The real victim Saurav or Chappell

[Sanz]

Perhaps, but that isnt the issue here. The point is you've been lambasting a guy who had the courage to suggest something that should have been done quite a while ago. Thats where your tinted vision comes in.

No, my vision is not tinted because I have been reading Greg's interview in the media about Gang's batting and it has been totally different from what he told Ganguly on the eve of the test match. It reeks of double speak, if nothing else.

Just before the test series in zimbabwe began, this is what he had to say to the media about Gang's batting :-

"Being captain of the Indian team is probably the hardest job in world cricket. And Sourav has been doing it for nearly six years. It's a trying job and I've no doubt it affects his form. He's working hard on getting back to the mental state he needs to be in to make runs. And I've no doubts he can make runs again. I don't know when that would be. He'll make runs. He is well aware of what he needs to do. There are some good signs in the way he has batted on this tour. Again, that hard work is beginning to pay off and that's all he can or anyone of us can do in any stage of your career when things aren't going well. .........I think he has held up pretty well under the circumstances. A lot more guys would have been a lot more exasperated than he is. He is frustrated with it all but he hasn't given up the belief that he can make runs and I think that's half the battle won. "

 

[Pratters]

=

He's been treated like dirt here.

Ah the exaggeration. As some one mentioned earlier. Do not believe every thing you read. There are two sides of the coin to every thing.

 

[Deja moo]

No, my vision is not tinted because I have been reading Greg's interview in the media about Gang's batting and it has been totally different from what he told Ganguly on the eve of the test match. It reeks of double speak, if nothing else.

Just before the test series in zimbabwe began, this is what he had to say to the media about Gang's batting :-

"Being captain of the Indian team is probably the hardest job in world cricket. And Sourav has been doing it for nearly six years. It's a trying job and I've no doubt it affects his form. He's working hard on getting back to the mental state he needs to be in to make runs. And I've no doubts he can make runs again. I don't know when that would be. He'll make runs. He is well aware of what he needs to do. There are some good signs in the way he has batted on this tour. Again, that hard work is beginning to pay off and that's all he can or anyone of us can do in any stage of your career when things aren't going well. .........I think he has held up pretty well under the circumstances. A lot more guys would have been a lot more exasperated than he is. He is frustrated with it all but he hasn't given up the belief that he can make runs and I think that's half the battle won. "

So you're expecting that Chappell should have made a statement along the lines of ," Yeah, his batting has been crap for quite a while, and we're definitely going to drop him " ?

It may come as a surprise to you, but some people actually value diplomatic speak over tattle tales ( read Ganguly).

 

[Sanz]

So you're expecting that Chappell should have made a statement along the lines of ," Yeah, his batting has been crap for quite a while, and we're definitely going to drop him " ?

No, I wasn't expecting anything like that but I wasn't expecting the praise he showered on Ganguly either. If one reads his interview, it will give the impression that Ganguly is on his way to become his old shelf.

It may come as a surprise to you, but some people actually value diplomatic speak over tattle tales ( read Ganguly).

We need a coach here, not a bloddy diplomat doing his lip service to the media about how well Ganguly has been learning when it is far from fact. If the batsman is crap then we expect to know that, at least we dont expect to hear how he has already won half the battle and how his hard work has started to pay off.
As for diplomatic tales, captain goes to him ans asks 'Hey Coach, who do you think should play in the team, Yuvraj or Kaif ?' and the Coach known for his diplomatic tales "You know what I would have them both and drop you'. How Diplomatic ?? I am impressed.

And look where you stand now that Chappel has come out and said that whatever he said was basically to motivate Ganguly, really I am touched by his motivational and diplomatic skills.

 

[Deja moo]

No, I wasn't expecting anything like that but I wasn't expecting the praise he showered on Ganguly either. If one reads his interview, it will give the impression that Ganguly is on his way to become his old shelf.




We need a coach here, not a bloddy diplomat doing his lip service to the media about how well Ganguly has been learning when it is far from fact. If the batsman is crap then we expect to know that, at least we dont expect to hear how he has already won half the battle and how his hard work has started to pay off.
As for diplomatic tales, captain goes to him ans asks 'Hey Coach, who do you think should play in the team, Yuvraj or Kaif ?' and the Coach known for his diplomatic tales "You know what I would have them both and drop you'. How Diplomatic ?? I am impressed.

And look where you stand now that Chappel has come out and said that whatever he said was basically to motivate Ganguly, really I am touched by his motivational and diplomatic skills.

Er, talking to the press is far removed from private conversations. Diplomatic speak is absolutely necessary if you're to survive the press, whereas you can basically call a spade a spade in a private conversation. I dont know what to make of a person who cant see this glaring difference.
And you cant expect a cricketer to just start sulking the moment they're told that their place in the team isnt assured. Thats just immature. And keep quoting a false sensationalised version of the conversation. It serves your biased motives. The gullible may get taken in, not me.

 

[Sanz]

Er, talking to the press is far removed from private conversations. Diplomatic speak is absolutely necessary if you're to survive the press, whereas you can basically call a spade a spade in a private conversation. I dont know what to make of a person who cant see this glaring difference..

And I dont expect our coach to lie to the nation about Ganguly's form and his improvement. I dont consider that as being Diplomatic. If one reads that interview, where he claims that Gangs' has been doing so much better, it seems so hunky dory for the team and gans when the facts are quite opposite. I didnt expect him to be blunt, but I didn't expect him to sing hosannas in his praise either.

And you cant expect a cricketer to just start sulking the moment they're told that their place in the team isnt assured. Thats just immature. And keep quoting a false sensationalised version of the conversation. It serves your biased motives. The gullible may get taken in, not me.

Dude first of all dont accuse me something which I have not done, read Cricinfo, everything is there :-

http://www.icc-cricket.com/india/content/story/219486.html

"he(chappell) suggested that India would be better served if Ganguly focused on getting his batting organised by stepping down from the captaincy. "

"Ganguly asked Chappell for his preference. Chappell reiterated that he should pick the best XI and when Ganguly pushed him for a frank opinion, Chappell said that left to him, he would have them both in the team ahead of Ganguly. "

"Ganguly asked Chappell if he was serious. Chappell said that if Ganguly was interested in an honest opinion, then he had it. The ideal Indian Test middle-order, according to Chappell, was Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj and Kaif."

Ganguly then stormed off to the dressing-room, summoned Dravid and Chowdhary and informed them that he was packing his bags and leaving because Chappell didn't want him in the team. Chowdhary then asked Chappell to join in and it was decided that the captain leaving in the middle of a tour would be disastrous. Ganguly stayed on, but the matter didn't stay inside the dressing-room

http://www.icc-cricket.com/india/content/story/219486.html

=================================================

I am sure nothing of that sort happened and it is all figment of my imagination, even the cricinfo report is false.

 

[Deja moo]

And I dont expect our coach to lie to the nation about Ganguly's form and his improvement. I dont consider that as being Diplomatic. If one reads that interview, where he claims that Gangs' has been doing so much better, it seems so hunky dory for the team and gans when the facts are quite opposite. I didnt expect him to be blunt, but I didn't expect him to sing hosannas in his praise either.

Fair enough. But did he do anything to paint him in a bad light ? No. Did ganguly do so ? Yes.

Dude first of all dont accuse me something which I have not done, read Cricinfo, everything is there :-

http://www.icc-cricket.com/india/content/story/219486.html

"he(chappell) suggested that India would be better served if Ganguly focused on getting his batting organised by stepping down from the captaincy. "

"Ganguly asked Chappell for his preference. Chappell reiterated that he should pick the best XI and when Ganguly pushed him for a frank opinion, Chappell said that left to him, he would have them both in the team ahead of Ganguly. "

"Ganguly asked Chappell if he was serious. Chappell said that if Ganguly was interested in an honest opinion, then he had it. The ideal Indian Test middle-order, according to Chappell, was Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj and Kaif."

Ganguly then stormed off to the dressing-room, summoned Dravid and Chowdhary and informed them that he was packing his bags and leaving because Chappell didn't want him in the team. Chowdhary then asked Chappell to join in and it was decided that the captain leaving in the middle of a tour would be disastrous. Ganguly stayed on, but the matter didn't stay inside the dressing-room

http://www.icc-cricket.com/india/content/story/219486.html

=================================================

I am sure nothing of that sort happened and it is all figment of my imagination, even the cricinfo report is false.

I'm not saying the reports are false. i'm saying your accounts of it, where you make it seem like the conversation consisted of the following:

Gangs: So who do we drop tomorrow, Kaif or Yuvi ?
Chappell: I'd rather both played.

Now that is sensationalising it and making it seem blunt, when in fact the report you post above shows that it was nothing but a discussion. Ganguly asked for a frank opinion, and Chappell gave him one. You keep saying how a coach should correct a batsmans game rather than drop him. And Chappells opinion is that " India would be better served if Ganguly focused on getting his batting organised by stepping down from the captaincy. " . How is that not a valid opinion ? He feels that a complete break from the international game for a period wherin he could concentrate purely on his batting, and not worry about the leadership issues that dog a captain would be most beneficial to him. How is that not a coach doing his job ? Isnt he suggesting something that is beneficial not only to the team, but also to the affected player ?

 

[Sanz]

The coach suggesting the captain to drop himself in the middle of a tour isn't a valid option. He should make that suggestion to the Board that too either before or after the tour especially when the tour is so short and against such a weak opposition.

If the batsman has a major flaw in his batting and everyone in the world including the coach knows it, then why not work on rectifying the flaw it rather than asking him to leave the captaincy, relevance of which I still fail to understand.

i'm saying your accounts of it, where you make it seem like the conversation consisted of the following:

Gangs: So who do we drop tomorrow, Kaif or Yuvi ?
Chappell: I'd rather both played.

And where did I say this and even if I did what is the sensationlization bit here ?

 

[Deja moo]

The coach suggesting the captain to drop himself in the middle of a tour isn't a valid option. He should make that suggestion to the Board that too either before or after the tour especially when the tour is so short and against such a weak opposition.

If the batsman has a major flaw in his batting and everyone in the world including the coach knows it, then why not work on rectifying the flaw it rather than asking him to leave the captaincy, relevance of which I still fail to understand.

Captaincy = extra burden. According to Chappell, Ganguly cannot work on his batting as long as he has these extra responsibilities. He also thinks a break from the game would be beneficial to him in sorting out his batting. While hes not playing, it leaves him free to concentrate purely on his technical aspects and not worry about how hes going to perform in the game day after tomorrow, or how each member of the team is coping. It is not possible for a person to concentrate wholly on his game when he has to care for the games of 14 other persons too. This is the relevance.

 

[Jono]

I believe if we go back to the 2003/04 Indian tour of Australia, just prior to the first test Ganguly approached Greg Chappell regarding advice for batting, if I'm not mistaken. He then went on to score that inspirational hundred at the Gabba in the first test. A little ironic if you ask me.

 

[Deja moo]

How things change

 

[Sanz]

Captaincy = extra burden. According to Chappell, Ganguly cannot work on his batting as long as he has these extra responsibilities. He also thinks a break from the game would be beneficial to him in sorting out his batting. While hes not playing, it leaves him free to concentrate purely on his technical aspects and not worry about how hes going to perform in the game day after tomorrow, or how each member of the team is coping. It is not possible for a person to concentrate wholly on his game when he has to care for the games of 14 other persons too. This is the relevance.

And obviously the best time to say this is on the eve of the test match, right ? Why not say so in the camp or when the selectors were selecting the team ?

 

[Sanz]

How things change

Yeah times change. In 2000 Chappell was not selected as a coach and part of the reason was Players (Read Gangs & Dravid) wanted Wright. This time around chappel had done his home work, He needed Ganguly's support to become the coach so he sucked up well to him but after he became the coach he showed what he really felt about him.

Times Change.

 

[Anil]

Yeah times change. In 2000 Chappell was not selected as a coach and part of the reason was Players (Read Gangs & Dravid) wanted Wright. This time around chappel had done his home work, He needed Ganguly's support to become the coach so he sucked up well to him but after he became the coach he showed what he really felt about him.

Times Change.

he sucked up to gangs? how do you come to that conclusion? ..and why are you sure that his evaluation was based on his feelings rather than ganguly's current form as a batsman?

 

[Sanz]

he sucked up to gangs? how do you come to that conclusion? ..and why are you sure that his evaluation was based on his feelings rather than ganguly's current form as a batsman?

Well that is what I meant, whatever Chappell told Ganguly(about his batting) on his one on one was his honest feeling (or evaluation whatever you prefer) about his batting. Anyone can figure out that whatever Chappell has been telling to media about Ganguly's batting isn't really an honest statement.

As for sucking up to Ganguly before becoming the coach :-

"He showed signs during the World Cup of good leadership and tactical skills. I have seen him from a distance, I have not seen him in the dressing room or while moving closely with the players, but I think he is evolving as a captain. "

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2016/stories/20030815002308200.htm

"There is a new resolve there and most of that stems from Sourav Ganguly. When I met him a few months ago I was impressed with his resolve to make a difference to Indian cricket. That is a huge part of it....The biggest difference is that Ganguly has shown real leadership and commitment towards improving his team's record away from home...But Ganguly's innings in Brisbane set the theme. That can't be underestimated. His commitment to changing the record overseas, making Indian cricket competitive away from home, gives them a chance to win..They needed the commitment, the desire, and Ganguly is instilling that in the group as a leader."

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2003/dec/23inter.htm

 

[Pratters]

A few points to ponder on the Chappell-Ganguly controversy:

On the back ground of Ganguly being one of people who deals with the media very well, not having made off hand remarks in the past 7 years, should the remark regarding Chappell be taken as off hand or a strategic statement to flutter feathers Ganguly wanted to?

Also, a lot of opinions circulate within a team. There are so many players a captain and a coach. A difference of opinion and differences can certainly exist. So why make such a issue over it by making a public statement?

Chappell is an Australian legend and he has rightly rubbished talks of him stepping down (circulated as rumours in the media). I understand now more than ever before why he was stringent on contract specifics. The BCCI would lose a lot of money if they would even think of sacking Chappell.

Also Chappell will be his own individual as he rightly should be. Why should he agree to some one else, who ever it is if he does not believe in a point of view.

I doubt Chappell has any hidden agendas and he would want to improve cricket. He is a legend. What else would he want. Ganguly is facing a tough time in his career. He certainly is a good enough one day batsman to play till the 2007 world cup. But I do not believe he is as bankable a test player. The last thing ganguly would want is a person with a strong opinion in the team management. But can Ganguly get rid of Chappell even if he wants to? I doubt.

 

[Sanz]

Ganguly isn't good enough to play ODIs either. 50 runs in 100 balls isn't what we want. Actually I would be dissappointed if Gagnuly isn't dropped from the team after his performance in ODIs and after so much has happened.

All said and done, he is not the future. Greg Chappel with a new captain and a new look team is the future.

That said, Greg did make a mistake and showed poor man-management skills in this whole mess. Hope he doesn't make the mistake again with Dravid/Laxman/SRT/Kumble.

 

[Deja moo]

And obviously the best time to say this is on the eve of the test match, right ? Why not say so in the camp or when the selectors were selecting the team ?

* Bangs head on wall *

Because, like it or not, playing elevens are selected on the eve of a match, not a month in advance . Its a simple concept to get if you actually pay attention to what I say.

And why didnt he say so in the camp ? Because the team wasnt selected in the camp.

Why didnt he say so when the selectors were selecting the squad ? Just the simple reason that THEY DIDNT INVITE HIM !!! gee, talk about drawing conclusions with incomplete information.

 

[Deja moo]

Yeah times change. In 2000 Chappell was not selected as a coach and part of the reason was Players (Read Gangs & Dravid) wanted Wright. This time around chappel had done his home work, He needed Ganguly's support to become the coach so he sucked up well to him but after he became the coach he showed what he really felt about him.

Times Change.

Yeah Sanz. I see you're drawing false conclusions again. Some things never change

You've quoted the article.Now read it again, and tell me where does he mention anything about his BATTING ? He talks of his LEADERSHIP, but not his BATTING. And what was the reason he suggested that Ganguly drop himself ? Right, his BATTING ! So, come again, wheres the doublespeak ?

 

[Deja moo]

I really hope the seeds of discontent sowed by Ganguly do not affect the team, whether he stays on or not. Because hes already created a Yuvraj vs Kaif clash now.