Alltime XI challenge

[harmuk]

Ganguly has a better record against quality team than even Mark Waugh and Mark Waugh;s strike rate is hardly better than Ganguly's. If you are gonna argue that 76 strike rate is so much better than 73, then its ridiculous. Its like saying one player who averages 39 in 51 balls (Mark Waugh) is an ATG but the guy who averages 42 in 58 balls is not an ATG. I am sorry, but that is dumb. As for GG,Hayden,Sehwag Gayle- they were not openers in the mid/late 90s when scores of 250 were a lot more competetive than they were in the 2000s. Not to mention, Ganguly played far more matches against quality opposition than Hayden or Gayle or Sehwag in the ODIs. Hayden barely caught the tail end of Donald-Pollock and Wasim-Waqar, Ganguly dominated them at their pomp.

So a player has 3 percentage points better S/R than Ganguly, and you would want to rate Ganguly better all other things being equal. Say it is your opinion and move on than doling out all the subective BS. I think Gilly, Jaya, Hayden, Gayle, Haynes, Greenidge, Waugh, Anwar are all better ODI openers than the average Ganguly. I would personally pick Shewag, GG and Sidhu and of course Tendulkar over him in Indian cricket itself.

[Muloghonto]

Just to ensure that this discussion doesn't go wary, I want to make 2 ground rules - [1] No ad hominem (in the strictest sense) viz. no calling names, mature disagreement [2] No pedigree arguments viz. I have played xyz years of cricket, coached etc. [3] One point at a time Deal?

Agreed, provided you are not going to try and feed me the idea that somehow your opinion, which differs from every single experts in the game, due to selective manipulations of statistics is still the right one and to hell with what Ritchie Benaud or SunnyG knows. As long as you dont 'Harmoukefy' the conversation, i am gonna be respectful.

[Muloghonto]

So a player has 3 percentage points better S/R than Ganguly' date=' and you would want to rate Ganguly better all other things being equal. [/quote'] A player who has 3 percentage point strike rate better but is almost 2 percentage point worse in strike rate ? They are comparable. I just rate Ganguly higher than MEW because Mark Waugh was distinctly mediocre against Pakis and Saffies ( averaged 26.84 and 29.23 respectively) while Ganguly was extremely competetive against the Pakis ( average 35+) and dominant against the Saffers ( averag 50.50). All things are not equal- i am trading a slightly lower strike rate for a slightly better average. As i explained earlier, unless the differnce is significant, one cannot justify taking a batsman with better strike rate over a batsman who simply scores more runs! You may think Jaya, Anwar & Waugh are better openers. probably because you've only ever watched them bat against a mediocre India attack who they all beat up pretty good. In reality, neither Jaya,Anwar or Waugh managed to average above 30 against Pakistan,South Africa or Australia (to who it applies). Ganguly on the other hand, averages 50+ against South Africa, 35+ against Pakistan. Again, sheer amount of runs superiority wins over strike rate superiority. Against the Saffers for example, Jaya = 22 runs in 24 balls on average, while Ganguly is 50 runs in 70 balls. The latter is undeniably a better proposition in ODI cricket, since you cant just 'throw away' 28 runs just coz they were scored a wee bit slower. Its runs that wins you matches in ODI cricket, not just the rate of scoring runs. Greenidge & Haynes are just too difficult to compare. They played in an era of 60 overs cricket, hardly any serious fielding effort but more leeway to the bowlers. Comparing batsmen who had their heydeys in the early-mid 80s to batsmen of the 90s and post 90s generation is problematic in ODIs. Many for example, did not even run after striking a sweet cover drive in 80s era ODI cricket. Whereas today, even Sehwag runs after launching one of his rockets through the covers because fielders will have a chance to pull it back. Gillchrist and Tendy, i will grant are in due consideration for ATG opener status in ODIs. Tendy is clearly better and Gilly, i will grant does offer the upside of scoring at nearly a run-a-ball at an acceptable top order average and his keeping makes him a very good choice. But as i said, every team needs its anchor and i can easily justify dropping Gilly, putting Ganguly in the anchor spot instead of a middle order guy being the anchor and compensate by picking Dhoni. As for Mark Waugh,Anwar,Jaya - they never did anything of real significance against genuinely good pace bowling attacks. Ganguly on the other hand, did much better against the quality pace attacks. This makes Ganguly a clear-cut #3 opener of his era- behind Tendulkar and gillchrist, clearly ahead of the likes of Mark Waugh,Anwar, Jaya, Sehwag, etc., and one of the top 5/top 6 openers of alltime in ODI cricket. Considering that virtually all but 'strike rate' statistics in ODI batting are dominated by batsmen in the top 3, this is a pretty halcyon company for Ganguly and an automatic ATG status. Gambhir, Sehwag, Sidhu is not even worth mentioning, lol.

[harmuk]

PS: I am still waiting for my answer. I will ask the question again, bachchey: how do you extrapolate captaincy accumen from match results, given that a duffer with 10 sobers will have a better record than a genuis with 10 dodda ganesh. Answer that question, i have been waiting for it the whole day, only receiving more BS from you by the minute. Tatte abhi utrey nahin ?

Ganguly had a set of players - Diminished results. MSD same set of players for most part with a bunch of new comers - Far superior results. Taking it a step forward - IPL teams - Both of them handed similar kind of players and set up. MSD better results, Ganguly shunted out. Now do not come up with 'retired' player non-sense. Gilly and Warne were in the same boat, and were highly successful. Apples to apples - there is your answer. I know you will change the goal post. But then that is expected from a kiddo like you.

So far, every single argument you've made has a logical flaw in it which i've pointed out and you've ran away from it.....like a kid.

That is what stupid folks like you would think. Call other folk's argument logically flawed when they have no points to make. ADMISSION OF DEFEAT.

Tatte abhi utrey nahin ?

Tere?

[Crookbond]

Agreed' date=' [b']provided you are not going to try and feed me the idea that somehow your opinion, which differs from every single experts in the game, due to selective manipulations of statistics is still the right one and to hell with what Ritchie Benaud or SunnyG knows. As long as you dont 'Harmoukefy' the conversation, i am gonna be respectful.

Not really, I rather consider Benaud's arguments in high regard and would think twice before I cross them. Besides, you wouldn't have seen me being disrespectful in general here and if I do - I promptly apologize as well. So, lets start then - your general argument has been that the "end can't justify the means" i.e. you can't use results as a flat barometer to know a captain's "objective function" (I don't seem to get another word for this! Here, I try to mean that the goodness/greatness etc. of a captain). Am I right?

[Muloghonto]

Not really' date=' I rather consider Benaud's arguments in high regard and would think twice before I cross them. Besides, you wouldn't have seen me being disrespectful in general here and if I do - I promptly apologize as well. So, lets start then - your general argument has been that the "end can't justify the means" i.e. you can't use results as a flat barometer to know a captain's "objective function" (I don't seem to get another word for this! Here, I try to mean that the goodness/greatness etc. of a captain). Am I right?[/quote'] Yes.

[Muloghonto]

Ganguly had a set of players - Diminished results. MSD same set of players for most part with a bunch of new comers - Far superior results.

Same set of players for most part != same team. And Ganguly/Dhoni did not have the same oppositions, either.

Taking it a step forward - IPL teams - Both of them handed similar kind of players and set up. MSD better results, Ganguly shunted out. Now do not come up with 'retired' player non-sense. Gilly and Warne were in the same boat, and were highly successful.

Dhoni and Ganguly did not captain the same set of players in IPL. So how are you quantifying their performance ?

Apples to apples - there is your answer.

There is no apples to apples here. Ganguly did not captain the same team as Dhoni, neither did Dhoni face the same opposition. Result of a match is fundamentally a function of the players playing it. Ganguly's time, Pakistan, Australia and South Africa had vastly superior attacks.

I know you will change the goal post. But then that is expected from a kiddo like you. That is what stupid folks like you would think. Call other folk's argument logically flawed when they have no points to make. ADMISSION OF DEFEAT.

I have demonstrated the logical flaw in your argument multiple times and you are yet to respond. For example: A world cup final against the same opposition is 'harder' than a world cup semi final according to you. Since 'loss' in either match = loss of objective, logic dictates that there can be no differentiation of the occasion, once all things are equal (such as opposition and pitch). Hence, your proposition = logically unsupportive. See how easy it is ? Pointing out how you cannot sustain your argument logically is not conceding defeat, bachchey, but nice try.

Tere?

Tu payda hone se pahle utrey they, iss liye sab prashno ka jawaab main de raha hoon. Dekha nahin ?

[harmuk]

A player who has 3 percentage point strike rate better but is almost 2 percentage point worse in strike rate ? They are comparable. I just rate Ganguly higher than MEW because Mark Waugh was distinctly mediocre against Pakis and Saffies ( averaged 26.84 and 29.23 respectively) while Ganguly was extremely competetive against the Pakis ( average 35+) and dominant against the Saffers ( averag 50.50). All things are not equal- i am trading a slightly lower strike rate for a slightly better average. As i explained earlier, unless the differnce is significant, one cannot justify taking a batsman with better strike rate over a batsman who simply scores more runs! .

No I do not think of Ganguly's performance versus SA or Pak to be extraordinary. I can do the same for Mark Waugh and define my own criteria and show Ganguly in poor light too. That is not too difficult. Do not go down that route. Ganguly is one of the reasons why India has lost so many big games. It is one thing to score centuries versus Kenya and another to score a 50-60 in a WC final or even in the lesser finals. Ganguly just does not have the kind of game or knack to come up with such knocks. Net net, Mark Waugh anyday over average Ganguly for me.

You may think Jaya, Anwar & Waugh are better openers. probably because you've only ever watched them bat against a mediocre India attack who they all beat up pretty good. In reality, neither Jaya,Anwar or Waugh managed to average above 30 against Pakistan,South Africa or Australia (to who it applies). Ganguly on the other hand, averages 50+ against South Africa, 35+ against Pakistan. Again, sheer amount of runs superiority wins over strike rate superiority. Against the Saffers for example, Jaya = 22 runs in 24 balls on average, while Ganguly is 50 runs in 70 balls. The latter is undeniably a better proposition in ODI cricket, since you cant just 'throw away' 28 runs just coz they were scored a wee bit slower. Its runs that wins you matches in ODI cricket, not just the rate of scoring runs.

No actually I watched Ganguly being a big Kenya basher than any others. Stop the non-sense and stop pimping for Ganguly. If Jaya scores a quick fire 35-40 and disrupts the opponent, I have 5-6 batters to take care of the rest of the overs, and why would I want a Ganguly when anyone could get a 50 of 70 balls, especially in difficult situations. But not many or any be that Gilly or Jaya (that is why they are so feared). So it is runs made at a faster pacer that wins you games in ODI's.

Greenidge & Haynes are just too difficult to compare. They played in an era of 60 overs cricket, hardly any serious fielding effort but more leeway to the bowlers. Comparing batsmen who had their heydeys in the early-mid 80s to batsmen of the 90s and post 90s generation is problematic in ODIs. Many for example, did not even run after striking a sweet cover drive in 80s era ODI cricket. Whereas today, even Sehwag runs after launching one of his rockets through the covers because fielders will have a chance to pull it back.

Do not beat around the bush. Say Greenidge and Haynes are better than Ganguly. End of story.

Gillchrist and Tendy, i will grant are in due consideration for ATG opener status in ODIs. Tendy is clearly better and Gilly, i will grant does offer the upside of scoring at nearly a run-a-ball at an acceptable top order average and his keeping makes him a very good choice. But as i said, every team needs its anchor and i can easily justify dropping Gilly, putting Ganguly in the anchor spot instead of a middle order guy being the anchor and compensate by picking Dhoni.

Blah..Blah...Every team needs anchor why go for mediocre Ganguly, I can drop Tendulkar and get Hayden in with Gilly and have that dream WC final start. So there is no end to what people can do with their teams. You are the not only one that can think of being a smart alex. Got it buddey.

As for Mark Waugh,Anwar,Jaya - they never did anything of real significance against genuinely good pace bowling attacks. Ganguly on the other hand, did much better against the quality pace attacks. This makes Ganguly a clear-cut #3 opener of his era- behind Tendulkar and gillchrist, clearly ahead of the likes of Mark Waugh,Anwar, Jaya, Sehwag, etc., and one of the top 5/top 6 openers of alltime in ODI cricket. Considering that virtually all but 'strike rate' statistics in ODI batting are dominated by batsmen in the top 3, this is a pretty halcyon company for Ganguly and an automatic ATG status.

More BS. LOL. Waugh, Anwar, Jaya did nothing versus quality pace attacks, but Ganguly did. That won't even fly even on an Indian forum. So based on everything I said above, Ganguly is the least likely of candidates of the list I mentioned above to be considered in all-time XI, and will stay as a good One day batsman, not even great, let alone ATG.

Gambhir, Sehwag, Sidhu is not even worth mentioning, lol

They are all better bets than Ganguly if one is willing to look outside, of the number of games played and analyze.

[Crookbond]

Yes.

You also say that expert opinions are a much better valuation than us mere mortals. IF that's so, let us list down the opinions of expert analysts (with credible sources of course) who say Ganguly is a better captain than Dhoni, can we?

[Sooda]

Vinoo Mankad Mushtaq Ali Polly Umrigar M A K Pataudi Chandu Borde C K Nayudu B Kunderan D Phadkar B Nadkarni Amar Singh M Nissar Thats a team of Indian cricketers who had no experience of International Ltd Overs cricket, and yet would have probably been quite good at it. Agressive, if inconsistent, batting- deep batting linup too. Very good new ball attack, good spinners and lots of bowling options to pick from. And this team could field!

[harmuk]

Same set of players for most part != same team. And Ganguly/Dhoni did not have the same oppositions, either.

Ganguly had better players and weaker opponents relatively IMO. That is why given the results, MSD is better than Ganguly.

Dhoni and Ganguly did not captain the same set of players in IPL. So how are you quantifying their performance ?

Ganguly did not have the right scouting abilities to pick the right players, and more importantly did not marshall his troops well enough to get the desired results, mind you from the same set of players (each team drafted from), you being an ignorant idiot would not know. So given MSD won and Ganguly got his ass shipped out of town (twice), it is evident who the better skipper is, other than to a dumbo like you.

There is no apples to apples here. Ganguly did not captain the same team as Dhoni, neither did Dhoni face the same opposition. Result of a match is fundamentally a function of the players playing it. Ganguly's time, Pakistan, Australia and South Africa had vastly superior attacks.

No that is not true at all. I would take the 2011 attack over the 2001 attack for example versus SA. And in 2003 Ganguly captained a side in which there was no McGrath and Warne. So you dole out a lot of BS. Since MSD is a much better captain with better results, you are resorting to all this 'not same team', 'vastly superior attacks' nonsense.

I have demonstrated the logical flaw in your argument multiple times and you are yet to respond. For example: A world cup final against the same opposition is 'harder' than a world cup semi final according to you. Since 'loss' in either match = loss of objective, logic dictates that there can be no differentiation of the occasion, once all things are equal (such as opposition and pitch). Hence, your proposition = logically unsupportive. See how easy it is ? Pointing out how you cannot sustain your argument logically is not conceding defeat, bachchey, but nice try.

If anything it is the other way around. You made a laughing stock of yourself on mulitiple threads trying to cover up. This is a simple matter, which you are twisting. People winning the WC final gets the trophy (more at stake) not in the SF's. So no matter what you say, the pressure is different in different situations, all things being equal. If one is playing a card game when the stakes are high, they tend to make mistakes which they would not otherwise. The way people function or perform changes with the situation, doing the same exact thing. But keep trying or try saying some other expert said so, when it suits you. Keep calling others bachchey when you have the logical interpretation of a 1st grader.

Tu payda hone se pahle utrey they, iss liye sab prashno ka jawaab main de raha hoon. Dekha nahin ?

Arre my mistake, you have none, so nothing to utar for you. Keeping that aside, you still do not have answers to your own questions, let alone answering others.

[Muloghonto]

No I do not think of Ganguly's performance versus SA or Pak to be extraordinary. I can do the same for Mark Waugh and define my own criteria and show Ganguly in poor light too. That is not too difficult. Do not go down that route. Ganguly is one of the reasons why India has lost so many big games.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. You cannot possibly argue that a batsman who averaged 50.50 vs Donald,Pollock,Ntini or 35+ vs Wasim-Waqar, etc. is 'crap' against fast bowling but one who averages under 30 against these top teams is so much better. That simply does not compute. How on earth do you score so much runs against teams like South Africa,Pakistan if you are not clearly better ?!

It is one thing to score centuries versus Kenya and another to score a 50-60 in a WC final or even in the lesser finals. Ganguly just does not have the kind of game or knack to come up with such knocks. Net net, Mark Waugh anyday over average Ganguly for me.

World cup final is no different than a world cup semi final or a world cup quarter final. or a round robin elimination match for your team. Failure in all three scenarios equal instant removal from the race, success in all scenarios equate advancement towards the goal. Therefore, logically, there can be no 'status' difference between performance in any world cup elimination match. Performance against a good team in a quarter final or semi final is just as good a criteria for big game player as performance against a good team in the final. Anyways, world cup finals is a small part of the equation. They collectively represent less than 1% of the dataset, which is cannot support any mathematical conclusions. So therefore, your 'criteria' is simply not a criteria that can be applied to batsmen to evaluate them.

No actually I watched Ganguly being a big Kenya basher than any others. Stop the non-sense and stop pimping for Ganguly.

Maybe you were too young to see him score 97 against Donald,Pollock in a world cup.

If Jaya scores a quick fire 35-40 and disrupts the opponent, I have 5-6 batters to take care of the rest of the overs, and why would I want a Ganguly when anyone could get a 50 of 70 balls, especially in difficult situations. But not many or any be that Gilly or Jaya (that is why they are so feared). So it is runs made at a faster pacer that wins you games in ODI's.

I am sorry, runs at a faster pace does not make up empirically for runs, period. Against South Africa, six Jayasuryas give you 145 runs in 175 balls. That boils down to team being 145/6 at 29-30 over mark. OTOH, six gangulys = 229/4, end of 50 overs. Statistically, i garantee you, the team that is 229/4 at 50 overs is an odds on favourite to win than the team that is 145/6 at the end of 29-30 overs. Would you disagree with that ? A gulf of 84 runs is significantly huge for the last 4 wickets to cover on a consistent basis when you are faced with any combination of Donald,Pollock,Ntini,Steyn,Philander,deVilliers,Kallis into the frey. I dont care what strike rate is at, if you cannot set a higher target. so therefore, the idea that superior strike rate = superior ODI batsman, cannot be sustained. The idea is to score at a strike rate *and* at an average good enough to be optimal. Again, i am not contesting that Gilly can be considered a better ODI bat than Ganguly, predominantly because along with his 35+ average and 90+ strike rate, he also dished it out to excellent bowling attacks. Jayasurya, Junior, Anwar, they were a bit of FTB minnow bashers compared to Ganguly.

[Muloghonto]

Do not beat around the bush. Say Greenidge and Haynes are better than Ganguly. End of story. Blah..Blah...Every team needs anchor why go for mediocre Ganguly, I can drop Tendulkar and get Hayden in with Gilly and have that dream WC final start. So there is no end to what people can do with their teams. You are the not only one that can think of being a smart alex. Got it buddey.

I don't care how 'dreamy' you are about Gilly-Hayden, they were never as good as Tendy-Ganguly at their peak. Against quality opposition, day in,day out, Gangu-Tendy combo delivered. Remember, Hayden cashed in by having bulk of their careers coincide with retirement of great Paki,Carribean & Saffie bowling ( there was a 3-4 year period between the early 2000s of Donald-Pollock dominance and Morkel-Steyn-Philander trio). Yes, Hayden bashed around many a good or ordinary bowler. Ganguly has the numbers-which yuo are so fond of- to prove that he is a superior performer against tougher opposition. As for the anchor role of Ganguly, i don't see how he is 'mediocre' at it, as he excells at virtually all criterias relating to anchor role : high average at an acceptable strike rate. Besides, i already said that if you wish to position your anchor elsewhere, be my guest and i will accept that as a tactical difference. I already said that i understand a choice where you want a middle order anchor as opposed to a top order one. But to argue that Ganguly does not belong, if i wish to go for a top order fulcrum position, is simply ridiculous. He does belong at the top order, he is one the most successful top order anchor players : amongst players like Dravid,Kallis, Fleming, etc, he is definitely amongst the very top.

More BS. LOL. Waugh, Anwar, Jaya did nothing versus quality pace attacks, but Ganguly did. That won't even fly even on an Indian forum. So based on everything I said above, Ganguly is the least likely of candidates of the list I mentioned above to be considered in all-time XI, and will stay as a good One day batsman, not even great, let alone ATG.

You asked me for the definition of BS ? Well the above is the definition of BS. In your assessment, these are the 'good players versus quality pace attacks and worthy of ATG status ( strike rate in inner brackets)': 1.Anwar : ave: 23.55 vs AUS(74.15), 17.30 vs RSA(62.67), 35.60 vs WI(70.17) 2. Mark Waugh :ave: 26.84 vs PAK(73.01), 29.23 vs RSA(70.05), 39.72 vs WI(76.35) 3. Jayasurya : ave: 21.95 vs AUS (83.34), 32.68 vs PAK (87.21), 24.22 vs RSA (82.89), 32.92 vs WI (80.73) But this player is a bad player and cannot possibly be an ATG status because he sucks against quality pace bowlers: Ganguly: ave : 23.45 vs AUS(67.72), 35.14 vs PAK (71.82), 50.50 vs RSA (76.55), 47.58 vs WI (72.18). Amazing. Ganguly, who has the best average AND strike rate against South Africa, is no good. Ganguly, who has the best average against the two Ws and a slightly lower strike rate than Mark Waugh(not enough to compensate Mark Waugh's nearly 10 run differential) is still no good. Against the Aussies, his average is the 2nd worst by a narrow margin and a narrow margin 2nd in strike rate. still no good. Against the West Indies, he has the best average and a narrow 3rd strike rate, he is still no good. I am sorry, but anyone who thinks in the abovementioned lines, is defining the concept of spewing Bullshit.

They are all better bets than Ganguly if one is willing to look outside of the numbers of games played and analyze.

So far, your analysis has been rendered statistically null and void. You have refused to speak outside of select criteria like world cup finals (and i dont see how Anwar qualifies on that one either) only. This position is logically inconsistent because it is mathematically so: 1 or 2 samples of a sample space ranging from 250-400+ is statistically unsupportable. So mr, basic logic fail. Now repeat after me: one-off match performances does not make a player greater or lesser than another. Until you can construct an argument against Ganguly the ODI batsman outside of a premise that is already a math, thus logic fail, you are nothing more than an innane kid who does not even know the basics of statsistical analysis.

[harmuk]

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. You cannot possibly argue that a batsman who averaged 50.50 vs Donald,Pollock,Ntini or 35+ vs Wasim-Waqar, etc. is 'crap' against fast bowling but one who averages under 30 against these top teams is so much better. That simply does not compute. How on earth do you score so much runs against teams like South Africa,Pakistan if you are not clearly better ?!

Now why don't you go do a similar exercise for any player, I say is better than Ganguly for an ODI opening spot and you can find much better results. So as I said he is good, but not great(not close) or an all-time great (ridiculous) and not certainly better than any other choices I mentioned.

World cup final is no different than a world cup semi final or a world cup quarter final. or a round robin elimination match for your team. Failure in all three scenarios equal instant removal from the race, success in all scenarios equate advancement towards the goal. Therefore, logically, there can be no 'status' difference between performance in any world cup elimination match. Performance against a good team in a quarter final or semi final is just as good a criteria for big game player as performance against a good team in the final. Anyways, world cup finals is a small part of the equation. They collectively represent less than 1% of the dataset, which is cannot support any mathematical conclusions. So therefore, your 'criteria' is simply not a criteria that can be applied to batsmen to evaluate them.

BS. Explained to you multiple times. You are ignorant.

Maybe you were too young to see him score 97 against Donald,Pollock in a world cup.

So that makes him better than other contenders? I am sure as I said above all the players I mentioned will have such knocks. One or two knocks is not the only reason to pick someone as an ATG.

I am sorry, runs at a faster pace does not make up empirically for runs, period. Against South Africa, six Jayasuryas give you 145 runs in 175 balls. That boils down to team being 145/6 at 29-30 over mark. OTOH, six gangulys = 229/4, end of 50 overs. Statistically, i garantee you, the team that is 229/4 at 50 overs is an odds on favourite to win than the team that is 145/6 at the end of 29-30 overs. A gulf of 84 runs is significantly huge for the last 4 wickets to cover on a consistent basis when you are faced with any combination of Donald,Pollock,Ntini,Steyn,Philander,deVilliers,Kallis into the frey.

That is flawed. The game of cricket does not work that way. If a team has a Jaya or a Gilly and other good players around them the score for the team will be on most occasions out of reach for the opponent. So it will never be 145/6. That is where you are going wrong. On the other hand a team can find an anchor like Ganguly and much better from the list I have given, and nothing changes. So all this anchor stuff is a bit overrated, and average players like Ganguly would never get to 90 S/R with a 32 average, or else they could have. On the other hand it is easy to average, 39-40 with a 70 S/R, even with the batting skills of a Ganguly.

Again, i am not contesting that Gilly can be considered a better ODI bat than Ganguly, predominantly because along with his 35+ average and 90+ strike rate, he also dished it out to excellent bowling attacks.

ok.

Jayasurya, Junior, Anwar, they were a bit of FTB minnow bashers compared to Ganguly

That is just an opinion. Ganguly to me can never be counted in tougher situations, if not India would have won more finals. He was one of the culprits.

[JaFanatic]

Just to ensure that this discussion doesn't go into 'BS' mode, I want to make 3 ground rules - [1] No ad hominem (in the strictest sense) viz. no calling names, mature disagreement [2] No pedigree arguments viz. I have played xyz years of cricket, coached etc. [3] One point at a time Deal?

are you the official match referee ? :hmmm: this is fun

[Muloghonto]

Now why don't you go do a similar exercise for any player' date=' I say is better than Ganguly for an ODI opening spot and you can find much better results. So as I said he is good, but not great(not close) or an all-time great (ridiculous) and not certainly better than any other choices I mentioned. [/quote'] based on what criterias linearly applied ? nope, you have never explained it to me. You pointedly tried to lie about the premise (created a strawman argument) and when i busted you, you ran away. I await your explanation. Therefore, World cup finals (by practical reality, a one or two knock scenario) cannot be used as the only reason to pick someone as an ATG. Game, set and match, me. Sonny. :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up: I dont think there ever has been an explicit need to get to 32 average with 90 strike rate over a player who is 40 average and 72 strike rate. Why would any batsman, at the very top of the order, rate scoring a run-a-ball 20 more than scoring a 65 ball 50 ? That simply does not compute. I am sorry, you are being logically inconsistent here. You are calling my analogy as flawed, yet you are arguing that strike rate is end-all be all of ODI cricket. If so, then my analogy is valid, as it is purely an extrapolation of who is better- a team full of fast striking low scorers or low striking high scorers. As you can see, just being better on strike rate is not good enough. You still need to score sufficient runs to go with that strike rate. hence the role of the guy who scores more runs has to be fundamentally more important. You want to pick on Ganguly's strike rate as the very basis of his lack of greatness, then say that other options exist elsewhere who could've done better anchor jobs, when the reality is, your personnel do not satisfy the criteria of an anchor: they do not have a high enough average to qualify as anchoring anything to begin with! As or anchor stuff being overrated, hey genius, tell us what you expect a two ATG teams going at each other and the fantasy score line is supposed to look like. if it is anywhere in the range of 'well one team scores 263/7 in 50 overs and the other team scores 265/8 to win it in the 49.5th over, then there is a role for an anchor. if you want to give complete roads to bat on so that even an attack comprising of Wasim,Waqar,Donald,Warne will get creamed for 300+ runs, then yes yuo are right, there is no role for an anchor. but that is not the objective here- atleast, i dont imagine it to be. I imagine these teams would be going at each other, consistently in the 240-270 range, each winning with 3-4 balls to spare or by a margin of 10-15 runs. In such a scenario, your team needs an anchor buddy. I simply do not see why you are averse to the idea of having one opener being an anchor. If so, that is fine. I chose to pick an opener instead of a middle order anchor at #4. Whats wrong with that again ? Um. Since when did tournament finals become the only criteria again ? In anycase, Gangu is still significantly better than Junior & anwar in tournament finals. So now what ?

[harmuk]

You asked me for the definition of BS ? Well the above is the definition of BS. In your assessment, these are the 'good players versus quality pace attacks and worthy of ATG status ( strike rate in inner brackets)': 1.Anwar : ave: 23.55 vs AUS(74.15), 17.30 vs RSA(62.67), 35.60 vs WI(70.17) 2. Mark Waugh :ave: 26.84 vs PAK(73.01), 29.23 vs RSA(70.05), 39.72 vs WI(76.35) 3. Jayasurya : ave: 21.95 vs AUS (83.34), 32.68 vs PAK (87.21), 24.22 vs RSA (82.89), 32.92 vs WI (80.73) But this player is a bad player and cannot possibly be an ATG status because he sucks against quality pace bowlers: Ganguly: ave : 23.45 vs AUS(67.72), 35.14 vs PAK (71.82), 50.50 vs RSA (76.55), 47.58 vs WI (72.18). Amazing. Ganguly, who has the best average AND strike rate against South Africa, is no good. Ganguly, who has the best average against the two Ws and a slightly lower strike rate than Mark Waugh(not enough to compensate Mark Waugh's nearly 10 run differential) is still no good. Against the Aussies, his average is the 2nd worst by a narrow margin and a narrow margin 2nd in strike rate. still no good. Against the West Indies, he has the best average and a narrow 3rd strike rate, he is still no good. I am sorry, but anyone who thinks in the abovementioned lines, is defining the concept of spewing Bullshit.

Yo...Hang on... I said someone as an all-time great? Show me where I called Waugh, Anwar, Jaya an ATG, excepting challenge you that Ganguly is not an all-time great. I said I would pick Waugh, Anwar over Ganguly surely. You plucking stats without proper analysis of the innings and match situation is futile. You cannot filter out teams, as you please and based on high level number skimming draw conclusions. That to me is BS.

So far, your analysis has been rendered statistically null and void. You have refused to speak outside of select criteria like world cup finals (and i dont see how Anwar qualifies on that one either) only. This position is logically inconsistent because it is mathematically so: 1 or 2 samples of a sample space ranging from 250-400+ is statistically unsupportable. So mr, basic logic fail.

oh really - I refused to speak out of WC finals - Hmm...Read the posts again. No matter how many qualifiers you put, you failed to show me how Ganguly with a lower S/R and comparable average is a better bet than Waugh, Anwar, Hayden- Plucking stats and pasting them alone will not do, without putting proper context to them.

Now repeat after me: one-off match performances does not make a player greater or lesser than another.

Now repeat AFTER me: All things being comparable a player with better performance in a WC Final is the greater player.

[harmuk]

Therefore, World cup finals (by practical reality, a one or two knock scenario) cannot be used as the only reason to pick someone as an ATG. Game, set and match, me. Sonny. :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

Yes that is correct. But when all things are comparable the player with great WC Finals (Gilly thrice, Viv twice) will take home the cake. Nice try. But.... Game, set and match, me. :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[Muloghonto]

Yes that is correct. But when all things are comparable the player with great WC Finals (Gilly thrice, Viv twice) will take home the cake. Nice try. But.... Game, set and match, me. :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

Sorry, until you can explain how a criteria narrow enough ( world cup final performance) to not qualify on a mathematical principle alone, can be used to seperate the rest, it will be my point and mine alone, kiddo. Something that is mathematically invalid, is a logical invalidity. So how can you possibly use any data yeilded by comparing two of 400 sample spaces ? Did you ever do any math at all in school or did you skip over the part that talks about standard deviations ?

[Muloghonto]

Yo...Hang on... I said someone as an all-time great? Show me where I called Waugh' date= Anwar, Jaya an ATG, excepting challenge you that Ganguly is not an all-time great. Nothing more than more bakwaas from the kid who got trapped in his own web of ignorance. There is no statistical basis of picking Anwar or Waugh over ganguly. Their performance against the best teams, which i have underlined, is significantly worse. I filtered out the top 4 bowling attacks these guys have played against and this is borne out by statsguru, where Australia, Pakistan,South Africa and West Indies are the top 4 bowling attacks of the period of 1990-2002 in ODI as well as Test cricket. So the analysis is relevant: if an opener is not to be evaluated against the best on a consistent basis, then there is no relevant evaluation. Because as i have shown you, against the top bowling attacks of his time, which are Australia,Pakistan,South Africa and West Indies, Ganguly consistently tops Anwar & Waugh, while maintaining a top ranked status in every ranking system in ODI cricket. Yes, overall their averages are close to Ganguly's. Whopee tee do. I am going by who did the best against the best. That is the entire point of being in an alltime XI. If you cannot do anything good vs the alltime callibre lineups but beat on zimbabwe, well guess what ? you will still get tooled by the best bowlers. In that aspect, Ganguly handily trumps Mark Waugh, Anwar, Jayasurya. hayden, heh, find me any alltime XI- even an aussie one- with Hayden in it and i will have a bridge to sell you. A guy who cashes in when fast bowling resources globally go to near zero, is pretty inflated if you ask me. Cannot be. 1-2 match does not qualify for statistical analysis. What is a mathematical fallacy is a logical one by default. Therefore, repeat after me: nomatter how many things are equal, a one off performance can never be used to differentiate between two players if the said one-off does not satisfy basic statistical parameters. But then again, math doesnt seem to be your forte.

So wait a minute, you are namedropping people here who are better than Ganguly but not alltime greats either ? in a thread about alltime greats. Can you **** elsewhere please ?