Yes, seriously. I wasn't the one who started by pulling out stats and making a completely hollow claim that Ganguly was in Laxman's class as a batsman. He simply is not. Do you disagree with that statement?
Stats were used to conveniently support that bogus theory by pulling out Ganguly's numbers when he was not captain and making weak claims.
I didnt accuse you of pulling stats. However, I stick to my contention that the sample size is widely skewed when you compare 2x to 1x and then draw a definitive conclusion based on an average differential - it is hardly as conclusive as you deem.
...a completely hollow claim that Ganguly was in Laxman's class as a batsman. He simply is not. Do you disagree with that statement?
Also, I disagree with your assertion that Ganguly played well below his potential.
Grouped these together because they deserve to be responded together.
I am not sure how you determine class --maybe statistical performance is enough of a barometer to you to determine that. I look at class differently -- I had once elaborated on this in detail on a separate thread, so i shall not go into that again.
Coming to your question, I believe there is not as much to separate the 2 from a class perspective. Which also leads to my conclusion that Ganguly underperformed relative to his potential.
And this observation is at least partly corroborated by stats
Before he took over captaincy
Prior to Aus tour 1999: avg of ~51
end of Australia tour 1999: Avg of ~48
end of SA series (Start of captaincy 2000): Avg of ~ 46
After he returned post captaincy in SA until retirement: avg of 46
So the guy averaged ~46 over his non captaincy days (before and after) and ~38 during his captaincy days (which incidentally were also part of his prime years as player). Which establishes quite clearly that the dip in his overall averages was due to captaincy. Now Thats where I blame him --for not concentrating more on his game while captain, and not fulfilling his potential.
And that average as non captain is not too far off VVS Laxman's average, even when undjusted for the latter's average inflation due to n.o.'s.
While I do not believe in excluding n.o.’s I think it is somewhat pertinent only to equalize between the two because of the disparity in the number of not outs between the two. So for the sake of academic discussion, here it is
Gangs as non captain: 4651 runs @41.16
Lax as non opener: 8043 runs @40.62
Also, Gang’s drop in captaincy averages (~8 runs per innings) actually holds up a lot better than it does for Dravid, who is certainly well above SG as a player
Dravid when he took over captaincy: avg of 58.30
Dravid as captain: avg of 44.51
Difference of ~14 in avg
This "deminnowfication" is questionable on multiple bases. Zimbabwe, at home, was potent enough to cause discomfort for many Indian batsmen. Secondly, why deminnowfy unless someone has played a lot more tests against minnows than the other? If one of these guys couldn't plunder a so-called minnow, he sucks all the more doesn't he?
I deminnowfied and used stats abroad simply because another poster mentioned this as supposedly another issue to separate the performance of VVS and Gangs. I followed the criterion to show that perception does not match reality. That's all.
There is a reason for this perception –unlike others, Ganguly played 43+% of his tests as captain when his performance wasn't great and looked even worse when contrasted against the performance of his teammates – Dravid, VVS, VS, SRT.
But that perception at the end of the day remains a perception, not reality over Gang’s entire career.
If you look at just the stats, you will have to concede that Laxman still comes out ahead. And comfortably so when Cernnunos started giving allowances for the pressure of captaincy (for Ganguly - and this was not my idea!) if we fairly balance for Laxman's discomfort as an opener when he was thrust into that role.
Well, to be fair, you are the one who brought Gangs into the discussion. Now it is your contention that Cern did so subtly by focusing on VVS and including captaincy as a factor – I suppose only Cern can respond to that.
Having said that, I have abided by your comparison criterion above and the difference is still not conclusive (46 v 48, although as expected VVS is ahead) and certainly the difference disappears when equalized for not outs.
It is also very possible that the player underperforms when throwing and fixing matches - after all you can't control for a higher score but can surely get yourself out earlier.
The bottom line is crook Azhar dwarfs even more mediocre Ganguly's average when both were captaining. That, to me,is a good hint of Ganguly's class -- more than stats comparisons with Laxman with all sorts of exclusions and concessions can attempt to do.
On the contrary,
The burden of captaincy impacts a player’s performance because the expectation is that the captain “CARES” –as in it involves thought, management, planning, inspiration – all of which detract from time for oneself and adds to pressure on the individual.
A crook bent on throwing away a game would have little of such “CARE” about the team, and hence less pressure.
As to your argument about possible underperformance, If anything, he would be interested in keeping his place intact with enough performance such that he can continue to perpetuate his lucrative scheme.
Using Azhar as the yardstick to refute Ganguly is so rich in irony -- it was his mess that Ganguly spent time cleaning up.
As I said before, Azhar’s example is a poor one to prove this point.
AuthorTopic: VVS Laxman may have played his last Test: BCCI sources (Read 1336 times)
