A blog by Â(c)hinaman

Even after our embarrassing performance at the world cup,
after the exposures of the sting operation “Clean Bowled”
there still appears to be so-called Indian fans who believes that Chappell did nothing wrong.

So let us have a look at Chappell’s infamous email that so conveniently for him,
was leaked to the public.

We have never been given the opportunity to read Ganguly’s reply.

You’ve got mail – The Ganguly-Chappell stand-off
Cricinfo staff: September 25, 2005

[The full text of Greg Chappell's e-mail to the BCCI. This was first shown by India TV and published by DNA in Mumbai.]

Chappell writes…

Due to comments made by Mr Sourav Ganguly during the press conference following his innings in the recently completed Test match in Bulawayo and the subsequent media speculation I would like to make my position clear on two points.

1. At no stage did I ask Mr Ganguly to step down from the captaincy of the Indian team and;
2. At no stage have I threatened to resign my position as Indian team coach.

Mr Ganguly came to me following the recently completed tri-series of one-day matches here in Zimbabwe and asked me to tell him honestly where he stood as a player in my view. I told him that I thought he was struggling as a player and that it was affecting his ability to lead the team effectively and that the pressure of captaincy was affecting his ability to play to his potential. I also told him that his state of mind was fragile and it showed in the way that he made decisions on and off the field in relation to the team, especially team selection. A number of times during the tri-series the tour selectors had chosen a team and announced it to the group only for Sourav to change his mind on the morning of the game and want to change the team.

Chappell contradicts himself later in this email when he says that
it was “less to do with his form but was his attitude…” .
Any opinion about a player’s “attitude” is just that, only a subjective opinion.
On 1 Mar 2006, he declared to Mike Selvey of Guardian UK it was a power struggle.
He has given three different reasons for his actions, yet we still want to believe him.

Chappell writes…

On at least one occasion he did change the team and on the morning of the final I had to talk him out of making another last-minute change that I believe would have destroyed team morale and damaged the mental state of the individuals concerned. I also told Sourav that his nervous state was affecting the team in other ways as he was prone to panic during pressure situations in games and that his nervous demeanour was putting undue pressure on the rest of the team. His nervous pacing of the rooms during our batting in the final plus his desire to change the batting order during our innings in the final had also contributed to nervousness in the players waiting to go in to bat. His reluctance to bat first in games I suggested was also giving wrong signals to the team and the opposition and his nervousness at the crease facing bowlers like Shane Bond from NZ was also affecting morale in the dressing room.

If Ganguly changed the batting order it was detrimental to the team.
But it wasn’t long, before Chappell himself started experimenting with the batting order.
Players were moved around at a moments notice in the name of “flexibility”.

He himself said…
“Flexibility will remain the essence of the Indian team
as it goes into the Champions Trophy and the World Cup
in the West Indies next year”, coach Greg Chappell said here Sunday.

Now is that blatant hypocrisy, or what?

Chappell writes…

On the basis of this and other observations and comments from players in the squad about the unsettling effect Sourav was having on the group I suggested to Sourav that he should consider stepping down from the captaincy at the end of the tour in the interests of the team and in his own best interests if he wanted to prolong his playing career. I told him of my own experiences toward the end of my career and cited other players such as Border, Taylor and Steve Waugh, all of whom struggled with batting form toward the end of their tenure as Australian captain.

We discussed other issues in relation to captaincy and the time and effort it took that was eating into his mental reserves and making it difficult to prepare properly for batting in games. He commented that he had enjoyed being free of those responsibilities in the time that he was in Sri Lanka following his ban from international cricket and that he would consider my suggestion.

I also raised the matter of selection for the first Test with Sourav and asked him where he thought he should bat. He said ‘number 5′. I told him that he might like to consider opening in the Test as the middle order was going to be a tight battle with Kaif and Yuvraj demanding selection. Sourav asked me if I was serious. I said it was something to be considered, but it had to be his decision.

Hold on Mr Chappell.
You, in your opening paragraph state…
“At no stage did I ask Mr Ganguly to step down from the captaincy of the Indian team”.
Are you not proving by self contradicting, that one of your statements has to be a lie?

Chappell writes…

The following day Sourav batted in the match against Zimbabwe ‘A’ team in the game in Mutare. I am not sure of the exact timing of events because I was in the nets with other players when Sourav went in to bat, but the new ball had either just been taken or was imminent when I saw Sourav walking from the field holding his right arm. I assumed he had been hit and made my way to the players’ area where Sourav was receiving treatment from the team physiotherapist, John Gloster.

When I enquired as to what had happened Sourav said he had felt a complained of pain to his elbow at various stages of the one-day series, but he had resisted having any comprehensive investigation done and, from my observation, had been spasmodic in his treatment habits, often some further tests done immediately. Sourav rejected these suggestions and said he would be ‘fine’. When I queried what he meant by ‘fine’ he said he would be fit for the Test match. I then queried why then was it necessary to be off the field now. He said that he was just taking ‘precautions’.

Rather than make a scene with other players and officials in the vicinity I decided to leave the matter and observe what Sourav would do from that point on. After the loss of Kaif, Yuvraj and Karthik to the new ball, Sourav returned to the crease with the ball now around 20 overs old. He struggled for runs against a modest attack and eventually threw his wicket away trying to hit one of the spinners over the leg side.

Everything said here conforms with a diagnosis
of a “lateral epicondylitis” or in lay terms a tennis elbow.
The great John Gloster decided to treat it with ice-packs.
Ice packs have no role in treatment of this disorder.
The further test adviced was an XRay,
which again has no role in diagnosing a soft tissue injury.
It has been documented there were no MRI facilities in Bulawayo.
A proper MRI scan when performed on return confirmed the diagnosis
and Ganguly had proper treatment for his ‘tennis elbow’.

My questions to the BCCI,
Is Chappell qualified in sports medicine?
What knowledge or qualifications does he have in not only commenting,
but also criticising Ganguly for his injury?
Yet no one ever asked for an explanation from Chappell,
why he had tried to insinuate that Ganguly was trying to fake an injury?

Chappell writes…

The next day I enquired with a number of the players as to what they had thought of Sourav’s retirement. The universal response was that it was ‘just Sourav’ as they recounted a list of times when Sourav had suffered from mystery injuries that usually disappeared as quickly as they had come. This disturbed me because it confirmed for me that he was in a fragile state of mind and it was affecting the mental state of other members of the squad.

In one paragraph he writes he did not want to make a scene with other players,
but then that is what he does. He drags in opinion from other players.
He then uses that as a ‘hearsay evidence’.
If a player has complained of an injury,
it is a matter between the player, the physio, the medical support and or specialists.
The coach has no right to drag other players to make comments.

Chappell writes…

When we arrived in Bulawayo I decided I needed to ask Sourav if he had over-played the injury to avoid the danger period of the new ball as it had appeared to me and others within the touring party that he had protected himself at the expense of others. He denied the suggestion and asked why he would do that against such a modest attack. I said that he was the only one who could answer that question.

What audacity of a coach to question the integrity of the captain of a team.
If the captain has said he is injured,
the coach should accept that and arrange for necessary treatment or support.
Only a person with no sense of honour (remember the underarm delivery?)
will suspect others of doing the same.

Chappell writes…

I was so concerned about the affect that Sourav’s actions were having on the team that I decided I could not wait until selection meeting that evening to inform him that I had serious doubts about picking him for the first Test.

I explained that, in my view, I felt we had to pick Kaif and Yuvraj following their good form in the one-day series and that Sehwag, Gambhir, Laxman and Dravid had to play. He said that his record was better than Kaif and Yuvraj and that they had not proved themselves in Test cricket. I countered with the argument that they had to be given a chance to prove themselves on a consistent basis or we would never know. I also said that their form demanded that they be selected now.

Sourav asked me whether I thought he should be captain of the team. I said that I had serious doubts that he was in the right frame of mind to do it. He asked me if I thought he should step down. I said that it was not my decision to make, that only he could make that decision, but if he did make that decision he had to do it in the right manner or it would have even more detrimental effects than if he didn’t stand down. I said that now was not the time to make the decision but that we should discuss it at the selection meeting to be held later in the day.

Why Mr Chappell,
what effects could Ganguly’s actions had have on the team in a few hours?
Why did you not wait for the selectors meetings?
It was not upto you who was or who was not going to be selected.
As an Indian coach you do not have a vote in selection matters.

Chappell writes…

Sourav then said that if I didn’t want him to be captain that he would inform Rahul Dravid that was going to stand down. I reiterated that it was not my decision to make but he should give it due consideration under the circumstances but not to do it hastily. At that point Sourav went to Rahul and the two of them conferred briefly and then Sourav left the field and entered the dressing room. At that stage I joined the start of the training session.

Too right, Mr Chappell, it was not your decision or your business.
You were just a coach, and not a selector.
Whatever team the selectors give you,
you keep your big mouth shut and carry on with your job, ie to coach.

>Chappell writes…

A short time later Mr Chowdhary came on to the field and informed me that Sourav had told him that I did not want him as captain and that Sourav wanted to leave Zimbabwe immediately if he wasn’t playing. I then joined Mr Chowdhary and Rahul Dravid in the dressing room where we agreed that this was not the outcome that any of us wanted and that the ramifications would not be in the best interests of the team.

We then spent some time with Sourav and eventually convinced him that he should stay on as captain for the two Tests and then consider his future. In my view it was not an ideal solution but it was better than the alternative of him leaving on a bad note. I believe he has earned the right to leave in a fitting manner. We all agreed that this was a matter that should stay between us and should not, under any circumstances, be discussed with the media.

Chappell writes…

The matter remained quiet until the press conference after the game when a journalist asked Sourav if he had been asked to step down before the Test. Sourav replied that he had but he did not want to elaborate and make an issue of it. I was then called to the press conference where I was asked if I knew anything of Sourav being asked to step down before the game. I replied that a number of issues had been raised regarding selection but as they were selection matters I did not wish to make any further comment.

Has anyone ever asked or investigated how this journalist
became aware that Ganguly had been asked to step down from his captaincy.
We are now aware that Chappell himself was leaking news
from the dressing room with SMS text messages to the press.
Is it not possible that he deliberately leaked the news
so that Ganguly would have to make a statement in the open.

Chappell writes…

Apart from a brief interview on ESPN before which I emphasized that I did not wish to discuss the issue because it was a selection matter I have resisted all other media approaches on the matter.

Since then various reports have surfaced that I had threatened to resign. I do not know where that rumour has come from because I have spoken to no one in regard to this because I have no intention of resigning. I assume that some sections of the media, being starved of information, have made up their own stories.

Chappell writes…

At the completion of the Test match I was approached by VVS Laxman with a complaint that Sourav had approached him on the eve of the Test saying that I had told Sourav that I did not want Laxman in the team for Test matches. I denied that I had made such a remark to Sourav, or anybody else for that matter, as, on the contrary, I saw Laxman as an integral part of the team. He asked how Sourav could have said what he did. I said that the only way we could go to the bottom of the matter was to speak to Sourav and have him repeat the allegation in front of me.

I arranged for a meeting with the two of them that afternoon. The meeting took place just after 6pm in my room at the Rainbow Hotel in Bulawayo. I told Sourav that Laxman had come to me complaining that Sourav had made some comments to Laxman prior to the Test. I asked Sourav if he would care to repeat the comment in my presence. Sourav then rambled on about how I had told him that I did not see a place for Laxman in one-day cricket, something that I had discussed with Sourav and the selection panel and about which I had spoken to Laxman at the end of the Sri Lankan tour.

Sourav mentioned nothing about the alleged conversation regarding Laxman and Test cricket even when I pushed him on it later in the discussion. As we had to leave for a team function we ended the conversation without Sourav adequately explaining his comments to Laxman.

Again, this is not an isolated incident because I have had other players come to me regarding comments that Sourav had made to them that purports to be comments from me to Sourav about the particular player. In each case the comments that Sourav has passed on to the individual are figments of Sourav’s imagination. One can only assume that he does it to unnerve the individual who, in each case, has been a middle order batsman.

Sourav has missed the point of my discussions with him on this matter. It has less to do with his form than it does with his attitude toward the team. Everything he does is designed to maximise his chance of success and is usually detrimental to someone else’s chances.

He considered Laxman as an integral part of the team?!!!
How long was it before Laxman was left out of the team?
The sting operation revealed:
Chappell was always complaining,
he wanted to tell the guys that he was the boss,
he never liked the way things were done.
Chappell had certain plans:
Dravid is required, Sourav and Sachin are not required.
This was a divide and rule policy which was disastrous.”

Now why should we believe him any longer in what ever garbage he had written?

Chappell writes…

Despite meeting with him in Mumbai after his appointment as captain and speaking with him about these matters and his reluctance to do the preparation and training that is expected of everyone else in the squad he continues to set a bad example.

Greg King’s training reports continue to show Sourav as the person who does the least fitness and training work based on the criterion that has been developed by the support staff to monitor the work load of all the players.

We have also developed parameters of batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy that we believe embodies the ‘Commitment to Excellence’ theme that I espoused at my interview and Sourav falls well below the acceptable level in all areas. I will be pleased to present this documentation when I meet with the special committee in Mumbai later this month.

I can assure you sir that all my actions in this matter, and all others since my appointment, have been with the aim of improving the team performance toward developing a team that will represent India with distinctions in Test match and one-day cricket.

As I said to you during our meeting in Colombo, I have serious reservations about the attitude of some players and about Sourav and his ability to take this team to a new high, and none of the things he has done since his reappointment has caused me to change my view. In fact, it has only served to confirm that it is time for him to move on and let someone else build their team toward the 2007 World Cup.

This team has been made to be fearful and distrusting by the rumour mongering and deceit that is Sourav’s modus operandi of divide and rule. Certain players have been treated with favour, all of them bowlers, while others have been shunted up and down the order or left out of the team to suit Sourav’s whims.

We now read that in a sting operation by a TV channel,
selectors Bhupinder Singh Senior, Sanjay Jagdale, Venkatapathy Raju and Ranjeeb Biswal
were shown as saying that Greg Chappellâ?(tm)s divide and rule policy,
and his inability to tide over the rifts in the team because of his ego,
led to the team performing poorly.

This is a man, who blamed Ganguly for causing divisions
when four selectors have said that it was Chappell himself
who had adopted divide and rule policy.

Anyone who is found to be guilty of lying on one issue,
automatically loses credibility of everything he says.

This email to the BCCI was just a pack of lies.
He had to move Ganguly out in a power struggle,
and did not hesitate to stoop down and resort to
dishonesty and deliberate lying to succeed.

Chappell writes…

John Wright obviously allowed this to go on to the detriment of the team. I am not prepared to sit back and allow this to continue or we will get the same results we have been seeing for some time now.

It is time that all players were treated with fairness and equity and that good behaviours and attitudes are rewarded at the selection table rather than punished.

I can assure you of my very best intentions.
Yours sincerely,
Greg Chappell MBE

Â(c) Cricinfo

When Ganguly returned to the team and proved everyone wrong,
Chappell was quoted to have said,
…“I look at it as one of my success stories,“ Chappell said in an interview to The Hindu.
“He has resurrected his batting and could play
another three years for India, which is fantastic.
The only way he could address certain issues was
to spend some time away reassessing all of his goals and ambitions.
Somebody had to tell him that”.

Can anyone reading this arrogant and vindictive email,
written behind Ganguly’s back, ever believe was all done in good faith?
Can anyone have any doubts as to how shameless this man can be?

I will again say,
only those who wants to see Rahul Dravid continue as a captain,
will still deny any wrong doings.
For if they admit any wrong doing,
they will have to answer a very important question.

A question I will continue to ask,
what was Rahul Dravid doing all this time?
Did Chappell buy his silence with a promise of captaincy?

Bookmark this on Delicious