Critics of Saurav Ganguly
There are critics and then there are critics.
This is one of those few times when the entire media - newspapers, web news portals, tv channels etc - is up against the indian cricket team captain: Sourav Ganguly. This is such a time when Saurav can not do a single thing right; even if he scores a century or wins test matches, he gets back only one thing: criticism. Let's see how many times Saurav was criticised and how many times they were fair/reasonable.
1. Saurav Ganguly is out-of-form.
(i) he is not batting well
Fair enough. Everyone would agree to this and if selectors remove him from the team I would neither be surprised nor be sad. But my respect for him would not diminish - all players retire one day.
(ii) he is not captaining well
Debatable but if some one raises this point then it cannot be termed too unfair.
2. Saurav Ganguly should be criticised for scoring such a slow century against some 'pedestrian bowling attack and belter of a pitch.'
But no body except Laxman scored a century in that match against the same 'pedestrian bowling attack and belter of a pitch!' The indians got all out for 360 in the second test and it might have gone the same way had he not be part of two century partnerships and take the total to 550+. Rahul Dravid played all his life at that pace when in best of forms and he is called a true test player! And Sunil Gavaskar rebuked a similar comment from an ameteur zimbabwean commentator saying that Saurav is not playing for survival as he is not edging anything; he is meddling everything from the middle of the bat. He chose to play a slow, cautious and keen innings and not that he was unable to score at a faster pace. (Rahul Dravid played a similar innings in the second test match, which sort of mocked at every one who earlier criticised Saurav Ganguly)
3. Saurav won against a weak team
True. No credits to him or the team for winning the series abroad after 18 years. But a series win eluded india against a similar team when it earlier toured zimbabwe so, if we don't want to praise them, atleast lets not blame them for the 2-0 series win.
4. Saurav Ganguly is going to extremes to stick to his captaincy
Not true according to me but not too unfair on part of the critics if they think in that line. My reasoning is that we have seen very few cricketing persons in the world who might have opted to voluntarily pull-out from the team when they ran through a bad form. Moreover Saurav said in all honesty that he would not mind if he has to play under someone else.
5. Saurav Ganguly is an embarrassment
This was the headline of an article on Rediff.com and I have not read a more ordinary piece of journalism than this for some time now. The reaction speaks a whole lot - more than 80% of the comments rebuke the article in very strong terms - by both die-hard Saurav fans and his hardcore critics. Personally, it was a blot on the reputation of Rediff.com; I don't even want to comment on that.
4. Saurav Ganguly is arrogant, indisciplined and/or rude
It may be true but my question will be to ask when did this transformation take place? He became like this in the recent past or was he like this all the time? If he was like this for all the time then why raise this issue now? Why no body complained about it when india was tasting success?
5. Saurav Ganguly has crossed the line by going to public about Greg Chappell issue
He can be fairly criticised for caring less for the established norm about what can be and what cannot be talked about in the media. At the same time, an apology is also expected from him on this issue (which I think he indeed sent to Greg Chapell).
What I do wonder here is, where as it is fair to criticise Saurav to talk about internal matters in public, is the media fair enough in not saying a word about Greg Chappell who actually seem to have committed a bigger blunder? Who gave a coach the authority to ask/suggest/influence an acting captain selected by formal procedures by Board-elected Selection committee? Who would have been responsible if Saurav had stepped down, someone else named the captain and India would have gone on to fair very badly in the test(s)? If a coach can make such suggestions mid-series, what is the role of the systematic procedure of selection of the team and the captain by the selection committee? If the coach finds 4-5 undeserving candidatesin a given team, can he ask for other players from outside of 15-player team?
6. Saurav defied the oppurtunity to deserving Mohammed Kaif to play the tests
Selection committee has taken the decision to name Saurav the captain so how can *he* chose not to play? Shouldn't the blame go to the selection committee instead of Saurav? Wouldn't Saurav be blamed if he opts out of the team to make room for Kaif? And even if agreed to the fact that Kaif deserved a place in the top-11, the fight could have been between Yuvraj and kaif, Laxman and Kaif or Sehwag and Kaif because Kaif was in a form better that all these players(apart from Saurav). So all of these players should be blamed or, more correctly, Selection Committee should be blamed.
Either play Saurav or don't play him. Let Selection Committee take a decision. Until then, lets be fair in the criticism and lets not indulge in any person-bashing, or settle personal grudges or get reduced to some pedestrian journalism.
This is one of those few times when the entire media - newspapers, web news portals, tv channels etc - is up against the indian cricket team captain: Sourav Ganguly. This is such a time when Saurav can not do a single thing right; even if he scores a century or wins test matches, he gets back only one thing: criticism. Let's see how many times Saurav was criticised and how many times they were fair/reasonable.
1. Saurav Ganguly is out-of-form.
(i) he is not batting well
Fair enough. Everyone would agree to this and if selectors remove him from the team I would neither be surprised nor be sad. But my respect for him would not diminish - all players retire one day.
(ii) he is not captaining well
Debatable but if some one raises this point then it cannot be termed too unfair.
2. Saurav Ganguly should be criticised for scoring such a slow century against some 'pedestrian bowling attack and belter of a pitch.'
But no body except Laxman scored a century in that match against the same 'pedestrian bowling attack and belter of a pitch!' The indians got all out for 360 in the second test and it might have gone the same way had he not be part of two century partnerships and take the total to 550+. Rahul Dravid played all his life at that pace when in best of forms and he is called a true test player! And Sunil Gavaskar rebuked a similar comment from an ameteur zimbabwean commentator saying that Saurav is not playing for survival as he is not edging anything; he is meddling everything from the middle of the bat. He chose to play a slow, cautious and keen innings and not that he was unable to score at a faster pace. (Rahul Dravid played a similar innings in the second test match, which sort of mocked at every one who earlier criticised Saurav Ganguly)
3. Saurav won against a weak team
True. No credits to him or the team for winning the series abroad after 18 years. But a series win eluded india against a similar team when it earlier toured zimbabwe so, if we don't want to praise them, atleast lets not blame them for the 2-0 series win.
4. Saurav Ganguly is going to extremes to stick to his captaincy
Not true according to me but not too unfair on part of the critics if they think in that line. My reasoning is that we have seen very few cricketing persons in the world who might have opted to voluntarily pull-out from the team when they ran through a bad form. Moreover Saurav said in all honesty that he would not mind if he has to play under someone else.
5. Saurav Ganguly is an embarrassment
This was the headline of an article on Rediff.com and I have not read a more ordinary piece of journalism than this for some time now. The reaction speaks a whole lot - more than 80% of the comments rebuke the article in very strong terms - by both die-hard Saurav fans and his hardcore critics. Personally, it was a blot on the reputation of Rediff.com; I don't even want to comment on that.
4. Saurav Ganguly is arrogant, indisciplined and/or rude
It may be true but my question will be to ask when did this transformation take place? He became like this in the recent past or was he like this all the time? If he was like this for all the time then why raise this issue now? Why no body complained about it when india was tasting success?
5. Saurav Ganguly has crossed the line by going to public about Greg Chappell issue
He can be fairly criticised for caring less for the established norm about what can be and what cannot be talked about in the media. At the same time, an apology is also expected from him on this issue (which I think he indeed sent to Greg Chapell).
What I do wonder here is, where as it is fair to criticise Saurav to talk about internal matters in public, is the media fair enough in not saying a word about Greg Chappell who actually seem to have committed a bigger blunder? Who gave a coach the authority to ask/suggest/influence an acting captain selected by formal procedures by Board-elected Selection committee? Who would have been responsible if Saurav had stepped down, someone else named the captain and India would have gone on to fair very badly in the test(s)? If a coach can make such suggestions mid-series, what is the role of the systematic procedure of selection of the team and the captain by the selection committee? If the coach finds 4-5 undeserving candidatesin a given team, can he ask for other players from outside of 15-player team?
6. Saurav defied the oppurtunity to deserving Mohammed Kaif to play the tests
Selection committee has taken the decision to name Saurav the captain so how can *he* chose not to play? Shouldn't the blame go to the selection committee instead of Saurav? Wouldn't Saurav be blamed if he opts out of the team to make room for Kaif? And even if agreed to the fact that Kaif deserved a place in the top-11, the fight could have been between Yuvraj and kaif, Laxman and Kaif or Sehwag and Kaif because Kaif was in a form better that all these players(apart from Saurav). So all of these players should be blamed or, more correctly, Selection Committee should be blamed.
Either play Saurav or don't play him. Let Selection Committee take a decision. Until then, lets be fair in the criticism and lets not indulge in any person-bashing, or settle personal grudges or get reduced to some pedestrian journalism.
posted by sami at 9/24/2005 12:10:00 PM
<< Home