Captain-Coach Controversy: What do you Say

[raj2rif]

The Ganguly-Chappell Controversy was in news recently and just before the second test a patch up was shown to show the unity, but the different comments by Captain and the Coach about the composition of the team, show that probably the Coach has to bite the dust.

It is very unfortunate, what has happened in Zimbabwe during the last week. I personally feel that Ganguly is probably at fault. Ganguly has strong likings and dislikings and that some times hurts the team. I feel he has a strong ring around him of few players who get the preference over others. Purely on the form and the performance, I personally feel that Md. Kaif should have had a game in the test series, but that was not to be the case, as only one between Kaif and Yuvraj could be accomodated. While Yuvraj has also palyed one or two good innings in Zimbabwe, I feel, Kaif had played better and then had no case of indiscipline. I feel the preferred players on Ganguly's list are Sehwag, Yuvraj, Nehra and Harbhajan. May be a few more. Retaining MS Dhoni would not have been a bad idea, specially when the youngster had shown a great deal of maturity. Karthik's performance behind the stumps had been ordinary in the first test to say the least. There may be a good case for getting Dhoni in both forms of Cricket.
Purely on the basis of performance and form, I don't think suggesting Ganguly to sit out and accomodate both Kaif and Yuvraj was not a bad idea, if team's interest is to be paramount. I wonder if Ganguly would have made it public if he had not scored runs in the match, as he did after scoring that painstakingly slow century against a mediocre bowling attack. It is so unfortunate for the Indian Cricket, that a coach had been humiliated just to keep the ego of one player. When one is at that level he needs to have a broader outlook and larger than life heart. Ganguly's actions of the last week don't show atleast this. If Chappell leaves that will be unfortunate and if his wings are chopped that would be even worst for the benefit of Indian Team.

[mukeshkumar007]

It was really an unfortunate development. Ganguly understand himself superior then team India and other member. Chapell did nothing wrong because he just suggested him when asked. Ganguly should have keep his mouth shut and should not have open publically what is hapeening in dressing room.
If a player is not playing good then there is nothing wrong to throw out him from then team, as Australian thrown out Hyden, Gillespie for the super series. BTW this recent development has shown reality of Indian Team and players ....
Chapell want to make team India more strong before the world cup and this is why he is following strict rules which are not acceptalb to some players like Ganguly...
BCCI should take some strict step to ensure the discipline and good understanding among team member and coach.
Hope it will not happen in future.

[gaganjat]

Indian cricket team has learned alot.

They dont need any captain and coach.
These seats should be finished.

Batting order should be according to hight of the players (tallest first and shortest last) and same with bowling.

[raj2rif]

I don't know what exactly the inside stroy is but, with the current controversy and the composition of the team for second test seems to me an indication that Mr. Ganguly is no mood for reconcilation and undermining the authortiy of the coach. To me it looks like a ring of favorites and not so favorites. Yuvraj having failed in the first test, it would have been a good gesture to play Kaif in the second. The coach said the composition of the team will be discussed for the second test while the Captain said it would be unchanged. That means the sufferer in the controvery is a young and promissing player. The fact that Chappel asked Ganguly to step down in favor of Kaif, it seems to me that it is going against Kaif so long Ganguly remains at the helms of affairs. Both Ganguly and Yuvraj have failed in the second test as well. One innings of barely 100 runs in over six hours against a poor opposition and batting in the comfort zone of first innings lead is no indication of return of form or the exhibition of talent. I think Ganguly knows this and so should be the case with selectors. As I had said earlier, we need to pick up best players and then select a Captain. At this junction who ever takes over from Ganguly will have a tough task of uniting this divided lot. The Super Star status of the players had to be off field and on field new comer or old timer, all have to do the exercises and schedule drawn by the coach. Discipline is not a thing to be compromised.

It would have been a good idea to give a little exposure to Dhiraj Jadhav if we have spent money to fly him to Zimbabwe. May be Sehwag was rested for a game or tried in the middle order. It could have been a fairly good exeprience to rest both Ganguly and Dravid or Dravid and Laxman and try out both Kaif and Jadhav. May be Sehwad would have been tried as a stand in skipper. This would have only added the respect for Ganguly.

I don't think these players are interested in the pride that comes for playing for the country. They seems to me more concentrated on the personal achievements and comforts.

[devdahiya]

Make Sardar BS BEDI the Coach cum manager and he will wash this team in INDIAN OCEAN.

[raj2rif]

The Australian Selectors have done what they feel is good for their team rather than crashing under the pressure of big names. The world cup 2007 is what they are aiming for and not the pressure they may be subjected to by dropping a BIG NAME from the squad.

I think there is a case here for them to learn some thing.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/219639.html

[satyakarwasra]

Saurav Ganguli is more interested in opening restaurants in Kolkata than focusing on cricket and making team India the winner. The other players are also counting money instead of focusing on games.The senior players are busy thinking about what will happen when they retire.Indian cricket needs a fresh start.These are players, not Gods. No need to worship them.They are doing everything but playing good cricket.Zimbabwe is not a team that India can proudly say “we defeated them hands down”.The Indian cricket players must realize this is sports – not money making casinos.

[itsnavin]

It's high time for Ganguly to realize that he's no more needed in Indian team. And he should understand that it's better to quit before your ratings drop down. Just like Steve Waugh did!
About the controversy, I think Chappell gave him a serious advice which Ganguly should have heeded to. I think it was a brotherly advice. I think Ganguly out of form ke saath 'pagal' bhee ho gya hai..."Vinaas kale vipreet budhee"...God save Indian cricket!!

[raj2rif]

It's high time for Ganguly to realize that he's no more needed in Indian team. And he should understand that it's better to quit before your ratings drop down. Just like Steve Waugh did!
About the controversy, I think Chappell gave him a serious advice which Ganguly should have heeded to. I think it was a brotherly advice. I think Ganguly out of form ke saath 'pagal' bhee ho gya hai..."Vinaas kale vipreet budhee"...God save Indian cricket!!

Dear Navin,
I think it is time for the Indian Selectors to do some soul searching. There has been many good talents that has been wasted out in the recent past. Some players were brought in and then rested for good in spite of performing well. Sanjay Bangar was one of such players off course he was older in age, but then so is JP Yadav. And if the idea was to bring in the new blood then why bring them at 30 and then leave them after one series. I think here is the case of personal likings that is going on. Yuvraj, Nehra, Sehwag and Harbhajan are probably preferred players. I don't know what is the truth, but one reason could be that Ganguly probably alone from the East Zone and to maintain his supremecy in the team he needs inside support as well and that probably can come from the Players of North Zone rather than the West or South Zone. Specially with Tendulkar and Dravid representing those two zones. I only hope my assumptions are wrong. Probably this could be the reason, Sehwag expressing the desire to lead the team when Ganguly was banned. I think Chappel's philosophy of having a pool of about 25 players is very good for the game in the country. This will give ample opportunity for the youngesters to groom and prove their worth while keeping the old horses on their toes. Actually nothing should be taken for granted. I guess, Chappel's preference for Kaif has gone against the UP players, as we saw Suresh Raina was not given a single chance in Zimbabwe as against Venugopal Rao even though he is a brilliant fielder to say the least. He also brings with him his leg spins and is an attacking batsman. Yes he failed in Sri Lanka, but so was Rao. The difference was the opposition. I guess Sri Lanka bowling attack was much superior than what they had in Zimbabwe.

[chaudhary]

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.

[chaudhary]

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