Greg Chappell: I won't resign.

[Richard]

Yeah, I'm with P on that, certainly.

Surprised hbh would say that, too.

 

[honestbharani]

Erm, if some one does not follow each match and every ball or writes lesser, that does not mean much or that his views are lesser if he elucidates why he feels the same. Some of the pieces of Kesavan I have read are the best pieces of cricket writing I have read.

nope, not saying they can't be.....


But he is just writing on this one on obvious hearsay. That is all. One match, if he had watched one match, it would have been obvious that the "rift" between seniors and Dravid wasn't all rumour....... And the way he keeps harping on Chappell's wrongs and almost suggesting that Chappell was the only thing wrong with the side that went to the Windies shows that he could do with some watching of cricket, esp. Indian cricket.

 

[Pratters]

It is your opinion based on paricular piece(s) then. Fair enough. I can ask you do say where he said some thing which proved wrong and discuss on it and/or can argue on specific pieces that no one could know for sure regarding facts on the ground. Don't see much point in that and I will respect your views on Kesavan as you are entitled to your views.

 

[honestbharani]

It is your opinion based on paricular piece(s) then. Fair enough. I can ask you do say where he said some thing which proved wrong and discuss on it and/or can argue on specific pieces that no one could know for sure regarding facts on the ground. Don't see much point in that and I will respect your views on Kesavan as you are entitled to your views.

See, Pratyush, I am not saying he has NOT written some good pieces in the past, perhaps even bordering on excellent. But it is just not fair when a guy writes a piece on a game that he has obviously not even watched and then is trying apportion blame to people involved in the game.


I had a lot of respect for him as well, but I have lost quite a lot of it after this article. Writers of famous websites (and esp. professional writers) have a responsibility to at least watch the games they are writing about.

 

[Dasa]

Where did he try to apportion blame though? The article is predominantly based on two points - firstly, that the stereotyping of Indians as being unable to deal with Chappell is nonsense, and secondly that the author believes Chappell was not a good coach. I can't see where you're getting "The very fact that he thinks those who believe that the seniors in the side were a problem are all Chappell's boys shows that" from.
The article is primarily a criticism of Chappell with no mention of the players (or any rift between them). Given that it's a blog and not an actual piece of reporting news or analysing the situation, I can't see the problem.

 

[honestbharani]

Where did he try to apportion blame though? The article is predominantly based on two points - firstly, that the stereotyping of Indians as being unable to deal with Chappell is nonsense, and secondly that the author believes Chappell was not a good coach. I can't see where you're getting "The very fact that he thinks those who believe that the seniors in the side were a problem are all Chappell's boys shows that" from.
The article is primarily a criticism of Chappell with no mention of the players (or any rift between them). Given that it's a blog and not an actual piece of reporting news or analysing the situation, I can't see the problem.

yeah, I agree that was a bit of an over-reaction on my part. But honestly speaking, you seriously think he WASN'T trying to make the point that it was Chappell who was the problem and no one else? I even wrote a response to that and if you read all the responses to that piece, most people have taken up the same issue. If he wasn't trying to excuse off the senior players' then he certainly didn't word it right.

 

[adharcric]

Just read the article and it is reasonable but nothing too impressive IMO. Chappell had poor man-management skills and leaking crap about your players to the media is beyond ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if the work ethic and/or egos of certain Indian players had a substantial role to play in the discord throughout the team. Greg "the villain" destroyed the Indian team? I'm not ready to buy that. Chappell was the wrong man for such a sensitive position but I doubt the Indian players are the easiest to coach. As for the article's praise of John Wright, was he really that great? Genuine question here. From what I can gather, he was relatively passive and let the captain handle matters - India's success in that era may have been a result of a legendary middle-order more than anything else. Could it be that Chappell actually tried to revolutionize Indian cricket and met the harsh reality of unprofessional superstars?

 

[adharcric]

yeah, I agree that was a bit of an over-reaction on my part. But honestly speaking, you seriously think he WASN'T trying to make the point that it was Chappell who was the problem and no one else? I even wrote a response to that and if you read all the responses to that piece, most people have taken up the same issue. If he wasn't trying to excuse off the senior players' then he certainly didn't word it right.

Haven't read your previous posts, but I certainly agree with this one.

 

[Pratters]

yeah, I agree that was a bit of an over-reaction on my part. But honestly speaking, you seriously think he WASN'T trying to make the point that it was Chappell who was the problem and no one else? I even wrote a response to that and if you read all the responses to that piece, most people have taken up the same issue. If he wasn't trying to excuse off the senior players' then he certainly didn't word it right.

Wasn't interested in dissecting a piece but since Dasa re raised it.. From the piece..

The players who disliked him complain about how manipulative he was. They might be wrong and self-interested but it's odd that Indian journalists and commentators should find the stereotype of the straight-talking Australian

He does not discount that the Indian players might be flawed. His piece is about Chappell and not Indian players. He says Chappell should be blamed because he believes the following:

I find no difficulty in holding in my head (at the same time) two related but distinct ideas: 1) that the BCCI presides over a mess and 2) that Chappell is a terrible coach. The need for structural reform and the necessity of making the best of what you currently have aren't contradictory goals. A good coach will have a vision of the future, but his primary job is in the here and now. Chappell had poor results in the here and now when he coached the national side in arguably the worst organized cricket system in the world (India) and he had indifferent results when he coached a provincial side in the best organized cricket system in the world (Australia). It seems to me that Chappell is the constant here.

NO WHERE is he saying that the Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performances of the team. I think no one would be silly enough to say Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performance.

He mentions comparisons with Wright and you have to ask yourself, how many problems did Wright, a foreign coach again, have with India compared with Chappell. In other words, the view that Chappell failed because he was a foreign coach is exaggerated. Why is it difficult to accept that he might be a terrible coach, after all.

 

[honestbharani]

Wasn't interested in dissecting a piece but since Dasa re raised it.. From the piece..

The players who disliked him complain about how manipulative he was. They might be wrong and self-interested but it's odd that Indian journalists and commentators should find the stereotype of the straight-talking Australian

He does not discount that the Indian players might be flawed. His piece is about Chappell and not Indian players. He says Chappell should be blamed because he believes the following:

I find no difficulty in holding in my head (at the same time) two related but distinct ideas: 1) that the BCCI presides over a mess and 2) that Chappell is a terrible coach. The need for structural reform and the necessity of making the best of what you currently have aren't contradictory goals. A good coach will have a vision of the future, but his primary job is in the here and now. Chappell had poor results in the here and now when he coached the national side in arguably the worst organized cricket system in the world (India) and he had indifferent results when he coached a provincial side in the best organized cricket system in the world (Australia). It seems to me that Chappell is the constant here.

NO WHERE is he saying that the Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performances of the team. I think no one would be silly enough to say Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performance.

He mentions comparisons with Wright and you have to ask yourself, how many problems did Wright, a foreign coach again, have with India compared with Chappell. In other words, the view that Chappell failed because he was a foreign coach is exaggerated. Why is it difficult to accept that he might be a terrible coach, after all.

He is a bad coach, I am not in doubt of that, esp. for an international side. But this bunch is not the easiest to coach either. As adharcric said, it is not like John Wright did a sterling job towards the end, which is probably when the coterie and stuff were formed. It was really bad under Wright, let us not forget that. A batting line up that almost never changed, inspite of repeated failures of almost all the batters.... Players never tried at other positions than the ones they wanted, regardless of whether it benefitted the team or not. (Eg)- Kaif batting at 6 or 7 helped neither the team nor the player himself. That is why I think it is not a good article at all, because he is projecting Wright as someone who had amazing success with the same bunch. It was true for a period of 2-3 years but since the second half of 2004, his stint was just as bad as Chappell's has been recently. If anything, it was worse. I am saying this only in reference to on the field performance. I suppose the team was a bit more united under Wright than under Chappell, but then again, when the same players keep getting picked with only cosmetic changes to the squad, you would expect the guys to be pretty comfortable with each other after a period of time.

 

[honestbharani]

Wasn't interested in dissecting a piece but since Dasa re raised it.. From the piece..

The players who disliked him complain about how manipulative he was. They might be wrong and self-interested but it's odd that Indian journalists and commentators should find the stereotype of the straight-talking Australian

He does not discount that the Indian players might be flawed. His piece is about Chappell and not Indian players. He says Chappell should be blamed because he believes the following:

I find no difficulty in holding in my head (at the same time) two related but distinct ideas: 1) that the BCCI presides over a mess and 2) that Chappell is a terrible coach. The need for structural reform and the necessity of making the best of what you currently have aren't contradictory goals. A good coach will have a vision of the future, but his primary job is in the here and now. Chappell had poor results in the here and now when he coached the national side in arguably the worst organized cricket system in the world (India) and he had indifferent results when he coached a provincial side in the best organized cricket system in the world (Australia). It seems to me that Chappell is the constant here.

NO WHERE is he saying that the Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performances of the team. I think no one would be silly enough to say Indian players should not be blamed for the poor performance.

He mentions comparisons with Wright and you have to ask yourself, how many problems did Wright, a foreign coach again, have with India compared with Chappell. In other words, the view that Chappell failed because he was a foreign coach is exaggerated. Why is it difficult to accept that he might be a terrible coach, after all.

And another thing, Pratyush.... Just because he was a manipulative sort of guy doesn't mean every single one of his points are to be disregarded. And I don't understand what is this talk of "Stereo-typing"? Is he saying that Chappell didn't tell Ganguly to his face that he needed to give up captaincy to improve his batting? And apparently, Chappell even told Tendulkar that he either bats at no.4 or sits out of the side. I did see Sachin not even look at Chappell when he went back to the pavilion after his unbeaten 100 at no.4 against the Windies when Chappell was clapping him and patted his back. Again, I think that is plausible too, since it must have taken some extreme words to get such a bitter reaction out of Sachin, who generally seems to be a nice bloke even to guys he may not be all that fond of.


Chappell is a lot more straight-forward than most Indians are simply because of the way these people are brought up. It is not good all the time, as has been proved and it is also true that he seemed to be a guy who was intent on manipulating through the media so that he got the side he wanted. These qualities make him a bad coach, but they don't make him any less straight-forward... I don't see why anyone would have such a problem accepting that Greg Chappell is more of a straight forward guy than an average Indian.

 

[Pratters]

The Ganguly era of Indian cricket essentially had two periods, one in which the team progressed and the second in which because of various reasons, we crapped up badly. If we analyzed how Wright was doing as a coach in the first period, I am sure you would say he is doing a very good job as well despite knowing Ganguly was the powerful man. To understand how John Wright did as a coach, it is important to see how much power he had.

Contrast it with Chappell who had lots of powers and because of it, faced problems as well. After Ganguly's exit from the team, it is safe to say that Chappell had almost full freedom to do what he wanted for the team and get the team out of the comfort zone or whatever. But Chappell failed constantly and India was performing poorly in one dayers.

If we analyse what Kesavan said again,

Actually India did have a foreign coach who dealt quite well with his team for nearly five years. John Wright's tenure didn't make the Indian team a squad of world-beaters but it did rather better than this team has done under Chappell.

Kesavan doesn't use the term world beaters but just better which I think is a fair assessment. We were performing superbly in one dayers reaching final after final and started winning tests abroad too which is a big leap.

A lot of people defend Chappell saying culture gaps was the big problem but that didn't stop Whatmore with Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or even Woolmer with Pakistan (who helped Pakistan improve so much till all hell broke lose about a year back).

 

[honestbharani]

The Ganguly era of Indian cricket essentially had two periods, one in which the team progressed and the second in which because of various reasons, we crapped up badly. If we analyzed how Wright was doing as a coach in the first period, I am sure you would say he is doing a very good job as well despite knowing Ganguly was the powerful man. To understand how John Wright did as a coach, it is important to see how much power he had.

Contrast it with Chappell who had lots of powers and because of it, faced problems as well. After Ganguly's exit from the team, it is safe to say that Chappell had almost full freedom to do what he wanted for the team and get the team out of the comfort zone or whatever. But Chappell failed constantly and India was performing poorly in one dayers.

If we analyse what Kesavan said again,

Actually India did have a foreign coach who dealt quite well with his team for nearly five years. John Wright's tenure didn't make the Indian team a squad of world-beaters but it did rather better than this team has done under Chappell.

Kesavan doesn't use the term world beaters but just better which I think is a fair assessment. We were performing superbly in one dayers reaching final after final and started winning tests abroad too which is a big leap.

A lot of people defend Chappell saying culture gaps was the big problem but that didn't stop Whatmore with Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or even Woolmer with Pakistan (who helped Pakistan improve so much till all hell broke lose about a year back).

yeah, but putting everything down to John Wright is unfair....


The seniors were a good 4 years younger, there weren't too many seniors just trying to make sure they "keep" their places back then.

I will tell you the one area where Chappell was way off the mark. He plays favourites. Sourav did too, and so did just about every Indian captain before him, but that is generally sort of expected. Wright, being the foreigner, the outsider, the players were able to trust him a lot more than they were able to trust Chappell, who himself looked like he had picked some favourites and was only gonna push for them. REgardless of whether or not he was backing the right players, it was still wrong. And I have said it a million times.


But having said that, to keep saying that Chappell is a bad coach and to make it seem as though that is the only reason we lost, I am sorry, I am just not buying that.

 

[Pratters]

yeah, but putting everything down to John Wright is unfair....

But having said that, to keep saying that Chappell is a bad coach and to make it seem as though that is the only reason we lost, I am sorry, I am just not buying that.

I wouldn't put it all down to Wright of course. I would never say such a thing. A lot of things worked in favour of the Indian team back then. For example, had match fixing scandal not occured, the shake up in the team relating to exit of people wouldn't have happened..

Also, I would not put it all down to Chappell and don't think even Kesavan meant that. His post was on Chappell specifically, that is the way I see it any way. Every one is to be blamed and not just Chappell.

 

[honestbharani]

I wouldn't put it all down to Wright of course. I would never say such a thing. A lot of things worked in favour of the Indian team back then. For example, had match fixing scandal not occured, the shake up in the team relating to exit of people wouldn't have happened..

Also, I would not put it all down to Chappell and don't think even Kesavan meant that. His post was on Chappell specifically, that is the way I see it any way. Every one is to be blamed and not just Chappell.

It may well have been his idea but reading that column would definitely make one think that he is trying to blame Chappell as much as possible.

 

[Pratters]

I will tell you the one area where Chappell was way off the mark. He plays favourites. Sourav did too, and so did just about every Indian captain before him, but that is generally sort of expected. Wright, being the foreigner, the outsider, the players were able to trust him a lot more than they were able to trust Chappell, who himself looked like he had picked some favourites and was only gonna push for them. REgardless of whether or not he was backing the right players, it was still wrong. And I have said it a million times.

I don't mind backing players as long as people are not obsessed with it. Steve Waugh backed people with success for instance. A captain/coach get the flack when a team loses and so should have a say regarding the team but they should equally be flexible and be willing to know where to draw the line if a particular player is backed continues failing.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't mind backing players as long as people are not obsessed with it. Steve Waugh backed people with success for instance. A captain/coach get the flack when a team loses and so should have a say regarding the team but they should equally be flexible and be willing to know where to draw the line if a particular player is backed continues failing.

I dont have a problem with someone backing certain players for a certain period of time either. But the problem with Greg was that he was also trying to back the sacking of certain players and it just never works out. It is never a good idea to harp on dropping someone who is in the side at every opportunity. It creates serious problems within the side, as has been shown through what has happened with Team India.

 

[Pratters]

It may well have been his idea but reading that column would definitely make one think that he is trying to blame Chappell as much as possible.

Don't think he means Chappell should solely be blamed personally.. Just expressing that he felt Chappell was a poor coach.

 

[Pratters]

I dont have a problem with someone backing certain players for a certain period of time either.

Fair enough mate.. I thought you were completely against the idea of backing players which shocked me a bit.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't think he means Chappell should solely be blamed personally.. Just expressing that he felt Chappell was a poor coach.

I personally feel Chappell is a bad coach and it is good that he isn't in charge of the senior team anymore. But any column I would write won't just be "Chappell-specific". And even if it was, I would throw in more than the odd word about the fact that there were a million faults with the players too. It just struck me as having been written fast, right after the humiliating loss just to vent some anger out at the obvious target, Greg Chappell.