Chandan Posted August 17, 2007 Author Share Posted August 17, 2007 But have they not been the best we have had.....?In recent times ...? Er...may be..maybe not! These guys are better than Sachin, there is no doubt. Azhar?? I'm not sure. Haven't seen him captaining much. But I can't remember any of masterstrokes from these guys. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 For those who defend him, think about this - If the situation had been 1-1, would RD have enforced the follow on and try to win the series? Of course not! He would have done the exact same thing so that India does not RISK losing 2-1.... Or lets say it was 1-0 to England...Why then RD would have acted the same way again, so that we don't lose 2-0 instead of 1-0.... I love dravid, I think he is (or was) a great batsman and a good human being overall...but he is not captain material the way Ganguly is. And how do you know that.? India were down 2-0 against Aus before the Mumbai test. Dravid defended a low 4th inn score of 107 and still won the last test. If his aggresiveness is in doubt like you mention here, we should have lost 3-0 to Aus in 2005. Instead we have respectable score of 2-1. During Eng series, India were 1-0 up. Still he opted for 5 bowlers and opted to field in Mumbai (his worst captaincy brainfart). He was still being aggresive with his decisions. He could have opted for 7 batsmen and batted first and easily won/drawn the test. How can people even forget the recent past to put down a winning captain... Link to comment
beetle Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I have to support my skipper...:D Link to comment
shailesh Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Azhar?? I'm not sure. Haven't seen him captaining much. you haven't missed anything. Link to comment
beetle Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 >>During Eng series, India were 1-0 up. Still he opted for 5 bowlers and opted to field in Mumbai (his worst captaincy brainfart). He was still being aggresive with his decisions. He could have opted for 7 batsmen and batted first and easily won/drawn the test. Agree...i think he started off being an agressive captain ...but since it misfired a few times ...and the media and fans being what they are......forced him to be a less agressive one. Link to comment
beetle Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Er...may be..maybe not! These guys are better than Sachin, there is no doubt. Azhar?? I'm not sure. Haven't seen him captaining much. But I can't remember any of masterstrokes from these guys. same here...haven't seen him much..... Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 quite the opposite. with the weather forecast of overcast skies and rain on day 4, and with the eng 1st innings coming to end within 7 overs in the morning, enforcing the follow on was not the seppuku that many have suggested. it's actually the height of pusillanimity shown by a player who tries to justify scoring 12 off 96 while trying to set up a target. blond Dravidians should better accept that there are some things outside the realms of possibility for their resident god, including being aggressive and a leader, and move on. Didn't you read his interview? He never defended his 12(96). He was more self-effacing about that and he even joked about it, that it was painful to watch. He said that he couldn't play out that session at all. It happens to most captains when their decisions are getting vindicated on the field. Much has been made about 11/3 and overcast skies on D4, with the advantage of hindsight. One can never guess how Eng would have played in that time period. Jaffer was not-out and it was one of the howlers. Kartik and Tendulkar's were the only wickets that were in that collpase. Because of the umpiring error, the overcast looked more looming that it normally could have. Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Sorry Karina, But do you remember how many overs we had given the Aussies to bat in the final innings? Sydney 2004 So India gave them just 94 overs then to their bowlers to dismiss the Aussie team. Dravid gave 110 overs. You tell me which was better??? PS: I trusted Ganguly for his decision then and I trust Dravid for his decision here. Obviously they know much more about cricket, players, their ability and fitness and such things than we do! I've pointed out before, and I'm doing again: Sydney and Oval cannot be compared. Those who are doing it are clutching at straws. 1. The aussie 1st innings was over on the 38th over of the day, bowlers were tired. England collapsed by the 8th over, bowlers were fresh. 2. we were playing rookie bowlers : pathan [2nd test], karthik [4th test, 1st test in 3 yrs]. Karthik had been taken to the cleaners in the first innings and kumble had to be bowled 47 overs in the first and a record 42 out of 94 overs in the 2nd. this despite the fact we were more prepared for the type of pitch at Sydney [spinning track, so 2 spinners] than Oval... flat track, so little or no assistance to bowlers except 4th morning till little after lunch. 3. Our lead was 231 vs 319. Aussies had chased 729 to 474 @ 4rpo. They had a batting lineup full of attacking run chasers as opposed to KP here. 4. Conditions were diff. Sydney pitch was cracking up on 5th day, so batting last if necessary would have meant facing macgill. bowling last would have meant making the ozs play kumbles. At the Oval, there was a forecast for cloudy and overcast conditions with possibility of rain. 5. Our opponents then were the best test team ever, and here we had an avg opponent [by historical standards] missing key players now. 6. We were just learning to win abroad then, as opposed to having the second best away record after aussies now. 7. aussie bowling, despite missing mcgrath and warne, had lee, gillespie of old and macgill - anyday a better lineup than bottom, jimmy and monty. 8. despite this, with a little bit of luck [umpires] and a better wktkpr than parthiv, who personified butterfingers, we'd have won the match inside those 94 overs. Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 >>During Eng series, India were 1-0 up. Still he opted for 5 bowlers and opted to field in Mumbai (his worst captaincy brainfart). He was still being aggresive with his decisions. He could have opted for 7 batsmen and batted first and easily won/drawn the test. Agree...i think he started off being an agressive captain ...but since it misfired a few times ...and the media and fans being what they are......forced him to be a less agressive one. Nope. He is at heart a defensive player and has a similar mindset. On top of that, he is extremely bullheaded, not practical. Which is why he gets stuck into 'theories', like the 5bowler theory of Guru Greg. He bought into it without using his own head, which is why he stuck to it in the mumbai test after the series had been wrapped up. Once that fell flat on its face, he went the opposite way, into his core conviction and competence -- defense till the cows come home. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I've pointed out before' date=' and I'm doing again: Sydney and Oval cannot be compared. [/quote'] yes, you are right on this one. In Sydney were 1-1. In Oval, we were already 1-0 and the captain decided to safeguard it and delivered it. In Sydney, we had to be more aggressive to win the series, which we decided to cool it because we wanted to keep the 1-1 scoreline intact. Who knows, what Dravid would have decided if were 0-1 or 1-1 in Oval. Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 yes, you are right on this one. In Sydney were 1-1. In Oval, we were already 1-0 and the captain decided to safeguard it and delivered it. In Sydney, we had to be more aggressive to win the series, which we decided to cool it because we wanted to keep the 1-1 scoreline intact. Who knows, what Dravid would have decided if were 0-1 or 1-1 in Oval. At Sydney, we were learning to win abroad, and facing the mighty Aussies. At the Oval, we were regressing from the upward curve that had been kick-started in Australia and culminated in the 1-0 win at WI [which incidentally could also have been converted to 2-0 but for the meek decisions at the top] But keep on ranting. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 At Sydney' date=' we were learning to win abroad, and facing the mighty Aussies. At the Oval, we were regressing from the upward curve that had been kick-started in Australia and culminated in the 1-0 win at WI [which incidentally could also have been converted to 2-0 but for the meek decisions at the top'] But keep on ranting. 2-0 or 1-0 it is a series win and that is how history will record it as. Meek decisions don't give a series win. Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Meek decisions don't give a series win. But accidents happen — like an Indian team beating the hell out of the poms, DESPITE pusillanimous captaincy. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 But accidents happen — like an Indian team beating the hell out of the poms' date=' DESPITE pusillanimous captaincy.[/quote'] In three consecutive away series, India with Dravid have done better than India with Ganguly. Some accident. Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 In three consecutive away series' date=' India with Dravid have done better than India with Ganguly. Some accident.[/quote'] and ganguly played a stellar role in 2 out of 2 he played... proves what? that RD is a great captain? Haha! Link to comment
The Outsider Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 and ganguly played a stellar role in 2 out of 2 he played... proves what? that RD is a great captain? Haha! And Dravid/Tendulkar played a stellar role in almost all of India's wins under Ganguly. Proved what? That Ganguly was a great captain? If anything the current Indian team is weaker than the one under Ganguly. I don't think anyone will dispute that. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 and ganguly played a stellar role in 2 out of 2 he played... proves what? that RD is a great captain? Haha! Yes, he is getting better out of Ganguly, which Ganguly himself couldn't do it. Link to comment
beetle Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 And Dravid/Tendulkar played a stellar role in almost all of India's wins under Ganguly. Proved what? That Ganguly was a great captain? If anything the current Indian team is weaker than the one under Ganguly. I don't think anyone will dispute that. agree Link to comment
feverpitch Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 And Dravid/Tendulkar played a stellar role in almost all of India's wins under Ganguly. Proved what? That Ganguly was a great captain? yes, because SG managed to bring the team out of the doldrums, when even SRT backed out of the hot seat. Because he managed to bring into the team a "Team India" ethic. Because he made bits and pieces players play out of their skins in crucial games. Because he stood up for his mates. Because he never ever succumbed to the regionalistic bias. Because he stood up to the board, opponents, media, ICC — everyone... for the team.... You want more? I can give you much much more... Link to comment
beetle Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 There is a place on the net where you would be the most favourite poster. You could be their poster no 5.....:haha: Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now