Sourav Ganguly played 113 Tests and 308 ODIs for India. He’s arguably the best left-handed batsman to play for India, especially in Test cricket. He captained India in 49 Tests and 146 ODIs. Only MS Dhoni and Virat Kohli have captained India in more Tests, and only Dhoni and Mohammad Azharuddin did it in more ODIs. In terms of caps and captaincy, Sourav Ganguly has a claim to a seat at the top table of India’s cricket history.
'Ganguly still had a fantastic international career'
I wonder how that conclusion is reached. By most accounts, it seems he had a few good initial years as a batsman and one good year right at the end. Being mostly less than mediocre for more than half his career surely can't make a 'fantastic' career?
The statistical study of Ganguly's captaincy career was enlightening. But, when one judges a captain, tangible elements does not always tell the story. Neville Cardus wrote, "A scoreboard is an ass' tail." So, we must take the stats with a pinch of salt, because captaincy and leadership can't be judged solely on the basis of mere numbers. I can explain more on this regard.
Under this sky, almost everything can be argued both ways. In a social setting, where there are so many moving parts, establishing a causal effect is impossible. The way India played cricket in the late 80s and 90s, changed when Ganguly became captain. However, you can always argue that this is a subjective statement. In that sense, nothing is fully objective ( going back to my earlier point). We enjoyed how he played cricket and led India.
Great analysis. Wondering if SG's winning record is poorer than Azhar's due to the fact that India started playing more overseas. His ODI finals record was terrible. Probably due to poor bowling performances.
Captaincy sure weighed his batting down. He really was an amazing talent. A shot maker who could score runs risk free. He should have averaged 10 more.
For an article that claims to be data-based, there is a lot of vindictive non-sense here.
For instance, the author writes, " Or that Sehwag opening the batting was a stroke of tactical genius. It wasn’t. Sehwag opened the batting for the same reason that VVS Laxman opened the batting at the start of his career - because a spot was not available in the middle-order and Sehwag, like VVS Laxman, was obviously too good for the Ranji Trophy game and belonged in the Test team."
--Ganguly wanted someone like Hayden in his team. That is why Sehwag was promoted to open. Funny thing is you say something which is diametrically opposite to the opinion of the person who is directly concerned i.e. Sehwag.
"Its is harder to credit the view that Ganguly provided his contemporaries - Kumble, Tendulkar, Dravid, Srinath and Laxman - with some additional steel and made them better competitors. "
---Why is it hard when they admit it themselves? Just because it doesn't prove your hypothesis?
"If you still hold that in cricket, there are intangibles which are self-evidently significant even though their effect does not appear anywhere in the record, then you are immune to empirical evidence. "
---What nonsense. You think non cognitive traits like growth mindset , grit, creativity are not predictors of success because they are not captured or measured? There is an entire field in educational psychology delving on these topics.
--The fact is his peers who played with him for a decade or so have attributed him with the qualities that we associate Ganguly with. I will take their word over yours any day.
--You are suffering from a clear case of confirmation bias.
Also a general caveat for the readers of this post, there have been a lot these so called "data journalists" (Harigovind Sankar being another one) who conceal their confirmation biases under the garb of data and try to hoodwink readers into thinking they form cogent arguments. They are the modern day quacks and you will find them in every discipline.
Manipulating descriptive statistics to prove one's point has been going on for ages. Any article that mixes data with personal claims emphasising on a particular point of view where there is a lack of data set is a direct example of the author's motivations.
The biggest indicator of Ganguly's achievements is the extremely high regard he is held at by fellow cricketers. It is of much more value than these half baked so called "data driven articles".
Now, if you believe that even Ganguly's toughest opponents half fallen prey to the PR machinery surrounding him, then with equal vehemence I will claim this article has been written by a quack wanting his share in the limelight.
It is clearly visible that you are an agenda-peddler and one of those minnow journos who belong to the anti-Ganguly groups. Some Tamil people will love your piece, and nobody else will give a damn to your damn writing. Your piece CANNOT bring down the stature of our hero.
'Ganguly still had a fantastic international career'
I wonder how that conclusion is reached. By most accounts, it seems he had a few good initial years as a batsman and one good year right at the end. Being mostly less than mediocre for more than half his career surely can't make a 'fantastic' career?
The statistical study of Ganguly's captaincy career was enlightening. But, when one judges a captain, tangible elements does not always tell the story. Neville Cardus wrote, "A scoreboard is an ass' tail." So, we must take the stats with a pinch of salt, because captaincy and leadership can't be judged solely on the basis of mere numbers. I can explain more on this regard.
Under this sky, almost everything can be argued both ways. In a social setting, where there are so many moving parts, establishing a causal effect is impossible. The way India played cricket in the late 80s and 90s, changed when Ganguly became captain. However, you can always argue that this is a subjective statement. In that sense, nothing is fully objective ( going back to my earlier point). We enjoyed how he played cricket and led India.
Great analysis. Wondering if SG's winning record is poorer than Azhar's due to the fact that India started playing more overseas. His ODI finals record was terrible. Probably due to poor bowling performances.
Captaincy sure weighed his batting down. He really was an amazing talent. A shot maker who could score runs risk free. He should have averaged 10 more.
For an article that claims to be data-based, there is a lot of vindictive non-sense here.
For instance, the author writes, " Or that Sehwag opening the batting was a stroke of tactical genius. It wasn’t. Sehwag opened the batting for the same reason that VVS Laxman opened the batting at the start of his career - because a spot was not available in the middle-order and Sehwag, like VVS Laxman, was obviously too good for the Ranji Trophy game and belonged in the Test team."
--Ganguly wanted someone like Hayden in his team. That is why Sehwag was promoted to open. Funny thing is you say something which is diametrically opposite to the opinion of the person who is directly concerned i.e. Sehwag.
"Its is harder to credit the view that Ganguly provided his contemporaries - Kumble, Tendulkar, Dravid, Srinath and Laxman - with some additional steel and made them better competitors. "
---Why is it hard when they admit it themselves? Just because it doesn't prove your hypothesis?
"If you still hold that in cricket, there are intangibles which are self-evidently significant even though their effect does not appear anywhere in the record, then you are immune to empirical evidence. "
---What nonsense. You think non cognitive traits like growth mindset , grit, creativity are not predictors of success because they are not captured or measured? There is an entire field in educational psychology delving on these topics.
--The fact is his peers who played with him for a decade or so have attributed him with the qualities that we associate Ganguly with. I will take their word over yours any day.
--You are suffering from a clear case of confirmation bias.
Also a general caveat for the readers of this post, there have been a lot these so called "data journalists" (Harigovind Sankar being another one) who conceal their confirmation biases under the garb of data and try to hoodwink readers into thinking they form cogent arguments. They are the modern day quacks and you will find them in every discipline.
Manipulating descriptive statistics to prove one's point has been going on for ages. Any article that mixes data with personal claims emphasising on a particular point of view where there is a lack of data set is a direct example of the author's motivations.
The biggest indicator of Ganguly's achievements is the extremely high regard he is held at by fellow cricketers. It is of much more value than these half baked so called "data driven articles".
Now, if you believe that even Ganguly's toughest opponents half fallen prey to the PR machinery surrounding him, then with equal vehemence I will claim this article has been written by a quack wanting his share in the limelight.
It is clearly visible that you are an agenda-peddler and one of those minnow journos who belong to the anti-Ganguly groups. Some Tamil people will love your piece, and nobody else will give a damn to your damn writing. Your piece CANNOT bring down the stature of our hero.