Ganguly dropped from the Indian squad - W Jaffer in !
Paji
Sense has prevailed! Yuvraj retained for the third Test!
New Delhi, Dec 14 (PTI) Sourav Ganguly was today dropped from the
Indian squad for the third cricket Test against Sri Lanka beginning in
Ahmedabad on Sunday.
Mumbai opener Wasim Jaffer replaces Ganguly in the squad.
The national selectors also decided to retained Rahul Dravid as the
captain of the Indian team for the upcoming series against Pakistan and
England. PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/$All/14B253DC18CCBD65652570D700315239?OpenDocument
Artist google
Should make Pathan or Yuvraj as opener, or even Ganguli.
VJ
like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers in
Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would people
be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That would have
a different set of people screaming and moaning about a 15,000+ run
maker being given shoddy treatment.
SCG was selected in the first place due to pressure from selectors and
threats of chaos at Eden Gardens. And I am confident that if Yuvi and
Kaif do diddly squat in the coming tests, SCG will be back in the team.
He just needs to keep posting big scores in the domestics. Forcing your
way in on the basis of performance is the best way do things. Why go
where no one wants you (at least the cap'n and coach)?
Southpaw
VJ wrote:
> How about Harbhajan as opener (I mean, why not?). For once it seems
> like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers in
> Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would people
> be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That would have
Personally, I wouldn't care. The best squad should be chosen. The
selectors can make it clear that Ganguly is being chosen in the XIV
because he is among the top 5 middle-order bats in the country, and his
experience is invaluable, but that Yuvraj has the #6 position locked up
as of now. They can make it clear that, of the top 5 m-o bats in the
country, Ganguly is thought to be 5th.
Right now Kaif is in the test XIV but Ganguly is not. This probably
won't be a big deal, but if Yuvraj slips in the bathroom on the morning
of the Ahmedabad test, Mohammad Kaif will play a test match for India
ahead of Sourav Ganguly. That IMO is a *travesty*.
If Yuvraj fails tomorrow, who is next in line to replace him? The man
who already made the test XIV, or the man who didn't? If Kaif replaces
Yuvraj, Ganguly will wonder, "what wrong did I do?", and if Ganguly
replaces Yuvraj, Kaif will wonder the same.
In general, Indian selectors do a very poor job of outlining the role
of a particular player. If someone is picked, what is his role in the
team? (I will be perfectly happy if they even say, well, he's been
picked but honestly we don't expect him to make the XI, unless XYZ is
injured.) If someone is dropped, what must he do to return? Who is the
backup for each spot in the XI?
> a different set of people screaming and moaning about a 15,000+ run
> maker being given shoddy treatment.
>
> SCG was selected in the first place due to pressure from selectors and
> threats of chaos at Eden Gardens.
Here I was thinking 4 FC hundreds in the last 6 months, in 3 different
continents, had something to do with it.
And I am confident that if Yuvi and
> Kaif do diddly squat in the coming tests, SCG will be back in the team.
So Ganguly is now behind Kaif also in the pecking order? Ganguly, who
scored 4 FC 100s in the last 6 months, and scored crucial 40 and 39 in
his last test (more than Gambhir, Dravid, and Yuvraj), vs. Kaif who has
5 FC hundreds in his career.
> He just needs to keep posting big scores in the domestics. Forcing your
And what about Kaif? What does he need to do to force his way into the
XI?
> way in on the basis of performance is the best way do things. Why go
> where no one wants you (at least the cap'n and coach)?
Why don't captain and coach come out openly and say it, if that's the
case? Tell the man what is expected of him. As one of India's best ever
captains, at least give him that much.
-Samarth.
VJ
I think it is better for Ganguly to make his case by making lots of
runs and shutting up everyone around him. Right now he has little
chance of playing if both coach and captain dont want him.
I dont think Yuvraj and Kaif will find things easy as part of the test
team. If they are successful, all kudos to them. But I'm pretty sure
Gangs can come back with some big performances on the domestic circuit.
Whether he is up to it is another matter altogether.
Loony Tunes
VJ wrote:
>
> But I'm pretty sure
> Gangs can come back with some big performances on the domestic circuit.
I think you are following what happened in the domestics in the very
recent past. Gangs has done reasonably well. How many more performances
does he have to come up with before the moves in before a hack called
Kaif.
> Whether he is up to it is another matter altogether.
Going by the way things have been handled, I think KolKatta might
convert Eden Gardens into a Football stadium and banish the Indian team
from playing there forever.
Truly pathetic. It would have been just fine if they retained the same
team for T3 and taken Jaffer in place of Kaif or whoever to Pak.
If Jaffer sits out of T3 or even Gambhir out of T3 what purpose did
Ganguly's exclusion serve ?
VJ
squad. Whats the point
of being in the XV if he does not get to play? He is better served by
making lots of runs
in the meantime so that every time Yuvraj or Kaif fails, people can
point to the centuries
SCG is hitting in the domestics. If he stays with the squad but does
not get games,
people will just say - well so what if Yuvraj scored 20 and got out
against SL or Pak?
Even SCG scored only two forties against SL and his recent test level
century was
against lowly Zim.
I think this situation works better for SCG given the state of affairs
in the Indian team at present.
Sears Tower
news:1134583076.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> VJ wrote:
> > How about Harbhajan as opener (I mean, why not?). For once it seems
> > like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers in
> > Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would people
> > be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That would have
>
> Personally, I wouldn't care. The best squad should be chosen. The
> selectors can make it clear that Ganguly is being chosen in the XIV
> because he is among the top 5 middle-order bats in the country, and his
> experience is invaluable, but that Yuvraj has the #6 position locked up
> as of now. They can make it clear that, of the top 5 m-o bats in the
> country, Ganguly is thought to be 5th.
top 5 middle-order bats by the various actions of the
selectors/captain/coach.
He was in ahead of Yuvraj in the first test.
When Sehwag went down they included Yuvraj who was in tremendous form.
During the 2nd test and considering Yuvraj's form it was clear that Ganguly
should not play ahead of Yuvraj.
>
> Right now Kaif is in the test XIV but Ganguly is not. This probably
> won't be a big deal, but if Yuvraj slips in the bathroom on the morning
> of the Ahmedabad test, Mohammad Kaif will play a test match for India
> ahead of Sourav Ganguly. That IMO is a *travesty*.
maybe not, they may open with Jaffer, Gambhir and play Sehwag in the MO.
who would you rather have as your 12th man, Kaif or Ganguly?
You said in another post that "the dropping of a former captain is a
very, very sensitive issue, and needs great care. Let alone one of the
most successful captains India has ever had"
So obviously having him in the squad but to not include him in the
playing XI would be even more sensitive. This way is better, than to see
him bring in a change of gloves for Dhoni.
>
> If Yuvraj fails tomorrow, who is next in line to replace him? The man
> who already made the test XIV, or the man who didn't? If Kaif replaces
> Yuvraj, Ganguly will wonder, "what wrong did I do?", and if Ganguly
> replaces Yuvraj, Kaif will wonder the same.
It is clearly Ganguly. No one has to wonder. The squad has adequate
backups and Kaif owes his spot to him being a better fielder than
Ganguly and the fact that Ganguly has been a previous successful
captain to be not included in the playing XI.
>
> In general, Indian selectors do a very poor job of outlining the role
> of a particular player. If someone is picked, what is his role in the
> team? (I will be perfectly happy if they even say, well, he's been
> picked but honestly we don't expect him to make the XI, unless XYZ is
> injured.) If someone is dropped, what must he do to return? Who is the
> backup for each spot in the XI?
More was pretty clear with what he said wrt to Ganguly/Yuvraj.
And even before teams were announced Ganguly was praised by
Dravid.
>
> > a different set of people screaming and moaning about a 15,000+ run
> > maker being given shoddy treatment.
> >
> > SCG was selected in the first place due to pressure from selectors and
> > threats of chaos at Eden Gardens.
>
> Here I was thinking 4 FC hundreds in the last 6 months, in 3 different
> continents, had something to do with it.
>
> And I am confident that if Yuvi and
> > Kaif do diddly squat in the coming tests, SCG will be back in the team.
>
> So Ganguly is now behind Kaif also in the pecking order? Ganguly, who
> scored 4 FC 100s in the last 6 months, and scored crucial 40 and 39 in
> his last test (more than Gambhir, Dravid, and Yuvraj), vs. Kaif who has
> 5 FC hundreds in his career.
>
> > He just needs to keep posting big scores in the domestics. Forcing your
>
> And what about Kaif? What does he need to do to force his way into the
> XI?
He has to wait for Laxman/Yuvraj/Ganguly to fail and continue to have the
odd match winning ODI innings.
Unless of course he goes back to the domestics and scores heavily:-) and
goes ahead of the other 3.
>
> > way in on the basis of performance is the best way do things. Why go
> > where no one wants you (at least the cap'n and coach)?
>
> Why don't captain and coach come out openly and say it, if that's the
> case? Tell the man what is expected of him. As one of India's best ever
> captains, at least give him that much.
The captain did say that openly to the press in a round about way.
" He played very well in both innings"
"I'm sure he'll be disappointed that he did not go on and make a bigger
score."
>
> -Samarth.
>
Southpaw
Sears Tower wrote:
> "Southpaw" <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134583076.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > VJ wrote:
> > > How about Harbhajan as opener (I mean, why not?). For once it seems
> > > like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers in
> > > Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would people
> > > be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That would have
> >
> > Personally, I wouldn't care. The best squad should be chosen. The
> > selectors can make it clear that Ganguly is being chosen in the XIV
> > because he is among the top 5 middle-order bats in the country, and his
> > experience is invaluable, but that Yuvraj has the #6 position locked up
> > as of now. They can make it clear that, of the top 5 m-o bats in the
> > country, Ganguly is thought to be 5th.
> Personally to me it has been made very clear that he indeed is among the
> top 5 middle-order bats by the various actions of the
> selectors/captain/coach.
> He was in ahead of Yuvraj in the first test.
> When Sehwag went down they included Yuvraj who was in tremendous form.
> During the 2nd test and considering Yuvraj's form it was clear that Ganguly
> should not play ahead of Yuvraj.
Ok so far.
> > Right now Kaif is in the test XIV but Ganguly is not. This probably
> > won't be a big deal, but if Yuvraj slips in the bathroom on the morning
> > of the Ahmedabad test, Mohammad Kaif will play a test match for India
> > ahead of Sourav Ganguly. That IMO is a *travesty*.
> maybe not, they may open with Jaffer, Gambhir and play Sehwag in the MO.
> who would you rather have as your 12th man, Kaif or Ganguly?
I am not sure superior 12th man skills are important in picking a
squad.
Considering that Sehwag is still uncertain for T3, I would be happier
seeing Ganguly as the backup rather than either of Gambhir and Kaif.
Moreover, even if Sehwag is fully fit, it is Gambhir and Kaif who need
a prolonged run in FC cricket, not Ganguly, who played and did well in
the last 6 months.
> You said in another post that "the dropping of a former captain is a
> very, very sensitive issue, and needs great care. Let alone one of the
> most successful captains India has ever had"
> So obviously having him in the squad but to not include him in the
> playing XI would be even more sensitive. This way is better, than to see
> him bring in a change of gloves for Dhoni.
This is a good point, but if the egos are smoothed, and if Ganguly is
told the cold facts: he is thought to be worse currently than Yuvraj
but better than Kaif/Gambhir, and the best squad hence leaves him as
12th man, then I think there is no harm. Taking great care means
picking your best squad, and yet not alienating anyone.
> > If Yuvraj fails tomorrow, who is next in line to replace him? The man
> > who already made the test XIV, or the man who didn't? If Kaif replaces
> > Yuvraj, Ganguly will wonder, "what wrong did I do?", and if Ganguly
> > replaces Yuvraj, Kaif will wonder the same.
> It is clearly Ganguly. No one has to wonder. The squad has adequate
> backups and Kaif owes his spot to him being a better fielder than
> Ganguly
Except that with Sehwag ill, there is a chance Kaif will play.
Also, let's take the issue of the team selection for Pakistan. Dravid,
SRT, Sehwag, Laxman, and Yuvraj are sure. We also need 3 openers, so
Jaffer and Gambhir will probably both go. (Or Gambhir will be replaced
by Jadhav or some other opener.) Which will leave one slot: Ganguly or
Kaif? Better 12th man or better batsman?
And if Kaif is dropped, he has a right to complain. He was picked in
the Indian squad, thus deprived of FC games. Then, when it came to
picking the best team for Pakistan, he was dropped...
And if Ganguly is dropped, of course, he also will complain... After a
good show at FC level and in the tests that he got, Kaif was picked in
his place...
How will he go back to domestics if you keep picking him for tests on
the basis of his 12th man ability? How many Ranji games has he played
for UP this season?
-Samarth.
Sears Tower
>
> Sears Tower wrote:
> > > Right now Kaif is in the test XIV but Ganguly is not. This probably
> > > won't be a big deal, but if Yuvraj slips in the bathroom on the
morning
> > > of the Ahmedabad test, Mohammad Kaif will play a test match for India
> > > ahead of Sourav Ganguly. That IMO is a *travesty*.
> > maybe not, they may open with Jaffer, Gambhir and play Sehwag in the MO.
> > who would you rather have as your 12th man, Kaif or Ganguly?
>
> I am not sure superior 12th man skills are important in picking a
> squad.
considering other factors like ex captain, playing XI etc...
It is not like Ganguly needs to absorb things by being in the squad.
It might help a VRV Singh, RP Singh...
>
> Considering that Sehwag is still uncertain for T3, I would be happier
If Sehwag is uncertain, then Jaffer is the right choice, no?
> seeing Ganguly as the backup rather than either of Gambhir and Kaif.
> Moreover, even if Sehwag is fully fit, it is Gambhir and Kaif who need
> a prolonged run in FC cricket, not Ganguly, who played and did well in
> the last 6 months
This I agree that Gambhir and Kaif need to play more FC than Ganguly.
But here I go again, I would rather see Kaif as the 12th man than Ganguly.
Alternatively, they could have dropped all 3 and got one of the younger
guys in contention tobe the 12th man.
>
> > You said in another post that "the dropping of a former captain is a
> > very, very sensitive issue, and needs great care. Let alone one of the
> > most successful captains India has ever had"
> > So obviously having him in the squad but to not include him in the
> > playing XI would be even more sensitive. This way is better, than to see
> > him bring in a change of gloves for Dhoni.
>
> This is a good point, but if the egos are smoothed, and if Ganguly is
> told the cold facts: he is thought to be worse currently than Yuvraj
> but better than Kaif/Gambhir, and the best squad hence leaves him as
> 12th man, then I think there is no harm. Taking great care means
> picking your best squad, and yet not alienating anyone.
Maybe it was done and Ganguly preferred to be left out than be the
12th man...
>
> > > If Yuvraj fails tomorrow, who is next in line to replace him? The man
> > > who already made the test XIV, or the man who didn't? If Kaif replaces
> > > Yuvraj, Ganguly will wonder, "what wrong did I do?", and if Ganguly
> > > replaces Yuvraj, Kaif will wonder the same.
> > It is clearly Ganguly. No one has to wonder. The squad has adequate
> > backups and Kaif owes his spot to him being a better fielder than
> > Ganguly
>
> Except that with Sehwag ill, there is a chance Kaif will play.
Why would you replace Sehwag with Kaif? Jaffer as an opener
makes more sense, right?
>
> Also, let's take the issue of the team selection for Pakistan. Dravid,
> SRT, Sehwag, Laxman, and Yuvraj are sure. We also need 3 openers, so
> Jaffer and Gambhir will probably both go. (Or Gambhir will be replaced
> by Jadhav or some other opener.) Which will leave one slot: Ganguly or
> Kaif? Better 12th man or better batsman?
Like I said earlier for a longer full fledged tour outside the country a
better
batsman should and will be selected. But for a single test at home it does
not
really matter.
>
> And if Kaif is dropped, he has a right to complain. He was picked in
> the Indian squad, thus deprived of FC games. Then, when it came to
> picking the best team for Pakistan, he was dropped...
He has got that right to complain...
However as history shows us he has never really troubled the FC scorers.
It has been his "exploits" in the ODI that has got him into the tests.
>
> And if Ganguly is dropped, of course, he also will complain... After a
> good show at FC level and in the tests that he got, Kaif was picked in
> his place...
I don't see this happening...
But if does than I would also join in the complaints.
> > Unless of course he goes back to the domestics and scores heavily:-) and
> > goes ahead of the other 3.
>
> How will he go back to domestics if you keep picking him for tests on
> the basis of his 12th man ability? How many Ranji games has he played
> for UP this season?
Has he really scored well in the domestics to force his way into the
test squad? I guess you missed the smiley after "scores heavily".
Of course I have another theory.
Maybe GC/RD will play both Jaffer and Gambhir in the 3rd test and have
Sehwag play in the MO. The better performer is taken to Pakistan to open
with Sehwag.
R. Bharat Rao
>
> Considering that Sehwag is still uncertain for T3, I would be happier
> seeing Ganguly as the backup rather than either of Gambhir and Kaif.
> Moreover, even if Sehwag is fully fit, it is Gambhir and Kaif who need
> a prolonged run in FC cricket, not Ganguly, who played and did well in
> the last 6 months.
Wait if Sehwag is not fit, Ganguly won't open. So he is NOT a backup
to Sehwag...
>
>> You said in another post that "the dropping of a former captain is a
>> very, very sensitive issue, and needs great care. Let alone one of the
>> most successful captains India has ever had"
>> So obviously having him in the squad but to not include him in the
>> playing XI would be even more sensitive. This way is better, than to see
>> him bring in a change of gloves for Dhoni.
Bingo...
> This is a good point, but if the egos are smoothed, and if Ganguly is
> told the cold facts: he is thought to be worse currently than Yuvraj
> but better than Kaif/Gambhir, and the best squad hence leaves him as
> 12th man, then I think there is no harm. Taking great care means
> picking your best squad, and yet not alienating anyone.
I doubt it -- this is the man who blew his top when he asked Chappell
for his honest opinion and got it. I doubt that he would take kindly to
being 12th man, and would see it as a huge insult... (and would likely
more around the squad).
>
>> > If Yuvraj fails tomorrow, who is next in line to replace him? The man
>> > who already made the test XIV, or the man who didn't? If Kaif replaces
>> > Yuvraj, Ganguly will wonder, "what wrong did I do?", and if Ganguly
>> > replaces Yuvraj, Kaif will wonder the same.
>> It is clearly Ganguly. No one has to wonder. The squad has adequate
>> backups and Kaif owes his spot to him being a better fielder than
>> Ganguly
>
> Except that with Sehwag ill, there is a chance Kaif will play.
No then they should play Gambhir and Jaffer. Kaif will only play
if ONE of the middle order pulls up lame between now and T3.
>
> Also, let's take the issue of the team selection for Pakistan. Dravid,
> SRT, Sehwag, Laxman, and Yuvraj are sure. We also need 3 openers, so
> Jaffer and Gambhir will probably both go. (Or Gambhir will be replaced
> by Jadhav or some other opener.) Which will leave one slot: Ganguly or
> Kaif? Better 12th man or better batsman?
>
> And if Kaif is dropped, he has a right to complain. He was picked in
> the Indian squad, thus deprived of FC games. Then, when it came to
> picking the best team for Pakistan, he was dropped...
>
> And if Ganguly is dropped, of course, he also will complain... After a
> good show at FC level and in the tests that he got, Kaif was picked in
> his place...
Yup -- we have only one reserve middle-order slot open, and it comes
down to Ganguly vs. Kaif. I think it should be Ganguly, but Kaif too
didn't do anything bad after his (relative) successes against Australia,
other than getting injured -- and remember he outplayed both Yuvraj
and Ganguly in that series...
Bharat
Gafoor
> VJ wrote:
>> How about Harbhajan as opener (I mean, why not?). For once it seems
>> like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers
>> in Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would
>> people be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That
>> would have
>
> Personally, I wouldn't care. The best squad should be chosen. The
> selectors can make it clear that Ganguly is being chosen in the XIV
> because he is among the top 5 middle-order bats in the country,
It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
the 11. If he is chosen in the the 13 or 15, then they will be bad guys
who dropped him from the 11. Hence they have got the selectors
to do this job for them.
Reverse Swing
news:40c22iF...@individual.net...
> Southpaw wrote:
>> VJ wrote:
>>> How about Harbhajan as opener (I mean, why not?). For once it seems
>>> like the team selection has some method to it. We need solid openers
>>> in Pakistan and the slot in the MO now is deserved by Yuvraj. Would
>>> people be happy if Ganguly was in the squad but not in the XI? That
>>> would have
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't care. The best squad should be chosen. The
>> selectors can make it clear that Ganguly is being chosen in the XIV
>> because he is among the top 5 middle-order bats in the country,
>
> It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
> the 11.
Coach is obvious but how is it obvious that the captain doesn't want Ganguly
in the XI? As per the leaked press reports on the selection committee
meeting for T1 (the previous selection committee that included the two
Sharmas and Roy), the coach was dead against having Sourav in the squad and
the captain was neutral, i.e. did not express an opinion.
Or do you have any other source?
SP
<snip>
Gafoor
If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
captain.
Paji
Gafoor wrote:
> It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
> the 11. If he is chosen in the the 13 or 15, then they will be bad guys
> who dropped him from the 11. Hence they have got the selectors
> to do this job for them.
This is amazing. I thought whoever dropped Ganguly will be hailed as
heros
of Indian cricket. Only rabid Ganguly fans with no Indian cricket
at heart will think they are bad guys.
It is not about Ganguly or what is fair to him - it is about what
is good for Indian cricket. It is not fair to anyone personally to get
dropped. but if you want to take care of team interest, you got to make
the right calls
which may seem harsh or unfair to a few individuals.
Gafoor
There are people in the 15 who have no business to be there ahead
of Ganguly. It's OK to drop him from the playing 11, but he has
to be there in the 15 as long as there are people like Kaif in the 15.
Aditya Basrur
Gafoor wrote:
> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
> captain.
Like Tendulkar, then? Oh well - at least he has some acumen on the
field.
Aditya
Loony Tunes
Gafoor wrote:
>
> There are people in the 15 who have no business to be there ahead
> of Ganguly. It's OK to drop him from the playing 11, but he has
> to be there in the 15 as long as there are people like Kaif in the 15.
I cannot agree more. I simply dont see how Kaif qualifies for the test
team. Probably it is based on Sadiq's theory, "He looks good... so he
is in..."
yeskay
Something similar to circa-99 when SRT/KD didn't want the ex-cap
Azhar anywhere near the team.
Gafoor
Kapil wanted Jadeja in the squad, IIRC - atleast for the ODI squad.
And the selectors offered Azhar & Jadeja as a package, and Kapil
was ready for this compromise. SRT was the only one totally against
Azhar & Jadeja, I think.
But your point holds - just like nobody knew the reasons for the team
management not wanting Azhar, there maybe a possibility, that there are
some reasons why the current team management not wanting Ganguly
in the squad.
Reverse Swing
> Gafoor wrote:
>
>> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
>> captain.
How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the selection
meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain player and the captain
doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's fine either ways?
Anyway, being the puppet wasn't the point. You clubbed the two of them
together, but based on available 'evidence', there is no reason to believe
that the captain didn't want Sourav in the playing XI.
SP
<snip>
Gafoor
Based on the available evidence, there is no reason to believe that
the coach didn't want SCG in the playing XI. Chappell made some
statements about how SCG would be a mentor for the younger
players, about how there is no bad feelings between them, etc.
Dravid & GC are clubbed together because they form the
team management.
Paji
Gafoor wrote:
> There are people in the 15 who have no business to be there ahead
> of Ganguly. It's OK to drop him from the playing 11, but he has
> to be there in the 15 as long as there are people like Kaif in the 15.
I'm no big Kaif fan.
Unless you give chances to a promising youngster, we will never know
how good he will ever be. If you forget his FC stats, and just look
at the way he plays and his ODI record, Kaif is not a bad choice.
He got into the national side based on U19 performance and not FC
He was one of the best available in the country right from his
U19 days - he was the captain of the side.
.
His FC record has always been patchy, - but does not mean he
is no Test class. He never got to play consistent FC cricket
due to regular call up to the national side.
He deserves his chances ahead of veterans of dubious quality.
Looks like the majority of the selectors, coach and the captain
agree - if it is good enough for them, what's the problem?
I don't think he is in the side for non-cricketing reasons.
Reverse Swing
Fine. Perhaps Chappell is a blooming idiot who changes his mind every day:
one day he wanted Sourav out, the next he calls me a mentor. Still, there
is no reason to believe Dravid didn't want Sourav in the team.
> Dravid & GC are clubbed together because they form the
> team management.
In your original post, you said the coach and the captain, not "team
management."
SP
dp
> Gafoor wrote:
<snip>
> > It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
> > the 11. If he is chosen in the the 13 or 15, then they will be bad guys
> > who dropped him from the 11. Hence they have got the selectors
> > to do this job for them.
Don't the selectors choose the final XI for home matches? I thought it
is only on tours that the team management picks the XI. In that case,
this argument that "selectors dropped Ganguly from the squad because
they didn't want it to look like coach and captain dropped him" doesn't
hold either.
> I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> especially vindictive.
Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not fighting
for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to him is only
marginally better than being vindictive.
So, the question now is, will 6 straight losses against Pak and England
be enough to get rid of this coach-captain combination?
dp [Go Akhtar, Go Flintoff!]
Gafoor
> "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:40c910F...@individual.net...
>> Reverse Swing wrote:
>>> [Not able to download your post, so replying via Boresur's]
>>>
>>>> Gafoor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a
>>>>> puppet captain.
>>>
>>> How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the
>>> selection meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain
>>> player and the captain doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's
>>> fine either ways?
>>> Anyway, being the puppet wasn't the point. You clubbed the two of
>>> them together, but based on available 'evidence', there is no reason
>>> to believe that the captain didn't want Sourav in the playing XI.
>>
>> Based on the available evidence, there is no reason to believe that
>> the coach didn't want SCG in the playing XI. Chappell made some
>> statements about how SCG would be a mentor for the younger
>> players, about how there is no bad feelings between them, etc.
>
> Fine. Perhaps Chappell is a blooming idiot who changes his mind
> every day: one day he wanted Sourav out, the next he calls me a
> mentor.
Then perhaps you should try & get into the team & mentor a few
people.
> Still, there is no reason to believe Dravid didn't want
> Sourav in the team.
>> Dravid & GC are clubbed together because they form the
>> team management.
>
> In your original post, you said the coach and the captain, not "team
> management."
Yes. Coach & Captain == team management.
Gafoor
> aditya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Gafoor wrote:
> <snip>
>>> It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
>>> the 11. If he is chosen in the the 13 or 15, then they will be bad
>>> guys who dropped him from the 11. Hence they have got the selectors
>>> to do this job for them.
>
> Don't the selectors choose the final XI for home matches? I thought it
> is only on tours that the team management picks the XI. In that case,
> this argument that "selectors dropped Ganguly from the squad because
> they didn't want it to look like coach and captain dropped him"
> doesn't hold either.
Most of the fans don't know this. If he is dropped on the morning
of the test, it will look like the captain & coach had some hand in
it. It's easier to drop him well in advance & get the issue in open
before the match starts.
>> I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
>> especially vindictive.
>
> Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not
> fighting for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to
> him is only marginally better than being vindictive.
>
> So, the question now is, will 6 straight losses against Pak and
> England be enough to get rid of this coach-captain combination?
Don't think we will lose 6 straight matches. I don't think we will lose
more than 1 match each against Pak & England.
Reverse Swing
LOL. It's alright - we all tend to make assertions without any basis
sometime or the other. We all have our prejudices. Nobody died.
SP
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> Don't think we will lose 6 straight matches. I don't think we will lose
> more than 1 match each against Pak & England.
Noted for future reference.
Andrew
dp
> Don't think we will lose 6 straight matches.
Yeah, I don't think so either. But if that's what it takes to get
Chappell sacked, I for one will be hoping it happens. It's not going to
be easy, mind you. Rooting for Pak is ok, they are usually my second
favourite team anyway, but England for some reason has always been my
least favourite team by some distance. But this time, I will be rooting
for even them...
dp
Tweedle Dee
Gafoor wrote:
> But your point holds - just like nobody knew the reasons for the team
> management not wanting Azhar, there maybe a possibility, that there are
> some reasons why the current team management not wanting Ganguly
> in the squad.
I am trying to think of the possibilities regarding Dravid-Chappell
vis-a-vis Ganguly. (a) Dravid may a Machiavellian manipulator who wants
to screw Ganguly while praising him and appearing to be a super-nice
guy in public. Somehow I doubt that - from what we have seen of Dravid,
he doesn't see this type (that sweet-on-ball incident notwithstanding).
Or (b) Dravid may be one meek character who doesn't have the balls to
stand up for a long-time friend and team-mate. Perhaps. After all, he
does gain by taking this route - no hindrances or baggage from having
an ex-skipper known to have a strong personality, plus better relations
with the coach, another strong character. Or (c) Dravid may genuinely
have been convinced by Chappell and More and Co. that Ganguly doesn't
fit into the scheme of things and investing in Yuvraj is the way to the
future, and Dravid being a team-man who probably wants the best for his
team may have bought into this. Or it may be none of the above. Maybe
(d) Dravid and Chappell are privy to information that we are unaware of
- maybe Ganguly did some underhand stuff that only they know about,
which is what you are suggesting above as a possibility. I somehow
doubt that as well. I think I'll go with some combination of (b) and
(c). Seems most likely to me. Being a Dravid fan, I like (c) most of
all, and for my own peace of mind, I'll take that to be the case.
--TD
Aditya Basrur
dp wrote:
> aditya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Gafoor wrote:
> <snip>
> > > It's pretty obvious that the coach & captain don't want Ganguly in
> > > the 11. If he is chosen in the the 13 or 15, then they will be bad guys
> > > who dropped him from the 11. Hence they have got the selectors
> > > to do this job for them.
>
> Don't the selectors choose the final XI for home matches? I thought it
> is only on tours that the team management picks the XI. In that case,
> this argument that "selectors dropped Ganguly from the squad because
> they didn't want it to look like coach and captain dropped him" doesn't
> hold either.
You really think that Chappell had nothing to do with it? At the least,
the email thing had something to do with it. I'm sure the malicious
slimeball has been more vociferous since then.
> > I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> > especially vindictive.
>
> Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not fighting
> for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to him is only
> marginally better than being vindictive.
Dravid needs to protect his position. While Dravid's not vindictive,
Chappell certainly is. He's a slimy, arrogant SOB, and if Dravid
crosses him, he'll pay. (He might even make Laxman captain, since VVSL
and Gangs seem to have had a falling out.) Dravid could go the same way
as Ganguly if he doesn't listen to Middle Brother, and I'm sure he
knows it.
> So, the question now is, will 6 straight losses against Pak and England
> be enough to get rid of this coach-captain combination?
I don't mind keeping Dravid there. I just don't think Chappell has
India's best interests at heart. Sure, on merit, it's marginal - but
surely past record and performance has something to do with it?
It's all been stage-managed. It reeks of not selecting Goel when Bedi
was injured in case he made a case for inclusion. This way, that
pillock Chappell can make it seem as though Ganguly hasn't done enough.
> dp [Go Akhtar, Go Flintoff!]
I don't want India to fail, but I do want to see Ganguly back. He
deserves more than this. And if hacks like Kaif are preferred to
Ganguly, they may well fail.
Aditya [ Ganguly - the David Gower of Indian Cricket. ] Basrur
P.S. Interesting to see people with some record of supporting India are
pissed about this. Only Cricket illiterates would compare him with
match-fixers like Azhar.
Aditya Basrur
Especially when Dravid is concerned, it's very easy for Gafool to be
prejudiced.
Aditya
yeskay
Why a professional coach should be good for club India right?
Unless you are jingoistic about foreign coaches :)
Aditya Basrur
yeskay wrote:
> Why a professional coach should be good for club India right?
> Unless you are jingoistic about foreign coaches :)
Just because you're a professional coach, it doesn't mean you're that
good.
Aditya [ Anyone know Chappell's coaching credentials before India? ]
Basrur
Andrew Dunford
"Tweedle Dee" <kva...@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:1134622445....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe
> (d) Dravid and Chappell are privy to information that we are unaware of
> - maybe Ganguly did some underhand stuff that only they know about
Not possible: we know everything.
<snip>
Andrew
dp
> Why a professional coach should be good for club India right?
> Unless you are jingoistic about foreign coaches :)
[second attempt, google ate the first]
Oh nothing to do with his foreign origin. I liked John Wright a lot.
Yes, a professional coach would be good, but that's the point. In his
brief stint so far, he has been anything but professional.
dp
yeskay
If you ignore the Ganguly fiasco:
- Indian fielding seems to have improved
- Fitness of players have improved (Balaji withstanding)
- ODI performance has improved a lot with all the experimentation
I don;t see how he is doing worse than Wright professionally except
for the Ganguly drama.
dp
> Why a professional coach should be good for club India right?
> Unless you are jingoistic about foreign coaches :)
Oh absolutely nothing to do with his foreign origin. I liked John
Wright a lot. Yes, a professional coach would be good, but that's the
point. In his stint so far, he has been anything but professional.
dp
dp
> > Oh nothing to do with his foreign origin. I liked John Wright a lot.
> > Yes, a professional coach would be good, but that's the point. In his
> > brief stint so far, he has been anything but professional.
>
> If you ignore the Ganguly fiasco:
>
> - Indian fielding seems to have improved
> - Fitness of players have improved (Balaji withstanding)
> - ODI performance has improved a lot with all the experimentation
>
> I don;t see how he is doing worse than Wright professionally except
> for the Ganguly drama.
And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway, not
sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting Agarkar over
Zaheer for tests? After Zaheer's performance in Duleeps? Main point is,
he seems to be meddling in things he shouldn't be meddling in. That is
enough reason to sack him, no matter how good he is as a coach. But I
don't think he is that great tactically either. "Supersub favours the
team winning the toss"? Sure, it is Dravid who said that, but what is
coach doing?
dp
Gafoor
> yeskay wrote:
>>> Oh nothing to do with his foreign origin. I liked John Wright a lot.
>>> Yes, a professional coach would be good, but that's the point. In
>>> his brief stint so far, he has been anything but professional.
>>
>> If you ignore the Ganguly fiasco:
>>
>> - Indian fielding seems to have improved
>> - Fitness of players have improved (Balaji withstanding)
>> - ODI performance has improved a lot with all the experimentation
>>
>> I don;t see how he is doing worse than Wright professionally except
>> for the Ganguly drama.
>
> And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway, not
> sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting Agarkar over
> Zaheer for tests?
How do you know GC was responsible? It may be Dravid also?
I think ZK will be back - maybe for the Pak tour, or atleast
for the Eng series.
> After Zaheer's performance in Duleeps? Main point
> is, he seems to be meddling in things he shouldn't be meddling in.
> That is enough reason to sack him, no matter how good he is as a
> coach. But I don't think he is that great tactically either.
> "Supersub favours the team winning the toss"? Sure, it is Dravid who
> said that, but what is coach doing?
Coach is there for coaching skills, not for these things.
amukhop
I'd say this comes under "team management".
dp
> > And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway, not
> > sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting Agarkar over
> > Zaheer for tests?
>
> How do you know GC was responsible? It may be Dravid also?
I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
hard work.
> > "Supersub favours the team winning the toss"? Sure, it is Dravid who
> > said that, but what is coach doing?
>
> Coach is there for coaching skills, not for these things.
As part of team management he decides who should be supersub. If he
doesn't even know how to make best use of it, how does he decide?
Coaching skills include things like strategy and tactics. It is not
just how to hold a bat or how to move your feet.
dp
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>>> And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway,
>>> not sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting
>>> Agarkar over Zaheer for tests?
>>
>> How do you know GC was responsible? It may be Dravid also?
>
> I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
> his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
> hard work.
Dravid was probably witness to the incident where ZK threatened
John Wright. There is a high possibility that this offended Dravid but
he couldn't do anything then because he wasn't a captain.
Aditya Basrur
Gafoor wrote:
> dp wrote:
> > Gafoor wrote:
> >>> And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway,
> >>> not sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting
> >>> Agarkar over Zaheer for tests?
> >>
> >> How do you know GC was responsible? It may be Dravid also?
> >
> > I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
> > his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
> > hard work.
>
> Dravid was probably witness to the incident where ZK threatened
> John Wright. There is a high possibility that this offended Dravid but
> he couldn't do anything then because he wasn't a captain.
Did this happen when Tendulkar was nursing his elbow before his
record-breaking 248* in Bangladesh?
Was the "possibility" low that Tendulkar, unlike Dravid, fully endorsed
what Zaheer did to Wright? Or was the "possibility" high that Tendulkar
was offended like Dravid?
You "probably" meant to say something else.
So be a good little Gafool, and let's have that Kallis post.
Aditya
dp
>
> Dravid was probably witness to the incident where ZK threatened
> John Wright. There is a high possibility that this offended Dravid but
> he couldn't do anything then because he wasn't a captain.
Obviously Chappell would also know about the incident and there is
higher possibility that Chappell will be offended by it than Dravid to
be offended. After all, Zaheer had tried to assault his coach and that
was over a training issue, so as a coach high on fitness and training,
Chappell won't like that attitude. Besides, Dravid has so far not shown
anything to indicate that he does things based on his likes and
dislikes. A doormat captain who doesn't stand up for his friend is
unlikely to keep someone out of the team based on an incident which
happened many years ago. But Chappell has shown enough indication that
he will go to any extent to keep people he doesn't like out of the
team.
dp
Aditya Basrur
And when you have a manipulative egotistical coach who cares more about
his testicles being lifted than the well-being of the team, any player
who knows what's good for him will be a doormat. He'll continue not to
make hamfisted decisions on the field (unlike Tendulkar when captain),
but he'll fall in line with the dictatorial MF who's running the team.
It's like office politics - if someone's quirky but has power over you,
you fall in line. I don't think we can fault Dravid for that (although
Gafool wants to, because everyone knows SRT was the worst captain ever,
and he hasn't found anything on-field to crib about just yet; it
shouldn't take that long). Once he starts bringing in the entire
Bangalore side on an unwarranted basis (the keeper will be the first
sign, a la Samir Dighe), or makes inexplicable field settings or bowls
strike bowlers into the ground, then we can start comparing him to
Tendulkar's utter ineffectuality.
For the moment, however, Gafool, sit tight. Work on that Kallis post.
And try and make up a better reason to bash Dravid's captaincy. You
idiot.
Aditya
Gafoor
I think we will put both those teams to the sword.
Aditya Basrur
And if we don't put them to the sword, Dravid should be put to the
sword, right?
Standard Sadiq tactic. Get a little less predictable, Gafool. And work
on that Kallis post. Time's running out.
Aditya
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>> There are people in the 15 who have no business to be there ahead
>> of Ganguly. It's OK to drop him from the playing 11, but he has
>> to be there in the 15 as long as there are people like Kaif in the
>> 15.
>
> I'm no big Kaif fan.
>
> Unless you give chances to a promising youngster, we will never know
> how good he will ever be.
There are 2 questions here
1) How do you determine which all youngsters are
promising?
2) Out of all the promising youngsters, who do you
select to give a chance to?
> If you forget his FC stats, and just look
> at the way he plays and his ODI record, Kaif is not a bad choice.
Kaif's ODI record is quite patchy - it's nothing spectacular.
Kaif averages ***5.00*** against Australia in ODI's.
He has made a total of 20 runs against them in 5 innings.
vs Pakistan he has an average of 25.42
vs SL he has an average of 28.55
vs WI he has an average of 30.85
If you exclude the minnows, he averages around 31.
His SR isn't also high enough to afford an average of 31.
> He got into the national side based on U19 performance
> and not FC
> He was one of the best available in the country right from his
> U19 days
He was the best available U-19 possibly which is no big
deal. Why not chose the best U-15?
> - he was the captain of the side.
> .
> His FC record has always been patchy, - but does not mean he
> is no Test class.
What exactly has shown his test class?
> He never got to play consistent FC cricket
> due to regular call up to the national side.
Check records of other chaps who played ODI's with
him for India.
04-05
Kaif 190 runs @ 27.14
Yuvraj 541 runs @ 54.10
Mongia 343 runs @ 24.50
03-04
Kaif 206 runs @ 29.42
Yuvraj 698 runs @ 69.80
Mongia 632 runs @ 52.66
02-03
Kaif 40 runs @ 40.00
Yuvraj 76 runs @ 38.00
Mongia 205 runs @ 51.25
01-02
Kaif 219 runs @ 27.37
Yuvraj 802 runs @ 53.46
Mongia 699 runs @ 77.66
Also why did he fail in his stint with
Derbyshire?
> He deserves his chances ahead of veterans of dubious quality.
Why exactly?
> Looks like the majority of the selectors, coach and the captain
> agree
If that's the criteria, then we shouldn't argue about anyone's
selection or non-selection on RSC, because they are mostly
selected/not selected by the above.
> - if it is good enough for them, what's the problem?
> I don't think he is in the side for non-cricketing reasons.
Well, he isn't there for cricketing reasons.
Cricketwallah
dp wrote:
> > I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> > especially vindictive.
>
> Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not fighting
> for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to him is only
> marginally better than being vindictive.
>
And why does he have to fight for his friend, if he doesnt believe he's
genuinely
worth a spot, for example? How do we know he doesnt think that?
Personally, I think Dravid is a very honorable man - but I also think
(just my
opinion) that he may not be a great Ganguly-friend per se. He wouldnt
let
that affect his view on his abilities at all - but I do think its quite
likely that
Dravid isnt convinced Ganguly is worth a spot in the XI at the moment.
He
has long been a Yuvraj-fan too, after all, has said some very nice
things
about him in the past.
Note, the first selection meeting before this series began. Three
selectors were
totally convinced Ganguly should be there, the reports said they came
to the
meeting basically with the 1-point agenda to ensure he was in the side.
Chappell put forth his views quite forcefully that he didnt think
Ganguly
merited a spot in the XI - I dont know why we need to impute
vindictiveness
or anything else to this, BTW, he genuinely seems to think Ganugly isnt
worth a spot in the XI on form and ability (and he said so even to
Ganguly
himself when Ganguly was captain, so this isnt a new opinion for him).
OTOH, Dravid by all accounts was completely silent on the Ganguly
point - he did not want push for him, or say he shouldnt be in the
side.
Not a bad thing for a captain to be, really.
That original selection meeting lasted what, 4-and-a-half hours? There
was
plenty of debate, lots of suggestions made. One selector apparently
suggested
that VVSL be left out (which would clearly leave room for Ganugly to be
accomodated). At this point, the reports claimed that Dravid objected
very
vociferously, saying he would not accept a squad without VVSL in it.
(The last point of debate was apparently the Agarkar selection, with a
selector
objecting to it - and reports said that both captain and coach said
they wanted
him in, that he was bowling very well at the moment etc. Not
particularly
surprising, since both have been publicly quite positive in comments
about him in the past).
Now, what does the above tell you? To me personally, if one believes
the reports (and there were several of them, so I mostly do), it tells
me
that Dravid was very very convinced about VVSL being worth a spot
in the side, he fought for him personally. And IMHO he was right
on the spot on this too, if VVSL had been dropped it would have
been a travesty - but there were several reports in newspapers before
the selection meeting that he might be, this wasnt a brand new idea.
OTOH, Dravid didnt criticize Ganguly or demand his dropping... but
according to reports he didnt fight for him either. Why does this
have to be vindictiveness or weakness? Maybe he doesnt want
to decide one way or another about a longtime comrade - but
maybe he isnt as convinced about Ganguly today as he is
about some others (ref VVSL).
Before this series began, there were many who felt that Ganguly
would not get picked at all. In fact, Bharat, Samarth and me had
this discussion before the first test - and nobody was *sure*
Ganguly would be picked. I personally thought Ganguly would
be picked for sure, but would be given a short rope - maybe 2
tests is what I said, maybe only 1. After all, remember, all 3
of the selectors who supported Ganguly are not on the committee
anymore. He would need to really establish himself again in
that short period, I felt. Samarth IIRC felt that they might pick
Yuvraj over Ganguly for the first test itself, given his MOS
performance
in the ODIs.
Ganguly *was* given 2 tests, though one was truncated - he got 3
innings. In the end he didnt reach fifty in any of the 3 innings, so he
didnt conclusively re-establish himself in some ways. After Yuvraj's
performance in the 2nd innings at the Kotla, I think there was little
doubt left that he would be in the middle-order ahead of Ganguly
for the last test, if it came to a choice between the two of them.
The contest between them is close, and when it comes to that
they will surely always go with a guy who is so much younger.
And Yuvraj batted *very* well in the second innings - is it fair to
drop
him? I dont think this means vindictiveness from Chappell, or weakness
from Dravid, or anything else from anyone else - I think that is really
not an unreasonable cricketing decision, as Mike said not much
different from Thorpe vs Bell-and-Pietersen before the Ashes series.
There are arguments one can make on both sides, but one can
come down on the Yuvraj side without neccesarily hating Ganguly
IMHO.
Beyond that - frankly, I would have Ganguly in the 14 myself,
easily over Kaif. However this is India - we dont usually make
captain's be 12th men, ferrying water and change of gloves etc.
In a perfectly professional world I think we would, we'd just pick the
best 14 as Samarth suggested, and be done with it. But I felt this
before the first test and said so then too - they arent going to pick
Ganguly in the 14 and then make him 12th man, and they arent going
to pick him in the 14 if they arent going to put him in the final XI.
It isnt done, in their minds.
I would still pick Ganguly for the series in Pakistan however - a tour
is
a different matter in that sense. The first indication I got from the
selectors comments yesterday was that they were thinking along
similar lines - which is what I wrote yesterday on here. Now, after
seeing the public reaction, I wonder - all the writers seem to be
claiming
its the end of Ganguly, one wonders if theyve gotten more of an
inside view if they write things like that. If they dont pick Ganguly
for the Pakistan tour *then* IMHO it would be most unfair - but at the
moment, if this selection is a one-off, I really dont think its that
bad a
piece of selection. Certainly not one smacking of Chappel's
vindictiveness
or Dravid's weakness, or anything of the sort.
> So, the question now is, will 6 straight losses against Pak and England
> be enough to get rid of this coach-captain combination?
>
> dp [Go Akhtar, Go Flintoff!]
So if we get rid of this coach-captain combination, who replaces them?
Coach, might be anybody. But surely Ganguly isnt coming back as
captain no matter what, right? So who do you want as the next captain?
Sehwag? Or should we just bring Kaif in to be captain? :-)
Sadiq [ combination has done fine so far, really ] Yusuf
amukhop
Cricketwallah wrote:
<snip>
> And Yuvraj batted *very* well in the second innings
Did you watch this?
<snip>
Cricketwallah
Reverse Swing wrote:
> >
> >> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
> >> captain.
>
> How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the selection
> meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain player and the captain
> doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's fine either ways?
>
OTOH, those same reports also suggested that the captain was
vociferous in his insistance that VVSL could not be dropped, no?
A couple of reports actually suggested that he said he would not
accept a team without VVSL in it. (In which he was completely
correct, there is no way VVSL should have been dropped from
the test side, the ODI side is completely different). When he
is so strong in his opinions about defending one player, but
stays completely neutral about another - doesnt that indicate
what his opinion is, in some ways? At least, it indicates that he
thinks VVSL is absolutely vital to the side in his view, but he
is sort of ok whichever of Ganguly or Yuvraj gets picked?
(And, BTW, I think he is absolutely correct on this one too -
VVSL should clearly be the #3 middle-order choice out of 4 spots
in this side; the 4th spot is between Ganguly and Yuvraj, and it is
much much closer, with good arguments to be made on each side.
It is entirely possible that GC/RD believe Yuvraj should be in the
XI ahead of Ganguly on merit today - and it is not an outlandish
viewpoint at all, certaintly not one that should lead to allegations
of bias, vindictiveness, or weakness, IMHO).
Sadiq [ its not that shocking a cricketing decision, surely? ] Yusuf
> Anyway, being the puppet wasn't the point. You clubbed the two of them
> together, but based on available 'evidence', there is no reason to believe
> that the captain didn't want Sourav in the playing XI.
>
> SP
>
> <snip>
yeskay
I am not convinced as to what's Chappell's motive in getting rid of Ganguly.
What does he gain by being vindictive?
May be he thinks it will serve the Indian team well.
Mike Holmans
<cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I dont think this means vindictiveness from Chappell, or weakness
>from Dravid, or anything else from anyone else - I think that is really
>not an unreasonable cricketing decision, as Mike said not much
>different from Thorpe vs Bell-and-Pietersen before the Ashes series.
>There are arguments one can make on both sides, but one can
>come down on the Yuvraj side without neccesarily hating Ganguly
>IMHO.
Exactly. It's not as though it's deciding which of Tendulkar or Kaif
to pick.
But the furore, such as it is, is copious evidence that it was the
right decision. Had Ganguly remained in the team, the soap opera would
have continued until the selectors finally bit the bullet and gave him
the heave-ho. Which is why I'm a bit surprised people still want to
take him to Pakistan so that the team can be permanently distracted by
press hounds and others anxious to dig up the latest in the ongoing
Ganguly saga.
Whether or not Ganguly is now the ideal team man rather than a
disruptive influence in the actual dressing room is now almost neither
here nor there. The fact of his being in the squad has the reptiles
slathering for their next helping of column inches, so he's now
disruptive simply by having been picked. The quicker he's effectively
wiped off the radar, the better for the stability of the team.
Cheers,
Mike
dp
> Personally, I think Dravid is a very honorable man - but I also think
I don't doubt that for a moment.
<snip selection meeting where Dravid spoke up in support of Laxman and
Agarkar>
> Now, what does the above tell you?
hmm. let's see. Laxman was competing with Ganguly, Chappell wanted
Laxman in and Ganguly out and Dravid spoke up in support of Laxman.
Agarkar was competing with Zaheer, Chappell wanted Agarkar in and
Zaheer out and Dravid spoke up in support of Agarkar. hmm good to see
such great understanding between the coach and captain.
> Beyond that - frankly, I would have Ganguly in the 14 myself,
> easily over Kaif. However this is India - we dont usually make
> captain's be 12th men, ferrying water and change of gloves etc.
> In a perfectly professional world I think we would, we'd just pick the
> best 14 as Samarth suggested, and be done with it.
Yes, but in India we don't drop our senior players like that either. In
the middle of a series, after he has played couple of decent knocks and
after we have won a test, just because a youngster did marginally
better. It takes much more than doing marginally better for a youngster
to replace an established player. If we were to drop our senior players
like that, Kapil would have been dropped many times over during his
career. So, you can't on the one hand use "India" excuse for justifying
Ganguly being out of the squad and use merit/professionalism argument
for Yuvraj to be preferred over Ganguly. If you want to do it the
Indian way, then persist with Ganguly till he has had a long run of bad
scores and it is obvious he is much worse than the competition (like it
was done with Kapil :-). Or if you want to do it the professional way,
then play Yuvraj in the XI, but pick Ganguly in the squad because he is
still better than Kaif. But they have done neither.
> So if we get rid of this coach-captain combination, who replaces them?
> Coach, might be anybody. But surely Ganguly isnt coming back as
> captain no matter what, right? So who do you want as the next captain?
> Sehwag? Or should we just bring Kaif in to be captain? :-)
hmm. maybe you are right. There is no alternative, I guess. But atleast
if Chappell goes I will be more than happy.
dp
dp
> But the furore, such as it is, is copious evidence that it was the
> right decision. Had Ganguly remained in the team, the soap opera would
> have continued until the selectors finally bit the bullet and gave him
> the heave-ho.
Ganguly played last two tests and there was no soap opera at any time
during those tests. Indian even won the last test by a huge margin.
dp
dp
<snip>
> inside view if they write things like that. If they dont pick Ganguly
> for the Pakistan tour *then* IMHO it would be most unfair - but at the
> moment, if this selection is a one-off, I really dont think its that
> bad a
> piece of selection. Certainly not one smacking of Chappel's
> vindictiveness
> or Dravid's weakness, or anything of the sort.
well, let me say this: atleast this Ganguly decision is not as bad as
Chappell's other decision - picking Agarkar over Zaheer for a test
series!
dp
Gafoor
> hmm. let's see. Laxman was competing with Ganguly, Chappell wanted
> Laxman in and Ganguly out and Dravid spoke up in support of Laxman.
> Agarkar was competing with Zaheer, Chappell wanted Agarkar in and
> Zaheer out and Dravid spoke up in support of Agarkar. hmm good to see
> such great understanding between the coach and captain.
Chappel wanting Zaheer out is pure conjecture.
It could be either GC or RD or both. I haven't seen any
comment from either of them about ZK till date.
dp
<snip>
> was done with Kapil :-). Or if you want to do it the professional way,
> then play Yuvraj in the XI, but pick Ganguly in the squad because he is
> still better than Kaif. But they have done neither.
btw, this is what the previous selection committee and previous team
management (Ganguly/Wright) did with respect to Kumble. They felt that
Harbhajan was a better choice than Kumble at many points, so they
picked Harbhajan in the XI, but they still kept Kumble in the squad.
They didn't say, "oh, Kumble is a senior player and we can't have him
in the squad and not play, so let's kick him out of the squad". No,
they did it in a perfectly professional manner. If they had dropped
Kumble altogether from the squad when they first felt he was no longer
an automatic choice in the XI (which was what, during the Windies tour
of '02?), Kumble would have missed out on probably his best period as a
test cricketer.
dp
Cricketwallah
I agree. I dont think there is any soap opera on teh field at all - I
think
all the players are far more professional than that, and India is lucky
in having the 3 seniors it does (and has been so the last few years).
Dravid never campaigned for captaincy as he could have over the
years, nor did Tendulkar - and IMHO Dravid accepted Ganguly just
fine when he came into the side the last 2 tests. Ganguly accepted it
just fine as well.
There is quite clearly a soap opera on the outside - the newspapers,
the TV shows, etc. However, I really dont like the idea of those kinds
of things affecting selection. IMHO it should be decided on the field,
not elsewhere - and based on on-field performances I think Ganguly
could go to Pakistan as the first-backup without any trouble. I dont
think he'd cause any trouble either, he would be fine with it IMHO.
Sadiq [ Ganguly is probably worth an ODI spot more than a test
spot anyway - easier competition with Venu Rao so far ]
Yusuf
> dp
Vig
> Gafoor wrote:
>
>>>And Ganguly drama has been the dominant theme of his stint anyway, not
>>>sure why we should ignore it. Apart from that, selecting Agarkar over
>>>Zaheer for tests?
>>
>>How do you know GC was responsible? It may be Dravid also?
>
>
> I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
> his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
> hard work.
You make it sound like a bad thing...
> As part of team management he decides who should be supersub. If he
> doesn't even know how to make best use of it, how does he decide?
> Coaching skills include things like strategy and tactics. It is not
> just how to hold a bat or how to move your feet.
And what is wrong in saying that the supersub rule favours the team
winning the toss?
Cheers!
--
Vig
dp
> > I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
> > his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
> > hard work.
>
> You make it sound like a bad thing...
If that liking is irrespective of the talent and ability (as in Zaheer
vs Agarkar decision), then it *is* a bad thing.
> And what is wrong in saying that the supersub rule favours the team
> winning the toss?
Apart from the fact that it doesn't? No, nothing wrong.
dp
Vig
> Yeah, I don't think so either. But if that's what it takes to get
> Chappell sacked, I for one will be hoping it happens.
It is people like you who are a disgrace to Indian supporters. What is
the ultimate goal of playing Ganguly? For me, it is to win matches! If
we win matches without him, what does it mean? He is better off out of
the team. So IF we lose, maybe we should bring Ganguly back, but why
hope we lose SO THAT Ganguly is back? What is more important? India's
victory in cricket or Ganguly's inclusion?
I am fairly neutral about Ganguly playing. Time will tell if he was
require in Pak. Based on what I saw against SL, we do not need Ganguly
in the team.
Cheers!
--
Vig
Gafoor
> dp wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't think so either. But if that's what it takes to get
>> Chappell sacked, I for one will be hoping it happens.
>
> It is people like you who are a disgrace to Indian supporters.
Relax, this is just a discussion.
> What is
> the ultimate goal of playing Ganguly? For me, it is to win matches! If
> we win matches without him, what does it mean?
Maybe his point is that in the long run we will win more matches
without Chappel than with him.
In that case, you are a disgrace to Indian supporters wanting
us to win less matches in the long term.
dp
> What is more important? India's
> victory in cricket or Ganguly's inclusion?
umm maybe I wasn't clear enough. For me personally, in this case, it is
Ganguly's inclusion. You have a problem with that?
dp
Cricketwallah
dp wrote:
> Cricketwallah wrote:
> > Personally, I think Dravid is a very honorable man - but I also think
>
> I don't doubt that for a moment.
>
> <snip selection meeting where Dravid spoke up in support of Laxman and
> Agarkar>
>
> > Now, what does the above tell you?
>
> hmm. let's see. Laxman was competing with Ganguly, Chappell wanted
> Laxman in and Ganguly out and Dravid spoke up in support of Laxman.
> Agarkar was competing with Zaheer, Chappell wanted Agarkar in and
> Zaheer out and Dravid spoke up in support of Agarkar. hmm good to see
> such great understanding between the coach and captain.
>
This was selection for the squad, before the first test against Sri
Lanka.
For the squad, VVSL was not just competing with Ganguly - he could
just as easily have been competing with Yuvraj or Kaif, no? Yuvraj...
maybe not, he was just Man of the Series against SL in ODIs etc.
But Kaif? He shouldnt be a guaranteed pick, should he? If he werent
the "holy cow" that is? :-)
As for Agarkar over Zaheer - the only indication the reports gave was
that both coach and manager supported Agarkar's inclusion in general,
and felt he was bowling very well in the ODIs etc. There *was* another
spot open, remember? That of RP Singh - who has been the 3rd seamer
in the squad for the first 2 tests, and probably will be the 3rd seamer
for
the final test as well. They seem to have ranked it 1.Pathan 2.Agarkar
3.RP Singh... so what makes it certain that Zaheer couldnt break into
the squad over RP SIngh?
Of course, if we go by what the selectors actually said after that
meeting, they indicated that *Ganguly* had been picked over Zaheer,
if you recall. Because he was picked as "allrounder", since he was
taking wickets etc in the Duleep Trophy (note, the last match played
before this selection was made, Ganguly had made 0 and 0 in the
2 innings in the finals, being consumed by Zaheer both times - Ganguly
had averaged 33 in the Duleep Trophy overall, but had taken about 10
wickets in 3 matches. If you wanted to drop Ganguly as a batsman,
there was an easy enough opportunity there - but the selectors said
they wanted to pick him as an allrounder. The reports indicate that
Chappell was obviously opposed to this idea, pointing out in the
meeting
that Ganguly's last 2-wicket test haul came like 7 years ago or some
such).
> > Beyond that - frankly, I would have Ganguly in the 14 myself,
> > easily over Kaif. However this is India - we dont usually make
> > captain's be 12th men, ferrying water and change of gloves etc.
> > In a perfectly professional world I think we would, we'd just pick the
> > best 14 as Samarth suggested, and be done with it.
>
> Yes, but in India we don't drop our senior players like that either. In
> the middle of a series, after he has played couple of decent knocks and
> after we have won a test, just because a youngster did marginally
> better. It takes much more than doing marginally better for a youngster
> to replace an established player. If we were to drop our senior players
> like that, Kapil would have been dropped many times over during his
> career. So, you can't on the one hand use "India" excuse for justifying
> Ganguly being out of the squad and use merit/professionalism argument
> for Yuvraj to be preferred over Ganguly. If you want to do it the
> Indian way, then persist with Ganguly till he has had a long run of bad
> scores and it is obvious he is much worse than the competition (like it
> was done with Kapil :-). Or if you want to do it the professional way,
> then play Yuvraj in the XI, but pick Ganguly in the squad because he is
> still better than Kaif. But they have done neither.
>
Well, this is an old argument with you - I dont think Kapil was nearly
as
much of a marginal case as you do, but we wont go into that again :-)
However, this much maybe even you might concede... Kapil was there
as allrounder, he contributed with the bat too etc? And that Kapil was
a better allrounder than Ganguly has shown himself to be in the first
2 tests? :-)
> > So if we get rid of this coach-captain combination, who replaces them?
> > Coach, might be anybody. But surely Ganguly isnt coming back as
> > captain no matter what, right? So who do you want as the next captain?
> > Sehwag? Or should we just bring Kaif in to be captain? :-)
>
> hmm. maybe you are right. There is no alternative, I guess. But atleast
> if Chappell goes I will be more than happy.
>
As long as he is getting the team to perform, I dont have too much
problem
with him. I dont think Zaheer should have been left out either, I think
it was
a terrible move - but we won the ODIs without him and did it very
convincingly, much better ODI performances than we've had in a while.
And we did fine in this test too. So far its worked. By the end of the
Wright-regime, I think things were badly broken - even if we happen to
lose to Pakistan in Pakistan, it wont be half as horrible as that awful
performance we had against a crap Pakistan side at home last year.
I thought before that series that we should have won it 2-0 at minimum,
and I still think that - Iam still not sure how we gave that series
away.
Wright had a lot of good times, his penultimate year was awesome - but
he stayed 1 year too long, by the end the team had faded badly under
him IMHO. A change was needed by then, a regime distinctly different.
We've gotten that, and so far at least the results have been pretty ok
-
I dont have a problem with the added emphasis on discipline and
hard work and better fielding etc. Nor with the idea of rotation, and
building better bench-strength - I think that was one of the big
failings
of the previous regime.
Sadiq [ BTW, GC didnt change the selection committee, did he? :-)]
Yusuf
> dp
Cricketwallah
Again, there are 3 spots open in the squad for pacemen - RP Singh is
the third. And Agarkar didnt bowl that badly in the last test, did he?
BTW, there was a rumour before this latest test selection that the
selectors would be pickign VRV Singh in the squad for the last test
match - despite the fact that he is coming off injury and hasnt palyed
the last 2 Ranji matches. He is fit now, and bowling at the nets
against
the Indian side etc, being monitored by the physio et al. The
indication
thus was that VRV Singh would be picked ahead of Zaheer too. These
are surely not all the coach's decision, dont you think? I mean, he's
probably not even seen all of the domestic players. What does he know
of Jaffer being picked for this test, for example? He has never seen
Jaffer play, Iam sure.
There were 2 selectors opposed to Ganguly's selection the last time
too, and 3 who were totally for. Those 3 arent in the committee
anymore.
All that was not GC's doing.
Sadiq [ its not like GC is the CEO of Indian cricket or anything ]
Yusuf
> dp
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>
> This was selection for the squad, before the first test against Sri
> Lanka.
> For the squad, VVSL was not just competing with Ganguly - he could
> just as easily have been competing with Yuvraj or Kaif, no? Yuvraj...
> maybe not, he was just Man of the Series against SL in ODIs etc.
no he wasn't. dhoni was mots vs sl.
yuvi was mots vs rsa.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Vig
> Vig wrote:
>
>>>I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
>>>his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
>>>hard work.
>>
>>You make it sound like a bad thing...
>
>
> If that liking is irrespective of the talent and ability (as in Zaheer
> vs Agarkar decision), then it *is* a bad thing.
Talent + no hard work < Hard work + no talent
Examples are Mark Richardson and Nasser Hussain... And ZK is not *that*
incredibly talented to afford to goof off...
Cheers!
--
Vig
>>And what is wrong in saying that the supersub rule favours the team
>>winning the toss?
>
>
> Apart from the fact that it doesn't? No, nothing wrong.
Depends on your selection (if selected supersub mitigates effect of
losing, then no, but if both teams gamble on winning the toss, then yes)
Vig
> Vig wrote:
>
>>>I don't know, but my hunch is it was Chappell. Zaheer is not known for
>>>his hard work and apparently Chappell likes those who put in lot of
>>>hard work.
>>
>>You make it sound like a bad thing...
>
>
> If that liking is irrespective of the talent and ability (as in Zaheer
> vs Agarkar decision), then it *is* a bad thing.
Talent + no hard work < Hard work + no talent
Examples are Mark Richardson and Nasser Hussain... And ZK is not *that*
incredibly talented to afford to goof off...
>>And what is wrong in saying that the supersub rule favours the team
>>winning the toss?
>
>
> Apart from the fact that it doesn't? No, nothing wrong.
Depends on your selection (if selected supersub mitigates effect of
losing, then no, but if both teams gamble on winning the toss, then yes)
Cheers!
--
Vig
Vig
No problem with that really...
Except, I want India's victory and hence would attach an irrelevancy tag
to your comments...
Cheers!
--
Vig
Vig
> Vig wrote:
>
>>dp wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, I don't think so either. But if that's what it takes to get
>>>Chappell sacked, I for one will be hoping it happens.
>>
>>It is people like you who are a disgrace to Indian supporters.
>
>
> Relax, this is just a discussion.
Read his reply to my post...
>>What is
>>the ultimate goal of playing Ganguly? For me, it is to win matches! If
>>we win matches without him, what does it mean?
>
>
> Maybe his point is that in the long run we will win more matches
> without Chappel than with him.
>
> In that case, you are a disgrace to Indian supporters wanting
> us to win less matches in the long term.
hmmm... Ganguly's inclusion is NOT going to be long term... He is near
the end of his career... Like other posters have mentioned, Chappell
hasn't done much wrong as a coach. He has had an odd way of doing
things, but we are playing pretty decent cricket at the moment and I see
improvement in the team.
Andrew Dunford
"Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:40cl0uF...@individual.net...
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:40ca6kF...@individual.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Don't think we will lose 6 straight matches. I don't think we will
> >> lose more than 1 match each against Pak & England.
> >
> > Noted for future reference.
>
> I think we will put both those teams to the sword.
Good stuff, if you could just add something about an 'annihilation'.
Andrew
Aditya Basrur
yeskay wrote:
> I am not convinced as to what's Chappell's motive in getting rid of Ganguly.
> What does he gain by being vindictive?
Sends a signal that it's his way or the highway, doesn't have to deal
with dissent which might be in India's best interests.
Yup, we've got Micky Stewart in charge. Except in Chappell's case, it's
more like Mickey Mouse.
Aditya
Take it easy
news:1134669516.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I am surprised everybody complaining against GC over the selection
of the 14. I thought the 5 wise men do that part. Yes, GC gives his
opinions, feedback, influence, etc. but it is the responsibility of
the selectors to decide. In fact the selectors were changes after
the elections, but still ZK not in. Is GC running the whole Indian
cricket, I wonder (like firing some selectors, etc). He doesn't even
have a vote (nor Dravid).
Takeiteasy.
Uday Rajan
> Gafoor wrote:
>
> > Don't think we will lose 6 straight matches.
>
> be easy, mind you. Rooting for Pak is ok, they are usually my second
> favourite team anyway, but England for some reason has always been my
> least favourite team by some distance. But this time, I will be rooting
> for even them...
How terribly unpatriotic of you.
Reverse Swing
news:1134662980....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Reverse Swing wrote:
>> >
>> >> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a
>> >> puppet
>> >> captain.
>>
>> How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the selection
>> meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain player and the
>> captain
>> doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's fine either ways?
>>
>
> OTOH, those same reports also suggested that the captain was
> vociferous in his insistance that VVSL could not be dropped, no?
> A couple of reports actually suggested that he said he would not
> accept a team without VVSL in it. (In which he was completely
> correct, there is no way VVSL should have been dropped from
> the test side, the ODI side is completely different). When he
> is so strong in his opinions about defending one player, but
> stays completely neutral about another - doesnt that indicate
> what his opinion is, in some ways? At least, it indicates that he
> thinks VVSL is absolutely vital to the side in his view, but he
> is sort of ok whichever of Ganguly or Yuvraj gets picked?
Absolutely. But there is no way anyone can interprete this to say "the
captain wanted Ganguly out of the team." (this is what OP was implying).
Being ok with either A or B doesn't mean "I don't want B".
> (And, BTW, I think he is absolutely correct on this one too -
> VVSL should clearly be the #3 middle-order choice out of 4 spots
> in this side; the 4th spot is between Ganguly and Yuvraj, and it is
> much much closer, with good arguments to be made on each side.
> It is entirely possible that GC/RD believe Yuvraj should be in the
> XI ahead of Ganguly on merit today - and it is not an outlandish
> viewpoint at all, certaintly not one that should lead to allegations
> of bias, vindictiveness, or weakness, IMHO).
>
>
> Sadiq [ its not that shocking a cricketing decision, surely? ] Yusuf
It's not. Did I say it was?
I'd have, of course, preferred if his exit was handled in a more
professional manner, sort of like when a senior executive leaves a company
for inadequate performance rather than when a senior executive is fired from
the job for improper conduct.
SP
<snip>
Govandi
> dp wrote:
>
> > > I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> > > especially vindictive.
> >
> > Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not fighting
> > for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to him is only
> > marginally better than being vindictive.
> >
<snip>
> OTOH, Dravid didnt criticize Ganguly or demand his dropping... but
> according to reports he didnt fight for him either. Why does this
> have to be vindictiveness or weakness? Maybe he doesnt want
> to decide one way or another about a longtime comrade - but
> maybe he isnt as convinced about Ganguly today as he is
> about some others (ref VVSL).
>
Or maybe he was told by Chappell not to interfere when
he speaks.
Not saying that is the case, but it is also a possibility.
Till all the facts are out in the open, people will interpret
it as they see it.
Also, I can see why he would toe the Chappell line.
Maybe, in his judgement, for the good of Indian cricket
he wants to avoid another spat with the coach.
Govandi
Govandi
Cricketwallah wrote:
> Reverse Swing wrote:
> > >
> > >> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
> > >> captain.
> >
> > How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the selection
> > meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain player and the captain
> > doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's fine either ways?
> >
>
> OTOH, those same reports also suggested that the captain was
> vociferous in his insistance that VVSL could not be dropped, no?
Chappell claims to be supportive of Laxman.
Dravid vociferously supports Laxman.
This conclusively proves that Dravid is his own man.
<snip>
dp
> > If that liking is irrespective of the talent and ability (as in Zaheer
> > vs Agarkar decision), then it *is* a bad thing.
>
> Talent + no hard work < Hard work + no talent
>
> Examples are Mark Richardson and Nasser Hussain... And ZK is not *that*
> incredibly talented to afford to goof off...
Doesn't matter, ultimately it is performances that count. Zaheer had
terrific domestic performances to show and is any day a better test
bowler than Agarkar. If you think otherwise and consider Agarkar better
bowler than Zaheer, then there is nothing to argue.
> > Apart from the fact that it doesn't? No, nothing wrong.
>
> Depends on your selection (if selected supersub mitigates effect of
> losing, then no, but if both teams gamble on winning the toss, then yes)
Yes. If you are so concerned about being at a disadvantage if you lose
the toss, then go for mitigation. No matter what strategy the opponents
use and no matter what happens to the toss, your relative disadvantage
will be no worse than without the supersub rule. So to simply make a
blanket statement that supersub rule favours the team winning the toss
just shows the team management's utter lack of understanding of the
rule.
dp
Aditya Basrur
Cricketwallah wrote:
> Reverse Swing wrote:
> > >
> > >> If it's just the coach, then it means that the captain is just a puppet
> > >> captain.
> >
> > How? Both the coach and the captain don't have a vote in the selection
> > meeting. The coach expresses an opinion on a certain player and the captain
> > doesn't. What's the big deal? Perhaps he's fine either ways?
> >
>
> OTOH, those same reports also suggested that the captain was
> vociferous in his insistance that VVSL could not be dropped, no?
> accept a team without VVSL in it. (In which he was completely
> correct, there is no way VVSL should have been dropped from
> the test side, the ODI side is completely different). When he
> is so strong in his opinions about defending one player, but
> stays completely neutral about another - doesnt that indicate
> what his opinion is, in some ways? At least, it indicates that he
> thinks VVSL is absolutely vital to the side in his view, but he
> is sort of ok whichever of Ganguly or Yuvraj gets picked?
More like "if he speaks out for VVSL, Chappell won't chuck him out, but
if he speaks out for Ganguly, he'll be out of the side faster than you
can spell Lorraina Bobbitt."
<snip>
Aditya
dp
> Or maybe he was told by Chappell not to interfere when
> he speaks.
:-)
> Also, I can see why he would toe the Chappell line.
> Maybe, in his judgement, for the good of Indian cricket
> he wants to avoid another spat with the coach.
This may well be the case. To me, he comes across as a fairly
non-controversial, non-confrontational person and it is quite possible
that he has chosen to tread the path of minimum confrontation, not
necessarily out of deliberate selfish motives ("that will be good for
me, I won't risk my captaincy" etc), but purely because of his nature.
dp
dp
> This was selection for the squad, before the first test against Sri
> Lanka.
> For the squad, VVSL was not just competing with Ganguly - he could
> just as easily have been competing with Yuvraj or Kaif, no?
Point was not so much about who was competing with whom. Point is that
in both the instances that Dravid spoke up, he was supporting
Chappell's views. Anyway, Govandi has made the same point in a better
way elsewhere :-)
> Well, this is an old argument with you - I dont think Kapil was nearly
> as
> much of a marginal case as you do, but we wont go into that again :-)
Again, it was not specifically about Kapil. Point is that we generally
tend to give a longer rope to established players and wait till they
have proven themselves to be totally past it. Same with Amre vs Azhar
too. Even though Amre scored a century on debut and Azhar had not done
anything for many series, it was Amre who was eventually dropped, not
Azhar. So going by that, thing to do here would have been to persist
with Ganguly in the XI and drop Yuvraj or make him open or something
like that. Or if you go strictly by merit, then keep Ganguly in the
squad even though not necessarily in the XI. Fact that they did neither
makes this a case of vindictiveness and petty politics.
> Sadiq [ BTW, GC didnt change the selection committee, did he? :-)]
No, he just made them redundant :-)
dp
Vig
bet he (would have) booed Dravid (if he were present) at Eden Gardens.
Cheers!
--
Vig
Vig
> Vig wrote:
>
>>>If that liking is irrespective of the talent and ability (as in Zaheer
>>>vs Agarkar decision), then it *is* a bad thing.
>>
>>Talent + no hard work < Hard work + no talent
>>
>>Examples are Mark Richardson and Nasser Hussain... And ZK is not *that*
>>incredibly talented to afford to goof off...
>
>
> Doesn't matter, ultimately it is performances that count. Zaheer had
> terrific domestic performances to show and is any day a better test
> bowler than Agarkar. If you think otherwise and consider Agarkar better
> bowler than Zaheer, then there is nothing to argue.
ZK is a better test bowler..When he chooses to be... Disciplinary
problems are very very valid grounds for dropping someone since it
affects team morale at the nets. Also, an indisciplined bowler is likely
to be a poor fielder (which ZK is) and Agarkar has the advantage of
trying hard. While it may not be a good idea to play Agarkar, it might
be worse to pick ZK just because he causes the team's morale to flag.
So ZK is a better bowler, but Agarkar is better for the team.
This is Chappell's rationale I assume and I cannot crucify him for this
>>>Apart from the fact that it doesn't? No, nothing wrong.
>>
>>Depends on your selection (if selected supersub mitigates effect of
>>losing, then no, but if both teams gamble on winning the toss, then yes)
>
>
> Yes. If you are so concerned about being at a disadvantage if you lose
> the toss, then go for mitigation. No matter what strategy the opponents
> use and no matter what happens to the toss, your relative disadvantage
> will be no worse than without the supersub rule. So to simply make a
> blanket statement that supersub rule favours the team winning the toss
> just shows the team management's utter lack of understanding of the
> rule.
Two things. The supersub rule favours the side winning the toss in
*some* situations. As long as this is true, there is no need for pulling
out the knives. More importantly, the statement might have been
something like "If you pick the best supersub strategy, the rule favours
the side winning the toss" and stupid reporters (Why can't cricket
afford better?) might have 'cleverly' omitted this. The fact that you
cannot find any criticism of the new team management save this
inconsequential rule regarding ODOs (which are stupid contests nowadays
anyway) says a lot...
Cheers!
--
Vig
Spaceman Spiff
>
>[snip]
>
> So ZK is a better bowler, but Agarkar is better for the team.
>
(at least as a bowler).
dp
<snip>
> So ZK is a better bowler, but Agarkar is better for the team.
I disagree and I will leave it at that.
> Two things. The supersub rule favours the side winning the toss in
> *some* situations. As long as this is true, there is no need for pulling
> out the knives.
It is in captain's hands to not choose those situations (by opting for
mitigation). If he does that, supersub rule favours the team winning
the toss no more than without the rule.
> More importantly, the statement might have been
> something like "If you pick the best supersub strategy, the rule favours
> the side winning the toss" and stupid reporters (Why can't cricket
> afford better?) might have 'cleverly' omitted this.
This was the exact quote as reported:
"The Supersub tends to get loaded in favour of the team winning the
toss. We need to have a bit of luck with the Supersub to be honest."
I leave it to you decide what Dravid actually said and how the reporter
arrived at this statement.
> The fact that you
> cannot find any criticism of the new team management save this
> inconsequential rule regarding ODOs (which are stupid contests nowadays
> anyway) says a lot...
I don't think it is inconsequential at all. If used properly, it can
impact the performance of the team up to 8-10% (instead of 5 bats, you
can have 6 or instead of 4 bowlers you can have 5). There is no other
single thing which can get you that kind of performance gain. You can
work on the batting technique of one player for many months and you
might improve his batting by as much as 20% (which is extremely high at
that level... we are talking transforming a 40-avg batsman to 50-avg).
But that will still get only a 3% gain for the team performance as a
whole. Or take that much hyped aspect of fielding. We had done some
quantification when working on the tool being used by Indian team for
past 5 years and iirc the maximum runs saved by all the fielders in any
given match rarely exceeded 15-20 runs. And this is not even the net
runs saved. Just the results of all above-average pieces of fielding.
dp
Cricketwallah
Heh. I misunderstood, I suppose - when it was alleged that "Dravid was
a
puppet captain" I thought it was sort of the DP view, that he was just
a
non-confrontational guy who wouldnt want to forcefully express his own
views against people who disagreed (due to his mild nature) etc. I
didnt
realize that the view here is that Dravid is a non-confrontational and
mild
guy... only as far as GC is concerned, and nobody else, with everyone
else he is very willing to confront and speak his mind :-)
Its amazing to me how much power is being imputed to GC here - almost
as if he were a Svengali, capable of bending people's minds the way he
wished :-) He doesnt even have a vote in the selection committee - but
he
got the captain (an icon throughout India) completely under his thumb,
2
selectors completely under his control... then he was able to manouver
the firing of 3 other selectors so 3 more-amenable guys came into the
committee, who he proceeded to bring under his thumb as well...and
*then*
he successfully kicked out Ganguly :-)
I suppose it all comes down to people's pov's in this matter. I
personally
think Dravid liked Ganguly well enough, but may think he isnt worth a
spot
in the XI at the moment over Yuvraj - and certainly not over anyone
else.
But VVSL is. I think it is on *that* basis that he vociferously
supported
VVSL but not Ganguly - cricketing reasons, rather than under-GC's-thumb
reasons :-)
As for the selectors - 2 were already opposed to Ganguly, we know that
(and
not neccesarily for regional reasons - More opposed Ganguly before the
series began, and he wanted Yuvraj and Kaif, neither of whom are his
pet
projects. Actually, if More has a couple of pet-players, they are
probably
Zaheer and Munaf Patel). Ganguly was strongly supported the last time
by Pranob Roy, who has been a long-time family friend and admirer,
going
back to pre-test days - if anything, wasnt *that* a more
conflict-of-interest
thing than anything in the committee now is? (Roy, from Calcutta, has
since been replaced by Ranjib Biswal of Orissa - isnt it conceivable
that
the Orissa-guy would be less inclined to support Ganguly as his primary
goal anyway? And another change - that of Yashpal of Delhi replaced by
Bhupinder Sr of Punjab - isnt it more likely that the Punjab selector
would
push for Yuvraj more than the Delhi selector did anyway? Arent these
probably bigger reasons for Ganguly's ouster than
GC-hates-him-and-forced-
Dravid-to-hate-him-too, maybe?)
Frankly the reaction has been amazingly over the top - Chief Minster of
the state, Cabinet Minsters, MPs, all publicly blasting the selectors.
And
the solutions proposed are even sillier - that he needs to have a
SWaugh
type exit, that he should thus be taken to Pakistan and given one last
appearance there, and then left out even if he were to score
consecutive
centuries there (so CI said)? :-) And if the selectors really think he
isnt
worth a spot in the current XI (as they undoubtedly do).. is the
*Pakistan*
series one we want to mess with? Really?
Sadiq [ cancel Pak, invite Bdesh - then we can do it :-) ] Yusuf
> <snip>
Sears Tower
"Govandi" <gova...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134711909.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Cricketwallah wrote:
> > dp wrote:
> >
> > > > I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> > > > especially vindictive.
> > >
> > > Knowing him, I don't think so either. But being silent and not
fighting
> > > for his long time friend and captain to get what is due to him is only
> > > marginally better than being vindictive.
> > >
> <snip>
>
> > OTOH, Dravid didnt criticize Ganguly or demand his dropping... but
> > according to reports he didnt fight for him either. Why does this
> > have to be vindictiveness or weakness? Maybe he doesnt want
> > to decide one way or another about a longtime comrade - but
> > maybe he isnt as convinced about Ganguly today as he is
> > about some others (ref VVSL).
> >
>
> Or maybe he was told by Chappell not to interfere when
> he speaks.
>
> Not saying that is the case, but it is also a possibility.
> Till all the facts are out in the open, people will interpret
> it as they see it.
his own man.
So what changed?
Sears Tower
news:1134754468.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> whole. Or take that much hyped aspect of fielding. We had done some
> quantification when working on the tool being used by Indian team for
Sears Tower
> blanket statement that supersub rule favours the team winning the toss
> just shows the team management's utter lack of understanding of the
> rule.
Woolmer, Moody, Fletcher, Chappell, all part of their respective
teams management, "show utter lack of understanding of the rule".
JR
>the end of his career...
Based on.. ? He's about the same age as Dravid, SRT, Kumble & Laxman.
Why don't we drop all of them because they'll retire in a few years
anyway?
JR
Sanjay
"JR" <jro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134766832.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
They are performing better than Ganduly and hence they should not be
dropped. Another plus point is they dont do backstabbing politics like
ganduly and disrupt the team spirit. Geddit.
Narayanan
ur dad will "geddit" from Muslim ganduly. HE HE HE HE HE EHE H
"Sanjay" <San...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dnvaau$p8e$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
dp
> "dp" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134754468.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > whole. Or take that much hyped aspect of fielding. We had done some
> > quantification when working on the tool being used by Indian team for
> What "Indian team" are you talking about?
The one managed by BCCI.
dp
Paji
aditya...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think it's more the coach than the captain. I don't think Dravid's
> especially vindictive.
>
The man himself has not done much to help himself - got several chances
in the last couple of years, thanks to mentorship by the ex-BCCI chief,
but
came croppers.
There is only so much a coach can do to help a player with limited
skills and intelligence.
Paji
yeskay wrote:
> I am not convinced as to what's Chappell's motive in getting rid of Ganguly.ht
It has been very clear to cricket fans around the world (excpet rabid
Ganguly fans)
that he has been a liability. The coach and the new selectors have
what it
takes to do the right thing.
Why was family friend of Ganguly in the selection panel (Roy)?
Conflict of interest, a man with any self-respect should have
withdrawn.
But the moron went on to sit on the panel for 3-4 years.
All these Bengalis who cry injustice, why don't they think of Indian
cricket
first? no, they want their son in the team, even if he is no good.
No wonder the Bengal team sux big time and Kolkatta is such a crappy
city in
the world.
> What does he gain by being vindictive?
> May be he thinks it will serve the Indian team well.