I am amazed. In the same sentence you are arguing that SR's matter less in test and you finish the sentence with batsman crawling to hand the advantage to the opposition.
So if RD crawled and handed over the advantage to the opposition .... how can u say SG did not do the same?
If Ganguly cant be measured on the 7 runs at 24 SR innings ... how can Dravid be measured for his 12 ? Its only 5 more runs isnt it? And u said below or slightly over 20. Does 24 count as slightly above?
Context -- RD was criticiized for his 12 off 96 after electing not to enforce the follow on against Eng and in the slowness in scoring runs, thereby taking away overs that could have been used to bowl England out.
As for the criticism against Aus, it was over quite a few innings and I can see why some others would feel justified in criticizing him -there is some cricketing merit behind that. I didnt because I took into account his not being in form and his playing as an opener.
In SG's case, it is one innings after an entire series with SR's above 50. It is silly, as manee put it to compare SR's in tests for a batsman who has only scored 7 runs and that too in one innings. For the record, SRt had scored 4 run off 19 balls (the first scoring shot was off the 19th ball) and MSD has scored 6 off 54 balls.
Your point about Ganguly given --the nature of his innings, his scoring SR in the series, and the match situation has no cricketing merit to it. And the fact that you choose to ignore others lays bare your lack of objectivity.
There is no comparison contextually between SG and RD here.
This is my last post on this topic because I dont have the time to indulge in this.
I usually have very a low threshold for indulging in conversations with people who have zero cricketing knowledge or bookish cricketing knowledge, especially if they continue to argue the same point despite explanations. Its a waste of time for me.
Knowing you, I know that the lack of cricketing knowledge aspect does not apply to you. Its manifest in your opinions about cricketing issues where Ganguly is not involved. Which means that you have no semblance of objectivity when it comes to Ganguly and / or this is a game for you -- a game to criticize Ganguly for everything under the sun, only because it gives you the chance to fight a war by proxy against those who happen to criticize your untouchable god, Dravid.
Sorry, I dont have the time or inclination to indulge in these kind of juvenile games with you. Its a childish approach to not counter people when they make an argument that you dont like, but wait for time and then use the flimsiest of issues (often devoid of cricketing logic) to hit back at them by criticizing another player.
And this practice is detrimental to our whole group as well -- 1 yr after GC has left and more than 2 years after the original spat, this habit of discussing not cricket, but finding ways to needle people on the other side is asinine, juvenile, childish, immature and inhibitive for a good atmosphere. yet there are a few who continue to do it, including you. I know you cant come out of it, but when you make statements that do not have cricketing logic, expect to be called out on them.
My point is that RD who is known to be a defensive player ... made his name as a defensive player was roundly criticized by the vocal majority here for his slow innings. That too when he was opening .... a position not to his liking .... and was in poor form. Here we have a batsman supposedly in the form of his life ...crawling ... but we are not allowed to question him?
Read above, I have agreed with your POV wrt Dravid. At the same time I have explained why others might legitimately find the slow go as worthy of criticism. You had a chance to counter that on the threads itself. You didnt. Now, dont expect people to buy into your castigation of another in order to indirectly defend Dravid, especially when your castigation has no logic behind it.
Also please be civil. Words like "Are you seriously incapable of reading" will cause nothing other than fights ...
and
I read exactly what you had written. You probably did not comprehend my response. You are saying two dismissals are due to his aggressiveness and two are due to good bowling. I am calling that an excuse. Ofcourse there are usually two ways of getting out. Either you get beaten by good bowling or play a bad stroke trying to be aggressive. At t he end of the day it all boils down to SG losing his wicket.
No, you didnt read what I had written. So my comment questioning your reading /interpretive abilities, though harsh is not off the mark.
If you had read, you would have realized, I didnt say 2 dismissals due to aggressive batting and 2 due to the bowler -- I said, 1 bad umpiring, 1 overconfidence/over aggressiveness, 2 bowler's credit
If you had read -- you would not have classified those as excuses and then repeated it again in this post.
If you had read -- you would not make a blanket statement that after all SG was dismissed 4 times by the same bowler.
Dismissal by the same bowler does not mean he is unable to play them -- match conditions, mode of dismissal, runs scored before dismissal, how he has handled the bowler prior to dismissal, etc all count in making that determination. Again only a person devoid of context or adamant about ignoring the context (also called lack of objectivity) would continue arguing the way you have.
The man has scored Zero scores over 67 on this tour. Has gotten starts and frittered it away to a bowler who cant get anyone other than YS out. That when he is in the form of his life. And if we criticize him we are not objective.
and
Additionally, let me put another stat.
Ganguly's average in Australia on this tour over 7 innings
217 runs at an Average of 31!
So much for being in the form of your life!
Scores of 8, 48, 102, 46, 239, 91, 43, 40, 67, 51, 9, 0, 7 suggest the law of averages caught up with him.
751 runs in 7 tests at an average of 57.8 does suggest he is in great form.
An objective person would have understood the law of averages.
A person not scared of what reality holds with respect to his pet theory of "SG sucks" would have allowed his cricketing knowledge to help him evaluate dispassionately.
A person devoid of bias would have had the guts and courage to admit that.
You sir, are none of the above.
AuthorTopic: FOUR consecutive failures (Read 2815 times)
February 06, 2006, 07:24:41 AM