'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?
He played 100 Tests for India. Only 10 out of 296 Indian Test players have done this. His career is fantastic by definition given how long he played for India.
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.
Yes man, it is largely incomplete and misleading. For instance, his stupendous and scintillating records against SA and Pak (he was MoM for 9 times against Pak, and that too when the greats were used to play, not today's minnow Pak team) - as a captain of Team India or as a player - are not mentioned here. Nevertheles, as someone has rightly pointed out in one of the comments, "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'.". For instance, here is one such fact involving Harbhajan Singh and the iconic BGT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cUx5CyyhrPw&feature=shares.
With 22 ODI hundreds, 16 test hundreds, and one double hundred in test, he was indeed an average player!🤣🤣
Actually, it is indeed mythical that a player from the Bengal circuit reached such height, captained Team India, and is considered one of the great all-rounder. He is also very reluctant to give his time to the petty bloggers. It is tough indeed for anybody to digest the success of a Bengali in Indian Cricket, which is dominated by lobbies of Mumbai, Delhi, and South Zone.
Stay well. Hope Ganguly didn't cause any harm to you or your family member.
Anyways, it's not good to spread hatreds for some prominent former cricketers. I also don't like Rahul Dravid personally. But I appreciate and value his contributions to Team India. And never ever I would go for spreading unnecessary hatreds on him by stat-peddling his below-per strike rates in white-ball cricket.
Actually, you are not "describing the whole record" and tweaking the stats conveniently to suit your narratives: that is what I called "spreading unnecessary hatred" against one of the stalwarts of Indian Cricket.
'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?
He played 100 Tests for India. Only 10 out of 296 Indian Test players have done this. His career is fantastic by definition given how long he played for India.
fair enough
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.
That is a surprising observation about this post. Is there anything in the record presented above which is incomplete or incorrect?
Yes man, it is largely incomplete and misleading. For instance, his stupendous and scintillating records against SA and Pak (he was MoM for 9 times against Pak, and that too when the greats were used to play, not today's minnow Pak team) - as a captain of Team India or as a player - are not mentioned here. Nevertheles, as someone has rightly pointed out in one of the comments, "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'.". For instance, here is one such fact involving Harbhajan Singh and the iconic BGT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cUx5CyyhrPw&feature=shares.
With 22 ODI hundreds, 16 test hundreds, and one double hundred in test, he was indeed an average player!🤣🤣
Actually, it is indeed mythical that a player from the Bengal circuit reached such height, captained Team India, and is considered one of the great all-rounder. He is also very reluctant to give his time to the petty bloggers. It is tough indeed for anybody to digest the success of a Bengali in Indian Cricket, which is dominated by lobbies of Mumbai, Delhi, and South Zone.
Every match Ganguly played for IND is considered in the record. All the matches you describe are in there.
Stay well. Hope Ganguly didn't cause any harm to you or your family member.
Anyways, it's not good to spread hatreds for some prominent former cricketers. I also don't like Rahul Dravid personally. But I appreciate and value his contributions to Team India. And never ever I would go for spreading unnecessary hatreds on him by stat-peddling his below-per strike rates in white-ball cricket.
I'm not sure why you think describing the whole record accurately is "spreading unnecessary hatred".
Actually, you are not "describing the whole record" and tweaking the stats conveniently to suit your narratives: that is what I called "spreading unnecessary hatred" against one of the stalwarts of Indian Cricket.
What did tamil people do to Ganguly lol ?