Print

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

[keep-it-cool]

Btw .. why not deny it himself? Why through a statement read out by an Indian team official?

[OldPal]

My read of this whole episode was, This was an informal chat with the reporter with and agreement not to publish. The reporter did not obige. SG having held the captaincy position  of a country is well aware of the implication if such interviews are aired in midlle of the series. It was bit difficult to digest reading the original interview that this was a formal one. Now that this became a distraction why wasn't it wise to deny it outright ? For a moment let us agree he did give an informal interview knowing it won't be publised ? His trust was violated.  He has a right  to deny for the good of series, his own performance and youngesters who change their hairstyle.

[OldPal]

Btw .. why not deny it himself? Why through a statement read out by an Indian team official?

Why does he has to be in PC(press conference) for denying something which he claims he never committed.
The counter questions on such an issue will be more dmaging if he answers.

[prfsr]

kic: Because the Board was the one putting pressure on SG for a denial and threatening to drop him from the XI/XV if the retraction was not made. The Board in turn was made aware by DBV who had gone ballistic, supposedly. (All this is from "sources")

Meanwhile the paper that printed the interview is strangely silent (no report of the retraction) and another paper has confirmed that SG did make some comments (did not say exactly what was said - obviously!) off the record, and specifically asked journos not to print the gory details that this guy went and printed as an interview.

[keep-it-cool]

My read of this whole episode was, This was an informal chat with the reporter with and agreement not to publish. The reporter did not obige. SG having held the captaincy position  of a country is well aware of the implication if such interviews are aired in midlle of the series. It was bit difficult to digest reading the original interview that this was a formal one. Now that this became a distraction why wasn't it wise to deny it outright ? For a moment let us agree he did give an informal interview knowing it won't be publised ? His trust was violated.  He has a right  to deny for the good of series, his own performance and youngesters who change their hairstyle.

agree ..but if the reporter / daily has a transcript or recording, it could be inconvenient

[keep-it-cool]

Because the Board was the one putting pressure on SG for a denial and threatening to drop him from the XI/XV if the retraction was not made.

Were you responding to something I posted? I didnt get the drift.

Meanwhile the paper that printed the interview is strangely silent (no report of the retraction) and another paper has confirmed that SG did make some comments (did not say exactly what was said - obviously!) off the record, and specifically asked journos not to print the gory details that this guy went and printed as an interview.

What else can they do? Publish that SG denies giving the interview that they themselves published?

[OldPal]

My read of this whole episode was, This was an informal chat with the reporter with and agreement not to publish. The reporter did not obige. SG having held the captaincy position  of a country is well aware of the implication if such interviews are aired in midlle of the series. It was bit difficult to digest reading the original interview that this was a formal one. Now that this became a distraction why wasn't it wise to deny it outright ? For a moment let us agree he did give an informal interview knowing it won't be publised ? His trust was violated.  He has a right  to deny for the good of series, his own performance and youngesters who change their hairstyle.

agree ..but if the reporter / daily has a transcript or recording, it could be inconvenient

Well if they have any such thing now. They can come in open. There  were some reasons for the delay. One of them i suppose  was the communication with the Aajkal house to ensure Team Mgmt was  not goofing up after the denial.

[prfsr]

Because the Board was the one putting pressure on SG for a denial and threatening to drop him from the XI/XV if the retraction was not made.

Were you responding to something I posted? I didnt get the drift.

Just your question about why SG did not deny it himself. I think the board wanted to limit damage...

[keep-it-cool]

Because the Board was the one putting pressure on SG for a denial and threatening to drop him from the XI/XV if the retraction was not made.

Were you responding to something I posted? I didnt get the drift.

Just your question about why SG did not deny it himself. I think the board wanted to limit damage...

Hmm ...I guess that could be the reason.

[kban1]

My read of this whole episode was, This was an informal chat with the reporter with and agreement not to publish. The reporter did not obige. SG having held the captaincy position  of a country is well aware of the implication if such interviews are aired in midlle of the series. It was bit difficult to digest reading the original interview that this was a formal one. Now that this became a distraction why wasn't it wise to deny it outright ? For a moment let us agree he did give an informal interview knowing it won't be publised ? His trust was violated.  He has a right  to deny for the good of series, his own performance and youngesters who change their hairstyle.

Exactly

[LosingNow]

My read of this whole episode was, This was an informal chat with the reporter with and agreement not to publish. The reporter did not obige. SG having held the captaincy position  of a country is well aware of the implication if such interviews are aired in midlle of the series. It was bit difficult to digest reading the original interview that this was a formal one. Now that this became a distraction why wasn't it wise to deny it outright ? For a moment let us agree he did give an informal interview knowing it won't be publised ? His trust was violated.  He has a right  to deny for the good of series, his own performance and youngesters who change their hairstyle.

Exactly

See .. one can make a point in a short and sweet post

[RicePlateReddy]

Here is what I believe has happened: He has spoken to the journo, all that was published, but "off the record". But the journo went ahead and published it, making it like an interview and "on the record" thingie. SG just had no choice but to deny it. He obviously cannot issue a statement that these comments were made off the record !!!

  

Why is it obvious JFK? He should have paid closer attention to the adage "When you are already in a hole, stop digging".

One can feel sympathy for his casual conversation being misused and utilized as a formal interview - which is a journalistic no-no. But the fact of the matter is that he has slammed the selectors and team-mates. Denying the interview succeeds in clarifying what happened to the BCCI perhaps, and slamming the newspaper. But it does not deny his sentiments.

Now I am of the opinion that the selectors do deserve to be slammed, and I am glad he did that. I also don't see anything wrong with slamming some useless teammates. So given what transpired (leakage of informal thoughts that were misquoted as an interview), I would have preferred if Ganguly clarified which teammate he was slamming (again may be informally  ) to clear any and all misgivings with teammates who matter. May be he has already done that privately ....

[kban1]

Here is what I believe has happened: He has spoken to the journo, all that was published, but "off the record". But the journo went ahead and published it, making it like an interview and "on the record" thingie. SG just had no choice but to deny it. He obviously cannot issue a statement that these comments were made off the record !!!

  

Why is it obvious JFK? He should have paid closer attention to the adage "When you are already in a hole, stop digging".

One can feel sympathy for his casual conversation being misused and utilized as a formal interview - which is a journalistic no-no. But the fact of the matter is that he has slammed the selectors and team-mates. Denying the interview succeeds in clarifying what happened to the BCCI perhaps, and slamming the newspaper. But it does not deny his sentiments.

Now I am of the opinion that the selectors do deserve to be slammed, and I am glad he did that. I also don't see anything wrong with slamming some useless teammates. So given what transpired (leakage of informal thoughts not to be misquoted as an interview), I would have preferred if Ganguly clarified which teammate he was slamming (again may be informally  ) to clear any and all misgivings with teammates who matter. May be he has already done that privately ....

he did not slam any teammates -- for the umpteenth time

he is not stupid --there is  a cash cow waiting for him when that autobigraphy gets published 

[RicePlateReddy]

he did not slam any teammates -- for the upteenth time

he is not stupid --there is  a cash cow waiting for him when that autobigraphy gets published 

And how do you know? Are you stating that Aajkal fabricated this whole thing about teammates? Aajkal has lost some credibility with doing what they did, but that does not guarantee that the "haircut" statement he uttered was untrue.

[LosingNow]

he is not stupid --there is  a cash cow waiting for him when that autobigraphy gets published 

hmm.. I thought he did not need the cash (his family is wealthy enough) 

[RicePlateReddy]

Wikipedia extract on Ganguly  "Early life"

The youngest son of Chandidas and Nirupa Ganguly, Ganguly was born on 8 July 1972 in Kolkata.[7] His father ran a flourishing print business and was one of the richest men in Kolkata.[8]

[kban1]

he is not stupid --there is  a cash cow waiting for him when that autobigraphy gets published 

hmm.. I thought he did not need the cash (his family is wealthy enough) 

So if his family is wealthy enough, he should stop striving for a living ?   

So just because he has scored 6800 runs, he should stop scoring ?

Just because you are well off, you dont attempt to be successful anymore ?

 

I know Where this is coming from but i believe you have the contexts wrong.

It is not wrong to say that you are an ambitious person who wants to do well. It is wrong to insinuate that you are an ambitious person who wants to do well, by hook or by crook, even if that involves unscrupulous means.

Hope you get the analogy.

[kban1]

he did not slam any teammates -- for the upteenth time

he is not stupid --there is  a cash cow waiting for him when that autobigraphy gets published 

And how do you know? Are you stating that Aajkal fabricated this whole thing about teammates? Aajkal has lost some credibility with doing what they did, but that does not guarantee that the "haircut" statement he uttered was untrue.

I read the interview. And not the translation -- there is big difference, ask those who have read it in original.

There is no slamming of any teammates in that interview. All he said was every T, D, and H plays without scrutiny except me who is subject to the selector's whims.

The haircut comment as it read to me was not a specific reference to anyone, but more in line with a metaphor -- more haircuts than runs, similar to more style than substance.

[RicePlateReddy]

I read the interview. And not the translation -- there is big difference, ask those who have read it in original.

There is no slamming of any teammates in that interview. All he said was every T, D, and H plays without scrutiny except me who is subject to the selector's whims.

The haircut comment as it read to me was not a specific reference to anyone, but more in line with a metaphor -- more haircuts than runs, similar to more style than substance.

I see that as slamming. It is well deserved slamming, but it is slamming nevertheless. How is Dravid supposed to interpret these comments -- or does reference to "T, D and H" make Dravid feel secure 

[kban1]

I read the interview. And not the translation -- there is big difference, ask those who have read it in original.

There is no slamming of any teammates in that interview. All he said was every T, D, and H plays without scrutiny except me who is subject to the selector's whims.

The haircut comment as it read to me was not a specific reference to anyone, but more in line with a metaphor -- more haircuts than runs, similar to more style than substance.

I see that as slamming. It is well deserved slamming, but it is slamming nevertheless. How is Dravid supposed to interpret these comments -- or does reference to "T, D and H" make Dravid feel secure 

 

[pipsqueak]

I read the interview. And not the translation -- there is big difference, ask those who have read it in original.

There is no slamming of any teammates in that interview. All he said was every T, D, and H plays without scrutiny except me who is subject to the selector's whims.

The haircut comment as it read to me was not a specific reference to anyone, but more in line with a metaphor -- more haircuts than runs, similar to more style than substance.

I see that as slamming. It is well deserved slamming, but it is slamming nevertheless. How is Dravid supposed to interpret these comments -- or does reference to "T, D and H" make Dravid feel secure 

you've read Mills&Boon? 

[RicePlateReddy]

you've read Mills&Boon? 

Are you trying to out me? This is what we are speaking about now:



"Two migrant field workers in California during the Great Depression (timely!) – George Milton, an intelligent and cynical man; and Lennie Small, an ironically named man of large stature and immense stonewalling skills but limited mental abilities – come to a ranch near Soledad southeast of Salinas, California to "work up a stake". They hope to one day attain their shared dream of settling down on their own piece of land (i.e tenure in Indian cricket team). Lennie's part of the dream, which he never tires of hearing George describe, is merely to tend to (and touch) soft rabbits on the farm (let us not get into this). George protects Lennie at the beginning by telling him that if Lennie gets into trouble George won't let him "tend them rabbits"; they are fleeing from their previous employment in Weed where they were run out of town after Lennie's love of stroking soft things resulted in an accusation of attempted rape when he touched a young woman's dress. In a textbook example of foreshadowing, Lennie kills his pet mouse, and a puppy, by stroking them too roughly (WC 2007).

At the ranch, the dream appears to move closer to reality. Candy (SRT), the aged, one-handed ranch-hand, even offers to pitch in with Lennie and George so they can buy the farm by the end of the month. The dream crashes when Lennie accidentally kills the young and attractive wife of Curley, the ranch owner's son, while trying to stroke her hair. A lynch mob led by Curley (BCCI) gathers. George, realizing he is doomed to a life of loneliness and despair like the rest of the migrant workers, and wanting to spare Lennie a painful death at the hands of the vengeful and violent Curley, shoots Lennie in the back of the head before the mob can find him after they had recited their dreams of owning their own land."