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

[Sean Bradley]

Whats more surprising than ganguly's position is Aravinda D Silva's position in that list, that guy is one of Tendulkar's favourite batsman, too great to be that low.

[The Outsider]

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.

Waugh did it with a few verbal volleys with Ambrose.

[Ram]

Waugh did it with a few verbal volleys with Ambrose.

I was going to mention that Steve Waugh was probably the one exception to this norm.

[Precambrian]

How do England pitches seam in general?

Who said that?

[carnish]

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.

I dont remember too many talks about Ganguly's problems with the short ball in late 90's. It was only after the series against Australia in 2001 that this problem was exposed when Gillespie barraged him with a lot of short stuff. Thats when the talks arised IIRC. He obviously had a problem with the short ball since the start of his career but not many teams had realized that considering the one short ball was not allowed in ODIs those days and he batted well down in tests when the ball was old.

[Precambrian]

I dont think he faced new ball in England. Once you survive new ball' date=' 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.[/quote'] In 1996, he batted at no.3. His scores were 131, 136 and 48. Came in at team scores of 25-1, 7-1 and 17-1 respectively.

[saneindian]

In his first 3-4 years he was quite good, failed in Aus in 1999 and things went bad a little, then he became the captain and that majorly affected his batting. And the worse thing was his insistence on being the number 5 when clearly by 2001-02, he should have moved down the order to let VVS bat ahead of him.

[Ram]

I dont remember too many talks about Ganguly's problems with the short ball in late 90's. It was only after the series against Australia in 2001 that this problem was exposed when Gillespie barraged him with a lot of short stuff. Thats when the talks arised IIRC. He obviously had a problem with the short ball since the start of his career but not many teams had realized that considering the one short ball was not allowed in ODIs those days and he batted well down in tests when the ball was old.

Well, he started to open in ODIs within about a couple of years of his debut. And if you recall, when Ganguly started having all the success he did in the ODI in the late 90s, the one thing that stood out like a neon sign was the absolute and utter lack of a leg-side game in his batting. As elegant and effective he was on the off-side, his leg-side play was almost non-existent. And that included the pull/hook shots as well. You are right that because the short-ball was sparingly used in ODIs, he was able to work around this weakness, but his problems against fast bowling in tests started doing the round as early as the India's tour of south Africa in 1997.

[carnish]

Well, he started to open in ODIs within about a couple of years of his debut. And if you recall, when Ganguly started having all the success he did in the ODI in the late 90s, the one thing that stood out like a neon sign was the absolute and utter lack of a leg-side game in his batting. As elegant and effective he was on the off-side, his leg-side play was almost non-existent. And that included the pull/hook shots as well. You are right that because the short-ball was sparingly used in ODIs, he was able to work around this weakness, but his problems against fast bowling in tests started doing the round as early as the India's tour of south Africa in 1997.

Ganguly was all at sea against Donald in that series like most Indian batsmen. But he got out just once to the short ball in that series, I guess. Mostly he just played poorly against Donald's pace. But yes, his non-existent leg side game was for everyone to see, but he made for it by batting like God on the off-side. He could pierce even the slightest gaps on the off side. It was a pleasure to see Ganguly bat in those days.

[Crookbond]

Well, he started to open in ODIs within about a couple of years of his debut. And if you recall, when Ganguly started having all the success he did in the ODI in the late 90s, the one thing that stood out like a neon sign was the absolute and utter lack of a leg-side game in his batting. As elegant and effective he was on the off-side, his leg-side play was almost non-existent. And that included the pull/hook shots as well. You are right that because the short-ball was sparingly used in ODIs, he was able to work around this weakness, but his problems against fast bowling in tests started doing the round as early as the India's tour of south Africa in 1997.

This was because bouncers weren't allowed in ODI's, anything above shoulder height was a no ball.

[Cevno]

I dont think he faced new ball in England. Once you survive new ball' date=' 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.[/quote'] There's something called second new ball too. Ask Raina, Yuvraj and Dhoni in the 2011 series in England. :giggle:

[Vilander]

guys when we say 42 is not a great average, we also have to note not many have gone past it as well..at least in the filter that we are discussing now.. that makes ganguly a better bat than he is thought to be.. lol. It actually is quite striking.

[The Outsider]

Who said that?

Swinging and seaming pitches.

[adi B]

guys when we say 42 is not a great average, we also have to note not many have gone past it as well..at least in the filter that we are discussing now.. that makes ganguly a better bat than he is thought to be.. lol. It actually is quite striking.

+1 and he was a middle order batsman..avg of 42 for a middle order batsman in those countries is pretty good.

[Precambrian]

Swinging and seaming pitches.

where did I say that?

[CG]

The ball does seam in england if u leave enough grass,Guys like flintoff,Harmy,Broad are basically seam bowlers who have done well..It depends on pitches .Southafrican pitches leave a fair amount of grass so generally the ball seams off the pitch.Swing and seam is used as a common term in commentary.

[Vilander]

The ball does seam in england if u leave enough grass' date='Guys like flintoff,Harmy,Broad are basically seam bowlers who have done well..It depends on pitches .Southafrican pitches leave a fair amount of grass so generally the ball seams off the pitch.Swing and seam is used as a common term in commentary.[/quote'] It should theoretically seam in any grassy pitch+ softer outfield since the seam is less damaged and so more pronounced.