Will the match ref step in please?

There's absolute carnage going on in the Australia v New Zealand opening one-dayer of this season's Chappell-Hadlee series.

Chasing 255 in 50 overs, Australia are 58/0 in 6 overs.

The match referee should be empowered to step in and declare Australia winner by knockout.

Then again, that'd mean around 80% of Australia's, Zimbabwe's and Bangladesh's games are declared knockouts by the 10th over, and that includes test cricket!

Labels: chappell, chappell-hadlee, hadlee, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:30 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The coach question

It increasingly looks like the BCCI have found an answer to the question mark which was hanging over the Indian cricket team ever since Greg Chappell decided to stop being coach of the team. Looks like, it would be Gary Kirsten, who has really tormented the Indian bowlers in the late 90s especially in the ODIs. Let's keep our fingers crossed until the official announcement is made and also hope that this coach doesn't turn Ford.

Labels: chappell, coach, ford, greg chappell, india, kirsten, south africa

Thus spake Ganesh @ 7:46 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Greg Chappell is India's former coach, what more do people want?

A little less than two years after he was named India's coach, replacing John Wright, Greg Chappell chose to not seek a renewal of his contract, ending speculation if the BCCI would sack him. In a sense, he has gone out on his own terms, rather than the BCCI confirming that they wouldn't renew his contract. Was it a case of his way or no way?

The next question is about who the BCCI will choose as the new coach. When the same question came up in 2005, I wrote about my preferred choice

I firmly think that the experience he has of coaching sub-continental sides would be his best trump card. I know that coaching Sri Lanka from being the no-hopers of world cricket to the World Cup in 1996 is totally different from handling India's players, who have certainly achieved a few things. It would also be very different from coaching today's no-hopers, Bangladesh (joint holders along with Zimbabwe).

Dav Whatmore has hinted that he'd be keen to pursue an opportunity if the job did have a vacancy. It is pathetic that Indian cricket keeps having this cycle every couple of years. Why should a coach/captain be appointed keeping a specific tournament in mind? If India, under Chappell/Dravid failed to get to the second round of the World Cup, does this mean they are a pathetic side? What will the tenure of the next coach be? Till the 2011 World Cup? Till the 2008 Champions Trophy? Till the 2010 Champions Trophy?

Mind you, when Chappell took over as India's coach, the side was ranked #7 in ODIs (97 points) and #3 in tests (107 points). Compare this to the rating now: #6 in ODIs (106 points) and #4 in tests (107 points).

So, Chappell hasn't done anything spectacular, purely in terms of the ICC ratings. Is that sufficient reason to doubt his ability? I can't think of any side other than Australia which has consistently remained in the top rung of the ICC ratings over the last two years. England were ~ #2 in tests for a while, but sunk to new depths during the Ashes and a few times before. It is only in the last year that South Africa have done well as a one-day side. West Indies, barring winning against India and reaching the ICC Champions Trophy final, have been as inconsistent as they've been for a decade. New Zealand, as usual, have been there or thereabouts, having an odd great series here and there. Sri Lanka have recovered marvellously from a walloping in India in 2005.

I'm not even for a moment suggesting that I'm happy that India is #3 in tests and #6 in ODIs or that it has been inconsistent or that it didn't get to the Super Eight stage or that it seems to have regressed in recent times. What this shows is that most teams, other than those named Australia, go through ups and downs. This happens when the team management doesn't plan well, and when players don't bat/bowl/field well or execute the plans well. If there was a sense of collective responsibility, which is what you'd assume given that everyone in the BCCI and the Indian touring party seemed to target the World Cup semi-final at the least, everyone ought to quit. Why Chappell alone?

Labels: 2007 world cup, bcci, chappell, coach, greg chappell, india, whatmore, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:53 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Excreta hits the roof - Part II

Part one was played out at the start of Greg Chappell's period as India's coach. Part two seems to be all set to be played out over the next week.

There's enough innuendo and enough leaked SMS messages/reports floating around about Chappell being disgusted with the attitude of 'senior players', the 'senior players' being disgusted with Chappell's attitude, etc. Add to it the enormously transparent BCCI whose officials, including former ones, go on record about what they feel about the coach, captain etc.

Although my belief is that Chappell and Dravid should stay, I fully expect the BCCI to not renew Chappell's contract. I hope Dravid accepts to continue on as captain because I believe he still has it in him to turn Indian cricket around, as well as because the alternatives (Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj or Sehwag) are unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

After India lost to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, my feeling was that there was a golden opportunity to clean up the mess that is Indian cricket. I use Indian cricket in a fairly generic sense. I include domestic cricket, youth cricket, etc. Basically start afresh, similar to how Australia did after losing the Ashes in the mid-80s. Take a guess about who one of Australia's national selectors was. He and his team picked guys like Steve Waugh, David Boon, Craig McDermott etc. despite some fairly average Sheffield Shield records because they felt that these players had the mental strength to cope with international cricket far better than others with superior domestic records.

But it is easy for Australia's selectors to identify mentally tough players. It's nearly infinitely tougher for India's selectors to do so - 27 first-class teams (Gujarat & Maharashtra have 3 teams in the Ranji Trophy), around half-a-dozen zonal teams, more than half-a-dozen competitions between these teams, etc.

I've read several arguments about why it wouldn't be possible to restructure the domestic system, how a 'foreign' coach can't understand Indian cricket (can someone define it please?), how an Indian coach is as good as a 'foreign' coach, why questioning the performance of some of Indian cricket's holy cows is tantamount to questioning their parentage, etc. My fear is that the administrators will also buy these arguments. I fear that the administrators, and everyone else who has a part in decision making, will miss the wood for the trees.

Meanwhile, Tom Moody, who didn't get the India job, must be giggling away merrily.

Labels: bcci, chappell, coach, dravid, greg chappell, india

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:27 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sorry Greg, your mathematics is wrong

I was impressed on reading Greg Chappell's recent interview to Cricinfo and I can only hope that all his talk become a reality sooner than later. But, he also has to understand/agree that he might have done some mistakes in going through the development work as anyone would. He cannot blindly defend all that he has done over the last 15-20 months.

If you look at Suresh's record, now and compare it with Sachin Tendulkar's record at the same stage of his one-day international career, you'll find it's exactly the same.

I definitely wished he was right, as any Indian fan would, as I want Raina for the future. Till date, Raina has played 36 ODIs/28 innings and aggregates 612 runs at an average of 26.60 with 3 fifties and a highest score of 81*. Similar numbers for the Tendulkar were hugely different - 36 ODIs/34 innings and 1075 runs at an average of 35.83 with 10 fifties and a top score of 81. The similarity ends at 81. I went in further - after 28 innings - Tendulkar had 821 runs at 32.84 and 7 fifties with a highest of just 77.

Anyway, Raina's numbers don't match with the maestro's. Raina can still turn out to be a very good batsmen for the future. But, no one is entitled to mislead the public by giving false info to make him the next Tendulkar.

Labels: chappell, greg chappell, raina, tendulkar

Thus spake Ganesh @ 8:50 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Who wants to tell him?

Cricinfo - Comebacks, companions and Christie's coffers

Bad, bad black sheep

Imagine the reaction if this headline broke in the Indian dailies: "Greg Chappell Has Sex with Sheep!" Ooh boy. Just what Members of Parliament in New Delhi would have loved to see. I, for one, nearly lost my breakfast. But its all good, as far as cricket is concerned. As it turns out, a Brisbane man with the same name as the under-fire coach of India, was reported as having purchased one of the "Loving Lamb Inflatable Sheep" products. Despite the squeals from his parents, who vehemently denied that their little lamb was capable of such hanky-panky in the pasture over the fence, the Brisbane Mental Health Unit reported that Chappell's car was found on the side of the highway with puddles of baby oil, semen and plastic parts all over the back seat, along with an empty box of the inflatable sheep. A missing persons report was also filed. Much like the real Chappell did during India's dismal series whitewash in South Africa. Baaaah.

Didn't Mr Alter notice that this could, in fact, apply to anyone? Or was he just trying to see what Cricinfo would publish?

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Geoff @ 4:58 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Outside off, left alone

When I worked at TWFKAC Cricinfo, I did a lot of live text commentary. One of the most standard phrases used, especially in a test match, was, as the title says, 'Outside off, left alone'.

I really wish Greg Chappell had also responded in the same way to the public outrage over the Indian side's performance in South Africa so far, especially when it came to India's parliamentarians asking for his head. Chappell said

I can't stop them from making comments; that's what they are paid for to do in Parliament.

Instead, he ought to have just played it mum and made it clear that he thought that everyone was entitled to his/her own opinions.

Besides, if, as legislators feel that Chappell has no right to lecture MPs on their duties, neither do the MPs. The Indian cricket team is certainly not being subsidized or paid for by the government. There maybe a few stadiums on government owned land which have been leased out to the BCCI. The only folks who are entitled to question the performance of the team are followers of the game, not folks donning the hat of legislators. Even they do have an option to stop following. Like Greg's brother Ian said,

There's a little button on your TV marked Volume. If you don't like it turn it down. If you still don't like it, there's another button marked OFF - hit that and you don't have to see me either. You've got your job to do, I've got mine, don't come complaining to me.

Without dragging in politics into this cricket blog, it is quite obvious why there's such a brouhaha, given the loudest voices are from Bengal-based legislators.

Chappell scored 7110 test runs, with 755 fours and 16 sixes. Even given that he was a stroke player, I don't think he'd have scored at more than a 50% strike rate. Which means he'd have scored nearly 4000 runs [7110 - (4*755 + 6*16)] in around 13400 balls [2*7110 - 755 - 16]. It's probably fair to say that the bulk of those ~ 4000 runs were scored in 1s and 2s, with a few 3s. So let's have a distribution of 50% singles, 35% twos and 15% threes. That works out to 2000 runs in singles, 1400 in twos and 600 in threes, i.e. he faced a total of 2900 balls for those runs (2000 + 1400/2 + 600/3). That still means he'd have faced nearly 10,000 dot balls. So why on earth couldn't he have left another go?

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ind-WI: Righting the wrong

The hot topic of debate amongst Indian cricket fans is the team for first test, and the decision to bat first on a helpful track. As I have been pointing out during discussions, IMO these two are related to the same mistake of misreading the pitch. Here's what Chappell had to say about the decision to bat

Chappell justified India's opting to bat first. "I think conditions weren't easy for batting on Friday. We decided when we won the toss to bat first. In hindsight that may not have been the ideal thing to do, but I think it was important that we did it, and we tried to take control of the game. West Indies bowled pretty well. I thought our guys under the circumstances didn't play badly, but maybe 300 was probably a more likely score under the conditions," he said

Notice the word *hindsight*? That means, at that time, no-one (yes I mean no-one) got the grasp of the conditions right. Neither captains, nor the pre-match pitch analysis. Ofcourse he is right, in hindsight it was a bad decision, and also right that after getting it wrong, India still batted under par to not reach 300 (not 400-500 at some were predicting, despite watching the Indians flounder).

And the decision to play VRV instead of a second spinner in Bhajji was once again related to the same misreading of the pitch. This is what Chappell said

"We couldn't afford to play Harbhajan under the conditions," Chappell told AFP. "We felt that we needed three pace bowlers. There wasn't a place for a second spin bowler.

But here I disagree. I do understand that according to their interpretation of the conditions (not challengable at that time, mind you) it was perhaps not wrong to think of three pacers. But once they realised that they are going to leave out their experienced paceman, they should have thought of the additional factor of experience. Unless they thought the pitch was a Faisalabad-like batting-beauty, Bhajji was still going to add more value to the attack than *another* rookie like VRV. This is not to say that VRV doesn't have potential (from what little we've seen, there are signs of something good there, and we need to wait a while longer to judge), just that the pitch condition is just *one* factor, albeit the most important one, in chosing an attack.

Anyway, now that India has managed to get itself out of the hole, we may yet see something positive from the same attack. But first, there's a long way to go in the batting, and right now *saving the test* should still be top on the agenda. If we see off the first session without much alarms (i.e. losing no more than one wicket), then only can realistic thoughts of winning be harboured.

Labels: chappell

Thus spake worma @ 1:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Contradiction by Greg Chappell?

If we assume that DNA's copy of the email Indian coach Greg Chappell sent to the BCCI top brass last September is true, then he does contradict himself in the interview with Mike Selvey which is currently causing a huge hue and cry. In his email, Chappell apparently said

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

But in his interview with Mike Selvey, he said

Much has been written and said, a lot of it misleading, but in essence I told Sourav that if he wanted to save his career he should consider giving up the captaincy.

So did he, or didn't he?

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:16 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Blame it on Greg

I consider India's coach Greg Chappell responsible for the farce developing at Faisalabad. If only he hadn't got Trevor Chappell to bowl under-arm, the delivery would possibly still have been legal delivery, which could have been used today by the Indian "bowlers" today.

I haven't found a video of Trevor Chappell doing his dirty deed yet, but here is a picture.

Update: Video on YouTube, pointed out by Suneel.

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:50 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ganguly in the side because of outside pressures?

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Unknown @ 12:15 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Raj Singh Dungarpur, a master of timing

Raj Singh Dungarpur, the manager of the Indian side which begins tomorrow with a three day warmup game against Pakistan 'A', launched a broadside at former Indian captain, Sourav Ganguly.

In an interview with a news channel 'Aaj Tak', he claimed that John Wright had on several occasions expressed frustration over Ganguly's attitude, lack of form and poor fitness. Raj Singh reckoned that Wright was unable to do anything about it and that he too felt that the laziest member of the side and the worst fielder could never be a good role model.

This isn't the first time Dungarpur has shown his senility. A few years ago, probably during the India-Australia series in 2001, he walked into the dressing room and in front of the entire team apparently told Dravid that he should prepare to take over the captaincy because Ganguly was a miserable failure.

Dungarpur is most famously credited in Indian cricket for coining the phrase 'Team of the 90s' when he was (possibly) chairman of the selection committee, which resulted in Mohinder Amarnath famously declaring the selectors to be 'a bunch of jokers'.

It doesn't require an Archimedes to reason that Wright was certainly right about Ganguly's fitness, attitude and form. However, what is questionable, and unacceptable to me, is a team manager badmouthing a player who will be part of the touring squad. Admittedly Dungarpur's comments could have been a result of the questions posed to him. But he is a man who never likes to stay out of the limelight. So he obliged the interviewer with choice quotes.

Mind you, he will probably clarify that he was merely quoting what Wright told him and that these weren't necessarily his opinions. Why bother to do so? Why do so at the beginning of such a high profile tour? Why did he not reveal this all along, given that it is now over eight months since Wright quit?

I see two possible outcomes:

• Dungarpur sticks by his statements, in which case Ganguly will pull out
  
• Dungarpur is forced to retract his statements and is sent back to India while Ganguly goes in the opposite direction, towards Pakistan

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:11 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Chappell caught in quagmire

With India set to tour Pakistan and then host England, the outcome of the England-Pakistan series became quite critical. As it turned out, England got thrashed in the tests, with Ashley Giles and Andrew Strauss missing in the last test and Michael Vaughan forced out of the first test.

England were in a good position to actually win at Multan, but some brain explosions resulted in defeat by 22 runs even though they were only chasing 198. After that, they were always trailing, just about managing to save the second test and getting thrashed by an innings in the final test. The series result meant that England were on the verge of being topped as the #2 side by India.

Trescothick captained the side in the one-dayers which started promisingly with England defending a huge score. What followed thereafter wasn't too bright. Pakistan's keeper Kamran Akmal, who had already resisted India's bowlers at Mohali, scored centuries in consecutive games, one of them at Karachi where Trescothick sent Pakistan in to bat and watched his bowlers leak runs bigtime. Yesterday, a lovely bowling performance wasn't backed up by the batsmen, resulting in Pakistan winning the one-day series as well.

India's coach Greg Chappell, in a chat with BBC's Test Match Special, remarked that he'd have preferred that England competed better in Pakistan so that their wake-up call would have been in India rather than in Pakistan. In addition, beating England meant that the Pakistan team would be high on morale before their series against India.

It was a tricky question for Chappell to answer. If England had fared well, Pakistan would be down on morale before a crucial home series against India, the third series between the sides in a span of less than 2 years. But England would carry the success of that tour, in addition to their Ashes victory, and arrive mentally very strong and prepared for India. Now that Pakistan has won the tests and one-dayers, England will undoubtedly be down on morale and Pakistan's confidence would be sky high.

In either case, India would have had to come up against a side which was high on confidence. The ideal scenario for India would have been for either Pakistan to have won the series but having to rule out Inzy/Shoaib/Kaneria against India because of injury or for England to have won the series but missing out on Flintoff/Vaughan/Trescothick for the same reasons.

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:15 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Chappell: 'South Africa could come up against the unexpected'

Basking in the limelight after India thrashed Sri Lanka 6-1 with almost ridiculous ease, Greg Chappell talked to Cricinfo about the Sri Lanka series, attitude of the players, fielding & fitness improvements, Dravid's captaincy, some players' omissions, focussing on the processes and the forthcoming one-dayers against a justifiably buoyant South African side, fresh from whipping New Zealand 4-0 in five games with one match rained out.

Labels: chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:06 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Compromise, consensus or come-down?

The meeting convened by the BCCI's review committee to go into the coach v captain issue has just ended. This is what the sequence of events has resulted in: (my comments in italics)

1. Cricket needs to go forward.
   
2. The coach and captain need to work it out mutually and maintain a professional relationship. (So what was the need for the committee to take this issue up if the captain and coach need to work it out mutually in a professional manner?)
   
3. The captain, coach and players will be judged on their performance (Was the criteria different previously? Why?)
   
4. No player (including the captain) or coach will interact with the media. Anyone flouting this will be taken to task (Total gag order. No post-match presentation ceremonies or press conferences? This is the 1975 Emergency re-enacted)
   
5. Interests of Indian cricket need to be kept in mind (Why not keep in mind the best interests of Singapore cricket?)
   
6. There has been some miscommunication regarding faking of injuries and whatever was stated was far from the truth (Ergo, Chappell lied when he said that Ganguly was faking an injury in the warm-up game. Isn't that a huge thing to reveal about the man you picked as a national coach? If Chappell has any self-respect, he will quit)
   
7. The coach and captain have assured the board that they will work together in the interest of Indian cricket (Is it in their best interest to do so? What about personal agendas?)
   
8. The difference in roles between the captain and the coach is demarcated. We can't throw light on that. (We do not currently have a torchlight available to shed light on that. Alwarpet Aandavas Cricket Club has approached the Madras High Court today with a stay-order to prevent us from shedding any light on any matter, including our elections.)
   
9. They are confident that they will do it. Both coach and captain are happy with the arrangement and the committee is confident of them working together. (We are one big happy family. Can we please go for a group photograph? Ganguly interjects, no pool table photos this time!)

And you guys waited for this? Did we expect anything different?

Labels: chappell, ganguly v chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:45 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Iconoclast, eccentric or visionary?

Today's meeting convened by the BCCI to talk to Sourav Ganguly and Greg Chappell in the light of the events of the last week is under a cloud. Ganguly's grandfather passed away while Sunil Gavaskar, one of the members of the panel, may not make it because his father is unwell.

Even as members of the cricketing community in India, administrators and players, cast aspersions on either of the protagonists in this whole drama, it is perhaps telling that the players are themselves divided over the issue. While Harbhajan's outburst was typical of the man, several others are content to voice their views while remaining unnamed.

Players' complaints about Greg Chappell centre around his apparently abrasive way of talking, functioning and the strict standards he has set. Chappell, either because he cares for Indian cricket or because he wants his resume to look nice, has an agenda, "a commitment to excellence". Those who picked him as India's coach, and indeed those who publicly backed him, obviously bought in to his vision and agenda for change.

While Chappell's move to ask Ganguly to step aside on the eve of a test match is certainly questionable, what cannot be questioned or termed "over the top" is his intent at getting this lot to improve, by leaps and bounds.

Chappell's email to the BCCI office-bearers, aside from a non-office bearer in Jagmohan Dalmiya, was either leaked to the media by him or by one of the recipients. Now he is either public enemy number one, or public hero number one. While tags of that nature are ephemeral, we ought to now wonder if Greg Chappell is the iconoclast who dares to think of perestroika. Is he the eccentric determined to think differently and shake Indian cricket by the roots? Today's eccentric could end up becoming tomorrow's visionary. But for that to happen, there must be results. Thomas Alva Edison was an eccentric, but he was more importantly a visionary because he was able to make his inventions and thinking work and change our lives, for the better.

Even as the BCCI fights battles with itself, and with the judiciary, on a simple matter such as holding an election, you can't help feeling for both Chappell and Ganguly. Ganguly's abrasive methods of working, in the early part of his career, rubbed several people the wrong way. He was actually partially successful at reviving Indian cricket from the lows of the match-fixing scandal. His unflinching support of youth, and the mistakes they made, made him the darling of his teammates, and indeed most followers of Indian cricket. But that was only as long as the results were there to be shown. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Ganguly's slide as a batsman coincided with the Indian team's downhill descent from the heights of the 2003 World Cup. Perhaps it was vice-versa.

Should Indian cricket pick one over the other? Or will there be a temporary truce wherein Chappell stays and Ganguly is given a deadline to shape up or be shipped out? If indeed one of them went, then would it hurt Indian cricket? If Chappell was asked to leave, how would it reflect on the functioning of the team and the administrators? Would anyone else offer to coach the team, knowing well that he could meet the same fate? If Ganguly was asked to leave, how would those in the team, who have sided with Ganguly, react to (the obvious candidate) Dravid taking over? Wouldn't Dravid inherit a fractured team? How good can that be to Indian cricket?

Labels: bcci, chappell, ganguly v chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:05 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The excreta hits the roof

After letting the media know what was on between the coach and himself, now Ganguly does not want the team to be dragged into the on-going rift. When the coach and captain are literally fighting between themselves, isn't it absurd to ask the team to be kept out of the tussle?

Chappell's email to the board has once again stirred up the controversies which seemed to have ended when both Ganguly & Chappell posed together at the pool table for lensmen at Harare. The email though was leaked and not surprisingly, there were multiple versions of what Chappell wrote. Essentially it did boil down to complaints about the captain's attitude. Chappell was very unhappy that the content was leaked. But it is all plain and obvious now. The entire running content of the email has been publicised.

Till yesterday all the reports that came out looked like pointing fingers at Ganguly, his attitude and his form. Now we realise that there are 2 teams within the team with most of the players backing their captain. In fact Harbhajan, who is known for talking openly, has come out publicly and has supported Ganguly by accusing Chappell and his methods.

To sort out this issue and to look forward to a better future for Indian cricket, a review committee comprising of Jagmohan Dalmiya, Ranbir Singh Mahendra, SK Nair, Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri & Srinivas Venkatraghavan would meet and discuss along with meeting Ganguly & Chappell to hear their versions and then arrive at a final verdict.

Doesn't it look like adios, but it could boil down to Indian cricket choosing between a SCG (Sourav Chandidas Ganguly) and a GSC (Gregory Stephen Chappell).

Labels: chappell, ganguly v chappell

Thus spake Ganesh @ 9:31 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Chappell turns on the heat

Yesterday, India defeated Zimbabwe in the Harare test to win the series. The test match win took a while to come, as Zimbabwe, aided by some horrible catching, fielding and bowling, recovered from 42/5 and 85/6 to reach 223 and thus made India bat for a second time. Zimbabwe's total of 223 was largely due to a 120 run stand between Masakadza, who made 71, and Blignaut, who blitzed his way to an unbeaten 84. India won by ten wickets and nearly two and a half days to spare.

This test series win, on the other hand, has been sixteen years in the making. After India beat England in England in 1986 under Kapil Dev, this was the first time an Indian team had won a test series outside the sub-continent.

Under most circumstances, the Indian team, and followers/fans of Indian cricket, would have been rejoicing at finally getting the monkey off their backs and being the general object of derision across the cricketing world. But, not after the unhappy events in the past week.

In a further twist, Indian coach Greg Chappell has apparently dashed off an e-mail to the BCCI President where he has made it clear that he does not think Sourav Ganguly is the right person to lead the Indian team because of Ganguly's fitness, attitude and form.

This is a fall-out of the happenings during the first test against Zimbabwe when Ganguly hinted that Chappell had asked him to step aside, both as captain and as a team member, in order to provide opportunities to the likes of Yuvraj and Kaif who were in better form than he was. Subsequently, a temporary truce was reached with the coach issuing a statement implying that it was just a honest discussion and that he greatly appreciated Ganguly's contribution to Indian cricket. Of course, Chappell did not say that he had changed his opinion on Ganguly's position vis-a-vis the ideal team composition.

Yesterday, after the game ended, Chappell mentioned the need to build up to winning the 2007 World Cup. In this context, he dropped enough hints to indicate that Ganguly and a few other players, possibly referring to Nehra and Zaheer, were not in his scheme of things.

It will take time to develop a team and I suppose a decision has to be taken on which of the senior players are most likely to last and be potent enough that long. There are some things which are non-negotiable. Fielding and fitness are two of them. Unfortunately, players would not find it any easier. Guys who are buying into it are going ahead and those who are not buying into it will find themselves by the wayside.

We have been extremely supportive of Ganguly's contribution to the Indian team as captain over the last half-decade. We've argued for retaining him in the team and as captain even as his form suffered in the last year and more. In fact, we even supported the BCCI selectors' move to name him captain for the Zimbabwe tour although Dravid had skippered in Sri Lanka, including a couple of games where Ganguly played under Dravid.

However, if the coach's pronouncements on Ganguly's attitude towards his game, his fitness, the team etc. are right, then I think it is time for Ganguly to be left out. Perhaps not forever, because I still think he is good enough. But certainly for a period of time sufficient enough for him to realize his faults and mend them. He has never been the greatest fielder or runner. It would be impossible to make him field like Yuvraj or Kaif. But he has to meet the bare minimum requirements for a spot in the side.

As Chappell implies, while you may not be able to bowl or bat well, you must show your inclination and ability to field well and be fit. Bowling and batting are essentially individualistic means of expression. Fielding is not. When you bat or bowl, the runs and wickets accrue against your name and the team's. But when you field well, you are contributing to your stats, your team's achievements and helping a teammate get a wicket or concede less runs. That is the essence of a team game. Ergo, if you do not even take the effort to improve your fielding skills, you do not want to play for the team and are thus a misfit in such a scenario.

Ganguly is not old, even by England's strict benchmarks. He can still comeback, perhaps not as captain. I still believe he has a lot more to offer to Indian cricket and that it isn't yet sunset time for him. I'd rather that Indian cricket did not cast away a decade of investment and experience. But if Ganguly does come back, it will have to be on the basis of his improved attitude, fitness and form. Those three are non-negotiable as well, in my opinion.

Time to temporarily ride off into the sunset, Dada. But it isn't the end. If you do come back, you have a lot more to offer!

Labels: bcci, chappell, ganguly v chappell

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:20 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Greg v Gang?

The Deep Throat who asked Ganguly to step down, seems to be one Mr. Gregory Stephen Chappell, the coach of the Indian team. Cricinfo has put some pieces of the jigsaw together and has an interesting story. It is also backed up with some solid statistics.

Is the sun really setting on Sauravda ? Would it be better if he left the stage with the little grace left after this episode ? The coach and the captain being at loggerheads is never good to any team. In particular, an Indian team can never cope with it as the media is always around them making mountains out of mole-hills.

By the way, would John Wright have said the same thing to Ganguly if he had continued? Or, did he opt out due to a cold war with the captain?

With these controversies, rumours abounded that Chappell would resign as coach. But, thankfully, Greg put a firm fullstop to all those in a statement from Harare.

Labels: chappell, ganguly v chappell

Thus spake Ganesh @ 11:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]