.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Thursday, October 06, 2005

One for the road

Work calls -- and I appear to have culled the most notable of stories in the Indian press of date anyways.
In passing, will leave you with the latest column by my favorite cricketer-writer.
Later, guys.

16 Comments:

  • 5 Questions with Ben Hwang
    Can the Triad become another San Francisco, all tech-cool and music hip? Ben Hwang thinks so.
    Find out how you can buy & sell anything, like things related to music on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like music!

    By Blogger Jerry Simpson, at 12:44  

  • Good one from Akash. Gillespie's sudden loss of form is very surprising. Cant understand how a bowler loses form all of a sudden.

    By Blogger vshan, at 12:48  

  • Akash is definitely one of the better writers around. However, I would really like him to write more about issues pertaining to indian cricket. All of his articles are related to the county circuit or about other international teams and players.

    By Blogger blueboy, at 12:55  

  • blueboy

    I tend to disagree . I think Akash's articles come like a breath of fresh air . This GC-SG saga has been suffocating . Akash writes how and what goes through a cricketer's mind , on and off the field and doesnt bother to whine about issues which he cant control .

    Adi

    By Blogger Adi, at 13:11  

  • great article!!

    one thing that struck my mind was the last para. i saw SG into it. a great player struggling to make an impression....... i wish both these guys a very best of luck!!

    By Blogger Mayur, at 13:15  

  • Last tour down under, whatever India achieved in mainly because of good opening partnerships.

    AC was the key person. He played out new ball....helped ease STARS nerves in dressing room. VS was playing at other end, but, very mercurial innings.

    AC was axed by SG to favor 'talented batsman' YS.

    I hope AC get's a chance again...but may not..becos Gambhir is playing well.

    By Blogger Rajg, at 13:20  

  • rajg: you are right... SG sacrificed AC to come back into the team and I think that was the turning point in his captaincy. I suspect thin cracks appeared in the team because of the decision and with every subsequent outing the cracks have widened and deepend. Sad.. really sad, I really admired SG for his leadership quality, but this one folly and subsequent politics has made me reluctantly raise the remove SG flag. I am still waiting for deliverance...

    By Blogger saum, at 13:27  

  • You need to be lucky at times, only talent isn't enough. If the team is doing well and you've done just about okay, you still hold on to your place (like Ian Bell in the Ashes). But God forbid, if your poor form coincides with the team's dismal showing, you could be history. Cricket can be a cruel game.

    I sense a bit of bitterness here. Also, if he considers Ian Bell lucky, it is easy to guess who the unlucky person not mentioned in the paragraph could be. I hope, just like his columns, which are refreshing, his mind remains optimistic too.

    By Blogger Toney, at 13:41  

  • Check this article...esp the views expressed for a captain...and greg's comments..
    Interesting Read

    By Blogger Ginkgo, at 13:58  

  • gingko,
    Roebuck, I thought was a good writer but this article you pointed to, seems to be aimed at taking a swipe at SG, Inzi, Akhtar for no reason. For eg, I had read his view of the SG issue, the north-side divide in INdina cricket etc sometime earlier. I am not sure if it was him or Andrew Miller who wrote that though. It is alright for him to have his own opinion on any issue. But does he have to ridicule people in the process.

    And while I dont entirely agree with Inzi starting off his post-match comments with greetings to "his god", I didnt like Roebuck's tone in describing either that or the Paki players' faith. I dont think that had any significance when you write about the ROW team. And it wasnt in good taste to liken Inzi to cattle on the field either.
    The good parts of the article would have looked better if such poorly written parts were omitted.

    By Blogger Toney, at 14:21  

  • Prem: will leave you with the latest column by my favorite cricketer-writer.
    Thanks, He's become my favorite cricketer writer too. I agree with Toney here and hope that AC stays as optimistic as ever. As for AC's statement about luck, don't you think that it has to be impressed upon our selectors that it is sacrilegious to disturb a winning combination regardless of the nature of the contributions from the individual elements?
    IMHO, axing a non-performing member of a WINNING combination tantamounts to lack of faith in the excluded member (and ergo, in their own earlier decision to add him to the tour party) and insults the ability of the other ten who might definitely have it in them to succeed without support from the excluded party. I think, it is like saying that India got lucky that they won even without Akash Chopra performing, which is obvsly an insult to the abilities of Sachin, Dravid and the others. Similarly there should be sufficient evidence to axe someone and ideally till we have a perfect replacement, I don't think a valid reason exists to exclude someone like Chopra, particularly with the nature of the reasons given!
    And Prem, pls do point him out to these comments from all of us, if you ever correspond with/meet/speak to him in the near future. I am not sure whether HT allows comments/feedback to go to the authors. And he needs to know that Sachin, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly are not only the stars of this team that fans in India care about.

    By Blogger anantha, at 14:47  

  • although he starts off writing about gillespe, towards the end it could have been about himself. i dunno how well bell played before the ashes but chopra did not fail in as many innings as he did in the ashes and if i'm not mistaken we were winning tests when he was in the team. doesnt seem like he's gonna get any chance in the near future, then again nothing's certain in indian cricket

    By Blogger JD, at 14:52  

  • --
    You need to be lucky at times, only talent isn't enough. If the team is doing well and you've done just about okay, you still hold on to your place (like Ian Bell in the Ashes). But God forbid, if your poor form coincides with the team's dismal showing, you could be history. Cricket can be a cruel game.
    --
    Is it not true of life, in general. Replace "Cricket" with "life". "Team" with "family" or "business".

    Very perceptive chap. His English is good too

    By Blogger losing now, at 14:56  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger losing now, at 14:56  

  • yeah, if only he could play some strokes

    By Blogger J, at 15:16  

  • Toney, you stole the words right out of my mouth. I got the same idea reading the end of that article. There is, however, something very dignified about the way he conveyed it, unlike the artless bickering that's going on right now between his captain and coach. I think it was unfair to have left him out.

    As for Roebuck's article, I always get the impression from reading his articles about Indian cricketers that he wants to sound knowledgeable about the culture and lifestyles, but doesn't do enough research towards it. As a result, he just comes off as mildly ignorant. I think he writes well when he writes about Australians and Englishmen, but he seems to be lazy when it comes to researching the material he writes. I know that everytime he writes about Laxman, he gets all poetic (who doesn't), but the minute he starts to place Laxman's traits in the context of his background, he fails miserably.

    To j: To say that Chopra couldn't play strokes is inaccurate. He scored 50s against NZ at a fairly decent pace. It seemed that his style of play was part of the gameplan to see the new ball off and attack with the middle order. In any case, what matters is not how many runs he makes, but how many the team scores. With Chopra in the side, we were getting big scores consistently, and without him we haven't. If this was a coincidence I can understand Chopra being dropped. But it wasn't, it was on account of the protection Chopra provided to the middle-order.

    By Blogger Sudo Nima, at 19:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home