• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greg Chappell: I won't resign.

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
A lot of blog posts particularly are made trying to put across one or very few points. As I said earlier, the piece is about Chappell more than any thing. Neverthless, I read comments on the post and a lot of people feel the way you do. So yes, maybe a line as a clarification would have been appropriate (possibly after he saw people are raising the issue in the comments space) or some thing.
 
Last edited:

shankar

International Debutant
You guys are missing the point of the article altogether. It is not to discuss the reasons behind the WC exit but to refute the theory floated after the defeat that the reasons for the problems with Chappell was a culture clash, specifically the ascribing of a stereotypical character of 'straight talking' and 'thin-skinned-ness' to such large and varied groups as Australians and Indians. This is why he is concentrating on Chappell and not on the seniors.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
You guys are missing the point of the article altogether. It is not to discuss the reasons behind the WC exit but to refute the theory floated after the defeat that the reasons for the problems with Chappell was a culture clash, specifically the ascribing of a stereotypical character of 'straight talking' and 'thin-skinned-ness' to such large and varied groups as Australians and Indians. This is why he is concentrating on Chappell and not on the seniors.
Exactly. That's why I liked the article.
 

adharcric

International Coach
You guys are missing the point of the article altogether. It is not to discuss the reasons behind the WC exit but to refute the theory floated after the defeat that the reasons for the problems with Chappell was a culture clash, specifically the ascribing of a stereotypical character of 'straight talking' and 'thin-skinned-ness' to such large and varied groups as Australians and Indians. This is why he is concentrating on Chappell and not on the seniors.
Are you suggesting that Chappell isn't 'straight-talking'?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
You guys are missing the point of the article altogether. It is not to discuss the reasons behind the WC exit but to refute the theory floated after the defeat that the reasons for the problems with Chappell was a culture clash, specifically the ascribing of a stereotypical character of 'straight talking' and 'thin-skinned-ness' to such large and varied groups as Australians and Indians. This is why he is concentrating on Chappell and not on the seniors.
Those who spread those ideas are very few compared to the no. of guys who have been shouting up and down that the only reason India lost is because of Chappell, including some ex-cricketers. I think addressing the fact that the players played poorly and that the seniors failed to show the way would have made a better column. And again, in the article, he distinctly gives the impression of blaming everything on Chappell. You post an article in your cricket blog right after the match when India were knocked out of the WC, people would naturally expect it to address the reasons why India lost. To focus on one thing given the timing of the article is not the best idea. And again, I am still not sure if Kesavan wasn't trying to blame everything on Chappell. No line in the article suggested that. IF it had, then it would have been a different issue.
 

shankar

International Debutant
Are you suggesting that Chappell isn't 'straight-talking'?
No I'm not. The author's simply saying that he disagrees with the simplistic analysis of stereotyping Australians as straight-talking and Indians as otherwise and positing that as the reasons for the so called debacle.
 

shankar

International Debutant
Those who spread those ideas are very few compared to the no. of guys who have been shouting up and down that the only reason India lost is because of Chappell, including some ex-cricketers. I think addressing the fact that the players played poorly and that the seniors failed to show the way would have made a better column. And again, in the article, he distinctly gives the impression of blaming everything on Chappell. You post an article in your cricket blog right after the match when India were knocked out of the WC, people would naturally expect it to address the reasons why India lost. To focus on one thing given the timing of the article is not the best idea. And again, I am still not sure if Kesavan wasn't trying to blame everything on Chappell. No line in the article suggested that. IF it had, then it would have been a different issue.
Nope I don't see it at all. Look at the title of the piece - 'Indians are like that'. Look at the following lines:

The players who disliked him complain about how manipulative he was. They might be wrong and self-interested but it's odd that ....

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 aim of the article is not to look into the reasons for the defeat at all. It's purpose is altogether different.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
No I'm not. The author's simply saying that he disagrees with the simplistic analysis of stereotyping Australians as straight-talking and Indians as otherwise and positing that as the reasons for the so called debacle.
But that is deep routed and doesn't just apply to cricket.


Try answering why so many "quiz" questions in India are based on western music? Its not like there is no music in INdia, is it? And the same about movies.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Nope I don't see it at all. Look at the title of the piece - 'Indians are like that'. Look at the following lines:

The players who disliked him complain about how manipulative he was. They might be wrong and self-interested but it's odd that ....

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 aim of the article is not to look into the reasons for the defeat at all. It's purpose is altogether different.
yeah, I did. Again, is he trying to say that INdians CAN handle a straight talking coach?


There were problems with Chappell, yes and he almost seemed obsessed with removing certain players from the side just as he was obsessed with bringing in certain guys. I am sure he had the best of intentions and the guys he did want to drop or play at a different position didn't really have the performances to demand otherwise. But still, it was the wrong way to go about it.


But having said all that, it is still obvious that Indians have a problem hearing the truth, esp. when it comes forcefully. Chappell told Ganguly that it would be better for him as a batsman if he gave up captaincy and that it would help the team as well. Fully true, AFAIC, given the way Ganguly was playing at that time.

The problem was that once Sourav refused to listen to him, Chappell went around giving away stories to the media as rumours trying to get the message across. That was his problem and for that, I am sure we are better off without him as our senior team coach, but to suggest that this proves that most Indians DON'T have a problem with straight-talking people is sheer absurdity.


I work in an office where even an email to the effect of "Try to grasp the concepts better next time" is seen as rude and in your face, when, for our clients, it is just matter-of-fact. I am not saying that THAT approach is the best, far from it...... There are situations when that style will work and there are situations when the being nice style will work but that is about it.
 

shankar

International Debutant
HB, I'm not interested in debating whether the author's point is right or wrong. I'm just explaining why the article's concentrating on Chappell and not on the senior players.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No I'm not. The author's simply saying that he disagrees with the simplistic analysis of stereotyping Australians as straight-talking and Indians as otherwise and positing that as the reasons for the so called debacle.
:thumbup1: Two of my most hated pethates. Glad to see you share them.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
But having said all that, it is still obvious that Indians have a problem hearing the truth, esp. when it comes forcefully.
Tbh HB, that's BS. As Kesavan said, it's orientalist nonsense. Sure. there are cultural differences, but comments such as yours above just make me rue that people are still willing to unwittingly reinforce tired, inaccurate and stupid stereotypes.
 

pup11

International Coach
We all say John Wright was a great coach, but his odi record is only as good as Chappell's odi record as the coach of the Indian team, if anything India has a better record under Chappell's tenure as coach in Test matches (especially in away Test's) compared to John Wright.



The thing that made Chappell a villian was that when he saw something wrong he said it was wrong, but people involved in Indian cricket can't stand such attitude.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
yeah, I did. Again, is he trying to say that INdians CAN handle a straight talking coach?


There were problems with Chappell, yes and he almost seemed obsessed with removing certain players from the side just as he was obsessed with bringing in certain guys. I am sure he had the best of intentions and the guys he did want to drop or play at a different position didn't really have the performances to demand otherwise. But still, it was the wrong way to go about it.


But having said all that, it is still obvious that Indians have a problem hearing the truth, esp. when it comes forcefully. Chappell told Ganguly that it would be better for him as a batsman if he gave up captaincy and that it would help the team as well. Fully true, AFAIC, given the way Ganguly was playing at that time.

The problem was that once Sourav refused to listen to him, Chappell went around giving away stories to the media as rumours trying to get the message across. That was his problem and for that, I am sure we are better off without him as our senior team coach, but to suggest that this proves that most Indians DON'T have a problem with straight-talking people is sheer absurdity.


I work in an office where even an email to the effect of "Try to grasp the concepts better next time" is seen as rude and in your face, when, for our clients, it is just matter-of-fact. I am not saying that THAT approach is the best, far from it...... There are situations when that style will work and there are situations when the being nice style will work but that is about it.
Totally agree with the above and I dont think it is too far off from truth. Dasa and others like him find it hard to accept but that's because they probably don't fit the above mostly because of their exposure to Aussie/foreign culture. (I hope they take it as a compliment and not as a personal attack on them.)
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
We all say John Wright was a great coach, but his odi record is only as good as Chappell's odi record as the coach of the Indian team, if anything India has a better record under Chappell's tenure as coach in Test matches (especially in away Test's) compared to John Wright.
Dude JW took India to the WC finals, Chappell's team couldn't make it to super-8. JW built a team, which Chappell destoyed.

The thing that made Chappell a villian was that when he saw something wrong he said it was wrong, but people involved in Indian cricket can't stand such attitude.
Chappell is a poor coach, horrible man manager, please accept it. Obviously Indian cricket (BCCI/Players/media) are to blame as well but it doesn't mean whatever Chappell said or did was right. Chappell's biggest problem was that he pitted players against each other, pitted players/media against each other and that's a terrible situation. No one wants a coach like that. No one could trust him.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Totally agree with the above and I dont think it is too far off from truth. Dasa and others like him find it hard to accept but that's because they probably don't fit the above mostly because of their exposure to Aussie/foreign culture. (I hope they take it as a compliment and not as a personal attack on them.)
I don't agree with it because it's just reinforcing the same tired old stereotypes that have been used to subjugate people for decades. There are cultural differences which I recognise, but it's irresponsible and foolish to simply paint the issue as "Indians can't handle him" - it's belittling and offensive, and Kesavan rightly pointed that out. Tbh, it's just as offensive to say that Australians are always forthright and "straight-talking" - another point that was quite prominent in the discussion surrounding this issue. Again, just stupid stereotypes. It's odd as well because Greg Chappell hasn't really been known for being a "straight talker" as far as I know...that's something I've heard about Ian Chappell rather than Greg....it's almost like some elements of the media turned straight to the stereotypes.
 
Last edited:

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
There were problems with Chappell, yes and he almost seemed obsessed with removing certain players from the side just as he was obsessed with bringing in certain guys. I am sure he had the best of intentions and the guys he did want to drop or play at a different position didn't really have the performances to demand otherwise. But still, it was the wrong way to go about it.
Why does there have to be a wrong and a right way. This is a professional squad of mature adults who are the best paid sportsmen in the game.

Why do people at this level need to be "Motivated" ?? They are professionals, not a school team.

If they cant deal with the fact that they are dropped because of their performance then just too bloody bad.

I think the problem lies in the fact that Indians really start believing that cricket is a religion and the players are gods.

The problem was that once Sourav refused to listen to him, Chappell went around giving away stories to the media as rumours trying to get the message across. That was his problem and for that, I am sure we are better off without him as our senior team coach, but to suggest that this proves that most Indians DON'T have a problem with straight-talking people is sheer absurdity.
Firstly I have trouble believing that it happened as simply as that(Chappel leaking his views to the press, did't Dalmia leak the email??) even if it did, Indian cricket is so deeply immersed in politics that a cricket coach has to be a seasoned politician as well to be effective, which is really rubbish. But to his credit Chappel managed both Ganguly and Dalmia. And Ganguly returned a better player.
Why would India be better off without Chappel?? Because he played the political game that had to be played to get the results he wanted? Is it his fault that Indian cricket is seeped in politics or should the coach of the cricket team not play politics and just accept his fate??

I work in an office where even an email to the effect of "Try to grasp the concepts better next time" is seen as rude and in your face, when, for our clients, it is just matter-of-fact. I am not saying that THAT approach is the best, far from it...... There are situations when that style will work and there are situations when the being nice style will work but that is about it.
Why do we have to even discuss what "style" or "method" should be used to deal with the Indian team ? Do you hear the Aussies or the South Africans discussing something like this. Only Prima Donnas need to be handled, not real professional cricketers.
 

sirdj

State Vice-Captain
Dude JW took India to the WC finals, Chappell's team couldn't make it to super-8. JW built a team, which Chappell destoyed.
Chappel did not distroy the Indian team, they just got eliminated in a tournament.
You seem to be willing to overlook the performance of the team during his entire tenure as a coach and concentrate on the WC loss. That if I may point out is a very typical Indian attitude. The world cup is after all just a tournament and India has not fared too well in the last 20 years. The only difference this year is that India lost to Bangladesh which I very much doubt is Chappel's fault. He did not make Sachin bat the way he did, neither did he get Yuvraj, Dhoni and the rest hole out.

Chappell is a poor coach, horrible man manager, please accept it. Obviously Indian cricket (BCCI/Players/media) are to blame as well but it doesn't mean whatever Chappell said or did was right. Chappell's biggest problem was that he pitted players against each other, pitted players/media against each other and that's a terrible situation. No one wants a coach like that. No one could trust him.
You seem quite sure of what you have to say. Do you really think that the cricket gossip columns are any more credible than the film gossip columns?
You say he pitted player against player, isn't that hearsay?
Do you have an example with evidence?
The closest that you may have is the Ganguly incident. It started with Harbhajan and Co saying things against him. Which is more evidence of a group within the Indian squad with the then Captain as the lead who happen to be more powerful than the coach. Is that an acceptable situation. Is it ok for idiots like Harbhajan to say things against the coach to the media? What is the coach supposed to do in such a situation??
a. Accept his fate?
b. Go back home and cry?
c. Deal with the situation?

You say that no one wants a coach like that. But he did deal with a political situation which was not his creation in the first place.
No one could trust him implies that there was trust in the squad in the first place. The only trust that existed was in the little group that Ganguly was leading and that they would be selected no matter what.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Dude JW took India to the WC finals, Chappell's team couldn't make it to super-8. JW built a team, which Chappell destoyed.
I don't understand how you can say he destroyed it. As I think I said in another thread he shouldn't get the praise if India did well and he shouldn't be blamed (that much) if India do poorly. I believe that with most coaches as a rule. Also, losing two matches in the WC isn't running a side into the ground. What if we had a similar system to 1999? Australia would have been out already when they lost 2 of the first 3 games. Could you accuse Geoff Marsh of destroying the team? No. India were unlucky, as were Pakistan that they had two bad performances that happened to be WC group games where there was no room for it. Saying anything else is an overreaction in my books.

I'm not saying Chappell was a good coach, but I am saying he didn't destroy India. You're, imo, projecting your dislike for Chappell as a coach onto the teams failures, unfairly.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Chappel did not distroy the Indian team, they just got eliminated in a tournament.
You seem to be willing to overlook the performance of the team during his entire tenure as a coach and concentrate on the WC loss. That if I may point out is a very typical Indian attitude. The world cup is after all just a tournament and India has not fared too well in the last 20 years. The only difference this year is that India lost to Bangladesh which I very much doubt is Chappel's fault. He did not make Sachin bat the way he did, neither did he get Yuvraj, Dhoni and the rest hole out.
What is this typical attitude? I certainly haven't seen a typical attitude on CW or anywhere else. What I have seen is a vast array of opinions and viewpoints that differ quite abit on the current situation. I haven't seen a so called 'typical' attitude at all really.
 

Top