Lawson laying into Pak senior players

The one good thing that Chappell did (Whether he intended to or not) was to reignite the fire inside of Saurav Ganguly.

SG in talking more sh!t and covering up shock......

most indians seem to remember that.

Thats what happens when a few ignorant creatures claim ODI success as a parameter of overall sucess of a team while as you said India's test record under Chappell was dire.

The One wrote:as for chappell's 'youth policy', india has always historically had one of the youngest squads in international cricket. its not a new policy

As they say ignorance is bliss for some.

Only youth under Chappell's tutelage was Raina who in fact has been a proven failure at int'l level so far.

SG wrote:Only youth under Chappell's tutelage was Raina who in fact has been a proven failure at int'l level so far.

Dhoni came on board under Chappell. Although his domestic performances at the time were demanding that he get picked, whereas Raina was more of a Chappell hunch. Raina undoubtedly has talent, though. I'd like to see him get a good run at 3 or 4 in the ODI side.

out of the players that came in under chappell only dhoni, sree and singh could be said to have done well.

Dhoni debuted earlier than the start of Chappell regime and proved his explosive credentials with that knock of 148 against Pak.

Sree did debut under Chappell. Whether he has done well enough is debatable.

Singh: If thats RPS, I think he is still quite crap in both versions of the game whether Josh agrees with it or not.

Dhoni came on board under Chappell

Not true. He came on board while Ganguly-Wright combine ruled Indian cricket.

I think that by trying to ease out Ganguly etc., Chappell was endeavouring to prepare for generational change. Ganguly has played a few good innings and has appeared more determined and resilient since his fall from grace but in reality, has his presence meant India has won recent series? They still lost to us and could only draw with SA on home soil which is a step down from their last home series against them.

Additionally it looks like Ganguly, Dravid and Tendulkar will bow out fairly close together and might have to be replaced en masse. I think that Chappell identified Ganguly as a divisive presence (is rumoured still to be) and saw an opportunity to prepare some youth who might be more attuned to test cricket when the older masters retire.

Whatever the virtues or otherwise of Chappell's wisdom and intentions he was undermined by administrators and the fanatisicm of India's fans who demand that local representation holds sway over the broader concerns of the national team. We witnessed the puerile burning of Chappell effigies, associated hysterical outbursts against him and even threats on his life. I watched the DVD Guru Greg which was quite instructive on the matter.

I do believe, however, one aspect of cricket he paid more attention to was India's fielding and its inherent and historical problems. He wanted to blood some youngsters who were schooled in correct fielding practice, especially those in the outfield. While some of the more seasoned gentlemen might keep the scoreboard ticking more than these youngsters, when you deduct the runs a Ganguly costs his side on frequent occasions, the equation of runs scored versus runs saved in the field becomes a relevant one. While Australian, and perhaps SA fieldsman, take it as a given that they'll dive and they tend to be more athletic in the field, it's not too stereotypic to suggest that Indians are traditionally a trifle challenged in this particular area.

While I'm not necessarily an advocate or supporter of Chappell's methods, I think it's harsh to denounce his time at the helm because of the WC loss, and because he dropped Ganguly and he came back to score more prolifically.

I think that by trying to ease out Ganguly etc., Chappell was endeavouring to prepare for generational change. Ganguly has played a few good innings and has appeared more determined and resilient since his fall from grace but in reality, has his presence meant India has won recent series?

He was pushing for generational change about 3 years too early, imo. And he caused too much trouble with the 'accidental' leak of the email to the chief of selectors.

And yes, Ganguly was highly influential in series wins over England and Pakistan.

The One wrote:out of the players that came in under chappell only dhoni, sree and singh could be said to have done well. pathan, gambhir came earlier chappell had some success with the odi team and most indians seem to remember that. no one remembers the absolute disaster of a stint he had with the test team

You didn't read my post too carefully. I quote from my post below -

India's youth policy is one gift of Chappell. Players like Raina, Chawla, RP Singh, Pathan, Sreesanth, Uthappa, Gambhir, Dhoni etc all either made their mark under Chappell or brought in

I have said some either made their mark or were brought in. Pathan and Gambhir came in before but made their mark after a lot of faith was placed in them. They didn't get enough chances before and were only given a fair run later. Pathan's career was all but over till he got a new lease of life after spending nearly 8 months in wilderness.

Anyways we didn't do as well as at home but didn't lose at home series in tests either. We didn't do too badly as we won the series in WI and also a test in SA. We lost the rubber in SA more due to the negative batting and irresponsibility of our senior most experienced batsmen [barring Ganguly] and Dravid's negative captaincy. The last test in SA was an example of how not to lose a test with names like Dravid and Sachin refusing to take responsibility despite a good lead in the first innings, not to mention Sehwag's irresponsibility. The coach cannot bat or bowl for you in the middle and Chappel alone was not responsible for backing unfit players like Sehwag and Munaf and most of those controversial team selections since it also involved Vengasarkar, Dravid and for some time even Sachin in his capacity as a senior player. Likewise in Pakistan in the third test, the players failed collectively after Pathan's master bowling on Day 1. That our batsmen didn't get 250 on board in an innings when it mattered is another story altogether. No one was cribbing when Sehwag and Dravid were on the verge of a batting record in the 1st test.

In all it wasn't such a bad deal as people make it to be. After the high of 2004 we had a similiar worst 2005-06 before and we don't see people blaming John Wright for the same. It's becuase of the WC debacle that people keep playing the hangman where Chappel was concerned, but I am sorry it was the likes of Sachin, Ganguly, Dravid, Yuvraj etc with their negativity and p!ssweak batting that brought the house down. Like I said, a coach cannot bat or bowl for you in the middle.

I have said some either made their mark or were brought in. Pathan and Gambhir came in before but made their mark after a lot of faith was placed in them. They didn't get enough chances before and were only given a fair run later. Pathan's career was all but over till he got a new lease of life after spending nearly 8 months in wilderness.

I don't agree at all. Chappell tried to turn Pathan into a batting all rounder who bowled second change. He batted at 3 in the ODI side for most of the time Chappell was in charge, which was a bit ridiculous considering the batting talent available to India. His bowling was pretty awful under Chappell as well- 120 kph with no swing.

SG wrote:

The One wrote:as for chappell's 'youth policy', india has always historically had one of the youngest squads in international cricket. its not a new policy

As they say ignorance is bliss for some.

Such as? Barring the era currently having players of same age like Dravid, Laxman, Sachin and Ganguly when did we have consistanly 'young sides' in our history? Azhar's early years as Captain? Kapil's Devils? Sunny's side? Most teams before had not more than a couple of new players debuting but a whole lot of aging players holding places......

It was only since 1998, we started having more players that were young but till no point did they come in such a majority as in the last 4 years. Truth is we never went through such a major transistion where an entire generation was being replaced altogether [like it happened with WI in early 90s] but of course if you can shred my 'ignorance' with some facts I would agree.....

Henry wrote:

I think that by trying to ease out Ganguly etc., Chappell was endeavouring to prepare for generational change. Ganguly has played a few good innings and has appeared more determined and resilient since his fall from grace but in reality, has his presence meant India has won recent series?

He was pushing for generational change about 3 years too early, imo. And he caused too much trouble with the 'accidental' leak of the email to the chief of selectors.

And yes, Ganguly was highly influential in series wins over England and Pakistan.

Do you really believe that India could possibly have lost to Pakistan, Ganguly or not?

It's also a moot point as to whether Ganguly's replacement would have stopped them from beating the poms.

As for Pathan, I doubt he will ever be a force with his bowling as his primary discipline, unless he gets lots of tracks which offer undue assistance. Whenever the pitch is placid, he can become particularly juicy for batsmen. I think Chappell though saw a lot of potential with his batting and encouraged him to develop it. He did a useful job up the order against us when India needed to rejig its batting line-up and maybe benefited from being pushed up the order under Chappell.

And he caused too much trouble with the 'accidental' leak of the email to the chief of selectors.

And whats shocking is that was not the only instance of his disruptive influence on Indian team.

could only draw with SA on home soil

Means you didn't see the 3rd test.

Without Ganguly in team India would've easily lost that series instead of drawing.

SG wrote:

most indians seem to remember that.

Thats what happens when a few ignorant creatures claim ODI success as a parameter of overall sucess of a team while as you said India's test record under Chappell was dire.

Care to name those 'ignorant creatures' who claimed one day success as paramount?

As far as I can read no one here has said that Chappell was good because we won many one day matches back then. some posters here did say that most people didn't crib about Chappell when the team was winning them. The test record is bad? How bad? Not counting wins in Bangarland and Zimbokland, India was unbeaten at home techically [Drew against England and beat Lanka]. Didn't India draw at home to Pak and lose to Aus earlier before Dravid? The draw against England at home under Dravid/Chappel was more due to Dravid's faulty conviction of playing 5 bowlers [at the expense of a proven bat like Laxman]. India also under him won a test in SA and lost that series due to negative captaincy and batting later. But we also won a series in WI. Against respectable sides [barring the minnows] India still won 5 tests and lost 4.

The stats don't say the test performances were exactly dismal. Bad captaincy and strategies did cost us some more wins. But the results can't be called disasterous by any yardstick. For that one has to look at results of various WI teams of last decade or the bad patch that England just emerged from recently.

SG wrote:

And he caused too much trouble with the 'accidental' leak of the email to the chief of selectors.

And whats shocking is that was not the only instance of his disruptive influence on Indian team.

It was extremely childish from Chappell, as you get the feeling he knew exactly what he was doing.

he knew exactly what he was doing

Yep. Chappell can be anything but naive.

SG wrote:

could only draw with SA on home soil

Means you didn't see the 3rd test.

Without Ganguly in team India would've easily lost that series instead of drawing.

The fact that they would have lost it easily then is surely an indictment on Kirsten then. Remember Chappell is no longer coach. And without his dropping of Ganguly I doubt he would have produced some significant innings as he has done since his renaissance. I would maintain that Chappell was correct in trying to get rid of him at the time due to his superior attitude and long-term view in trying to expedite change.

Under him they won a test series in the Caribbean for the first time in 34 years, from memory and the first ever test in SA.

The fact that they would have lost it easily then is surely an indictment on Kirsten then.

Why would it be?

That was his first ever assigment with Indian team.

As for Indian team achievements under Chappell, well nobody said that he was totally useless. India did do well in parts under him. Atleast I've said this he did more harm than good to Indian cricket.

Now PCB prez goes after Pak team,

Ashraf blasts Pakistan for 'embarrassing loss'

Henry wrote:

afridi is probably the most famous cricketer in pakistan after imran

Huh? More famous than the likes of Javed, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir, the Mohammed's?..... Surely not.

Unfortunately yes how ever after the recent no shows with the bat the popularity is decreasing.

Lawson laying into Pak senior players

Hopefully Henry did not use a baseball bat.