Sport Today

> http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200511220310.htm

> "I scored 80 against Pakistan and also missed a hundred against
> England. It was just that I could not convert the scores into big
> hundreds."

> Actually scored 79 against Pakistan - in his last 6 ODI matches against
> them.
> In Tests his scores have been: 21,12,12,1,2.

> "Last year I was the second highest run getter for the country behind
> Rahul Dravid. The difference (between our aggregates) was a mere 15-20
> runs. It is just a question of not converting the scores into big
> hundreds."

> Beginning 01-01-2004   SG has scored 1156  in 43 innings against
> Dravid's 2033 in 56 outings.  (ODI)

> In Tests, it is 573 against 1477 !

> where is mere 15-20 coming from?

> Good point - I missed that one earlier.
> Most of 2004 Dravid was the wicket-keeper batsman,
> SG was a top-order specialist bat.

> > > Not that such a nit-pick is likely to change anything: the only
remotely
> > > comparable figures are that in the calendar year 2004 Ganguly scored
947
> > > runs and Dravid 1025.

> > Good point - I missed that one earlier.
> > Most of 2004 Dravid was the wicket-keeper batsman,
> > SG was a top-order specialist bat.

> Now I'm missing this one. Was Dravid (as the WK-B) the team's top
> scorer for the calendar year? If so, are you saying that reflects badly
> on all the specialist bastmen?

> odos in 2004:

> 1141 Sehwag
> 1025 Dravid
> 947 Ganguly
> 841 Yuvraj
> 837 Laxman (who?)
> 812 Tendulkar
> 564 Kaif

> Make of that what you will.

> Incidentally, I am curious to understand this word "bastmen".  Men who are
> bast-what?

> Make of that what you will.

> > 1141 Sehwag
> > 1025 Dravid
> > 947 Ganguly
> > 841 Yuvraj
> > 837 Laxman (who?)
> > 812 Tendulkar
> > 564 Kaif

> > Make of that what you will.

> Going by these numbers, Ganguly was not "the second highest run scorer
> after Dravid" last year, nor was his aggregate "a mere 15-20 runs
> behind Dravid's". But I'm nit-picking here. Ganguly does have a point
> when he says that he didn't do all that badly last year. It's
> interesting, though, that he doesn't mention *this* year, when he
> really has struggled a lot more, both in tests and odis. What's worse,
> he never looked comfortable during any of his stints at the crease this
> year. A Sehwag for instance, hasn't done all that well in ODIs this
> year either (though he's definitely done better than Ganguly), but at
> least he doesn't look completely clueless when he's out there in the
> middle.  If all selectors selected batsmen on how well they did last
> year, then a Michael Clarke wouldn't find himself kicked out of the
> team.