Re: Kaif to play in XI


Mike Holmans wrote:

> You may well disagree with Chappell's opinion about Ganguly's present
> and future worth (hypothetically - I have no more evidence than you
> have about what Chappell's real opinion is), but what is your beef
> with this as a general procedure? What is the coach supposed to do -
> not tell the selectors what his opinion is? And if the selectors find
> his advice sound and act on it, why have they done wrong or acted
> duplicitously?

No beef about it as a general procedure. I have plenty of beef about
the subsequent coverup where selectors claim it was unanimous, claim it
was a close call, and make it seem as though they're acting
unilaterally without the coach's involvement so as to insulate the
coach from public criticism.

The further beef I have is that they have tried to say it is all based
on performance reasons, and that Ganguly missed out narrowly. It is
not, and he did not. The decision was a non-Cricketing one to the
extent that it stemmed from Chappell's personal dislike of Ganguly.
This is also duplicitous, in my view; in yours, it may not matter.

I've maintained all along that I have no issue with the substance of
the decision, just the form in which it has been conveyed and
presented. For substance over form, end justifies the means, "We got
rid of Saddam, so whether or not there were WMDs really doesn't matter"
adherents, this probably doesn't matter, and that's fine. My problem is
that Chappell's ego has led to the selectors being duplicitous about
their true reasons for dropping Ganguly, and that they haven't been man
(or woman) enough to come out and say what really motivated them.

> You make various accusations about this being all to do with
> Chappell's ego. Could you explain that? Why is it evidence of a
> monstrous ego if a coach says that he thinks one of the players is
> rubbish?

Evidence of ego because the ego is compelling selectors and coach to be
dishonest and lie about their true reasons for dropping Ganguly. I
would much rather they came out and said "Chappell hates his guts,
Dravid doesn't much like the way he doesn't joke around with the rest
of the side, so we're dumping him". Against the backdrop of (a)
Chappell saying performance is his sole criteria for selection (rather
than whether or not said player gets down on his knees and gives me the
treatment I want) and (b) Pawar saying this is a new, more transparent
era for Indian Cricket, I find this disappointing.

> The evidence that the Gangulites are producing seems to
> consist of saying "(40 + 39 > 0 + 77*) => Ganguly is better than
> Yuvraj", which is a singularly Gafoolite argument, whereas Chappell is
> presumably relying on evidence of the senses gathered while watching
> cricket and cricket practice.

And personal disagreements with Ganguly and dislike for his attitude.
Chappell's ego comes in there, too, and I disagree with that as a
criteria for dropping a player. (I maintain that Micky Stewart was
wrong, even if you can see the seeds of Fletcher there.) But beside
that, it's the dishonesty to which I object. You may not see it as
dishonest and may not particularly think it matters, but I do. I've
maintained all along that I'd pretty much have selected Yuvraj for this
Test too, but that I would have considered him as an opener. Where I
disagree radically with what's happened is in terms of the way it's
been presented. That presentation has been an orchestrated litany of
lies, and has now resulted in Kaif playing ahead of Ganguly.

> It's sad to see someone who so often ridicules blind prejudice backed
> up with nonsense using precisely the same weaponry in this debate.

If expecting people to be honest about the reasons for their decisions
is blind prejudice and nonsense, than I guess I'm a Gafoolite this
time. What I've got from you, though, is more of the "end justifies the
means" reasoning. I've been trained not to accept it, maybe you can.
That's not really a luxury I have in the career I'm embarking on and
the thinking processes that have been drilled into me.

Feel free to disagree, that's fine. Maybe the English selectors have a
greater track record of honesty and giving the real reasons behind
their decision. The Indians certainly don't. When the person who puts
them in charge campaigns on the basis of greater openness and
transparency in board matters, then it's doubly disappointing.

Aditya

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kaif to play in XI
    ... >> You may well disagree with Chappell's opinion about Ganguly's present ... >> not tell the selectors what his opinion is? ... >> Chappell's ego. ... >> The evidence that the Gangulites are producing seems to ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: New Zogby Poll by the Discovery Institute
    ... Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's ... theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. ... Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly ... evidence should be taught in science classes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New Zogby Poll by the Discovery Institute
    ... theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. ... Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly ... is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific ... enough to science to give it the benefit of the doubt. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedal Orrorin?
    ... > species do; it's also a fact that many highly terrestrial species ... it's "a fact that the most common reason for reduced fur is ... >>runs into the one tiny little piece of evidence that does not fit the ... >>and you are most welcome to disagree. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal Orrorin?
    ... reduced fur is aquaticism. ... You're right, a theory has to look at *all* the evidence, but the ... >narcissism" substituting for anything that approaches a scientific ... >and you are most welcome to disagree. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading