Is Kraigg a Better Batsman than Ganga???

In reply to Jumpstart

Ganga was never an opener.

And to answer Walco’s question and he already knows the answer……kraigg Brathwaite’s production is much better than Daren Ganga’s in international cricket.

However, there is no question in my mind who is the better batsman. Kraigg cannot bat. Daren Ganga could

If you want to look strictly at production to determine a player’s ability, then it would be accurate to say that Courtney Walsh (an excellent bowler in his own right) is better than Malcolm Marshall because Walsh took more test wickets.

We all know that just isn’t the case. Same with Ganga (who is by no means a favourite of mine) and Brathwaite. You do any real batsman….be it Ganga, Devon Smith, Xavier Marshall a major disservice by seeking to compare them to kraigg brathwaite.

A more relevant comparison would be Ganga and Shai Hope in test cricket.

Like Shai Hope, Ganga was a middle order bat that was put in the opening spot because the team had a need and that was a way for him to make the starting XI at the time.

So he did it…….to the detriment of his international career…..,.just like Shai Hope.

Ganga made all of his FC runs, and his FC batting at 3 or 4 for Trinbago. He made over 10K FC runs from 172 FC matches at a decent batting average of 37.13

He debuted for WI against South Africa in South Africa against prime Alan Donald, Shaun Pollock and co. on a tour where everyone struggled. He did not open on debut for WI but did so in his 3rd test onward. He did drop down the order a few times but mostly played as an opener during his WI career.

Another similarity with Shai Hope is that they both scored back to back test centuries. While Ganga’s centuries came in losses to Australia in successive matches, Hope’s centuries came against England and won the match for WI

Ganga’s test batting average - 25.71
Shai Hope’s test batting average - 25.01

Near identical.

This is a troll post by Walco. He knows it. The ONLY reason Bajans support kraigg Brathwaite is because he’s Bajan. Some of them ashamed that he is given the rich history of REAL BATSMEN that came out of Barbados, but will never admit it.

Thats how it goes

In reply to imusic

bro i remember when trans world sport interviewed kraigg in 2009, i really thought he was decent, because bajan media jingoism had rated him so highly. when i saw him two years later.....i said walking wicket. kraigg cannot bat at all

Very
Funny
Thread

Love the gymnastics

In reply to Jumpstart

Well he does have 12 test centuries so that by itself is no small feat.

When I say he cannot bat, I mean he bats the same way every single time, regardless of match situation or wicket condition. He pokes and prods and deflects. That’s it.

Can he hit a ball forward of square? I’ve seen him do it as often as rain in the Sahara.

That’s not batting for me. Thats surviving. Not batting. Poking and blocking ball after ball ad infinitum is NOT batting

In reply to Halliwell


I would give jumpy the same score the judges gave to that Australian break dancer

In reply to imusic

This is not an defend Kraigg thread. Instead it is an expose jumpy and his foolishness thread. I was just curious whether he would pass the same harsh judgment on a fellow Trini that he passed on Kraigg

For the record, like you, I detest batsmen who block half volleys, which is something Kraigg does in 90% of his innings

In reply to Walco

once they're not bajan yes

In reply to Jumpstart

Care to answer the question posed by this thread?

In reply to Jumpstart

Concur

In reply to imusic



Wheel and come again. Even though Walsh took more, they cost him more.

So if you're trying to draw an analogy then try again.

15 in 91 is better than 3 in 48.

PS: Gayle batted at 5 or 6 when he was selected, and then became an opener. Surely the guy with better technique should have been able to manage. Wavell was also started down the order.

In reply to SnoopDog

In reply to JahJah

Kraigg has 12 in 91, not 15 homes

Technically no. Scoring runs yes.

In reply to Jumpstart

12 is 4 times 3. Now back to the subject at hand ...

In reply to Walco

Dais like saying I score 40 and you score 30 in a maths exam that is out of 100. Both of you failed. Both gradings will say F

Hayley Matthews is better than both Kraig and Ganga

In reply to Walco

They both suck but, I would prefer Ganga any day over snail man Brathwaite.

In reply to buds

Ganga had excellent technique. I worked with a guy who went to school with Ganga. Around the same time Ganga was now coming into the team, Chris Gayle was making his way. Ganga debuted in the winter of 1998, Gayle debuted an under two years later. And this guy said that there was always a debate about who would be the better player. And he always said Gayle, because even though Gayle had very little in the way of technique, he had a lot in the way of will power and hand eye coordination.

Now Ganga must have been affected by the incompetence of most of the team, especially the bowlers after Walsh and Ambi had left after giving almost literally all they had. He must also have been affected by the fighting with the board and infighting at times in the team(although that was in now way as prevalent as people made it appear). But a professional cricketer is supposed to be able to move past that. He shouldn’t have to deal with those things but if it does, he should be able to adjust. Chris Gayle was able to adjust. Personally I see Ganga and a few other talented players as part of the endless lost generation of players that WICB’s incompetence destroyed. Honestly Skerrit and Swallow have presided over one of the most stable times in WI cricket. I don’t think we will see that type of problem soon or again

Ok. I too feel strongly about KB role in team. I have stepped back and removed the emotions of losing. KB tactically to me would get a 90. His batting, I have seen an attempt to be more aggressive. His flaw of playing around his pads is his weakness that is being exploited. Fix this and we will see him uping his average.

Reason for the 90. When all is said and done the top 5 teams have struggled to consistently put up 400 against us. Wih batting...

Something just came to mind. The quickness of decision making by batsmen, does it work as chess does for the brain? What's the count of good to great cricketers getting dementia?

Heard that good to great chess players do not go on to get dementia.

In reply to natty_forever

the bowling is very good right now, that is the only reason. in fact kraigg's conservatism is allowing to score more runs than they actually should. that SA made 160 from 90-6 and 100-7 is kraigg's fault. When mitchell starc was hooking no matter what at brisbane, it took brathwaite an eon to put a man at square leg, where a left hander would most likely mishook a delivery. he was out not too long after the man was put at mid wicket

In reply to Jumpstart


Lemme guess, this guy was trini?




You ent do Ganga the Sportsman any favours there - you portray him as weak and easily distracted

If anything the WI incompetence ELEVATED Ganga to an undeserved and ultimately short lived leadership position.

In reply to Halliwell


not weak. you don't have the level of success with TT that he had being weak. what I'm saying is that the environment wasn't conducive to success for a professional cricketer. the most dogged rose: the sarwan's, the gayle's, the bravos' etc. those who were not as strong fell. but as i said, a professional cricketer isn't supposed to operate in such a toxic environment. I'm sure you remember when angelo matthews used to average over 50. now he averages 45 with the bat and 54 with the ball, a direct result of SL's struggles on and off the field. even lara, mentally the strongest player of his era along with steve waugh, felt the pressure of holding up a quickly decaying team. before sl 2001, lara's avg had slipped to 48. then he scored 600 runs in 3 tests, got it back up to 51. but no one in cricket is BCL