• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Isn't Saurav Ganguly such a lovable character ?

Beleg

International Regular
How politically correct.



:p



Edit: Sanz, brilliant quote there in the signature. Was the journalist by any chance a Pathan?
 
Last edited:

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
luckyeddie said:
No, it was Flintoff I shot dot com, not Ganguly.

Oh, IS HOT.

Sorry.
LOL,,,Where do you get that brain from Eddie.
Have you ever thought of writting a book mate? I really think you may be missing your passage in life,why not give it a try and see where it leads?:thumbsup:
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
jlo33692 said:
LOL,,,Where do you get that brain from Eddie.
Have you ever thought of writting a book mate? I really think you may be missing your passage in life,why not give it a try and see where it leads?:thumbsup:
I just blew my nose one day and there it was.

I have 3 unfinished novels, which I fear will remain so until I overcome the one thing that is holding me back......

I guess I am just terrified of rejection.
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
Pratyush said:
Yeah LE you got that right.

In any case I would not like to go into an Indo-Pak debate as I admire the talent which emerges out of both nations. And I do believe the fans of both countries are pretty similar - extreme reactions to most things.

Players, journalists and fans who have crossed the border have said that they have not found much difference in the two countries. Indians have said Pakistan feels like India. Pakistanis have said India feels like Pakistan.

I really find it shameful when Indians and Pakistanis fight unnecessarily on the internet forums where the least they can do is show solidarity in a platform which crosses borders in their living rooms on their pcs.
Still Pratyush,you reap what you sow.
Many a good or great player or leader has ultimatly had to live by the decisions they made and the way they conducted themselves.
Just because someone has been a good leader or cricketer ,does not mean he is automaticly a good person.
I think you may find that of most cricketers in the world Gangully is up top or near top in the most despised by other players,and supporters. I dont know the reasons for this but he must have rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
On the other side of the coin, how many crap (I've decided that my conscience is utterly clear on using that word now, it was on the banner headline of the Independent on Tuesday...) players have ever been despised by opposing teams?
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
luckyeddie said:
I just blew my nose one day and there it was.

I have 3 unfinished novels, which I fear will remain so until I overcome the one thing that is holding me back......

I guess I am just terrified of rejection.
Can you not just join the 3 together to make one?
Only joshin mate,but eddie everyone fears rejection and doubts themselves at some point,but talent shines through,whether it be on a site read by 500 people or in an article read by 5000 ppl,or a book by 500,000 people. Class is permanent , you have to give it a go mate,dont waste it.
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
Neil Pickup said:
On the other side of the coin, how many crap (I've decided that my conscience is utterly clear on using that word now, it was on the banner headline of the Independent on Tuesday...) players have ever been despised by opposing teams?
,Top point Neil, I guess its a bit like the Aussies,Hated for being good but respected all the same. You must have something to be hated,your right there M8, Public opinion is the ultimate decider though.IMO
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
jlo33692 said:
Can you not just join the 3 together to make one?
Hmm....

"Harry turned to see Voldemort approaching as Gollum sneaked behind them, only for the confrontation to be ended abruptly as Fungus the Bogeyman ate Harry and Augustus Gloop sat on Voldemort"

Personally, I'm not convinced.
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
Neil Pickup said:
Hmm....

"Harry turned to see Voldemort approaching as Gollum sneaked behind them, only for the confrontation to be ended abruptly as Fungus the Bogeyman ate Harry and Augustus Gloop sat on Voldemort"

Personally, I'm not convinced.
Sounds ok to me,just needs a bit ot thought,may be like the De Vinci code book,LOL
On second thoughts eddie just finish 1 at a time.


:spam:
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Beleg said:
How politically correct.
:p
Edit: Sanz, brilliant quote there in the signature. Was the journalist by any chance a Pathan?
I dont know who asked that question..but it was on Cricinfo and I found it hillarious. :D

And you are right about the politically correct part. I dont think India Pakistan have much similarity except the Punjab part of both sides of the Border. One of my south Indian buddies had gone to Pak to watch India Pak games, and being a pukka Southie was looking for Dosas in Lahore and was suprised that people didn't even know what a DOSA was. :D
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
No, it was Flintoff I shot dot com, not Ganguly.

Oh, IS HOT.

Sorry.
:laugh:

Did you know that Flintoff didn't write his 'autobiography' and apparently he is yet to read it. :laugh::laugh:
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
luckyeddie said:
Is the reaction towards Ganguly not more about his perceived (ok, real) arrogance and attitude, though?
May be, But is it justified, definately not.
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
I went to the Gangully site and i hope no one minds as i found an article ,the original email from Greg Chappell to the board.I found it facinating to read,it is fairly long but really is a good read to get to the guts of the whole issue around Gangully.Ps this is not my opinion ,it is G Chappells.

Chappell's e-mail to the BCCI chief

Full text of India cricket team coach Greg Chappell's e-mail to Board of Control for Cricket in India president Ranbir Singh Mahendra, courtesy DNA, India TV

Due to comments made by Mr Sourav Ganguly during the press conference following his innings in the recently completed Test match in Bulawayo and the subsequent media speculation I would like to make my position clear on two points.

1. At no stage did I ask Mr Ganguly to step down from the captaincy of the Indian team and;

2. At no stage have I threatened to resign my position as Indian team coach.

Mr Ganguly came to me following the recently completed tri-series of one-day matches here in Zimbabwe and asked me to tell him honestly where he stood as a player in my view. I told him that I thought he was struggling as a player and that it was affecting his ability to lead the team effectively and that the pressure of captaincy was affecting his ability to play to his potential. I also told him that his state of mind was fragile and it showed in the way that he made decisions on and off the field in relation to the team, especially team selection. A number of times during the tri-series the tour selectors had chosen a team and announced it to the group only for Sourav to change his mind on the morning of the game and want to change the team.

On at least one occasion he did change the team and on the morning of the final I had to talk him out of making another last-minute change that I believe would have destroyed team morale and damaged the mental state of the individuals concerned. I also told Sourav that his nervous state was affecting the team in other ways as he was prone to panic during pressure situations in games and that his nervous demeanour was putting undue pressure on the rest of the team. His nervous pacing of the rooms during our batting in the final plus his desire to change the batting order during our innings in the final had also contributed to nervousness in the players waiting to go in to bat. His reluctance to bat first in games I suggested was also giving wrong signals to the team and the opposition and his nervousness at the crease facing bowlers like Shane Bond from NZ was also affecting morale in the dressing room.

On the basis of this and other observations and comments from players in the squad about the unsettling effect Sourav was having on the group I suggested to Sourav that he should consider stepping down from the captaincy at the end of the tour in the interests of the team and in his own best interests if he wanted to prolong his playing career. I told him of my own experiences toward the end of my career and cited other players such as Border, Taylor and Steve Waugh, all of whom struggled with batting form toward the end of their tenure as Australian captain.

We discussed other issues in relation to captaincy and the time and effort it took that was eating into his mental reserves and making it difficult to prepare properly for batting in games. He commented that he had enjoyed being free of those responsibilities in the time that he was in Sri Lanka following his ban from international cricket and that he would consider my suggestion.

I also raised the matter of selection for the first Test with Sourav and asked him where he thought he should bat. He said 'number 5'. I told him that he might like to consider opening in the Test as the middle order was going to be a tight battle with Kaif and Yuvraj demanding selection. Sourav asked me if I was serious. I said it was something to be considered, but it had to be his decision.

The following day Sourav batted in the match against Zimbabwe 'A' team in the game in Mutare. I am not sure of the exact timing of events because I was in the nets with other players when Sourav went in to bat, but the new ball had either just been taken or was imminent when I saw Sourav walking from the field holding his right arm. I assumed he had been hit and made my way to the players' area where Sourav was receiving treatment from the team physiotherapist, John Gloster.

When I enquired as to what had happened Sourav said he had felt a click in his elbow as he played a ball through the leg side and that he thought he should have it investigated. Sourav had complained of pain to his elbow at various stages of the one-day series, but he had resisted having any comprehensive investigation done and, from my observation, had been spasmodic in his treatment habits, often not using ice-packs for the arm that had been prepared for him by John Gloster. I suggested, as had John Gloster, that we get some further tests done immediately. Sourav rejected these suggestions and said he would be 'fine'. When I queried what he meant by 'fine' he said he would be fit for the Test match. I then queried why then was it necessary to be off the field now. He said that he was just taking 'precautions'.

Rather than make a scene with other players and officials in the vicinity I decided to leave the matter and observe what Sourav would do from that point on. After the loss of Kaif, Yuvraj and Karthik to the new ball, Sourav returned to the crease with the ball now around 20 overs old. He struggled for runs against a modest attack and eventually threw his wicket away trying to hit one of the spinners over the leg side.

The next day I enquired with a number of the players as to what they had thought of Sourav's retirement. The universal response was that it was 'just Sourav' as they recounted a list of times when Sourav had suffered from mystery injuries that usually disappeared as quickly as they had come. This disturbed me because it confirmed for me that he was in a fragile state of mind and it was affecting the mental state of other members of the squad.
When we arrived in Bulawayo I decided I needed to ask Sourav if he had over-played the injury to avoid the danger period of the new ball as it had appeared to me and others within the touring party that he had protected himself at the expense of others. He denied the suggestion and asked why he would do that against such a modest attack. I said that he was the only one who could answer that question.

I was so concerned about the affect that Sourav's actions were having on the team that I decided I could not wait until selection meeting that evening to inform him that I had serious doubts about picking him for the first Test.

I explained that, in my view, I felt we had to pick Kaif and Yuvraj following their good form in the one-day series and that Sehwag, Gambhir, Laxman and Dravid had to play. He said that his record was better than Kaif and Yuvraj and that they had not proved themselves in Test cricket. I countered with the argument that they had to be given a chance to prove themselves on a consistent basis or we would never know. I also said that their form demanded that they be selected now.

Sourav asked me whether I thought he should be captain of the team. I said that I had serious doubts that he was in the right frame of mind to do it. He asked me if I thought he should step down. I said that it was not my decision to make, that only he could make that decision, but if he did make that decision he had to do it in the right manner or it would have even more detrimental effects than if he didn't stand down. I said that now was not the time to make the decision but that we should discuss it at the selection meeting to be held later in the day.

Sourav then said that if I didn't want him to be captain that he would inform Rahul Dravid that was going to stand down. I reiterated that it was not my decision to make but he should give it due consideration under the circumstances but not to do it hastily. At that point Sourav went to Rahul and the two of them conferred briefly and then Sourav left the field and entered the dressing room. At that stage I joined the start of the training session.

A short time later Mr Chowdhary came on to the field and informed me that Sourav had told him that I did not want him as captain and that Sourav wanted to leave Zimbabwe immediately if he wasn't playing. I then joined Mr Chowdhary and Rahul Dravid in the dressing room where we agreed that this was not the outcome that any of us wanted and that the ramifications would not be in the best interests of the team.

We then spent some time with Sourav and eventually convinced him that he should stay on as captain for the two Tests and then consider his future. In my view it was not an ideal solution but it was better than the alternative of him leaving on a bad note. I believe he has earned the right to leave in a fitting manner. We all agreed that this was a matter that should stay between us and should not, under any circumstances, be discussed with the media.

The matter remained quiet until the press conference after the game when a journalist asked Sourav if he had been asked to step down before the Test. Sourav replied that he had but he did not want to elaborate and make an issue of it. I was then called to the press conference where I was asked if I knew anything of Sourav being asked to step down before the game. I replied that a number of issues had been raised regarding selection but as they were selection matters I did not wish to make any further comment.

Apart from a brief interview on ESPN before which I emphasized that I did not wish to discuss the issue because it was a selection matter I have resisted all other media approaches on the matter.

Since then various reports have surfaced that I had threatened to resign. I do not know where that rumour has come from because I have spoken to no one in regard to this because I have no intention of resigning. I assume that some sections of the media, being starved of information, have made up their own stories.

At the completion of the Test match I was approached by VVS Laxman with a complaint that Sourav had approached him on the eve of the Test saying that I had told Sourav that I did not want Laxman in the team for Test matches. I denied that I had made such a remark to Sourav, or anybody else for that matter, as, on the contrary, I saw Laxman as an integral part of the team. He asked how Sourav could have said what he did. I said that the only way we could go to the bottom of the matter was to speak to Sourav and have him repeat the allegation in front of me.

I arranged for a meeting with the two of them that afternoon. The meeting took place just after 6pm in my room at the Rainbow Hotel in Bulawayo. I told Sourav that Laxman had come to me complaining that Sourav had made some comments to Laxman prior to the Test. I asked Sourav if he would care to repeat the comment in my presence. Sourav then rambled on about how I had told him that I did not see a place for Laxman in one-day cricket, something that I had discussed with Sourav and the selection panel and about which I had spoken to Laxman at the end of the Sri Lankan tour.
Sourav mentioned nothing about the alleged conversation regarding Laxman and Test cricket even when I pushed him on it later in the discussion. As we had to leave for a team function we ended the conversation without Sourav adequately explaining his comments to Laxman.

Again, this is not an isolated incident because I have had other players come to me regarding comments that Sourav had made to them that purports to be comments from me to Sourav about the particular player. In each case the comments that Sourav has passed on to the individual are figments of Sourav's imagination. One can only assume that he does it to unnerve the individual who, in each case, has been a middle order batsman.

Sourav has missed the point of my discussions with him on this matter. It has less to do with his form than it does with his attitude toward the team. Everything he does is designed to maximise his chance of success and is usually detrimental to someone else's chances.

Despite meeting with him in Mumbai after his appointment as captain and speaking with him about these matters and his reluctance to do the preparation and training that is expected of everyone else in the squad he continues to set a bad example.

Greg King's training reports continue to show Sourav as the person who does the least fitness and training work based on the criterion that has been developed by the support staff to monitor the work load of all the players.

We have also developed parameters of batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy that we believe embodies the 'Commitment to Excellence' theme that I espoused at my interview and Sourav falls well below the acceptable level in all areas. I will be pleased to present this documentation when I meet with the special committee in Mumbai later this month.

I can assure you sir that all my actions in this matter, and all others since my appointment, have been with the aim of improving the team performance toward developing a team that will represent India with distinctions in Test match and one-day cricket.

As I said to you during our meeting in Colombo, I have serious reservations about the attitude of some players and about Sourav and his ability to take this team to a new high, and none of the things he has done since his reappointment has caused me to change my view. In fact, it has only served to confirm that it is time for him to move on and let someone else build their team toward the 2007 World Cup.

This team has been made to be fearful and distrusting by the rumour mongering and deceit that is Sourav's modus operandi of divide and rule. Certain players have been treated with favour, all of them bowlers, while others have been shunted up and down the order or left out of the team to suit Sourav's whims.

John Wright obviously allowed this to go on to the detriment of the team. I am not prepared to sit back and allow this to continue or we will get the same results we have been seeing for some time now.

It is time that all players were treated with fairness and equity and that good behaviours and attitudes are rewarded at the selection table rather than punished.

I can assure you of my very best intentions.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Chappell MBE
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Quite, quite fascinating - the machinations and politics of international cricket in particular have for many years been a subject that has been beyond my grasp.

It almost reads as though Greg Chappell's perception of events is that Ganguly would like to see himself as a player-manager-captain figure and has stamped down on that.

In the past I have seen captains seemingly being 'stitched up' and hung out to dry by management (e.g. Nasser Hussain, Ian Botham), but if even half of what GC says is true, it appears that he has been left with no alternative.

It would be interesting to read John Wright's take on matters.
 

jlo33692

U19 Debutant
I will see if i can find anything on Wrights view,if he has any sense he wont have any view haha well not a public view anyway,I just found it amazing though Eddie that this email is out for public consumtion,and it does not do gangully any favours does it.
As you say though m8 we have to read all the facts before you get a true picture,thats not saying any of chappells story is a lie,just his take on things. In fairness though there is always 2 sides to a story huh?

Still none from Wright but i have a break down of Gangullys take on it ,abreviated down but here is the guts of Gangullys messgae back to the board,that has also found its way into the media????????? Just a leak mind you hahaha :ph34r:
ps please dont shoot the messenger.....

Here's the interpretation of his reply.
COURTESY:mumbai mirror.
************************************
In a damning reply to Greg Chappell's leaked mail, captain Sourav Ganguly reportedly told the review committee how the coach had purposely misrepresented facts to make him look bad.

Ganguly, in a six-page report, said Chappell was trying to be "boss" of the team and gave numerous incidents describing his "controlling nature". Details of the note that saved Ganguly, tilting the Review Committee against the coach, were revealed to Mumbai Mirror by a BCCI source.

The report clearly shows that there is definitely no truce between the two. The board has managed to buy time but this is sure to escalate in a big crisis in the near future.

Ganguly told the committee that Chappell tried to undermine his authority right through the Zimbabwe series and even went out to toss with the opposing captain without Ganguly's knowledge during a warm-up game while the team was practising in the nets.

In his note, Ganguly called it a "huge humiliation for any captain". But, he wrote, he let the incident pass as a joke because he did not want to make a scene and create an "unhealthy dressing-room environment".

In his e-mail, Chappell had denied directly telling Ganguly that he should quit. But the skipper told the committee that Chappell had come to him on the eve of the first test and categorically asked him to step down as captain and "go back home to play domestic cricket".

He said Rahul Dravid explained to Chappell that his suggestion could have huge repercussions in India since Ganguly had been appointed captain for the whole tour by the selectors, and the coach was in no position to tell the captain to sit out. Chappell then "pleaded sorry that his timing was wrong".

Chappell had alleged in his mail that Ganguly was destroying the morale of the side by changing the team repeatedly on the morning of the match. But the skipper pointed out that they played the same 11 for almost the series, and only discussed some minor changes.

Accusing Chappell of misrepreseting facts to prove he had faked a tennis elbow in the warm-up game, Ganguly explained the exact nature of his injury and said he couldn't get scans done because there was no facility in Mutare or Bulawayo. Both physiotherapist John Gloster and manager Amitabh Choudhary supported Ganguly on this. Even Ranbir Mahendra, when he addressed the media, called Chappell's injury allegation "far from the truth". Ganguly also submitted trainer Greg King's fitness report, which shows he had actually completed more training sessions than he had been prescribed.

He vehemently fought the charge that he used a policy of "divide and rule". Ganguly stressed on how the Team India concept had emerged under his leadership and gave incidents of how he had backed players, even fought for them with the selectors on occasion. Secretary Karunakaran Nair, who sits in on selection meetings, backed Ganguly on this.

Ganguly also rubbished Chappell's claim that he was scared of the new ball, telling the committee how he had asked Rahul Dravid to retire in the Mutare warm-up match, where things really started going sour between captain and coach, so that he could face the new ball on the second morning. "If you like, you can check with Rahul," Ganguly wrote in his report.
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Is Greg Chappell a liar, Mr Mahendra?

September 27, 2005

Let this be a lesson to all you guys out there -- never, ever presume to seek solutions when you do not know what the problem is.

For near on two weeks now, everyone -- the media, the pundits, the fan blowing his hard-earned cash on beer to fuel his arguments -- has been analysing the Greg Chappell-Sourav Ganguly standoff.

The problem, some said, is a clash of cultures -- Chappell is the quintessentially abrasive Aussie, who does not know how to sugar coat his messages.

Nope, said others, the problem is Sourav Ganguly, who is in the midst of a form slump and desperately keen on holding on to his position.

You didn't know zip, did you? It took less than a day for the six wise men to analyse the issue from all points of the compass, and to conclude that the problem really was a relatively minor oversight.

The six wise men will do nothing

You see, what actually happened (and this is official) was, when the BCCI committee met three months earlier to appoint the coach, they forgot to tell him that it was important to work with the captain for the 'best interests of Indian cricket'.

You can't blame them, really. The committee comprised Sarvashri Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and S Venkatraghavan, former captains all, who presumed that such basics did not merit spelling out.

And -- you know how, per Murphy's Law, such things can happen -- when the selectors picked the captain ahead of the Zimbabwe tour, they forgot to tell him that he had to work with the coach.

Indian Cricket's Mahayuddh

That is all it is, really -- just a minor slip up in communications. And once the review committee in its infinite wisdom diagnosed the problem, the rest was simple: Captain Sourav Ganguly and coach Greg Chappell have been told, in clear, impossible to misunderstand words, that the idea is for the two to work together, not against one another.

This, the two gents were told, is cricket, not tug of war; you pull together, not apart.

Oh, and just to make sure the captain and coach work together, they have been told not to e-mail/talk to anyone else; the players (who really have no business pre-empting the wise men and trying to determine what the problem was) have been told not to talk, period.

There now, problem solved. Indian cricket has turned the corner -- correction, that should read 'another corner'. So why am I ****ed off? Because, you see, there is one little issue that has been left unresolved.

How did this whole thing start? The genesis, you will admit, is Greg Chappell's feeling that Sourav Ganguly was not fit to lead the national side.

It is this feeling that triggered their conversation; this, that had Ganguly speak out on television; this, that formed the leitmotif of Chappell's lengthy, 'private' e-mail.

The mail said Ganguly was not fit to lead on two counts: One physical, one mental. Take the mental part first: Chappell accused Ganguly of playing divide and rule; of causing schism in the dressing room in order to hang on to his own place in the side. And Chappell offered up V V S Laxman as the guinea pig to prove this thesis.

Elsewhere Harbhajan Singh, fronting the defense, suggested that it was Chappell that was causing schism, playing one player (Singh himself) off against the other (Rahul Dravid).

Both camps agreed on one thing -- there is schism. And everyone -- fans, pundits, the media -- will agree on one other thing: schism within the team is bad. In this case, it is worse than bad -- Sourav Ganguly has worked for four long years to eradicate that very vice and to bring this wonderful sense of unity to the ranks, and all his work now gone for nothing?

So, there is division in the Indian dressing room. If Bajji is right, Chappell is the cause. If Chappell is right, Ganguly is the cause. And you will agree that a person -- captain, coach, whoever -- who deliberately sets out to cause divisions cannot be tolerated in the, what was the phrase, 'best interests of Indian cricket'.

Given that, does it strike you as curious that the six wise men, who undoubtedly have the best interests of Indian cricket at heart, are totally, completely silent on the question?

If the silence had been pervasive, if it had extended to all issues raised in recent days, we could understand it; we could reason, and say the idea behind the silence is to ensure that the situation does not get further aggravated.

The silence, though, is not pervasive, all encompassing. On one issue, the review committee is, through frontman Ranbir Singh Mahendra, very vocal.

Mahendra -- speaking for the committee -- rejected outright Chappell's allegation that Ganguly repeatedly faked injury to avoid facing fast bowling, and blew off training sessions.

"Some of the points, particularly with regards to injury, the captain Sourav faking injury etc, after hearing the concerned people, the committee came to the conclusion that whatever has been said is far from the truth," Mahendra said.

Hullo? Chappell's famous e-mail was an essay in explaining why Saurav Ganguly was not fit to lead the team. Ganguly was, Chappell said, physically and mentally unfit to lead.

The 'mental' part relates to the accusations of causing division, a la Laxman and others -- which, of course, has been treated with silence. The physical part relates to his blowing away training sessions, and feigning injuries.

Bear in mind that Chappell makes the further point that when he got that impression, he checked with several players, and they all told him that Ganguly clutching an elbow and going oo-aah-ouch was nothing new.

Nothing of the kind happened, Mahendra says. Phrased differently, Greg Chappell lied.

Lied, what is worse, with one transparent motive: to paint the national cricket captain in as bad a light as he could? Worse, he also said that he tried to make the team a party to this heinous lie.

Will the BCCI explain how it is in the 'best interests of Indian cricket' to have, as coach of the national side, a man who has -- by the BCCI's own admission -- lied so blatantly; in the process libeled a national cricket icon with over 15,000 international runs, not to mention a sterling string of triumphs, under his belt?

Now that you have branded Chappell a liar, Mr Mahendra, do you expect us, the fans and the media, to take him seriously any more; to give credence to anything he may say in future?

Having branded your coach a liar, Mr Mahendra, do you now expect the players in the dressing room to take him seriously, to respect him, to heed him?

Why, since you so obviously have the 'best interests of Indian cricket' so much at heart, have you not sacked this man outright?

Will you please explain how it was in the 'best interest' of Indian cricket to not sack Chappell (don't waffle about contracts, please -- no contract drawn up by any kind of professional fails to include a morals clause), to retain this man, in his post?

Oh, but I forgot -- you did say no one will talk any more, did you not?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Sanz said:
I dont know who asked that question..but it was on Cricinfo and I found it hillarious. :D

And you are right about the politically correct part. I dont think India Pakistan have much similarity except the Punjab part of both sides of the Border. One of my south Indian buddies had gone to Pak to watch India Pak games, and being a pukka Southie was looking for Dosas in Lahore and was suprised that people didn't even know what a DOSA was. :D
Firstly regarding Dosas. Calcutta had just one Dosa outlet 15-20 years ago - Super Snack Bar. Would it mean Calcutta had nothing similar to India? :lol:

Regarding there not being much similarity between India and Pakistan:

They have shared years of history before divided 55 or so years ago. Does the historical back ground mean nothing and is dissolved in merely 55 years?

The tejzeeb (manners) of the people, the roads (Rahul Bhattacharya compared a famous Pakistan city with Mumbai in his book quite vividly) and a lot of things you can just feel in the enviroment are similar on most accounts.

Food is NOT what is a deciding factor in such arguements Most of the states in India have different food and different languages. Even the food which has crossed states is different on ocassions. The dosas found in north and south India have different taste. People in Bengal eat fish and rice. If you go to Central India and ask for traditional Bengal food, a Bengali will not be satisfied with what he gets. Even the famous rossogollas of Bengal were till a few years not available widespread. They certainly are not available as easily every where as they are in Bengal.
 

Top