bjr said:
Progressing just for the sake of progression is foolishness as far as I am concerned. The main problem that I can see with the Dravid/Chappel regime is the lack of uniformity in the decisions that they make. A lot of them seem to be influenced more by personal agenda rather than team interest. Taking a step backwards seems to be fine when it suits their purpose.
Excuse me, but I find progressing until you attain excellence (in tests, it is to reach the benchmark set by Australia; and in odi, it is to win the world cup and play well consistently) is justified. And to say that India was just fine and did not need any progressing sounds a bit awkward to me.
I don't see a lack of uniformity in decisions but rather trying a wide range of plans which I believe is the right way to go to ascertain what works out well and what does not. Do the ends justify the means? Maybe, maybe not. But I heartily support the Chappel/Dravid regime and hope they do not stop due to fan pressure.
I don't see where the personal agenda comes in with Dravid. Perhaps you may want to clarify.
Take for example the debate regarding the opening slot in Pakistan. Dravid opened the innings against an excellent bowling attack albiet on a dead wicket and scored centuries and was lauded by everybody for leading from the front and taking the attack to the opposition. Fair and good. Well done, Rahul Dravid. However, it was definitely a step backwards because they took a decision which was in no way a solution for the future. If anyone argued that the intent was a backup plan B for the future, this would shatter their argument:
They were forced into making such a decision. Dravid not opening would have meant throwing Ganguly to the wolves and if he failed, most of his supporters would blame dravid for letting him open and accuse him of "personal agenda". If he had sent any player, he would be accused of shying away from opening when he is the most technical player and should have gone instead.
The decision was a backward step, definitely, but by the selectors, not Dravid. Not Chappel. I feel sorry for Ganguly, the way he has been treated by the selectors but to take out the ire of his mistreatment on Dravid or Tendulkar is not right.
What then influenced him to send in Irfan Pathan to open against a swinging ball(with which he has had problems even earlier) on a day that had 8 overs to be played and when your primary mission (logically) would have been to play out the overs without the loss of a wicket and start afresh later the next day? On a wicket which is probably dangerous to anyone except the wall that is Rahul Dravid, you send in a makeshift opener who is invaluable in the lower order having gotten you good, quick runs when you needed them there. The move indicates sheer bad captaincy and to be quite honest, hurt me though it might being a Dravid worshipper (seriously), I don't think the Dravid/Chappel era is going to take us places at least in the test arena. One-days wise, I laud them for taking the team a couple of notches higher. However, even there, my opinion is that the high is artificial and it is only in non-subcontinent conditions that we shall get to know if we're getting "there".
Common cricketing sense would have suggested sending in a nightwatchman. If Dravid had gotten out in the bad light, that would definitely have ended the game for India there and then with Sehwag and Tendulkar not fully fit.
The main problem I see with the selectors is not that they do not pick Ganguly over a Venugopal Rao but the general double standards in attitude that they've shown over the last six months. Things like Sourav Ganguly being asked to prove his fitness after an injury and then picking an injured V.R.V Singh for the squad and things so forth. There is little doubt that Ganguly, as of today, should not be a shoo-in into the team but a person who is in reasonably good form at the domestic level and has the experience that is useful under any circumstance does deserve to be a part of the 14 man squad which has names of consistent under-achievers such as Ajit Agarkar in them. Even picking a person who has been given more than his fair share of chances for scant results is a step backwards which seems to escape our selectors when they talk of reasons for not including Laxman or Sourav or Anil Kumble even.
I believe the biggest thing that is wrong with Indian cricket is the selection process. Regionalism is deep rooted. So is politics. What we need is a total revamp and ex players taking a more active role.
You forget that an in-form Sourav has often surpassed any other batsman in the world in his days. That he is doing well in the domestic circuit shows that he is hungry for another chance and I don't think anyone would disagree with my saying that a Sourav in full flow is a glorious sight. I wouldn't see it as a step backwards....especially given your stand to Sachin (which I think is very fair).
Same argument for keeping Sachin. An in form Sachin, if and when that comes true, will be devastating for any opposition considering now he will be supported by a (hopefully) in form Sehwag, Dhoni and Yuvraj.
I have no problems with Sourav in the team. At one time he was my favourite player, same as Sachin and Dravid, but things haven't worked out for him. His batting was not the only reason why he was dropped. His fielding, attitude, everything recquires a change. And he must not just score consistently in domestic cricket, but someone must perform consistently bad in the Indian side. Some 2 or 3, rather I would say since kaif/Raina/VVS are all in front of Sourav as matters stand. Sad? maybe, for all those who believe in Sourav like I do in Sachin. But thats the state of affairs currently. Maybe Sachin's time will also come. But taking out your anger on him, becaus someone is annoyed at Sourav's treatment is harsh.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not particularly bothered because Sourav isn't playing.....it's just the hypocrisy of the selection and some of the moves does not convince me that the teams interests are the major concern here.
I on the other hand will be deeply concerned if Sourav is introduced in the next squad inplace of Sachin, like you suggested, not because I have anything against him but because it would further emphasize the pathetic selection process.
