***Official Australia in India***

[andruid]

Hussey and Watto to drag Australia kicking and sreaming back into the game with a massive 150+ run partnership.

 

[social]

They make it out as though they are praising him but concentrating on the Nagpur thing is just cheap... There is something called seeing the positives when someone is calling it quits and I do think he has achieved enough to not let that one bad point sour his career........

You obviously missed India's tour to NZ in 2002/03 (where Ganguly turned on without doubt the most disgracefully childish and selfish performance I've ever seen from a professional sportsman) if you think that this is an isolated example

Ganguly has had an excellent career but his constant whinging and selfishness should leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth

 

[Precambrian]

It's the most honest Australian piece of writing on Ganguly I've ever read. To lambust him with praise would be falsehood, that's not how the majority of Australians see him. Instead, they hail the good and comment on what we don't like about him.

12 years, 7,000 runs, 16 100s and yet the article throws up a Nagpur and a County incident to "highlight" his career? I understand Australians' mentality of Ganguly. However this was selective journalism at its best.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Didn't see much of today's play as I was running errands for most of it () & missed Mishra's spell completely (highlights tonight at 11, FFS), but a bit of Nicholas's commentry made me take note. Called Siddle a "country Victorian lad" with a "very uncomplicated approach to cricket" & was an "uncomplicated thinker", which sounds rather like a euphemism for being a bit thick. He got that rep at all?

 

[Manee]

Didn't see much of today's play as I was running errands for most of it () & missed Mishra's spell completely (highlights tonight at 11, FFS), but a bit of Nicholas's commentry made me take note. Called Siddle a "country Victorian lad" with a "very uncomplicated approach to cricket" & was an "uncomplicated thinker", which sounds rather like a euphemism for being a bit thick. He got that rep at all?

It could just be a tremendously simple deduction from the woodchopper background and uncomplicated bowling action.

 

[Bracken]

12 years, 7,000 runs, 16 100s and yet the article throws up a Nagpur and a County incident to "highlight" his career? I understand Australians' mentality of Ganguly. However this was selective journalism at its best.

Actually, as far as journalistic integrity and ability goes, this far, FAR better than most of the articles on this subject.

He could have wasted his time and reefed out essentially the same fellatory fawning as the vast majority of (less creative and original) journos around the world have already done, or he could try and look at the story from a slightly different angle, and point out the enigmatic contradiction that Ganguly has been throughout his career.

The article pointed out Ganguly's cricketing ability, leadership nous, mental toughness and undoubted success- all qualities that his intended (Australian) audience generally respect and admire- while contrasting these talents with events from Ganguly's history that have made him something of a conundrum.

The opinionist's job is two-fold: He wants to write accurate, well-reasoned columns; and he wants those columns to be interesting and unique enough to draw in as many readers as possible. It's not his job to be a fanboy.

(And, by extension, he wants to make his employer a lot of money. But you get my drift.)

The writer did his job in both respects, and it is nowhere near as dismissive and insulting as some here are making it out to be. On the contrary, it is actually quite complimentary overall, despite the included negatives.

 

[Precambrian]

Actually, as far as journalistic integrity and ability goes, this far, FAR better than most of the articles on this subject.

He could have wasted his time and reefed out essentially the same fellatory fawning as the vast majority of (less creative and original) journos around the world have already done, or he could try and look at the story from a slightly different angle, and point out the enigmatic contradiction that Ganguly has been throughout his career.

The article pointed out Ganguly's cricketing ability, leadership nous, mental toughness and undoubted success- all qualities that his intended (Australian) audience generally respect and admire- while contrasting these talents with events from Ganguly's history that have made him something of a conundrum.

The opinionist's job is two-fold: He wants to write accurate, well-reasoned columns; and he wants those columns to be interesting and unique enough to draw in as many readers as possible. It's not his job to be a fanboy.

(And, by extension, he wants to make his employer a lot of money. But you get my drift.)

The writer did his job in both respects, and it is nowhere near as dismissive and insulting as some here are making it out to be. On the contrary, it is actually quite complimentary overall, despite the included negatives.

Simple to deduct that the writer played to the gallery. Fair enough, considering he has to write what his readers would want to read. I am not against it, but it still classifies as selective and unbalanced.

 

[Bracken]

...but it still classifies as selective and unbalanced.

No, as I explained above, it doesn't. It's an opinion piece, not a news report.

His article wasn't "Ganguly retires, let's all strap on the knee pads", it was "Ganguly retires, look at what an interesting riddle the guy has been". When you get your head around that fact, the article was entirely balanced and inclusive.

If he offended your sensibilities by not bowing at Ganguly's greatness, then fair enough, but there's nothing wrong with the article as it was written.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It could just be a tremendously simple deduction from the woodchopper background and uncomplicated bowling action.

Probably the more likely explanation, yeah. Have to say that Siddle doesn't look the deepest of thinkers but, to be fair, he's probably far from unique in that respect amongst sporting persons.

 

[viktor]

lol Sanz... what better do you expect from those guys?????? IIRC, this particular newspaper always seems to come up with stupid stuff like this...

I liked the article. The tone was that of a grudging acknowledgment for a respected enemy. More real than if it had just been a eulogy of his batting skills.

 

[inbox24]

I hope Australia have to follow-on today. Preferable Mishra or Ishant (players with real talent) absolutely rip up Australia's batting lineup (sans Hussey) in the first session of play today and we get bowled out for something under 200 (preferably 171). India then enforce the follow-on with Hayden then getting lbw to Khan again and Katich making a fatal error of judgement to see the openers removed cheaply. Ponting then comes in and looks nervous against the spinners early on as the wickets of Hussey and Clarke continue to fall around him. Watson then joins Ponting at the crease with the latter then going on to make 281 before being caught off the bowling of Ishant Sharma and the former making 180 before being runout. Australia eventually go on the make 657 and the rest is history...

 

[adharcric]

I thought it was a really good article TBH. I've always been a fan of Ganguly the character as such, but his little idiocynricies and inconsistenies are all apart of that. It was truthful, interesting and pretty objective - that's what people want to read, not an endless supply of tributes that all just praise the guy.

Completely agree. You're living in denial if you want an article that portrays him in a purely positive light. Ganguly has meant a lot to India and has been great in many ways but there is plenty of room for criticism.

 

[aussie]

Dropping Johnson is out of the question - he is working hard, bowling well, getting the rewards and has stepped up to the mark when it matters

Clarke, on the other hand, is not dependable when the pressure is on

Personally, I couldnt give a toss whether Symonds ever turned up to another team meeting, photo shoot, whatever - I'd have him in the team every day of the week before Clarke because he delivers when it matters

Clear over-reaction here. I guess when Clarke unexpectedly played in the 1st Ashes test with people questioning his ability as a test batsman wasn't the pressure big then. Come on now..

 

[irfan]

Stage is set for a Watto special.

Blue Steel or Magnum?

 

[Nate]

One look? ONE LOOK?!

 

[morgieb]

102/4. Australia are ****ed.

 

[Craig]

Hey things could be worse, could be NZ

GAGFC

 

[GIMH]

Interesting day's play. No kids here tonight, so will have to wake of my own accord to catch anything tomorrow. Shall try my best, as this is set up to be a fascinating match.

 

[duffer]

Article or no article, Ganguly has infurirated and irritated Australia like noone in the past.

Ranatunga sureley?

 

[Sanz]

I thought it was a really good article TBH. I've always been a fan of Ganguly the character as such, but his little idiocynricies and inconsistenies are all apart of that. It was truthful, interesting and pretty objective - that's what people want to read, not an endless supply of tributes that all just praise the guy.

Completely agree. You're living in denial if you want an article that portrays him in a purely positive light. Ganguly has meant a lot to India and has been great in many ways but there is plenty of room for criticism.

What an utter load of Bull****. So it is a fact that Ganguly faked Injury in Nagpur test ? It is a personal attack on Sourav and completely unfounded accusation. So If Ganguly was fit (for the 3rd test) why didn't he play in Mumbai test ? That toss was a misunderstanding because of the coin used and anyone can have that. Another stupid claim of celebrating with a Red cloth , calling him 'Raj' , talking about his 'odd vegetarian' habits are highly ignorant stuff. Because, there are many Indians who have those 'Odd Vegetarian' habits because of their religious beliefs.

Only valid comment in that article was from John Buchanan, which is right on spot, rest of the article is same old crap that has been reported zillion times in the past.

Coach Buchanan is absolutely right though when he says :-

""Sourav is an engaging fellow, almost contradictory in everything he does. He is so skilful with his batting and bowling, yet so lacking in basic skills when it comes to fitness, running between wickets or ground fielding. He is a great tactician, yet makes many tactical errors. He is so courteous, yet so ignorant of basic human courtesies at times. He can be an inspiring leader, yet can be the wrong person to lead."