Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
Except Kumble and Dravid's ratings, all are high. Ganguly deserved 8.
So did Laxman. 7.5 was harsh on them both.
Except Kumble and Dravid's ratings, all are high. Ganguly deserved 8.
Chetan,Dravid won't be pick for the ODI he will be picked for the Test but will not score as he used to.Looked at his form. He hasn't scored many runs for the last 10 test matches as far as i know only 1 half century!!
lmfao at that above post. How much some people can get caught up in victory is amazing. That Indian news channel is so stupid its laughable. What dickheads! rofl.
Dravid is past it. When we are closer to the series I will make an avvy challenge with you.
If Dravid scores a century in the series I will have a "Dravid is better then Clarke" avvy. If he doesn't you can have a "Clarke is better then Dravid" avvy. Deal?
Personally I think Dravid is a waste at Number 3. If your going to play him, you play him early to take the shine off the ball then Tendulkar at 3 to go lift the temp or if he has to face Lee with a new ball. No point pretecting him from the new ball at Number 4.
Hey Feelin Blue?, do you remember the agreement we had before the series started? That if India won the series, you would change your avvy to an India flag with the sign India > Australia?
I haven't forgotten.
A good captain, in my opinion, brings the best out of mediocre players. Dhoni brings a positive mood to the team (of course, he needs to be tested when the team is under the hammer). There's no better example than the mediocre fielder Mishra creating a run out that probably settled the series.
Again, you ignore the part of my argument where I say that all these countries have completely different dynamics. Why don't you compare his captaincy to Kumble's, for God's sake, which would make a far more reasonable argument? Kumble had essentially the same team that Dhoni had give or take one player. However, he was unable to extract as much productivity from them. You can blame it on luck, but I think captaincy (which is heavily based on luck) has a lot to do with that. Captains obviously don't know what to do, but they follow their gut... and good captains do it well. For example, in the 3rd Test, I believe, India under Kumble weren't able to break a partnership but as soon as Kumble left the field and Dhoni took over, India picked up a couple.I appreciate your returning arguments, but I still don't agree with you. Dhoni is not the captain of mediocre players for starters, so by your definition we don't yet know if Dhoni is a good captain. Ship him to New Zealand or the West Indies or Bangladesh and see how he goes there. He had a good team behind him and used them well, yes he deserves credit, but no where near the amount he is getting.
Of course captains need talent to win. But that does not preclude one from being a better captain than another. For example, one lauds Fleming's captaincy even when New Zealand is losing, and one dissects Ponting's even when Australia are winning. In fact, your argument that Fleming is held as a great captain only argues against your idea that Ponting is a good captain. When both have a mediocre team at their disposal, it is Fleming who is still regarded as a better captain.That's why I used the example of Stephen Fleming a lauded captain with a mediocre group of players. He never took NZ to the top of world cricket and they never will - they just don't have the talent. Captains need talent to win... Hence my point that captaincy is overrated and that Ricky Ponting's captaincy suddenly looks worse when he has average bowlers rather than above average ones.
We don't know but the point I'm getting across is that the players were much more active and "in the game". If you don't have a captain who is constantly keeping his players tuned in, you will have wandering minds which will lead to chances being missed. The very phrase that "Dhoni brings out the best in his players" means that with him at the helm, India let the game drift less and the players are concentrating harder.As for Mishra's runout it could be luck for all anyone knows. Even the best fielders in the world don't hit the stumps all that often, so that implies that there is a lot of luck/variation in each run out attempt. Ask Mishra. Was he just lucky or was he inspired by Dhoni? Or has he been working hard on hitting the stumps in training? Who knows??
Like I said to KBC, I say "That indian news channel" referring to that one channel not every news channel in India :
Feelin Blue? added 3 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...
Actually, you have forgotten because the Avvy Challenge was if Dravid doesn't score a ton you will have to have a Clarke is better then Dravid avvy. Its on the first page, so time to change your avvy mate
India TV is now showing some crap about the match being fixed.
Again, you ignore the part of my argument where I say that all these countries have completely different dynamics. Why don't you compare his captaincy to Kumble's, for God's sake, which would make a far more reasonable argument? Kumble had essentially the same team that Dhoni had give or take one player. However, he was unable to extract as much productivity from them. You can blame it on luck, but I think captaincy (which is heavily based on luck) has a lot to do with that. Captains obviously don't know what to do, but they follow their gut... and good captains do it well. For example, in the 3rd Test, I believe, India under Kumble weren't able to break a partnership but as soon as Kumble left the field and Dhoni took over, India picked up a couple.
We don't know but the point I'm getting across is that the players were much more active and "in the game". If you don't have a captain who is constantly keeping his players tuned in, you will have wandering minds which will lead to chances being missed. The very phrase that "Dhoni brings out the best in his players" means that with him at the helm, India let the game drift less and the players are concentrating harder.