at his best, but he was still very damn good, and Dravid, Laxman were at their best along with Kumble. Does that not compensate for a dip in Tendulkar's runs?

This is factually incorrect. While Sachin was at his best as a batsmen we had 1) the worst defeat in South Africa in the last 17 years. 2) the worst performance in England in the last 17 years 3) The worst loss in Australia in the last 15 years.

Arre bhai, isn't that what I said? That Tendulkar's best coincided with some of the worst defeats we have seen (during the 90s).

I said you have to consider 'everything', and not just go by things like 'on-field tactics'.

I did not consider only 'on field tactics', but considering that I found Dravid's on field tactics to be so superior to Ganguly's other plus points, I consider Dravid to be the better captain.

[The Outsider]

Stupid Logic. Ganguly did not become captain 1986, right after Kapil and Gavaskar put us on a pedestal. You are comparing captains across two different eras, with completely different personnel. As a general rule, I NEVER claim to be compare players (and their achievements) across different eras (or) if I have not personally watched them in action.

You did put a feather in Ganguly's cap on the basis that he ushered the first golden era, but when corrected that the first golden era happened under other captains, you are reluctant to transfer the feather to them. Why?

[Ram]

You did put a feather in Ganguly's cap on the basis that he ushered the first golden era' date=' but when corrected that the first golden era happened under other captains, you are reluctant to transfer the feather to them. Why?[/quote'] You lost me here. Lets get a few things straightened out - I never said 'Ganguly ushered the first golden era of Indian cricket' (to use your own words). I said under him, we had the first golden era in Indian ODI cricket. When Yoda-eque pointed out that the 83-85 was equally remarkable, I conceded that it was probably the first true golden era of Indian cricket even though i did not watch it (but I have heard about enough it). It could well be that the 2004-05 time under Ganguly was better than what we had in 1983-86, but i simply wouldnt know. Secondly, if you recall, in your first post in this thread, you said -

[vamos_rafa]

You did put a feather in Ganguly's cap on the basis that he ushered the first golden era' date=' but when corrected that the first golden era happened under other captains, you are reluctant to transfer the feather to them. Why?[/quote'] I was going through the whole thread and I do agree when you said that India'd best captain, atleast off-late and on-field has been Dravid. I know Ganguly started many things, which he should be credited with. But, if Ganguly started a process, then Dravid had taken it to a next level, atleast with the way he led the team on field. In test cricket atleast, he does have many items on his resume to show as opposed to our numerically best captains. It's actually a pity that Dravid is remembered most for the WC debacle than anything else. But, for those who give importance to ODIs he was also the one under whom we won 17 straight chases. And when Dravid's tenure had started, it was not as if the team was served to him on a platter. Infact, because of the way Ganguly had left and with Chappell had entered, it had taken an ugly turn. Our dressing room environment was always under clouds then with frequent encounters between Coach and Players, and that too senior one's. The fact is that inspite of this we did so well in test cricket in that phase tells me that he was a good leader on field. Off field he might not have done things correctly. But, as has been said, captaincy is not only about on-field tactics. It's about so many things. Ganguly was a motivator while Dhoni's calmness are also 2 enviable characteristics. You can't have an all in one captain can you?