Print

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

[kban1]

According to the Mumbai Mirror, SG did refuse to open saying he had not been given ample time. Which runs contrary to several other reports which say that they were vying to open.

Now this gets interesting because you have two publications (rediff, Mumbai Mirror) claiming one story while a host of others claiming the reverse.

Rediff I believe is quoting a wire report while Mumbai Mirror is basing their story on a source which alludes to a dressing room conversation during lunch. the other papers reflecting the other side are also basing it on sources.

Who knows which version is true ? And with Channel 10 running the feed, it could also be true that the Indian team was not pleased. But the only part which seems odd to me is that "why will  a player on his last chance, careerwise, cut off the branch he is sitting on by refusing to open, knowing that he is in the team at the cost of an opener ?"

this seems neither rational or logical. But stranger things have happened right ? For the time being --watch and wait.
**************************************************************************************

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=6&articleid=115200611734640115200611725546


Did Sourav back out?


Ehtesham Hasan in Lahore

This Indian team is known to often pluck rabbits from a hat. But it pulled out a lion yesterday, which, rest assured, will threaten to gulp them down for the rest of the tour.

Instead of Sourav Ganguly opening the batting, it was captain Rahul Dravid, in coach Greg Chappell words, who “chose to bite the bullet” by marching out to face Shoaib Akhtar and Co.

Ganguly, as had been reported widely, was expected to take first-strike .On the future course of action at the top of the order, the 57-year-old former Australian captain said it would be decided match-by-match.

“I thought the decision of Rahul to open the innings was a courageous one,” Chappell said after the second day’s play at the Gaddafi stadium.

“He chose to bite the bullet. He made a bold statement, not only to the opposition but his own teammates, that he will lead from the front. It was a calculated risk that we have taken.” Reports trickling out from the Indian dressing room suggest that all is not well in the camp.

After the early morning spat between Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly, seen on television on Friday, there was more trouble during the lunch break on day one itself.

Dravid, sources say, read out the riot act to Ganguly. “Dravid blamed Sourav for the entire incident, which was repeatedly being aired on TV. This only infuriated Sourav and an unhealthy argument ensued,” the source said.

The Indian team management, which has some heavyweights in it, has not even bothered to bring the fig leaf out as rumours flew thick and fast on the second day running.  One understands that Ganguly backed out of opening the innings at the last minute. His line of argument: He was not informed earlier.

Dravid, taken aback, then volunteered to open. But the heated discussion that transpired before the start of play was milked by the channel which is broadcasting the series.

Interestingly, BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah who was in the stadium then, sent out a message to Ten Sports through PCB, asking them to stop playing the clip. But that was too late as the damage had already been done.

President Sharad Pawar, here on an official visit, had a long chat with the players in the dressing room on day two. Ganguly who was away practicing at the adjoining National Cricket Academy too was summoned. Pawar, it is believed, has asked the team to get its act together.

[kban1]

Update: As per Amit Verma, SG was telling Rahul that he should have been informed earlier about opening. RD then decided to open himself.

Keep watching this space as more stories with more new angles arise.

*************************************************************************************************************************


This is Amit Verma's take on the situation from his cricket blog

http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/01/rashomon.html

Rashomon
I had fun listening in to what people in the press box were speculating when the heated discussion between Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid was taking place yesterday.

The Sourav-bashers said: "Oh, Rahul wants him to open and Ganguly is throwing a fit because he's scared of facing Shoaib Akhtar with the new ball."

The Sourav-lovers said: "Oh, Dravid has volunteered to open the batting himself for the sake of the team, and Sourav is fighting with him because he wants to open and show the world what he's made of."

As the second version shows everyone in a better light, I found myself rooting for it. And although I've long felt that Ganguly's time is up, oh, wouldn't a 70-ball century against Shoaib and Sami be so thrilling? Who can read the leaves?

Of course, the possibility remains that they were arguing about something else entirely.

"New Anarkali Market is better than Old Anarkali Market!"

"Is not!"

"Is!"

"Is not!"

Update: Turns out they were arguing about the opening position, but not in the ways earlier speculated. Ganguly was upset because he was apparently told only on the morning of the match that he would have to open, and he said that he should have been told about it and given time to prepare. Dravid then
apparently offered to open himself. And so on.
****************************************************************************************************************************

[dextrous]

Man, Ganguly even told me he's opening!

[kban1]

 

ROFL

[kban1]

Update:

Anandabazar reports that the news about SG refusing to open spread from this sequence of events:

After the toss, when the scorer from ten Sports went to get the scorecard verified in the Indian camp, GC had scratched SG name from 2 and put it at 5 with the words “There is a possibility he will bat at 3 down”. And GC was not a happy camper when he said this

When this information reached the press box, the rumor spread like wildfire that a post toss change in batting order meant that SG must have refused to open.

The paper also adds what led to the other explanation of the events:
Groundsstaff present in and around where the SG, RD, GC conference took place however indicate that both parties were staking their claim for the opening slot. Other sources add that apparently, this discussion was a continuation of an earlier discussion from the previous night when RD’s intentions to open were shot down by GC.

So there is the explanation for the two theories

One based on GC’s comments to the scorer, the other based on information from groundstaff.

RD when asked did not respond saying it’s a cricketing issue not to be discussed with the press. SG did the same. GC came to the end of the press conference and made it clear it was a “cricketing discussion”