|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
ASSEMBLY POLL '98
|
|
|
'Why do you allow Gangadhar to do anything with cricket?'
Date sent: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:04:23 -0800
Why do you allow this man Gangadhar to do anything with cricket?
The other day he spewed venom on Dravid without having a clue about what constitutes a "temperament" in cricket. And now he puts the most inane questions to a great bowler like Garner. Just look at one of his questions:
I mean how insipid can you get? He deserved all the answers he got and we all lost a great opportunity to hear from a great bowler. I think you should give Gangadhar a break and let him recharge his batteries. And please leave cricket to Prem. He does a wonderful job. Venkat
Date sent: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:06:32 +0530
Looks like Gangadhar is the most confused writer of your team. He has cultivated the habit of encroaching into unfamiliar territory and making a mess of himself. It doesn't matter to what he does to himself but what irritates me is that he is wasting our time with his childish insights. Earlier it was 'Illustrious misfits', now the interview with Garner. It's an absolute fiasco. The questions lacked depth and clarity. This is what happens when you allow writers who talk of murukus, rasam and sambar to write about cricket. Cricket writing needs brains, not mouths. It's better if you folks realise it. I feel Gangadhar is the most illustrious misfit in your organisation. Praks
Date sent: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:59:22 -0700
Rubbish!
Date sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 11:32 AM
I agree with whatever you have written about the BCCI. It's a pity that people like Lele are on the board. This is definitely going to affect the confidence of young Harbhajan. I feel the people running the Board in this country are taking everyone for a ride. Some rules have to be followed when picking people for the board. They should have at least played a minimum of 15 Tests. Lele should be sacked. Ranga
Date sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 8:51 PM
You are correct about putting additional pressure on the board. But being young and fighting fit, I'm sure he will prove himself. Now it is more important to send the Leles to the ICC to mend their actions. He is there in the first place to serve the Board, not to do personal favours and play god. He shouldn't forget that the contributions from active players is much more than armchair dictators. First, the Board did not back constituent players, and now even endorses such statements. Maybe it is time the Internet intervenes.
Date sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 6:41 PM
The chances of any board being as spineless as the BCCI is remote. Players with more controversial actions (Muralidharan and Dharamsena) go about playing on the international circuit because their board put its foot down and told the ICC to go take a walk. The politics of vote has been the bane of cricket in India (aided by one Dalmiya). Not wanting to ruffle any feathers, Indian players have to face the ignominy of getting a certificate to allow a newcomer to continue his international career. Shame and dignity have never been a strong point of our sports administrators. Cricket is no exception. Time we told the world to go take a walk. Let's play Harbhajan Singh and if any one objects let us point out the illustrious duo from Sri Lanka. Anoop Bhaskar
Date sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 2:04 AM
I agree with all you have said about Harbhajan. I am puzzled by the inclusion of Sidhu. Sidhu is a great player, but since NZ is not a powerhouse of cricket, it would have been better to try a young opener like Wasim Jaffer or any of the other youngsters. Gagan Khoda has had several opportunities (in India 'A') but he never came through. I also hope Chopra will be back in the team for the ODIs. I thought he was one of the best finds of the Sharjah Coca-Cola Cup matches. V Hari
Date sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 8:05 PM
Harsha Bhogle has written an article praising the South Africans for playing as a team, etc, etc. All that is okay. However, it is very difficult for me to admire a team or a person that has a 'win at all costs' attitude. Deliberately appealing when they know that there is nothing to appeal, abusing players of the opposite team (Donald vs Dravid, etc) -- they call this gaining a psychological advantage -- are things that disgust me. I put Australia in the same bracket as the South Africans. All the cricket skills in the world are no substitute for honesty and gentlemanly behaviour. I don't admire these teams, and neither am I interested in what they have achieved or how they perform. Play hard by all means, but play fair. Where is the G R Viswanath quality of walking when he knew he was out, without waiting for the umpire to make the decision? Sure, I admire players with great skills, but only with the right attitude and behaviour too. V Gangadhar has written an article criticising Rahul Dravid as an ODI player. I tend to agree with that, though there may be a role for Dravid in ODIs too, depending on the situation. However, obviously one has to decide on the team before the game starts! I think Dravid has a role to play in Test cricket. Gangadhar hasn't explicitly said so, or said that his criticism only applies to ODIs. Somashekar
Date sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 6:51 PM
It is a pleasure for NRIs like me, starved of the pleasure of watching international cricket as we are, to read your report at the end of each and every game. I personally look forward to it. I have played some cricket in India -- I represented my university and almost made it to the Bengal under-19 team before getting injured. I have serious problems the way the Board is planning for the World Cup in terms of the composition of the team. I do not see any clear indications as to how they are planning to address the problem spots in the team. My team for the World Cup is: Tendulkar, Saurav, Kambli, Azhar, Jadeja, Robin Singh, Agarkar, Kumble, Srinath, Prasad, Dravid, Mohanty and Harbhajan. I am not very comfortable with the batting line-up as it stands at the moment, specially with the conditions between May and June in England. Other than Tendulkar, Saurav, Azhar -- though I have doubts about his batting as it stands now -- and Dravid -- who I doubt will get into the final 11 -- nobody else has shown the ability to score runs in England. Therefore it may be a good idea to include Dravid in the playing 11 and make Saurav, Robin, Jadeja and Tendulkar bowl 20 overs between them. I do not understand why these four are not being made to take their bowling seriously. I remember Jadeja opening the bowling for Haryana, though both Kapil Dev and Chetan Sharma were in the team, against Bengal in a Ranji match in Calcutta. I think, if they put their minds to it -- or they are forced into it -- Saurav, Robin and Jadeja can be invaluable as bowlers in those conditions. If they are made to bowl, then we can have an extra batsman in the 11, which can make a difference between wining and losing. I still think Kambli is our best bet for the No 3 spot. I have to admit though that I have not seen Khurasiya or Paranjpe or any of the other new faces bat, but from the evidence of it, the selectors don't seem to have too much faith in them. What do you think? Also, do you really think that Mongia is our best bet as far as wicket-keeping in one-day games is concerned? Do we have anybody in India in the Gilchrist or Kalu mode, or even close to it? What happened to Pankaj Dharmani? Suman
Date sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 7:08 AM
How much does it cost the Indian Board to pay for a sixteenth member in the squad to New Zealand, especially since both captain and coach have both expressed a desire to carry an extra wicket-keeper with them? This very Board can afford to squander two million rupees for a 15-minute meeting, where the proceedings only went on to determine the time and venue, and other administrative knick-knacks for the next meeting. Oh, and won't it do wonders to keep the Damocles' sword hanging over Harbajan's head? Sidhu being chosen to open is all very well but what has Laxman done to merit the opener's slot? He's done nothing other than grind a woebegone Aussie attack to submission on a dead wicket at Calcutta, if I remember correctly, and played a doughty innings against the Proteas on a vicious turner at Ahmedabad when at the No 6 slot. Since India faces no such overwhelming threat from the Kiwi spinners (barring "prodigy" Vettori), why is he picked to open when he had always played in the middle order for his state and zone until the selectors started speaking of using him in the opener's role? Ganguly can well do the job of the opener -- no impetuosity, no extravagance, unless there's a ball crying to be hit, and no asking rate to adhere to. That makes him ideal for the opener's slot. At No 6, he looks pressured by the fact that he might well run out of partners to play with, and he has never looked like a player who can bat keeping the needs of a less gifted batting partner in mind. He actually looks a player more suited to playing in his own bubble. So why don't we make him the opener? This tour is supposed to be the ideal preparation for the World Cup, isn't it? Exactly similar conditions, weather, pitches, et al. Considering that the selection committee has the same players in mind for the World Cup, it could be an idea to pick Sunil Joshi, who simply couldn't brave the cold the last time he suffered the early patch of the English summer. Dhritiman
Date sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 2:40 AM
The article "Paean to the Proteas" by Harsha Bhogle was an interesting one, especially the section where he analyses the factors that mould a cricketer's mentality, namely the society he's been brought up in. I tried to compare it to an Indian, irrespective of whether s/he is a sportsperson, professional, a shopkeeper, labour etc. And found that in our society an individual has to be all fired up from within to grow big. It's a pity that our rich and pragmatic culture is being ignored by our society. That is what could favour the growth of a person. I am not referring to the financial well-being or a status of a person but the mental growth and maturity of an individual. Harsha Bhogle's articles have always been intelligent with a pinch of good humour and lots of thought-provoking comments. I congratulate Rediff for publishing such articles. Keep up the good work, Harsha. Vijay
Date sent: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:46:00 -0800 (PST)
When you speak about Rahul Dravid playing in ODIs as if they were Test matches, you mentioned several other players who did the same thing. But you conveniently left out the biggest such example. If I am not mistaken, Sunil Gavaskar played a similar role many a time during the fag end of his career when he simply refused to acknowledge that his golden years were over! Shrini
Date sent: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:10:45 +0100
The column by V Gangadhar was in extremely bad taste. He seems to be endowed with a very short memory. Rahul Dravid's magnificent assault on Donald in South Africa and his run-a-ball century against Pakistan in Chepauk which brought us close to victory have been ignored by this writer. Plus the writer's style is rather disparaging of someone who does impress one and all with his dedication to the game and to the country. Why, in the Test match that we lost against Zimbabwe, he was the one who got us a first innings lead and stood between disaster and a decent defeat. Since defeats are not remembered, his deeds have also been forgotten. We failed to win a Test in the West Indies in March-April 1997 mainly because our bowling lacked teeth because Srinath wasn't there. Further, Kumble was ineffective on those tracks. Yet, Test after Test, Rahul scored well, and shone in the one-day matches too. In one match, after a particularly brisk start given by him and Saurav Ganguly, India went on to lose the match inexplicably, with all the free-scoring batsmen like Azhar, Robin and Ajay succumbing cheaply. His one-day form and confidence have been destroyed by the whimsical attitude of the previous selection committee. He is still trying to find a correct rhythm. Surely, the 54-ball stint for 20 runs is not something he'd like to remember. But those who use strong language should be willing to come down to the specifics too. Otherwise, they would only end up harming the batsman's confidence and the country's prospects in the coming World Cup. The writer also drags in Sanjay Manjrekar unnecessarily. This batsman also did well for India in one-dayers until he was forced to get more aggressive and change his style. He almost won the match for us against Australia in the World Cup 1992, when more prominent names had failed to do so. A quirky rule for teams batting second saw us lose three overs but our target was reduced only by a run. Otherwise, he would well have won the match for us. With freedom comes responsibility. Journalists are not exempt from this rule. Public performances by sportsmen are open to critical examination by one and all. But the discussion and debate should be conducted with decency and decorum and with regard for facts. V Anantha-Nageswaran
Date sent: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:04:11 PST
I think Gangadhar needs to get his cricketing sense clear. Limited overs international matches are all about guts and luck. India may be on a high at some time but may do badly at some others. All we need is a good mix of batsmen who can play different roles. I am certain that no one can point out any batsman who can play the anchor role better than Dravid. Why an anchor role? Because the form of our batsmen fluctuating so much and because one cannot expect Tendulkar to win every match for us. Equally senseless was the comparison of Dravid to Rajendra Kumar and Sushma Swaraj -- this is not even worthy of discussion. Venkat
Date sent: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:17:37 -0500
The author is obviously lost and has no idea about what he's talking. Little does he realise the value of an anchor batsman. We have seen the collapse of the Indian batting line up so often. With a batsman who can stick it out at one end, free-scoring batsman have less pressure on them. Most people talk about his slow batting. Ever heard of Sunil Gavaskar? I know that was a different era, but even then the Indian line-up often used to bat around him. Many people actually remember the match when Saeed Anwar broke the world record for the maximum score in a ODI? But in the same match, someone by the name of Dravid was our leading scorer, and took the fight to the Pakistanis. We might not have won, but that was amongst the instances where I can proudly say we fought till the end. As far as Tests go, batsman like Dravid and Manjrekar are assets. Once again, these are the batsman who are least likely to get out and hold onto one end, which, in a Test, is invaluable. Dravid, over the last few years, has developed a reputation as 'The Wall'. That basically means he is what stops the team from collapsing. Remember the Test against South Africa, where Tendulkar and Azharuddin hammered centuries after India was on the brink of a collapse. Its pretty well-known that if they had played a bit slow and authored that masterful partnership of about 300 runs (I'm not sure of the exact figure) and scored it over about seven sessions instead of the five that they actually took, India might not have lost the match. Batting slowly is not always a curse. In many situations, it can actually help a team. Sometimes, a slow batsman, who will stubbornly stay around can frustrate bowlers and take the initiative away from them. This is specially true for low-scoring games where the only option for the other team is to get you out and where saving runs is not a priority. I am not all for Dravid though what I said so far might make people think so. He does need to accelerate quite often and he hasn't been doing that of late. But what is team strategy there for. So often we have seen him being sent in early, within the first 15 overs, after the fall of a wicket. We need to send in players then who can take full advantage of the 15-over rule. So often, we have seen Azharuddin coming in before Dravid even after the first 15 overs. What is the sense in that? Players like Dravid are ideal for overs 15 to 35 where they can build a strong framework on the base made by Tendulkar and Ganguly, for an onslaught by Jadeja and Robin. And, finally, if Dravid is totally unfit for international cricket, then I'm sure that Gangadhar isn't the jewel of journalism either.
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
||