Greatest Indian Captain?

[shubhrayu]

Good one Sid.....Really good one...

 

[ZoraxDoom]

One and only Ganguly :happy

What do you know, you don't even support India.


Ofcourse we haven't seen him play, but those that did rate him very highly, especially as a skipper. I can fish up a few articles if you wish.

 

[Howsie]

Lot of Pataudi love. Has anyone seen him even play?

Most likely not, but his record speaks for itself.

 

[SciD]

Stats will tell Ponting was great captain. But I have seen his captaincy. So I only comment on what I have seen. This is only example. I know some people on this forum get all heated up easily.

Ganguly was average as well. In fact I would rate Kumble above Ganguly.

 

[shubhrayu]

Most likely not, but his record speaks for itself.

If that happens then Dhoni is the greatest!

 

[King Pietersen]

Ignore Howsie, it's not Pataudi's record, or his stats that make him one of the great captains, it's far more than that. He took over the captaincy at the tender age of 21, and took India out of an era where they were the whipping boys of International cricket. He led India in 40 out of the 46 Tests he played, winning 12 of them, and he was the first Indian captain to install belief into the Indian players and public that winning was possible. He introduced the famous 3 spinners idea, bringing Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Prasanna and really helped lay the foundations that the Indian team of the modern eras have been able to build from. He really was a magnificent captain, and in a league above any other Indian captain.

 

[King Cricket]

How is Ganguly beating Pataudi 13-2? Pataudi's was India's finest captain, fact.

Nawab of Pataudi | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

I agree that the margin is a tad unfair. But I don't concur with your views on India's finest captain. IMO, Ganguly still wins if compared to Tiger. Ganguly's achievements are not anything insignificant at all.
When Ganguly was handed over the captaincy, Indian cricket was passing through one of its worst phases. The match fixing scandals and all that. One of the biggest assets to the team, Azharuddin was found guilty- you can guess where the side's morale lied.
Teams were blowing us away like a pack of cards on away turfs- hardly did we put up any fight. The situation simply couldn't have been worse. Ganguly had to captain this sort of a demoralized, broken side in his early days, which was totally dependant on two/three star players.
Yet, see how the team performed under his leadership- winning in Pakistan against Pakistan, beating the best team of the world 2-1, WC 2003 runners up, Natwest Trophy winners, 2002 CT joint winners, 2004 Asia Cup finalists..there are just so many!
He is the only skipper to have recorded a victory on Indian soil against every team that has visited India except New Zealand. He is the guy who made it clear to the world that India is no crap side when it came to away grounds. The guy who put a fullstop to Steve Waugh's 16 consecutive test wins. Harbhajan Singh, Virender Sehwag, Laxman, Zaheer Khan, even MS Dhoni- all these players are his findings. I don't see why this person cannot be called India's alltime best captain.

King Cricket added 8 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...

He took over the captaincy at the tender age of 21, and took India out of an era where they were the whipping boys of International cricket.

Even after Pataudi, we still remained "the whipping boys" when it came to away turfs, didn't we?

He was the first Indian captain to install belief into the Indian players and public that winning was possible

That is true, but making a side, which was pierced and shattered to pieces by match fixing scandals even three years back, the runners-up of the WC- is it not a magnificent achievement as well? He was the guy who showed the world that India is no mean side in away matches. Also, take a look at the modern Indian team. Our captain, our best spinner (Vajji) and many others- all are the findings of Ganguly.

 

[shubhrayu]

Ganguly did something really unexpected...I remember in my house in Calcutta there was a conversation before WC 2003 in which one of my uncles said that with the current team India won't even reach the Super Sixes....They also said that if India reached the Super sixes it was a really a big achievement....And that was the general and most common expectation by the Indian public but Ganguly proved it wrong...That's what I like in Ganguly the most his fighting spirit irrespective of the critics he gets..!

 

[SciD]

India reached WC2003 finals on back of good bowling performances and Sachin Tendulkar. Ganguly did nothing than making century against Kenya.

In final neither bowling worked and nor did Sachin.

 

[King Cricket]

Ganguly did nothing than making century against Kenya.

Ganguly was the second highest run getter of the tournament after Sachin. And you can't deny that he and John Wright played a huge role in re-building the team and motivating the players after the Aussies crushed us in the very second match. That's itself a big achievement. Also, talking about bowling performances, you remember the India-England match where Nehra set the stage on fire, and was the chief architect of India's win? And Md Kaif's mathematical knock against New Zealand? Who played a major role in picking these guys? Ganguly.

 

[King Pietersen]

So your main argument in favour of Ganguly is that he unearthed talent, which simply isn't true. He can't have been the chief selector as well as captain, so didn't personally unearth this talent. He didn't pluck these guys out of obscurity having seen them in the nets and thrown them into International cricket, they all would have performed in Domestic cricket and were picked by the selectors, not solely by Sourav Ganguly.

Ganguly was a very good captain, and did good things for Indian cricket, but he was not as good a captain, and didn't have anywhere near the same influence that Nawab of Pataudi did on Indian cricket. I urge you to read up on Pataudi, I'm sure once you've enhanced your knowledge on him, you'll change your mind. He was exceptionally good.

 

[Howsie]

Ignore Howsie, it's not Pataudi's record, or his stats that make him one of the great captains, it's far more than that. He took over the captaincy at the tender age of 21, and took India out of an era where they were the whipping boys of International cricket. He led India in 40 out of the 46 Tests he played, winning 12 of them, and he was the first Indian captain to install belief into the Indian players and public that winning was possible. He introduced the famous 3 spinners idea, bringing Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Prasanna and really helped lay the foundations that the Indian team of the modern eras have been able to build from. He really was a magnificent captain, and in a league above any other Indian captain.

Ignore me


Most of that sounds like his record.

 

[SciD]

Ganguly was the second highest run getter of the tournament after Sachin. And you can't deny that he and John Wright played a huge role in re-building the team and motivating the players after the Aussies crushed us in the very second match. That's itself a big achievement. Also, talking about bowling performances, you remember the India-England match where Nehra set the stage on fire, and was the chief architect of India's win? A Md Kaif's mathematical knock against New Zealand? Who played a major role in picking these guys? Ganguly.

:laugh He made runs against minnows.

Selectors pick player. Captains don't do that.

scion_sid added 1 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

Pataudi got everything on platter because of his background.

 

[King Pietersen]

His age isn't to do with his record, and the others are stats to help back-up my argument, more than just looking at his record. Looking at a captain's record would be purely looking at wins and losses, which is not what you want to do when comparing the likes of Pataudi to guys like Ganguly and Ponting. My use of stats was to help show the influence he had on Indian cricket, not just showing stats for the point of them. Saying 'his record speaks for itself' doesn't ring true with Pataudi, as his record doesn't speak for itself. A captaincy record of just 12 wins in 40 Tests certainly doesn't stand up to the others.

 

[Howsie]

His age isn't to do with his record, and the others are stats to help back-up my argument, more than just looking at his record. Looking at a captain's record would be purely looking at wins and losses, which is not what you want to do when comparing the likes of Pataudi to guys like Ganguly and Ponting. My use of stats was to help show the influence he had on Indian cricket, not just showing stats for the point of them. Saying 'his record speaks for itself' doesn't ring true with Pataudi, as his record doesn't speak for itself. A captaincy record of just 12 wins in 40 Tests certainly doesn't stand up to the others.

Being the first Indian captain to win overseas does though. Of course I didn't mean "look at his win/loss ratio" but I did post a link up with an article describing his captaincy and what he did. The guy I said that too Shabbryu? probably missed that I guess.