Thats a bizarre article. It assigns blame - picks the culprit so to speak based on some patently faulty evidence.
Such as: ODI's Ganguly 45-60 against non-minnows Dravid 31-27 against non-minnows
0-0 against an "experienced" New Zealand, who at their best have won nothing in Test cricket is good..... (India conceded 600 in Mohali and followed on), but 1-1 against a "depleted" England (the full England had beaten everyone, including Australia at that point) is bad!
Besides, its obviously not as simple as "a failure of leadership" - thats a narrow, inadequate measure of the situation.
The personnel between 2000 and 2007 was not the same - it aged, some players were dropped, other newcomers came in.
1 comment:
Thats a bizarre article. It assigns blame - picks the culprit so to speak based on some patently faulty evidence.
Such as:
ODI's
Ganguly 45-60 against non-minnows
Dravid 31-27 against non-minnows
0-0 against an "experienced" New Zealand, who at their best have won nothing in Test cricket is good..... (India conceded 600 in Mohali and followed on), but 1-1 against a "depleted" England (the full England had beaten everyone, including Australia at that point) is bad!
Besides, its obviously not as simple as "a failure of leadership" - thats a narrow, inadequate measure of the situation.
The personnel between 2000 and 2007 was not the same - it aged, some players were dropped, other newcomers came in.
Its quite a ridiculous argument really....
Post a Comment