ப கு க த

1)“We have a player (Yuvraj) who is doing better. It is not fair to drop him” ,
2)“What we felt was that Yuvraj is in good form and we are looking at future”,
3)The situation is that I don't want Ganguly at number six.

A clear case of personal vendetta - Kiran More the selection committee chair cranium, notorious for changing sides uttered those above golden words
This is totally ridiculous, Gangully has been shown the door in spite of responsible performances in a low scoring game.

“We have a player (Yuvraj) who is doing better - Mr. More? How did you arrive at this blind conclusion? Based on what facts? Yuvraj has played 14 innings till date in test cricket, and has scored about 416 runs while Gangully’s last 14 innings totals to 504. Yes skeptics, I hear Bangladesh etc, Gangully did not schedule it on his own, we cannot write off performances just because opponents are weak. It is not Gangully’s fault to schedule thumb sucking games. Board and ICC schedules matches.

Secondly what about the “experience factor”? When a lack luster and less experienced player like “More” heads the selection committee, why wasn’t Gangully’s experience ever considered? I am sure Gangully’s experience is superior to the aggregate achievements of ex-cricketers in the board. It is not correct for the Indian cricket board to treat a player of such caliber using personal vendetta. A player who has scored more than 1000 runs at least 3 times in a calendar year, a successful caption for India deserves better treatment. Gangully’s experience is definitely an added value to the team.

The replacement seems to be much more political; after lecturing about future value of team etc, they go and get a player from the history book. Wasim Jaffer, he has already been tried and has an average of some 20.change. Why? Did triple century in recent first class game help? Board is trying hard to cover up a pumpkin pie using a plate of rice. Once again the quota devil shows its ugly face. He is a west zone player, 70% of the top level board members are from West Zone. Jaffer’s selection has been influenced by this factor. I have no doubt, why get an opener to replace an all rounder instead? Currently our opener Gambheer is pathetic. The total time Gambheer spends in the middle is equal to the time taken to open a Pepsi bottle; he has failed for quite some time.

Next, if board gives a second chance to player from the history book, then what happened to a bowler called Balaji? Why he is never considered? Agarkar’s performance has been inconsistent always but some how finds his way through, what happened to the future view here? Why not give Balaji another chance? Oh Supernatural being! Please explain me about these double standards.


Renovation to the board has not changed anything, God Father Part 1 , now Part 2
பகுகத - (பழைய குருடி கதவ தரடி/பழைய குருடா கதவ தரட)