Dhoni overtakes Ganguly's tally of 21 test wins as captain

[CG]

In 2006' date=' Dravid was only 32-33, too early to go on a downhill :--D[/quote'] He never got it back again apart from knocks in india and eng tour.

[saneindian]

Fanboyzz dont draw a line anywhere.

And the same goes for haters as well...

[rkt.india]

He never got it back again apart from knocks in india and eng tour.

but you said bowling was mediocre. If it was that mediocre he should have scored. Even Ponting only averages around 40 in that period after 2006 apart from recent India tour Australia he had been struggling at most places.

[CG]

but you said bowling was mediocre. If it was that mediocre he should have scored. Even Ponting only averages around 40 in that period after 2006 apart from recent India tour Australia he had been struggling at most places.

As i said they had lost it and going downhill.Some batsman do and some do not.The bowling average and batting average in the period are enough indicators.

[Sidhoni]

Fanboyzz dont draw a line anywhere.

Something wrong in what I said? Stop beating around the bush and come to your point.

[The Outsider]

Ganguly was not a great batsman, but comparing his batting with Dhoni has surely got to be a joke. If it was all about averages we would quietly anoint Samaraweera and Jayawardene as equivalents of Gavaskar and Richards and be done.

[rkt.india]

As i said they had lost it and going downhill.Some batsman do and some do not.The bowling average and batting average in the period are enough indicators.

Yaar if attacks were mediocre, it would not even have mattered whether he declined or not.

[CG]

Yaar if attacks were mediocre' date=' it would not even have mattered whether he declined or not.[/quote'] Its a fact attacks were medicore and pitches have become flatter.There comes a time for everybody .Both ponting and dravid had a downhill slide.Even mediocre bowlers were bouncing ponting out.

[saneindian]

Ganguly was not a great batsman' date=' but comparing his batting with Dhoni has surely got to be a joke. If it was all about [b']averages we would quietly anoint Samaraweera and Jayawardene as equivalents of Gavaskar and Richards and be done.

Not about averages but isn't batting all about scoring runs? Aesthetics do not matter :winky:

[The Outsider]

Not about averages but isn't batting all about scoring runs? Aesthetics do not matter :winky:

I am not talking about aesthetics, but the context of the runs scored - the opposition, conditions, context of the team etc. Innings like the 144 at Brisbane, the twin half centuries at Johannesburg, or the 90 at Kanpur. If you want to just look at the bottom line of how many runs were scored you would end up rating Mahela similar to Richards.

[rkt.india]

Its a fact attacks were medicore and pitches have become flatter.There comes a time for everybody .Both ponting and dravid had a downhill slide.Even mediocre bowlers were bouncing ponting out.

Its a perception as time changes, era changes, a lot of other things change, standard changes as well. Everyone is a product of its time. The teams who had good fast bowling attack still have good fast bowling attack. Australia and SA always had good fast bowlers and still have. England had an average attack before 2005 and now they have very good attack. Similarly WI had a decent attack in early 2000s and still their attack is as decent. India and SL never had a great attack, same with NZ. Only Pakistan does not have as good fast bowlers now as they had before in Akram, Waqar and Akhtar.

[rkt.india]

I am not talking about aesthetics' date=' but the context of the runs scored - the opposition, conditions, context of the team etc. Innings like the 144 at Brisbane, the twin half centuries at Johannesburg, or the 90 at Kanpur. If you want to just look at the bottom line of how many runs were scored you would end up rating Mahela similar to Richards.[/quote'] The question is why would people compare two different type of cricketers. Ganguly did play some good innings but Ganguly was a specialist batsman and always picked as batsman. Dhoni is a Wk/bat. He is like an alrounder who contributes to team in two aspects of the game. I am not saying it makes him a great test player as he is not but the expectations of people from him has been really high.

[BeautifulGame]

Its a perception as time changes, era changes, a lot of other things change, standard changes as well. Everyone is a product of its time. The teams who had good fast bowling attack still have good fast bowling attack. Australia and SA always had good fast bowlers and still have. England had an average attack before 2005 and now they have very good attack. Similarly WI had a decent attack in early 2000s and still their attack is as decent. India and SL never had a great attack, same with NZ. Only Pakistan does not have as good fast bowlers now as they had before in Akram, Waqar and Akhtar.

U can't really compare the Aussie attack of 90s and now. That one was miles ahead. Not a single bowler from current set up would get into that line up.

[BeautifulGame]

I am not talking about aesthetics' date=' but the context of the runs scored - the opposition, conditions, context of the team etc. Innings like the 144 at Brisbane, the twin half centuries at Johannesburg, or the 90 at Kanpur. If you want to just look at the bottom line of how many runs were scored you would end up rating Mahela similar to Richards.[/quote'] True . But also the fact remains that Ganguly as a batsman grossly underachieved once he became Captain apart from few knocks here and there. The fact that Dhoni has scored more runs at similar average despite being a wk and no. 7 bat is a testimony to that. Ganguly batted at no5 most of his captaincy career means Dhoni's record is pretty impressive certainly compared with Ganguly for a wk batsman

[saneindian]

I am not talking about aesthetics' date=' but the context of the runs scored - the opposition, conditions, context of the team etc. Innings like the[b'] 144 at Brisbane, the twin half centuries at Johannesburg, or the 90 at Kanpur. If you want to just look at the bottom line of how many runs were scored you would end up rating Mahela similar to Richards.

Incidentally all these knocks were played around or after Dada had played 116 innings, stats for which I gave for Dhoni and Dada. That 144 at Brisbane was the 114th test innings of Dada. Stats are irrelevant but not as irrelevant to suggest Dada was in a different league as a batsman. Talent wise a loud yes, performance wise a big no. Dada was an underachiever with the bat and probably the same could be said about Dhoni as well.

[don_corleone840]

I am not talking about aesthetics' date=' but the context of the runs scored - the opposition, conditions, context of the team etc. Innings like the 144 at Brisbane, the twin half centuries at Johannesburg, or the 90 at Kanpur. If you want to just look at the bottom line of how many runs were scored you would end up rating Mahela similar to Richards.[/quote'] ijSxwV0CrJ0 :giggle::giggle:

[rkt.india]

U can't really compare the Aussie attack of 90s and now. That one was miles ahead. Not a single bowler from current set up would get into that line up.

Pattinson easily would.

[BeautifulGame]

Pattinson easily would.

Better than Kasprovic of 2004? Dont think so.Even Brett Lee couldnt get ahead of him. And even if Pattinson is better than Kasper (for argument's sake) still bowling trio of Macgrath Gillespe and Warne is million years ahead of Starc , Siddle and Lyon

[rkt.india]

Better than Kasprovic of 2004? Dont think so.Even Brett Lee couldnt get ahead of him. And even if Pattinson is better than Kasper (for argument's sake) still bowling trio of Macgrath Gillespe and Warne is million years ahead of Starc , Siddle and Lyon

Kasper was an average bowler apart from that tour. Lee was better than him. Pattinson showed on that patta why he is one of the best bowlers going around.

[don_corleone840]

Better than Kasprovic of 2004? Dont think so.Even Brett Lee couldnt get ahead of him. And even if Pattinson is better than Kasper (for argument's sake) still bowling trio of Macgrath Gillespe and Warne is million years ahead of Starc , Siddle and Lyon

IF I AM CORRECT THAN MCGRATH AND WARNE DID NOT PLAY EVEN SINGLE TEST IN 2004 SERIES