'Greg Chappell was Indian cricket’s biggest disaster'

[Zap_Brannigan]

Look I do not agree with all this, because if some players are old-school players, that does not mean they will be the boss. But actually, those players should have got along well in another master in another era, Chapel. .

Old school as in people who depend more on technical aspects and preparing more than actually just goin in the field and deciding as they go like ganguly, Dhoni. Ofcourse it doesnt mean that ganguly and dhoni never do the former, but the percentage is much less than Dravid or Sachin. This requires good coach and analysts.

And also, a coach job is only 10% while it is the players job to do the other 90% with the implantation. So if anyone failed, it would also include the players. And ironically, it is his ideas right out with a younger team that has made us better today.

Precisely, cept Chapel behaved like he was 90% of the plan. He wanted to control everything from team selection to type of players selected, who should retire and who shouldnt, how the team should approach a situation and what aspects of a game a player should concentrate on. There are many other men in the organization that are paid to do the job he was trying to do. He wanted to, rather,he demanded to change the character of Indian cricket overnight. A coach should work with the player not make the player work for him.

[SJS50]

First things first, I do not like Greg Chappell the man for various reasons. Yet, I disagree with what the thread title suggests. Greg Chappell was not a disaster, we have a system in place where someone like him can not function. We have a well entrenched player-celebrity-deity culture. This is not to run down any particular cricketer for we have been lucky to have some of the finest cricketers who have also been great role models viz Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble but the fact is that the culture remains which makes it very difficult for a coach from a system where the coach is "the boss" in many matters pervades. It is sad that we have moved from a system where the players counted for nothing and were treated like menial workers; where a caste system of sorts was in place with the honchos at the BCCI and the selectors being the top two castes and the players being the shudras. The fans were the Vaishyas; to a system where the BCCCI and celebrity cricketers form the top caste (both having common interests most of the time), the sponsors the next in rank and the cricket lovers are the shudras. The TV channels and the sponsors have become the Vaishyas. Yes Greg Chappell had a brusque, no-nonsense style but that has been the hallmark of quite a few successful sports-managers around the world. Likewise there have been other successful managers who have a milder style but all have a clear line of authority. Many Indians tend to prefer John Wright over Chappell thinking the former had mastered the "Indian cultural" issues. Well go and read his book that he wrote after he left and you will get a hint of what issues he faced. Being a mil;d mannered Kiwi, he puts it mildly but one can see what he is trying to say. If he was an Aussie he would have put it more bluntly. Greg Chappell, incidentally, was not responsible for why India failed in the WC 2007, whioch is what really triggered the end of his tenure. I wrote an article on it then based on the reactions of Indians top Chappell. Here is the link. Wake Up India ! Yes we would all prefer a coach with a less active middle finger on his right hand but then we would also prefer a less irksome media. Chappell's no-nonsense style has been well known from his player and captaincy days. The Indian board must have considered that when they decided to appoint him as coach. If they didn't, they are answerable for it. But there is no justification of a top batsman, with problems with his batting, being asked to come for a special net session (arranged solely for that one batsman) and for the batsman to not turn up with bowlers, coach etc all waiting for him at the nets. Most of us know who that batsman was. He was and is a great batsman but so was Greg Chappell. An all time great in his own rights, a wonderfully proficient technician and the coach of the team damn it. What the star Indian batsman did was gross indiscipline and this is the kind of stuff Indian cricket coaches have to put up with. WE can be happy with our Garry Kirsten's (I do not have a clue about how good a coach he is) but we must appreciate that with an Indian side so ****-a-block full of top class batting talent (the greatest pool this country has seen in its history) batting coaching will become important more with the young and junior players as well as when the seniors have problems. The jury is still out on how any coach has performed on these. Chappell's issue was an effort to enforce discipline (which we needed) and a refusal to pamper the idiots from the electronic media. We can debate the style of Chappell till the cows come home but on those two issues there isn't much of a debate in the top circles of cricket in India. It would be fabulous if the Greg Chappell report (the one he submitted to the BCCI) came out one day or if he decided to write his memoirs. Till then we have to decide whether we want to believe the likes of Harbhajan Singh when they say, Chappell wanted to finish Tendulkar's career.

[SJS50]

greg chappell was a clown who promised the world cup but delivered a first round exit:haha: glad he was kicked out and humiliated for his pathetic contribution to indian cricketB->

Just for you, I quote the entire article :-)

Wake up India!

29 Mar 2007 By: Swaranjeet Singh

Home truths for the Blue Billion... and some. Here are some of the reactions of cricket fans on the electronic media after the loss to Sri Lanka that sealed India's fate in the World Cup 2007:

• It's a bloody disgrace. Chappell should be sacked.
• Ganguly is the only one who plays for the team.
• I am disgusted. I am never going to watch cricket again.
• Dravid has done nothing as captain except become a 'chamcha' (lackey) of Greg Chappell.
• Bring back Dalmiya. Make Ganguly captain.
• The whole world must be laughing at us. The richest board in the world. The richest cricketers in the game. And this is how we perform.
• It's scandalous. I am shocked and devastated. It's a national shame.

India is upset because we lost to Sri Lanka. So am I. But I am not shocked. India is shocked that we lost to Bangladesh. So am I. But I am not devastated and certainly don't think it's a disgrace or a national shame. You know what's a disgrace? It's a disgrace that Dhoni's house was damaged in Ranchi. It's a disgrace that Sachin's house and other property have to be provided special protection from 'lovers' of the 'game'. You think the world is laughing at us because we did not proceed to the next round. Well, you are wrong. They are amused at how we react to it. One can write about what could be done differently by Team India and one intends to on another day. But even that would just be an opinion howsoever well argued and thought out. However, this piece is not about that. This is about some home truths that we, the 'Blue Billion', need to confront. As with all home truths, these are harsh to the ears and bitter to tongue. But howsoever painful they are to the ear drums they need to be heard, and howsoever bitter to the tongue they need to be swallowed, nay chewed, and not spat out in rage; for we are in need of strong medicine much more desperately than our cricket and cricketers are. Here they are:

1. Cricket is played and watched by mortals:

Firstly, cricket is played by mortals, against other mortals. Sometimes these other mortals can play the game as well as us, and some times much better than us. Secondly, it is played in a real world. Deifying your cricket stars does not turn them into Gods. They remain mortals, as much subject to the vagaries of loss of form, poor fitness, poor attitude, bad luck or plain poor skills. Others can and will, sometimes at the very least, outdo them in one or more of these and other areas that affect a team's performance. At those times we will lose. And it's not subject purely to a law of averages. Better teams WILL win more often than lesser teams, and if we are losing more often we may simply not be the better team. I don't know if Lord Ganesh or Ma Ambe are watching the World Cup, but I doubt if all the havans (rituals where offerings are made to the holy fire and Gods) and jagratas (nightlong religious chanting) are likely to help either. It can't said if it's because of indifference of Lord/Ma Ganesh and Ambe towards cricket and Indian cricketers or a problem between Indian Gods and those supporting other countries.

2. A billion dollars can not buy a World Cup... nor can a billion people:

Just because we have by far the richest cricket board in the world, or because our cricketers earn millions from the game and billions from endorsements, does not make our claim to the trophy bigger or our ouster at the first step so staggeringly difficult to comprehend. All that the billions ensure is that they attract all types to the game, its administration and its marketing. Power will, and has, become the primary factor in the running of the game, and we know who are the truly powerful in our part of the world. The cricketers don't become better with money, and the administration of the game does become, in fact can become, deficient in some respects when the amount touches such gigantic proportions. That again is another subject for another discussion on another day. There is another common refrain of the Indian fan. 'It's a shame we are more than a billion people and we lose to countries like New Zealand and Australia who are no more, in number, than those in our Metros!'. Having been ruled for centuries by those from very small nations, one would have thought we would have learnt long back that quantity or sheer numbers stopped mattering in the world long time ago.

3. The game is played on 22 yards of grass and not 22 inches of a glass screen:

Just because the jokers on the mushrooming news channels find new heroes, new villains and new conspiracy theories every three and a half days doesn't mean that anyone wasting his time listening to them is going to become an instant expert in all aspects of the game. If you believe, with justification, that the BCCI honchos are in it for the money, and neither care for, nor know much about the game, you may be fairly correct. If you believe, with much less justification, that the cricketers care only for the money and not for the game, you are probably right about the money aspect, but a bit harsh about not caring for the game. But does anyone have any view about the electronic media? They are not in it because they care for the game. They are not in it because they understand the game. What most of them know about the game can be written on a TV knob. They are in it for the money - plain and simple. The SMS message they ask the Blue Billion to send on team selection, the ills of Indian cricket, the remedies for Indian cricket's illness, who should be captain or coach, who is the real villain etc. etc. are all there to make us feel that you can bat better, bowl better, lead better, coach better, select better, administer better and judge better than anyone else. But all it does is that the millions of messages keep the cash registers ringing and the billions keep pouring in from better viewership. One has no issues with that. These are commercial enterprises, and they are there to make money. The problem is the power of the electronic media. The number of people who are conditioned by the idiot box (how appropriate that sounds at times) is staggering. It's a fact that while those who are getting passionate (obsessive may be more appropriate) about the game are growing in numbers, cricket-illiteracy has reached unprecedented levels in our country. This is a fact. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into a cricket discussion which combines objectivity and knowledge of the game with personal opinions. This was not always the case. That is a huge loss. The idiot box is reducing the level of cricket debate in the country, as it is in many other areas. The quantity (the many of hours devoted by news channels everyday to cricket) may appear staggering, but the quality is zilch. There are still a few good writers in the print media, but their reach is limited.

4. The coach is not allowed to bat, bowl or field:

Just imagine: we have 11 Gods playing for us and another four waiting on the sidelines. A few dozen Gods rooting for us from the heavens and this devilish mortal from Australia, with an arrogant manner (when compared to his soft spoken predecessor) and an upward pointing middle finger, manages to turn all of them into pygmies and worse. Incredible! Greg Chappell has not scored a single duck, not dropped a single catch, not missed a single run out, not muffed a single stumping, and not bowled a single long hop or a full toss, for India. That honor belongs to our 'Gods' in blue. And irrespective of what that kid on TV might claim, even they did not do it because Chappell instructed them to do so. And yet he is 'Public Enemy # 1', and castigated by one and all for Indian cricket's predicament. I once wrote an article called 'Saas Bahu aur Chappell'. For the uninitiated, the title is a spoof on a TV series called Saas Bahu aur Saazish meaning 'Daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and Conspiracy' which was a spoof on another atrocious and popular never-ending soap opera on Indian television. In transferring it from my laptop to the desktop I lost the file in an operating system crash. Sheer laziness stopped me from writing it all over again. I mention it here to point to the role played by the media in painting Chappell with the black brush. This is not to say that the coach has no role to play in the game. Yes he has, and a good coach IS different from a bad coach. Also two good coaches may differ on the process to be followed (not by and large on the technical aspects of the game). However, let's understand that if you switched Whatmore and Buchannan around, the fortunes of Australia and Bangladesh would not change dramatically. Both are good coaches, and both may bring about some new ideas in their jobs. But at the end of the day, Bangladesh cricketers would have to make a massive improvement in their skills to be under Buchannan what Australia would be under Whatmore. And, more pertinently, Whatmore is not going to bring Australia down to the Bangladesh level. Only terrible cricket by Australians will do that. One may not agree with Chappell on some issues, but he is not responsible for Indian cricketers performing poorly. We may change him, and in all probability will, but Indian cricket will not necessarily improve just by changing the coach. Pakistan continues to flounder not because of the departed Bob Woolmer's stint as their coach, but in spite of it. If cruel hands had not taken him away so tragically, he would surely have been humiliated and sacked by the Pakistan cricket establishment. Don't lend even a partial ear to all that is being said today in that country about how great a coach he was and how much he did for Pakistan cricket. India and Pakistan need to look at how they treat their coaches and captains. Look at the successful teams around the world and look at how they treat them, and we may have a better idea about what's wrong with our cricket. By the way, a good coach is a good coach. He is not white or colored - indigenous or foreigner. Whatmore is not a Bengali, Wright wasn't an Indian, Sandeep Patil wasn't a Kenyan and Woolmer wasn't Irish. India needs a good coach, and if it is an Indian - great. If it's a South African - so what? To say that we must have an Indian coach is as stupidly parochial as saying that Wasim and Waqar are traitors to Pakistan for allegedly considering coaching Indian bowlers.

5. Believe it or not - but it really is just a game:

Just because we invoke the Gods to help us get the World Cup doesn't make it religion. Just because we fight over a single player's selection in the country's parliament doesn't make it a matter of national importance. Just because we burn effigies of captain and coach on our streets, damage the houses of cricketers, issue threats to their families, doesn't mean we love the game and our country's prestige and image more than those who don't. All it does is to show to the world at large that we do not understand a simple basic truth about cricket. That it's just a game. Nothing more, and nothing less. Remember this, and we can discuss the game, Indian cricket and what should be our team for the next series. It is great fun doing that, and remains one of the most enjoyable aspects of this beautiful game. Ignore this fact, and all we can do is rave and rant. The enjoyment is lost both from watching the game and discussing it. Remember then that your frustration, dejection, disgust and feeling of apparent disgrace are purely of your own making.

[riwi999]

Wow, that is an amazing piece of writing, SJS. You really write very very well. I totally agree with what you say. In the celebrity/"God" cult world that top Indian cricketers live in, there is little room for a coach like Greg Chappell, with his insistence on discipline and his outspokenness. Classic cult and culture clash. Am going to read your post again. Just to enjoy the pleasure of reading it. :-)

[anbuchelvan]

what was his motivation, he obviously wanted to succeed as Indian coach so why did he do , what he did. He wanted younger fitter side and wanted to make everyone accountable which in theory was not a bad thing especially in india where youngsters like rohit are so lackadaisical and unfit, you need task master, maybe having Dravid as captain screwed up things too , he let guru Greg do as he pleased.I still don't understand why he leaked things to press.

Dravid is part of Greg's conspiracy.That is the only reason why I called Dravid as traiter,bone less creature,etc,etc.Then every body was after me.Now the truth is out.Ditto Sanjay "jealous" Manjrekar,who also wanted Sachin to be sacked from the team.He is a big boot licker of ian Chappell.

[anbuchelvan]

RD never supported his players over coach thats a fact Dada was aggressive Rahul was soft no wonder Chappal had all the authority to punish our players.

RD will be remembered as the most selfish cowardice captain of Indian cricket history.

[putrevus]

First things first, I do not like Greg Chappell the man for various reasons. Yet, I disagree with what the thread title suggests. Greg Chappell was not a disaster, we have a system in place where someone like him can not function. We have a well entrenched player-celebrity-deity culture. This is not to run down any particular cricketer for we have been lucky to have some of the finest cricketers who have also been great role models viz Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble but the fact is that the culture remains which makes it very difficult for a coach from a system where the coach is "the boss" in many matters pervades. It is sad that we have moved from a system where the players counted for nothing and were treated like menial workers; where a caste system of sorts was in place with the honchos at the BCCI and the selectors being the top two castes and the players being the shudras. The fans were the Vaishyas; to a system where the BCCCI and celebrity cricketers form the top caste (both having common interests most of the time), the sponsors the next in rank and the cricket lovers are the shudras. The TV channels and the sponsors have become the Vaishyas. Yes Greg Chappell had a brusque, no-nonsense style but that has been the hallmark of quite a few successful sports-managers around the world. Likewise there have been other successful managers who have a milder style but all have a clear line of authority. Many Indians tend to prefer John Wright over Chappell thinking the former had mastered the "Indian cultural" issues. Well go and read his book that he wrote after he left and you will get a hint of what issues he faced. Being a mil;d mannered Kiwi, he puts it mildly but one can see what he is trying to say. If he was an Aussie he would have put it more bluntly. Greg Chappell, incidentally, was not responsible for why India failed in the WC 2007, whioch is what really triggered the end of his tenure. I wrote an article on it then based on the reactions of Indians top Chappell. Here is the link. Wake Up India ! Yes we would all prefer a coach with a less active middle finger on his right hand but then we would also prefer a less irksome media. Chappell's no-nonsense style has been well known from his player and captaincy days. The Indian board must have considered that when they decided to appoint him as coach. If they didn't, they are answerable for it. But there is no justification of a top batsman, with problems with his batting, being asked to come for a special net session (arranged solely for that one batsman) and for the batsman to not turn up with bowlers, coach etc all waiting for him at the nets. Most of us know who that batsman was. He was and is a great batsman but so was Greg Chappell. An all time great in his own rights, a wonderfully proficient technician and the coach of the team damn it. What the star Indian batsman did was gross indiscipline and this is the kind of stuff Indian cricket coaches have to put up with. WE can be happy with our Garry Kirsten's (I do not have a clue about how good a coach he is) but we must appreciate that with an Indian side so ****-a-block full of top class batting talent (the greatest pool this country has seen in its history) batting coaching will become important more with the young and junior players as well as when the seniors have problems. The jury is still out on how any coach has performed on these. Chappell's issue was an effort to enforce discipline (which we needed) and a refusal to pamper the idiots from the electronic media. We can debate the style of Chappell till the cows come home but on those two issues there isn't much of a debate in the top circles of cricket in India. It would be fabulous if the Greg Chappell report (the one he submitted to the BCCI) came out one day or if he decided to write his memoirs. Till then we have to decide whether we want to believe the likes of Harbhajan Singh when they say, Chappell wanted to finish Tendulkar's career.

The main issue, I have with Greg is not how sound he was tactically, but as a coach his main job was inspire confidence and make players perform to a higher level than their talent. He was a great batsmen who many in Australia rank him second after Bradman.But he was never was rated a great captain his brother Ian was rated higher than him as captain ,even though he was very successful as a captain. Coach who like captain has to lead group of men and make them perform at higher level by inspiration which I don't think he had in him .We almost have same group of players who in his era were doomed as failures are performing now.

[Rajan]

The main issue, I have with Greg is not how sound he was tactically, but as a coach his main job was inspire confidence and make players perform to a higher level than their talent. He was a great batsmen who many in Australia rank him second after Bradman.But he was never was rated a great captain his brother Ian was rated higher than him as captain ,even though he was very successful as a captain. Coach who like captain has to lead group of men and make them perform at higher level by inspiration which I don't think he had in him .We almost have same group of players who in his era were doomed as failures are performing now.

in fact when an indian board official checked with Steve Waugh whether BCCI should opt for Tom Moody or Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh suggested Tom Moody's name and even said Greg was not having any credntials as a coach when compared to Tom Moody. unfortunately, BCCI did not listen to his suggestion.The rest is, as they say, history. Greg Chappell forced Tendulkar to relinquish his Opener's spot and play in the middle order despite the past instances where SRT opened the batting and scored impressively, contributing for the team's progress in '96 and 2003 world cup.Greg certainly dropped Saurav from the one day team, where he was a great player by any standards, just because he did not like Saurav standing up to him. that was the time, Ian Chappell came out with that infaous-Mirror, mirror on the wall.... should i retire, bull sh!t about SRT past his best, should retire. when a journalist referred the comment , Greg proudly claimed kind of , "he is my brother, he knows" instead of playing down or avoiding a comment about his player. what kind of signal would that give to some one like SRT? Is that what a coach was expected to do, joining the "retire, retire" chorus of his own team's legendary cricketer? If someone thinks, he is correct, great, keep it up!

[The Outsider]

Greg Chappell, incidentally, was not responsible for why India failed in the WC 2007, whioch is what really triggered the end of his tenure. I wrote an article on it then based on the reactions of Indians top Chappell. Here is the link.

I agree with a lot of what you have written, with the notable exception of this part. Chappell had as significant role to play in our World Cup debacle as anyone. He wanted command over team tactics and got it. He wanted Tendulkar to play in the middle order, wanted Uthappa to play at the top, and was not in favor of using Dhoni as a pinch hitter. I disagreed with all these tactics even back in the day, but the point is not whether these were good tactics or not rather he got everything he asked for. Even after that if he could not deliver the results, Chappell has to take the blame. Remember, when he joined his entire focus and end goal was the World Cup. It was his big project, so to say and despite having full freedom to implement his tactics, India crashed out to a shambolic exit. In my opinion it was a big failure of Chappell. And coming to discussing his strategies, what a dumb strategy is to play the best opener in ODI history in the middle order. What made it even more baffling was that the same thing was tried by Ganguly and Wright 4 years back, but rightly discarded just in time for the World Cup and look how Tendulkar delivered. What made him think that someone with as dodgy a technique as Uthappa would succeed at the top of the order? This was a guy who had breathed cricket throughout his life and he could not see that Uthappa would struggle against the new ball, specially on the uncharacteristically bouncy Port of Spain pitch? He showed shocking cricketing acumen during the World Cup. By the way, thanks for the enlightening piece on Engineer in the other thread.

[ZodiaC]

I agree with a lot of what you have written, with the notable exception of this part. Chappell had as significant role to play in our World Cup debacle as anyone. He wanted command over team tactics and got it. He wanted Tendulkar to play in the middle order, wanted Uthappa to play at the top, and was not in favor of using Dhoni as a pinch hitter. I disagreed with all these tactics even back in the day, but the point is not whether these were good tactics or not rather he got everything he asked for. Even after that if he could not deliver the results, Chappell has to take the blame. Remember, when he joined his entire focus and end goal was the World Cup. It was his big project, so to say and despite having full freedom to implement his tactics, India crashed out to a shambolic exit. In my opinion it was a big failure of Chappell. And coming to discussing his strategies, what a dumb strategy is to play the best opener in ODI history in the middle order. What made it even more baffling was that the same thing was tried by Ganguly and Wright 4 years back, but rightly discarded just in time for the World Cup and look how Tendulkar delivered. What made him think that someone with as dodgy a technique as Uthappa would succeed at the top of the order? This was a guy who had breathed cricket throughout his life and he could not see that Uthappa would struggle against the new ball, specially on the uncharacteristically bouncy Port of Spain pitch? He showed shocking cricketing acumen during the World Cup. By the way, thanks for the enlightening piece on Engineer in the other thread.

+++

[putrevus]

in fact when an indian board official checked with Steve Waugh whether BCCI should opt for Tom Moody or Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh suggested Tom Moody's name and even said Greg was not having any credntials as a coach when compared to Tom Moody. unfortunately, BCCI did not listen to his suggestion.The rest is, as they say, history. Greg Chappell forced Tendulkar to relinquish his Opener's spot and play in the middle order despite the past instances where SRT opened the batting and scored impressively, contributing for the team's progress in '96 and 2003 world cup.Greg certainly dropped Saurav from the one day team, where he was a great player by any standards, just because he did not like Saurav standing up to him. that was the time, Ian Chappell came out with that infaous-Mirror, mirror on the wall.... should i retire, bull sh!t about SRT past his best, should retire. when a journalist referred the comment , Greg proudly claimed kind of , "he is my brother, he knows" instead of playing down or avoiding a comment about his player. what kind of signal would that give to some one like SRT? Is that what a coach was expected to do, joining the "retire, retire" chorus of his own team's legendary cricketer? If someone thinks, he is correct, great, keep it up!

He was hired mainly due to the good words of Ganguly who wanted him to become he coach since he helped him before he scored that 144 odd runs at Gabba in 2003 but , we still dont know what Gary is doing he has done nothing to improve bowling, bowling has gone downhill since he became the coach.

[Rajan]

He was hired mainly due to the good words of Ganguly who wanted him to become he coach since he helped him before he scored that 144 odd runs at Gabba in 2003 but ' date=' we still dont know what Gary is doing he has done nothing to improve bowling, bowling has gone downhill since he became the coach.[/quote'] correct, Saurav recommended Greg because he helped saurav sort out some problem with his batting technique. even earlier, John Wright was recommended by Rahul Dravid after he had a stint under him in an English county,kent , if i am correct.

[The Outsider]

He was hired mainly due to the good words of Ganguly who wanted him to become he coach since he helped him before he scored that 144 odd runs at Gabba in 2003 but ' date=' we still dont know what Gary is doing he has done nothing to improve bowling, bowling has gone downhill since he became the coach.[/quote'] No, our bowling has gone downhill since Prasad was fired after our batsmen could not play short pitch deliveries.

[putrevus]

No' date=' our bowling has gone downhill since Prasad was fired after our batsmen could not play short pitch deliveries.[/quote'] well Gary has his buddy as bowling coach what the heck he is doing then, there is no interview from that fellow as what the heck he is doing as bowling coach. To be honest I was happy to see Venky go as I thought he was reason of all our bowlers losing pace but nobody has answered that 100 million dollars question yet.

[punjabi_khota]

"'Greg Chappell was Indian cricket’s biggest disaster" Well yeah, but Ravi Jadeja is going to one-up him soon. :yes:

[ravishingravi]

Dravid is part of Greg's conspiracy.That is the only reason why I called Dravid as traiter' date=bone less creature,etc,etc.Then every body was after me.Now the truth is out.Ditto Sanjay "jealous" Manjrekar,who also wanted Sachin to be sacked from the team.He is a big boot licker of ian Chappell.

With your acumen, you could coach India right now. Are you free ?