Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[prfsr]

Very brief comments from SG to a very old hand journalist (Debashis Dutta of Aajkaal newspaper). The translation is mine.
-P


On his last innings: I was pleased after this 57 run innings. Enjoyed my drives after a long time. I hit the boudaries when/where I wanted to. [Does not agree this was his best innings this series]...there was much more pressure in Nottingham. Here my strokes went well. It was important to get quick runs.

Q: Would you have imposed the  follow-on if you were the captain?
A: Irrelevant question now. I am no longer the captain.

Q: Did anyone consult you before this decision?
A: No. Why would they? I am just an ordinary member of the side now.

Q: What would you have said if they asked?
A: There is no point discussing it now.

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

[kingcool1432]

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

So SG threw the Jellybeans?

[prfsr]

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

So SG threw the Jellybeans?

No
For those who may not have followed, SG was seen to accept and eat some jellybeans offered by Vaughan during a drinks break.
-P

[Jai]

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

[Vick]

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

[Jai]

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Yes, he did. In fact there is a separate thread titled 'What SG would have done' and I have voted for the second option i.e. he'd have batted and gone for some fast runs. On this thread, the point is not about enforcing the follow-on, it's about consulting the other seniors. I am not sure who all were consulted, but certainly SG was not one of them unless of course you rubbish this report citing it's Bengal connections. To the best of my knowledge, SG used to consult everyone, especially the seniors and also people like VS, YS, HS were given lot of responsibilities. I remember during the WC, there were as many as 7 captains in the side in charge of various drills, responsibilities were well divided. No wonder there was better chemistry. Other than the Nagpur fiasco when SG didn't take the field, I didn't read about any probelms between him and any other player (and I mean of course alleged reports here, the kind what we get from the media). However, in the recent past at least twice I've read about RD and SRT having issues (during the WC and for this 20/20 'voluntary resting'). Then RD telling SG not to advise SS as he'll be confused etc. etc. RD certainly needs to develop his man management skills and come out of any sort of insecurities that he may have. His captaincy is not under any threat from either SRT or SG, if recent developments are any indication. The selectors are clearly looking at the future.

[Vick]

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Yes, he did. In fact there is a separate thread titled 'What SG would have done' and I have voted for the second option i.e. he'd have batted and gone for some fast runs. On this thread, the point is not about enforcing the follow-on, it's about consulting the other seniors. I am not sure who all were consulted, but certainly SG was not one of them unless of course you rubbish this report citing it's Bengal connections. To the best of my knowledge, SG used to consult everyone, especially the seniors and also people like VS, YS, HS were given lot of responsibilities. I remember during the WC, there were as many as 7 captains in the side in charge of various drills, responsibilities were well divided. No wonder there was better chemistry. Other than the Nagpur fiasco when SG didn't take the field, I didn't read about any probelms between him and any other player (and I mean of course alleged reports here, the kind what we get from the media). However, in the recent past at least twice I've read about RD and SRT having issues (during the WC and for this 20/20 'voluntary resting'). Then RD telling SG not to advise SS as he'll be confused etc. etc. RD certainly needs to develop his man management skills and come out of any sort of insecurities that he may have. His captaincy is not under any threat from either SRT or SG, if recent developments are any indication. The selectors are clearly looking at the future.

My comment wasnt about why RD didnt consult or if he really didnt. After what have happened in last 2 odd years i am not surprised that RD didnt consult SG. I was only commenting on your statement that RD does exactly opposite to what SG would have done. And that too intentionally.

[LosingNow]

Very brief comments from SG to a very old hand journalist (Debashis Dutta of Aajkaal newspaper). The translation is mine.
-P


On his last innings: I was pleased after this 57 run innings. Enjoyed my drives after a long time. I hit the boudaries when/where I wanted to. [Does not agree this was his best innings this series]...there was much more pressure in Nottingham. Here my strokes went well. It was important to get quick runs.

Q: Would you have imposed the  follow-on if you were the captain?
A: Irrelevant question now. I am no longer the captain.

Q: Did anyone consult you before this decision?
A: No. Why would they? I am just an ordinary member of the side now.

Q: What would you have said if they asked?
A: There is no point discussing it now.

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

This may be the translation effect or me reading between the lines.. but appears like SG was not happy with the decision to not to follow-on.

[prfsr]

Very brief comments from SG to a very old hand journalist (Debashis Dutta of Aajkaal newspaper). The translation is mine.
-P


On his last innings: I was pleased after this 57 run innings. Enjoyed my drives after a long time. I hit the boudaries when/where I wanted to. [Does not agree this was his best innings this series]...there was much more pressure in Nottingham. Here my strokes went well. It was important to get quick runs.

Q: Would you have imposed the  follow-on if you were the captain?
A: Irrelevant question now. I am no longer the captain.

Q: Did anyone consult you before this decision?
A: No. Why would they? I am just an ordinary member of the side now.

Q: What would you have said if they asked?
A: There is no point discussing it now.

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

This may be the translation effect or me reading between the lines.. but appears like SG was not happy with the decision to not to follow-on.

I thought so too, from the Bengali version. It was not an unintended translation artifact.

-P

[manee]

Yes, he seems angry that some like Tendulkar were considered and not him. I guess he just has that superiority complex about him from coming from a privledged background in a poor nation added to coming from captain to an 'ordinary member of the side'.

Still a wicked batsman though.

[dextrous]

Yes, he seems angry that some like Tendulkar were considered and not him. I guess he just has that superiority complex about him from coming from a privledged background in a poor nation added to coming from captain to an 'ordinary member of the side'.

Still a wicked batsman though.

Are you mocking the English media?

[sgusa]

Yes, he seems angry that some like Tendulkar were considered and not him. I guess he just has that superiority complex about him from coming from a privledged background in a poor nation added to coming from captain to an 'ordinary member of the side'.

Still a wicked batsman though.

Are you mocking the English media?

Or being eanest ? ( THE offence in this DG! )

I have a different take. Could it be that Ganguly said it differently but the newspaper decided to portray it this way, to rile up the readers ? Sympathy and righteous outrage always sells papers!

[Jai]

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Yes, he did. In fact there is a separate thread titled 'What SG would have done' and I have voted for the second option i.e. he'd have batted and gone for some fast runs. On this thread, the point is not about enforcing the follow-on, it's about consulting the other seniors. I am not sure who all were consulted, but certainly SG was not one of them unless of course you rubbish this report citing it's Bengal connections. To the best of my knowledge, SG used to consult everyone, especially the seniors and also people like VS, YS, HS were given lot of responsibilities. I remember during the WC, there were as many as 7 captains in the side in charge of various drills, responsibilities were well divided. No wonder there was better chemistry. Other than the Nagpur fiasco when SG didn't take the field, I didn't read about any probelms between him and any other player (and I mean of course alleged reports here, the kind what we get from the media). However, in the recent past at least twice I've read about RD and SRT having issues (during the WC and for this 20/20 'voluntary resting'). Then RD telling SG not to advise SS as he'll be confused etc. etc. RD certainly needs to develop his man management skills and come out of any sort of insecurities that he may have. His captaincy is not under any threat from either SRT or SG, if recent developments are any indication. The selectors are clearly looking at the future.

My comment wasnt about why RD didnt consult or if he really didnt. After what have happened in last 2 odd years i am not surprised that RD didnt consult SG. I was only commenting on your statement that RD does exactly opposite to what SG would have done. And that too intentionally.

Well, a lot of things happened in the last 2 years primarily thanks to another gentleman who is not part of the team anymore. So it doesn't make sense for RD to keep the past things in mind. He seems to be also having issues with SRT (again whatever I've read in the media) and SRT in his long career hardly had any issues with anyone except with someone like Nayan Mongia. As the leader of the team, RD has to go the extra mile and take everyone along with him and his visions.

Although I did make that statement, I did so because it reminded me of something that I had read elsewhere in some other thread. To tell you the truth, I don't have any issue with the follow-on, at least till the end of the third day's play. I was probably the 2nd person who voted against enforcing the follow on. But that was on the 3rd day. Here I must say I didn't understand some of the team strategies on the 2nd day. There was no declaration in sight and yet MSD tried to hit all six balls of that KP over out of the park. Why didn't he bat a bit more sensibly without curbing his strokeplays (that doesn't mean trying to hit a six with every ball)? That way we would have reached our target much earlier. I thought after losing MSD's wicket, we'd declare. But that didn't happen, neither the other batsmen batted or tried to bat in the MSD mode. Coming back to the follow-on, I thought some rest will help the bowlers, we'll go for fast runs and have them bat on 4th afternoon and 5th day. However, one has to review the options with time and I changed my mind looking at the weather conditions on the morning of the 4th day. The reasons being a) it'll help our seamers and the conditions were ideal to pick up a few early wickets before AK comes into picture and b) any stoppage due to rain will only help England like it helped us at Lords and rob us from valuable time to bowl them out. As per the forecast, rain was expected on day 4 and 5. That's when I changed my mind about the follow-on. But unfortunately, the team didn't.

[kban1]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

[justforkix]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

Also, didn't Kumble bowl some ridiculous number of overs !!!!

[sgusa]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

one more factor to consider:  the Batsmen were in sublime form for Ganguly to rely on in case he needed to chase a total in  the 4th inns, RD didnt have that luxury .

[fineleg]

If Parthiv Patel had not indulged in match fixing then we would have won Sydney (despite the umpire, bucknor?? indulging in match fixing )

[Jai]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

one more factor to consider:  the Batsmen were in sublime form for Ganguly to rely on in case he needed to chase a total in  the 4th inns, RD didnt have that luxury .

Excuse me? Except SRT (but most will agree that even a scratchy SRT is not that bad), who were not in form? Jaffer and KKD had batted beautifully throughout the series. RD played his best innings of the series and as good as he ever played in the first innings. About SG, you don't have to listen to us, just read comments in the media. VVS/MSD? Even AK batted superbly. What more do you want? So not sure what exactly are you talking about. Dude, do you realize that you are running out of excuses?

[pipsqueak]

Q: Some people say you should not have taken the jellybeans....
A: Why? Is it a banned substance? I will take them again if they offer me some. They are healthy lozenges.

So SG threw the Jellybeans?

No
For those who may not have followed, SG was seen to accept and eat some jellybeans offered by Vaughan during a drinks break.
-P

when did this happen? during the second innings? i missed this.

[sgusa]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

one more factor to consider:  the Batsmen were in sublime form for Ganguly to rely on in case he needed to chase a total in  the 4th inns, RD didnt have that luxury .

Excuse me? Except SRT (but most will agree that even a scratchy SRT is not that bad), who were not in form? Jaffer and KKD had batted beautifully throughout the series. RD played his best innings of the series and as good as he ever played in the first innings. About SG, you don't have to listen to us, just read comments in the media. VVS/MSD? Even AK batted superbly. What more do you want? So not sure what exactly are you talking about. Dude, do you realize that you are running out of excuses?

Do you realize that you are being ridiculous ?

Comparing the batting lineup now to what SG had then! sheesh. Did you forget the form Viru was in ? RD was 100 times better himself. SRT, Ganguly were many times better, and LAX, the Aussies feared him. RD cannot possibly have the same confidence in the current lineup like Ganguly could back then.

[gouravk]

No matter what form the batting is in. Batting in the 4th innings is a different kind of beast altogether.

[Jai]

Vick:

The second highlighted part is very relevant as far as I am concerned. At least it shows that not all the seniors were consulted. As someone pointed out, RD consciosuly try to do everything that are opposite to what SG had done or might have done. This was probably one of those instances. *sigh*

But didnt SG did same thing in Sydney? I am quite convinced that SG would have done exactly same.

Perhaps Sg would have opted not to enforce the follow on, perhaps not.

Remember Sydney & Oval were different because of the following:

1) Lead: 231 vs 319

2) Aus were dismissed  after 37.5 overs being bowled on the 4th morning -- Eng were dismissed after 8 overs (our bowlers were fresh)

3) Conditions - nothing special in Sydney, cloudy and overcast at Oval with rain forecast for later in the afternoon.

4) The teams in question are Australia (former), and England (latter)

one more factor to consider:  the Batsmen were in sublime form for Ganguly to rely on in case he needed to chase a total in  the 4th inns, RD didnt have that luxury .

Excuse me? Except SRT (but most will agree that even a scratchy SRT is not that bad), who were not in form? Jaffer and KKD had batted beautifully throughout the series. RD played his best innings of the series and as good as he ever played in the first innings. About SG, you don't have to listen to us, just read comments in the media. VVS/MSD? Even AK batted superbly. What more do you want? So not sure what exactly are you talking about. Dude, do you realize that you are running out of excuses?

Do you realize that you are being ridiculous ?

Comparing the batting lineup now to what SG had then! sheesh. Did you forget the form Viru was in ? RD was 100 times better himself. SRT, Ganguly were many times better, and LAX, the Aussies feared him. RD cannot possibly have the same confidence in the current lineup like Ganguly could back then.

No, I am not being ridiculous, you are just hell bent on proving that whatever RD did here was right. Yes, VS was in good form...but didn't WJ and DDK play their part here? Was opening an issue in this series? Do you remember a similar scratchy innings SRT played in Sydney? I can't call it 100 or 87.3 times better than his current form. SG is currently batting as good as he ever did. If you want to prove it any other day so that you can ask for his head again next week, that aint gonna happen. So forget that. I agree about RD's form, but some people here claimed that they saw the old RD when he made that half century in the first innings. Based on that and before he played the 2nd innings, I couldn't have predicted that 96 balls struggle. What about LAX again? Oh, so the Aussies feared him. Do you know for a fact that the Brits didn't? And are we discussing here the 'Fear Factor' or the actual form of players? Because if it's the former, then the Brits had another addtional player to fear about that the Aussies didn't have to in that tour - MSD. Nobody can say VVS was lacking in form in this series. There you go...what was your theory again?

[gouravk]

Note my point above - even if all batsmen are at their career's peak form chasing a 4th innings target is always a different kind of beast. Requires more than just being in your best form.

[manee]

Yes, he seems angry that some like Tendulkar were considered and not him. I guess he just has that superiority complex about him from coming from a privledged background in a poor nation added to coming from captain to an 'ordinary member of the side'.

Still a wicked batsman though.

Are you mocking the English media?

No. That comment confuses me, what do you mean.

[Jai]

ABP has published an interview with SG (dated 15th August) and I thought let me mention the key points here. It's rather too long for me to translate each and every word (you see only stars visiting NYC have got lot of free time, others are busy).

* SG clearly says that he too wouldn't have enforced the follow-on, He argues why should we bat in the 4th innings when we are 1-0 up in the series?

* He says that the decison was taken after discussing with everyone.

* SG still rates 51 in SA as his best innings since his comeback because of the pressure involved. SA had a better a bowling attack.

* Praises DV saying that DV has always be in favor of justice. The Chairman of selectors has to be unbiased as so many players dream of playing for India.

* Says that India will win the Natwest cup despite Flintoff coming back to the England side. But also adds that he's too old now to take his shirt off again.

From another report:

RD and SG left together for the airport as their familes were heading back to India. They later left for Scotland together. It seemed like the old days again. 

[caught and bowled]

I would have done the same
   By: Debasish Datta
   August 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ganguly supports Dravid’s decision to not enforce follow-on
 
 
 
Sourav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid  pic/Vinod Kumar T
LONDON: Sourav Ganguly is contended. Not only did India register its first Test series win in England in 21 years, but Ganguly contributed significantly, with 249 runs and ending up the second highest scorer in the team, behind Dinesh Karthik.

He was the highest scorer in the Test series in South Africa in December.
MiD DAY caught up with the former Indian skipper for a chat.

Excerpts:
 
Are you a happy man now?
I am elated that we have won a Test series against England in England.
We were prepared and dominated the series in the last two Test matches.
It is always satisfying to win an away series.
 
Many are criticising skipper Rahul Dravid for not enforcing a follow-on in the third Test. Your thoughts...
Rahul did the right thing by batting again in the second innings. If I were the captain, I too would have done the same.
 
But wasn’t the initiative lost with that move?
You have to judge what was more important — to win the Test or to ensure that we were winning the series. We needed to confirm the series win. You do not get such opportunities every day. It took us 21 years and that’s a pretty long time.
 
Batting second, India was 11-3 at one stage. Were there second thoughts then?
That happens in Test cricket. We dominated the Test except for those moments. We were not under any pressure. We knew if we could stick to the wicket, it would be enough and we did so. The initiative was never lost.
 
Yet, England earned a draw...
We won the series! That is the most important thing. The wicket played well till the last ball. Otherwise, on the last day, we have taken 10 wickets on numerous ocassions in the past. We were confident of doing it once again.
 
Your thoughts on bein the second highest run-scorer after Karthik.
It sounds good. At least it shows that I contributed to the team’s cause, when it mattered.
 
How much of an impact will Flintoff’s comeback have on the one-day series?
Flintoff is a great player, definitely, but we are prepared. We are on a high and should win the Natwest trophy too. The team is confident
 
 

[pipsqueak]

I would have done the same
   By: Debasish Datta
   August 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ganguly supports Dravid’s decision to not enforce follow-on
 
 
 
Sourav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid  pic/Vinod Kumar T
LONDON: Sourav Ganguly is contended. Not only did India register its first Test series win in England in 21 years, but Ganguly contributed significantly, with 249 runs and ending up the second highest scorer in the team, behind Dinesh Karthik.

He was the highest scorer in the Test series in South Africa in December.
MiD DAY caught up with the former Indian skipper for a chat.

Excerpts:
 
Are you a happy man now?
I am elated that we have won a Test series against England in England.
We were prepared and dominated the series in the last two Test matches.
It is always satisfying to win an away series.
 
Many are criticising skipper Rahul Dravid for not enforcing a follow-on in the third Test. Your thoughts...
Rahul did the right thing by batting again in the second innings. If I were the captain, I too would have done the same.
 
But wasn’t the initiative lost with that move?
You have to judge what was more important — to win the Test or to ensure that we were winning the series. We needed to confirm the series win. You do not get such opportunities every day. It took us 21 years and that’s a pretty long time.
 
Batting second, India was 11-3 at one stage. Were there second thoughts then?
That happens in Test cricket. We dominated the Test except for those moments. We were not under any pressure. We knew if we could stick to the wicket, it would be enough and we did so. The initiative was never lost.
 
Yet, England earned a draw...
We won the series! That is the most important thing. The wicket played well till the last ball. Otherwise, on the last day, we have taken 10 wickets on numerous ocassions in the past. We were confident of doing it once again.
 
Your thoughts on bein the second highest run-scorer after Karthik.
It sounds good. At least it shows that I contributed to the team’s cause, when it mattered.
 
How much of an impact will Flintoff’s comeback have on the one-day series?
Flintoff is a great player, definitely, but we are prepared. We are on a high and should win the Natwest trophy too. The team is confident
 
 

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

[justforkix]

I would have done the same
   By: Debasish Datta
   August 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ganguly supports Dravid’s decision to not enforce follow-on
 
 
 
Sourav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid  pic/Vinod Kumar T
LONDON: Sourav Ganguly is contended. Not only did India register its first Test series win in England in 21 years, but Ganguly contributed significantly, with 249 runs and ending up the second highest scorer in the team, behind Dinesh Karthik.

He was the highest scorer in the Test series in South Africa in December.
MiD DAY caught up with the former Indian skipper for a chat.

Excerpts:
 
Are you a happy man now?
I am elated that we have won a Test series against England in England.
We were prepared and dominated the series in the last two Test matches.
It is always satisfying to win an away series.
 
Many are criticising skipper Rahul Dravid for not enforcing a follow-on in the third Test. Your thoughts...
Rahul did the right thing by batting again in the second innings. If I were the captain, I too would have done the same.
 
But wasn’t the initiative lost with that move?
You have to judge what was more important — to win the Test or to ensure that we were winning the series. We needed to confirm the series win. You do not get such opportunities every day. It took us 21 years and that’s a pretty long time.
 
Batting second, India was 11-3 at one stage. Were there second thoughts then?
That happens in Test cricket. We dominated the Test except for those moments. We were not under any pressure. We knew if we could stick to the wicket, it would be enough and we did so. The initiative was never lost.
 
Yet, England earned a draw...
We won the series! That is the most important thing. The wicket played well till the last ball. Otherwise, on the last day, we have taken 10 wickets on numerous ocassions in the past. We were confident of doing it once again.
 
Your thoughts on bein the second highest run-scorer after Karthik.
It sounds good. At least it shows that I contributed to the team’s cause, when it mattered.
 
How much of an impact will Flintoff’s comeback have on the one-day series?
Flintoff is a great player, definitely, but we are prepared. We are on a high and should win the Natwest trophy too. The team is confident

Yes. I'm pretty sure SG would have done the same thing as what RD did. And I strongly disagree with both.

[caught and bowled]

I would have done the same
   By: Debasish Datta
   August 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ganguly supports Dravid’s decision to not enforce follow-on
 
 
 
Sourav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid  pic/Vinod Kumar T
LONDON: Sourav Ganguly is contended. Not only did India register its first Test series win in England in 21 years, but Ganguly contributed significantly, with 249 runs and ending up the second highest scorer in the team, behind Dinesh Karthik.

He was the highest scorer in the Test series in South Africa in December.
MiD DAY caught up with the former Indian skipper for a chat.

Excerpts:
 
Are you a happy man now?
I am elated that we have won a Test series against England in England.
We were prepared and dominated the series in the last two Test matches.
It is always satisfying to win an away series.
 
Many are criticising skipper Rahul Dravid for not enforcing a follow-on in the third Test. Your thoughts...
Rahul did the right thing by batting again in the second innings. If I were the captain, I too would have done the same.
 
But wasn’t the initiative lost with that move?
You have to judge what was more important — to win the Test or to ensure that we were winning the series. We needed to confirm the series win. You do not get such opportunities every day. It took us 21 years and that’s a pretty long time.
 
Batting second, India was 11-3 at one stage. Were there second thoughts then?
That happens in Test cricket. We dominated the Test except for those moments. We were not under any pressure. We knew if we could stick to the wicket, it would be enough and we did so. The initiative was never lost.
 
Yet, England earned a draw...
We won the series! That is the most important thing. The wicket played well till the last ball. Otherwise, on the last day, we have taken 10 wickets on numerous ocassions in the past. We were confident of doing it once again.
 
Your thoughts on bein the second highest run-scorer after Karthik.
It sounds good. At least it shows that I contributed to the team’s cause, when it mattered.
 
How much of an impact will Flintoff’s comeback have on the one-day series?
Flintoff is a great player, definitely, but we are prepared. We are on a high and should win the Natwest trophy too. The team is confident
 
 

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

when needed? By whom? and for what?

[sudzz]

I would have done the same
   By: Debasish Datta
   August 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ganguly supports Dravid’s decision to not enforce follow-on
 
 
 
Sourav Ganguly with Rahul Dravid  pic/Vinod Kumar T
LONDON: Sourav Ganguly is contended. Not only did India register its first Test series win in England in 21 years, but Ganguly contributed significantly, with 249 runs and ending up the second highest scorer in the team, behind Dinesh Karthik.

He was the highest scorer in the Test series in South Africa in December.
MiD DAY caught up with the former Indian skipper for a chat.

Excerpts:
 
Are you a happy man now?
I am elated that we have won a Test series against England in England.
We were prepared and dominated the series in the last two Test matches.
It is always satisfying to win an away series.
 
Many are criticising skipper Rahul Dravid for not enforcing a follow-on in the third Test. Your thoughts...
Rahul did the right thing by batting again in the second innings. If I were the captain, I too would have done the same.
 
But wasn’t the initiative lost with that move?
You have to judge what was more important — to win the Test or to ensure that we were winning the series. We needed to confirm the series win. You do not get such opportunities every day. It took us 21 years and that’s a pretty long time.
 
Batting second, India was 11-3 at one stage. Were there second thoughts then?
That happens in Test cricket. We dominated the Test except for those moments. We were not under any pressure. We knew if we could stick to the wicket, it would be enough and we did so. The initiative was never lost.
 
Yet, England earned a draw...
We won the series! That is the most important thing. The wicket played well till the last ball. Otherwise, on the last day, we have taken 10 wickets on numerous ocassions in the past. We were confident of doing it once again.
 
Your thoughts on bein the second highest run-scorer after Karthik.
It sounds good. At least it shows that I contributed to the team’s cause, when it mattered.
 
How much of an impact will Flintoff’s comeback have on the one-day series?
Flintoff is a great player, definitely, but we are prepared. We are on a high and should win the Natwest trophy too. The team is confident
 
 

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

when needed? By whom? and for what?

I don't think there is any support being taken here, I don't agree with RD's decision but SG's opinion of RD's decision does not change anything for me anyway

[keep-it-cool]

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

lol, is it so difficult / painful to believe that SG may actually have had the same view as RD??

[dave_dj]

C&B - What's the point if SG supports that decision?  If doesn't matter who (RD, SG, or SRT) takes it, but some of us felt let down by a drawn game resulting from that defensive decision.  Agreed that we were not in the trenches but in our living rooms, but it is still hard to believe that there was a chance that we could have lost the game provided England was asked to follow-on.  I was looking for a crushing innings defeat and I got a draw.

[cricinfo]

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

lol, is it so difficult / painful to believe that SG may actually have had the same view as RD??

like it was so difficult / painful to believe that SG can actually perform after being banished or like it was so difficult / painful to believe  that manipultive GC would be kicked out of coaching job after being an abysmal failure?

[pipsqueak]

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

lol, is it so difficult / painful to believe that SG may actually have had the same view as RD??

not at all - to me, SG's views are irrelevant actually and doesn't make RD's decision any less cowardly. why should SG be the standard?

just wanted to point out the possibilities since deconstructing why some one said what is what keeps the DG ticking. SG could have said the truth the first time around, lied now, or lied the first time around, admitted to the truth now, etc. possibilities are endless.  

[keep-it-cool]

C&B - What's the point if SG supports that decision?  If doesn't matter who (RD, SG, or SRT) takes it, but some of us felt let down by a drawn game resulting from that defensive decision.  Agreed that we were not in the trenches but in our living rooms, but it is still hard to believe that there was a chance that we could have lost the game provided England was asked to follow-on.  I was looking for a crushing innings defeat and I got a draw.

well, dave ... it does not matter who took the decision, i agree ..

but, i think the article that c&b posted is pertinent - if nothing else - for
a) the polls on what SG would have done - we have some answer now
b) this thread started with what SG may have done .. a different view by prfsr ..obviously, if that is pertinent, this is as well
c) all the statements about RD's cowardice ... so, probably knowing that he is not the only coward in the team is also an added datapoint

[keep-it-cool]

hehe, even the devil gets quoted when needed! of course, it should be obvious SG would say nothing else, esp. after the media drama with ZK. 
prior to that, he remained non-committal.

he has always been a team man.

lol, is it so difficult / painful to believe that SG may actually have had the same view as RD??

like it was so difficult / painful to believe that SG can actually perform after being banished or like it was so difficult / painful to believe  that manipultive GC would be kicked out of coaching job after being an abysmal failure?

but all those are not painful or difficult!

[pipsqueak]

C&B - What's the point if SG supports that decision?  If doesn't matter who (RD, SG, or SRT) takes it, but some of us felt let down by a drawn game resulting from that defensive decision.  Agreed that we were not in the trenches but in our living rooms, but it is still hard to believe that there was a chance that we could have lost the game provided England was asked to follow-on.  I was looking for a crushing innings defeat and I got a draw.

well, dave ... it does not matter who took the decision, i agree ..

but, i think the article that c&b posted is pertinent - if nothing else - for
a) the polls on what SG would have done - we have some answer now
b) this thread started with what SG may have done .. a different view by prfsr ..obviously, if that is pertinent, this is as well
c) all the statements about RD's cowardice ... so, probably knowing that he is not the only coward in the team is also an added datapoint

these hypothetical Q's to other people are rather irrelevant. SG could not have answered that Q any other way, given the circumstances. that's why it is of no consequence. he may have, he may not have - no one knows. why did he not say the same the first time around?

anyway, SG being a coward does not absolve RD from being one! so let's get back to discussing RD. or since SG played out a maiden in today's ODI, maybe people can get back to bashing him and restore order and normalcy on the DG? 

[dave_dj]

C&B - What's the point if SG supports that decision?  If doesn't matter who (RD, SG, or SRT) takes it, but some of us felt let down by a drawn game resulting from that defensive decision.  Agreed that we were not in the trenches but in our living rooms, but it is still hard to believe that there was a chance that we could have lost the game provided England was asked to follow-on.  I was looking for a crushing innings defeat and I got a draw.

well, dave ... it does not matter who took the decision, i agree ..

but, i think the article that c&b posted is pertinent - if nothing else - for
a) the polls on what SG would have done - we have some answer now
b) this thread started with what SG may have done .. a different view by prfsr ..obviously, if that is pertinent, this is as well
c) all the statements about RD's cowardice ... so, probably knowing that he is not the only coward in the team is also an added datapoint

My intention is not to attack you but let me ask a simple question.  When GC came out with a laundry list against SG, did you believe SG (the captain and player who gave India a lot) or GC (the useless coach who destroyed our team to WC ignominy)?

Because we selectively believe or disbelieve what's out there in news media, it is ultimately important what we believe in.  I believe that the decision robbed us of an excellent opportunity, you may differ but that newspaper article does not mean anything to me.  Some of us may be more aggressive than others, that's all to it.

[kban1]

c&B:

Already posted at

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12387.0

[caught and bowled]

c&B:

Already posted at

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=12387.0

Removed it. Hadn't see it. I thought all Ganguly's comments were being collated here and hence had posted it here.