Ganguly - worst player with over 7000 test runs?

What do you reckon, is he?

Could be Atherton though.

But as time has gone on there are a few average players with long careers getting high up on that list. Ganguly is one of them.

Have a look....

Run close by Fleming . . . but he did have to deal with green pitches at home . . .

Ganguly may have underachieved in tests. But he wasn't that bad. Batting at number 5 & 6 for half of his career and captaincy weight took a lot of those runs away from him.

Great fielder though, made up for it in that department.

[horrie] Mark Waugh [/horrie]

worse -

fleming
taylor
atherton
m. waugh
stewart

snorfle

The One wrote:worse -

fleming
taylor
atherton
m. waugh
stewart

TO in knee jerk reaction shock.

tac wrote:snorfle

Would you like a tissue?

The One wrote:worse -

fleming
taylor
atherton
m. waugh
stewart

1 out of 5 ain't bad.

Clearly you don't make 7000 Test runs if you're a bad player - of course there's a distinction between the good and great players on that list, the greats being generally those who averaged over 50, or perhaps 45 in more bowler-friendly eras.

Stats don't always tell the full story, and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Looking at that list, quite amazingly, Hayden is about to pass Vivi ... though he has played 20 fewer games.

beamer wrote:Clearly you don't make 7000 Test runs if you're a bad player - of course there's a distinction between the good and great players on that list, the greats being generally those who averaged over 50, or perhaps 45 in more bowler-friendly eras.

Stats don't always tell the full story, and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

I'd go with that.

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

Sage, JGK. A testament to GinGan's crapness!

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

conversely ponting would not have been picked for a state side if he was born in india. definitely not punjab

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

conversely ponting would not have been picked for a state side if he was born in india. definitely not punjab

Post of the year!!!

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

conversely ponting would not have been picked for a state side if he was born in india. definitely not punjab

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

Given the determination and fighting qualities, Ganguly would have not only played better cricket IF he were born in Aus learning his cricket from childhood on good bouncy pitches and against better bolwing attack, chances are he would possibly still have ended up leading Aus.

And India does not just select people in tests because they have no choice. They don't hand out tests spots to people who don't deserve it. Were that so the likes of Kaif, Yuvraj, Robin Singh, Agarkar, Sidhu etc. would have been permanent test players in their time.

As things stand no one is in a position to judge how Ganguly would have shaped up if he played all his cricket on Aus pitches against Aus bowlers within the system.

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

conversely ponting would not have been picked for a state side if he was born in india. definitely not punjab

The One wrote:

JGK wrote:

and some of the players on that list with the lower averages had a lot of other contributing factors - captaincy, injuries, carrying a weak team, moving up and down the order, wicketkeeping in Stewart's case. But nobody up there deserves to be classed as "average" or worse. They wouldn't have kept their place for that long if they were.

Unless they were playing for a particularly weak country and therefore just kept on getting picked.

Ganguly would barely have played Tests if he had been born in Australia. Conversely, Michael Bevan would have scored 8000 test runs if he had been born in India.

conversely ponting would not have been picked for a state side if he was born in india. definitely not punjab

Seriously, post of the month.

It is quite amusing that so many cannot get over Ganguly. Ever since the 2001 VVS/Bhaji series in India a few Aussies just cannot let it go. Even Steve Waugh seems to have moved on or is is because he is making money from India ??

Not all cricketers can be judged by stats. Ganguly played some crucial innings during his career that got India out of trouble on many occasions. Brisbane 2003 and Johannesburg 2006 (His return match after being dropped) are just a couple of examples.

Imo he's in the class of Mark Waugh, Aravinda De Silva, Martin Crowe, and Saeed Anwar. A fine, fine player, but not quite a great one. Any Aussie who berates him is just bitter that he always got under the Aussie's skin, but they just couldn't ever get under his.

No way is he in the class of Saeed Anwar