SC Ganguly was poor in swinging seaming conditions,think again..

[Ram]

His defense vastly improved on his return. He was right behind the ball gave an assured look that he never gave before. he always used to be a chancy' date=' flashy player. He protected his wicket much better than the first part of his career.[/quote'] Which is remarkable, especially when you think he was well past 33 when he came back into the team. In the last 5 years, we have 3 of our greats complete remarkable batting comebacks in the wrong side of 33 - Ganguly did it in 2007, Sachin did it in 2010 and Dravid did it in 2011.

[Precambrian]

There is a difference between an England pitch and those in Aus and SA. England pitch has swing and movement. Other two have bounce and pace. Ganguly's problem was always the later.

Exactly.

[The Outsider]

Yaar koi swinging aur seaming to define kare stats guru filter lagane se pehle :wall:

[Precambrian]

Every pitch in England is swinging and seaming? Every pitch in India is a dust bowl? What kind of stupid analysis is this - you want to examine Ganguly's performance on swinging and seaming tracks you do a subjective analysis not throw out some crap by filtering venues from stats guru!

Ask the OP, not me. And generally English pitches offer more swing than the subcontinent pitches. It does not require a statsguru or an oracle to say that. And if a player, having toured England thrice, still averaged in mid sixties as a batsman, it is very unlikely all of those were made in conditions which were completely bat friendly, and did not swing, is it?

[Precambrian]

I did not mean to exclude England. The only reason I pointed out the so-called England connection is so that we do not let the so-called numbers deflect from the actual point - Which is for a major portion of his career, Ganguly's batting was suspect against high quality pace bowling. Btw, if you think Ganguly's problems against fast bowling surfaced only on fast tracks, you should check out the 2004 test series b/w India and Australia, in India. Glenn McGrath and ran rings around Ganguly on not so fast pitches (Remember Nagpur?).

I agree he had issues with genuine pace and bounce. And I am not arguing he was next to god against swing bowling either. But generally he was a better batsman of swing bowling than of pace and bounce. Pretty much everyone, including Sachin Tendulkar and Lara have struggled against McGrath, on docile pitches and otherwise. Not fair to judge Ganguly on the basis of his performance against an all time great bowler.

[The Outsider]

Ask the OP, not me. And generally English pitches offer more swing than the subcontinent pitches. It does not require a statsguru or an oracle to say that. And if a player, having toured England thrice, still averaged in mid sixties as a batsman, it is very unlikely all of those were made in conditions which were completely bat friendly, and did not swing, is it?

So if you philter a double hundred at Oval and a duck at Nottingham you have done well in "swinging and seaming" conditions and if you've scored a duck at Chennai and scored a double hundred at Mohali(90s) you've done well at turning tracks? :hysterical:

[Precambrian]

So if you philter a double hundred at Oval and a duck at Nottingham you have done well in "swinging and seaming" conditions and if you've scored a duck at Chennai and scored a double hundred at Mohali(90s) you've done well at turning tracks? :hysterical:

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Ganguly made a 50+ score in every ground he played in England. And he made atleast 2 50+ scores every time we toured there as well.there as well. So its not a case of making hay on particular pitch or having a good one tour and rest being crap. Is it?

[The Outsider]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Ganguly made a 50+ score in every ground he played in England. And he made atleast 2 50+ scores every time we toured there as well.there as well. So its not a case of making hay on particular pitch or having a good one tour and rest being crap. Is it?

Forget about Ganguly, I am talking about the basic criteria here - stats guru philter = England = swinging seaming conditions. FWIW, I think Ganguly did very well in England.

[Precambrian]

Forget about Ganguly, I am talking about the basic criteria here - stats guru philter = England = swinging seaming conditions. FWIW, I think Ganguly did very well in England.

Am talking about Ganguly only. And the fact that he has done well in England is also because he dealt with swing pretty well. If you want to discuss generic issues with statsguru analysis lets discuss in a seperate thread.

[The Outsider]

Am talking about Ganguly only. And the fact that he has done well in England is also because he dealt with swing pretty well. If you want to discuss generic issues with statsguru analysis lets discuss in a seperate thread.

How do England pitches seam in general?

[Crookbond]

L'Etranger, You are missing a point. I think Precambrian wants to say that IF Ganguly averages 50+ on each and every ground he played in England surely he played swing bowling in England well. Why? Simply because any swinging pitch in England should be a subset of these grounds. It's like using a superset to prove a subset.

[rkt.india]

That wasn't my question. Why exclude England in an analysis of his performance against swing bowling in swinging conditions? I don't think he had issues with swing bowling, but his problems were against genuinely quick bowling and on bouncy tracks. He just couldn't pull for his life (much like Raina).

I dont think he faced new ball in England. Once you survive new ball, batting becomes much easier in England. I would be inclined to know how many times he came out to bat when early wickets fell with ball still new. It is all relative to how our top order performed.

[The Outsider]

L'Etranger' date=' You are missing a point. I think Precambrian wants to say that IF Ganguly averages 50+ on each and every ground he played in England surely he played swing bowling in England well. Why? Simply because any swinging pitch in England should be a subset of these grounds. It's like using a superset to prove a subset.[/quote'] I am not denying that Ganguly was an excellent player of swing bowling. :wall: My point is that you cannot extrapolate from swing to seam as has been done in the OP.

[rkt.india]

India have mostly done well in England apart from last series. So not just Ganguly, most batsmen have done well there. At places like England and Australia or SA, most middle order batsmen's performance is relative to how openers perform. Openers and #3 always make it easy for the batsmen to come next. Both in 2002 and 2007 tours, our openers did well and as a result, middle order also flourished.

[CG]

Ganguly was a good test batsman.Captaincy and power took a toll on his batting and after he was dropped he came back a better player of bounce by reducing his batlift .His career was ended abruptly i think.

[CG]

India have mostly done well in England apart from last series. So not just Ganguly, most batsmen have done well there bar Laxman. At places like England and Australia or SA, most middle order batsmen's performance is relative to how openers perform. Openers and #3 always make it easy for the batsmen to come next. Both in 2002 and 2007 tours, our openers did well and as a result, middle order also flourished.

Laxman has done well in 2007 and 2002 tours averaging 50 and 40 respectively.

[rkt.india]

Laxman has done well in 2007 and 2001 tours averaging 50 and 40 respectively.

edited.

[carnish]

We can go back and forth on the numbers, but the fact of the matter remains that, during the first 80% of his career (1996-2006), Ganguly was a suspect batsmen against high quality fast bowling. Back then, you'd look at his career and go 'How the hell does such an accomplished batsmen actually have such a significant weakness?'. It was a bit like Steve Waugh and short-pitched bowling or KP and left-arm spinners. Having said that, when he came back into the team in 2007, he looked a completely different player against pace bowling. If you guys recall, he was one of the saving graces of our defeat in South African in late 2006-2007. He topped the run aggregates against England in England and in that same year, against Pakistan at home, he looked super-accomplished against Shoaib and company (We all remember the test match where Yasir Arafat scythed thru our top order in seaming conditions to reduce us to 64-4 for Yuvraj's counter-attacking 164, but how many of us remember the double 100 that Ganguly got in the same game?) From late 2006 to late 2007, Saurav Ganguly looked a completely transformed player against pace bowling. He seemed to be able to read the length earlier than ever, which helped him negotiate swing and bounce better than ever. Therefore, it was no surprise our loss in Australia in 2007-08 co-incided with Ganguly's dip in form as well.

+++ But early in his career too ... Ganguly was a much more established player, maybe even a Devil in the ODI format. He amassed nearly 20 centuries in his first 5 years of Cricket from1996-2001. Thats incredible for anyone in any conditions. Ganguly ofcourse had a problem against the short ball but that was not found out by many teams until 2001 and after he got the Captaincy, he never worked on that aspect of his game until Greg came in 2005, I guess. After that, he was out of the team, worked on his batting and next 2 and a half year, he came as a better batsman.

[carnish]

The funniest thing about the numbers in OP is they clearly point out the FTBs. Sehwag and Jaya are found out in those conditions. Sehwag witrh average of 33 and Jaya with an average of 30. Sanga though is with a decent average.

[Ram]

+++ But early in his career too ... Ganguly was a much more established player, maybe even a Devil in the ODI format. He amassed nearly 20 centuries in his first 5 years of Cricket from1996-2001. Thats incredible for anyone in any conditions. Ganguly ofcourse had a problem against the short ball but that was not found out by many teams until 2001 and after he got the Captaincy, he never worked on that aspect of his game until Greg came in 2005, I guess. After that, he was out of the team, worked on his batting and next 2 and a half year, he came as a better batsman.

I dont think that is the case at all. It became pretty apparent, quite early in his career that Ganguly was suspect against fast bowling. I mean, if you compare the records of the best Indian test batsmen of this era - Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, VVS and Ganguly, what stands out quite markedly is that Ganguly's test average is significantly lower when compared to his peers. There was a reason for this - His struggles against fast bowling. You cant have a significant weakness like he had and then go on to be a 50+ average test player. I have always felt the 50+ average mark is the line in the sand when it comes separating the great from the good players. Ganguly was a good test batsmen, but he is not great who will be mentioned in the same breadth as SRT, Dravid etc.