thanks. So, hopefully, in future we will not hear any more media inspire conspiracy theories.
Not going to debate this. I stand by my statement about the media angle and this has been discussed many a times on both DG's with elaborate arguments and instances presented to show how a regime change would benefit a lot of media sources.
You and I do not agree on this. Whether you will hear it again or not is both your and my prerogative --I reserve my right to mention it and you reserve the right to ignore it

.
Now I do understand your eagerness to dismiss series with SL & Aus & NZ etc. Feel free to do so, but may be you can be reasonable and avoid sayin stuff like "padding stats,conveniently forgotten etc.".
For the record, I don't agree with not counting Aus or NZ or SL etc. In those series while everyone performed badly, SG's performance was in single digits. Also remember SRT coming back from injury made a good contribution on the minefield of a pitch in Mumbai.
We cannot pick and choose and build a case. While on one hand , you don't want to consider Aus, NZ & SL series to evaluate his performance, but you do want to consider Zim series century to build a case for SG's inclusion during that phase.
Maybe I did not explain this clearly. Actually, if you re read my post, I did not dismiss either of the series. I left it up to the readers discretion to include or exclude it. i said you can count 7 series of non performance if you want to prove a point but essentially..
...my point was predicated on 7 relevant performances in 14 series. If you include the Aus & NZ series then it becomes 7 relevant, 7 failed to perform. If you do not include, it becomes 7 relevant, 5 failed to perform, and 2 indeterminable (for lack of a better term).
That should clarify issues I hope --no inconsistencies in using the zim 100 then.
As far as the padding or the convenient comment, let me say I would not have used it if I rethought my post. That was impulsive of me -apologies for being curt
One other inconsistency I found in your argument is that on one hand you blame the media and other vested interests for dethroning one fav son with another, but one the other hand you think there was a good case for dropping SG from the team after Pak series. Which one is it then, his bad form or the conspiracy which lead to his dropping from the team?
See the point is that they are not interrelated. SG could have been asked to take a rest either from the ODI's or tests against Zim to work on his game. Or even he may have been asked to relinquish cptaincy to concentrate on batting post Pak --whether dropped then or relieved of captaincy, would have been appropriate after Pak.
between Pak & Zim though he had a 100 in a domestic game followed by a succesful county season. then he scored his 100 against Zim (yes a minnow -I know) but still a test 100. So when the talk of dropping him after the Zim tour arose and was finally done, IMO, it was the wrong action at the wrong time.
The fact of the matter is his dropping had everything to do with the coach's relationship with him.
What made this easy was the fact that before, during and after the dropping, the media (by and large) ceased to become a watchdog in scrutinising events, prefering the cheerleader role in shaping general opinion by harping on issues that fed into the fan disappointment regarding the failure to win in ODI finals, SG's
past form, his drop in ODi performance (as Ruchir pointed out), the stinging loss in Bangalore et all. Not to mention the biased coverage of the email saga as well as the Zim spat and continued oblique (never direct, never descriptive) references to Nagpur.
Public opinion counts -- people find it easier to accept the dropping of a flawed person and the media highlighting of one side of the equation with little coverage to the other side did just that --make the dropping seem justified. The opinion being -- he had it coming, it was deserved etc etc --pick a variation.
Anyway,While we can hide behind others bad performance, not continuous run etc., viewed in total and as established by Ruchir's other stats, SG's performance steadily came down over the 2 yrs from WC 03. As it stands now, as we all agree, he's gotta score runs to get into the team.
I think i explained how my post about the Aus & NZ series may have been misinterpreted - so no hiding. SG's ODI performnce drop is undeniable -- that however is an untenable thread to extend to his test performances.
And yes we do agree about his need to score lots of runs in order to get back.
PS: Without any prejudice to you, I shall not continue this discussion further if only because another thread is getting hijacked by SG related discussions repeated numerous times before. I in fact have had PMs with members who are not quite pleased with it. So if we do not agree, then we shall have to leave it at that.