For enquiries on advertisements :
Contact Us

A bunch of 
self-seekers
It appears as if Ganguly is playing with 10 wimps. When the captain should lead by example and is expected to carry the team with him, and as is his wont our captain courageous did so on all occasions and even promoted rookies like Patel, Yuvraj, etc... And here we have stalwarts like the ‘Wall’ Dravid, the vain glorious ‘Invincible’ Tendulkar et al. not even uttering a whisper in his favour. They are an amazing bunch of self-seekers, trying to save their own place in the team. Can’t they put up an united front for change and take collective responsibility and tell the BCCI that they would refuse to play if the board cannot have the ban revoked? I’m ashamed to be watching this bunch of spineless wonders than worry about our captain’s suffering this punishment all by himself. Is advice by seniors only meant for bowling changes and field placements on the field? Aren’t they cognisant of the time factor? Can’t anyone of them tell time? God save the Indian ‘Cricket Ship’ and its ‘Captain’.
Sreedharan A T S

Ridiculous
It’s ridiculous that the captain of a big cricket playing nation is held responsible for slow over-rate. Of course, Sourav should have kept an eye on timing but how can anybody expect a sportsman to concentrate on such things when he is under tremendous pressure and horribly out of form. Actually, the bowlers should take the blame too. Has anybody questioned the opposite team when it bowled slow overs? If there is punishment for that; why spare the vice-captain – let him be banned at least for three matches. Since Ganguly is passing through a rough patch and is out of form, everyone is blaming him. But one has to agree that he has some good leadership qualities, and the guts to accept challenges. He should have been sent out for careless batting ce but not in this manner. 
Anand K Naik
Subjective
The world of cricket knows that Saurav has not lost his image among enthusiasts. All the same, the match referee and ICC have to follow rules. It’s a case of ‘no quarters asked for and none given’, either. The slower delivery of overs is unintentional but a violation – even if it’s a mistake and needs to be corrected. The gracious way Saurav, BCCI and the media accepted it is welcome. As a boy I remember that when West Indies bowled 60 odd overs in a day in reply to India's 103 overs in a day (in a test match, in 1958 – possibly in Bombay) there was no rule on the number of overs. ODIs being more restricted, need such rules. It can become mandatory to have an electronic display indicating only the number of overs bowled and the time, and for the match referee to inform the captain of the fielding side of the number of overs bowled, at each drinks interval. Punishment is subjective; a judge may award a sentence of 14 years to a convict for murder or one day, depending on how convinced he is of the man’s crime.
B G Prakash
Other factors
Although Ganguly's ban has helped the selectors. The severity of the punishment needs to be assessed. It seems a trifle harsh to ban a captain for 6 ODIs, even if it’s a second offence for exceeding the limit by 3 overs. One needs to consider the playing conditions: the extreme heat, drinks breaks etc. which eat into precious time. On these grounds Ganguly's appeal will have merit. Of late Ganguly’s wins have been the result of an exceptional game by players like Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Srinath, Kumble and Harbhajan. 
S Kamat
Arrogant
The punishment meted out to Ganguly is really harsh. But Ganguly, who is arrogant, keeps making the same mistakes. In the current series against Pakistan, he was fined 70 pc of match fee for bowling a slow over-rate in Jamshedpur. This should have taught him a lesson. But he does not learn from his mistakes. 
S S Madhusudhana Murthy
Ganguly’s trauma 
For some reason, Sourav seems to be disliked by the authorities. They seem to be waiting to slap another fine on him or impose another ban on him. 
Think about his trauma. This time slow bowlers and fielders, even batsmen, may have been responsible, to some extent, for what has happened. But Ganguly has to bear the brunt. The ban is draconian. It’s time to support the wronged Bengal tiger.
Akshaya
Six too many
The Ahmedabad match is not the first time that the Indian team’s bowling rate was low. Even at the Jamshedpur ODI, the bowling rate was low, and Ganguly was warned. At that time, his reaction was that the whole team was responsible. Quite an irresponsible statement. He forgets that as the captain, it’s his duty to keep a tab on the over-rate. However, I feel the decision is harsh now. 
The ICC’s response to his plea was very quick, and the ban has been lifted temporarily. With the help of a very able lawyer, Ganguly may succeed in either getting the ban repealed or getting the quantum of punishment reduced. 
H K Seshadri
Too harsh
The ban is harsh because no captain can be solely responsible for a slow over-rate. All the team members, especially the bowlers, are responsible for it, as Rahul Dravid has rightly said. There are other factors too: hot climate etc. Other types of punishment may be considered for such offences. However in this case, it appears to be a godsend to both the BCCI and the out-of-form Ganguly.
G R Srinivas Murthy
Convenient ways
This appears to be a convenient arrangement between BCCI and ICC. Ganguly would want an honourable way out of the team and this is a perfect excuse – almost. 
With no one complaining, there is no question of the ban being harsh.
Harish Jagadish
Good move
It’s not harsh. Match referee Chris Broad acted well, keeping the best interests of the game in mind. Before a game there are meetings, assessment of a batsman’s strengths and weaknesses. If the players then spend a lot of time in getting things right during the match, it turns into a real waste of everyone’s time. Ganguly’s offence spells trouble.
Utpal S
Idiotic
Ganguly is undoubtedly the prince of Indian cricket. The ban should apply to all of us. Why are Indian cricketers being singled out for this kind of reprimand. This particular offence, slow over-rate should apply to the whole team, not just the captain. The pace of the game should be set by the wicket keeper. Look at the Australians, they are the best in this sphere. The ICC has a few idiots for match referees and quite a few clowns for umpires. 
M R Gopalakrishnan
A confused man
Ganguly is not entirely responsible for the slow over-rate as the maximum overs were bowled by spinners who should have completed their overs quickly and attacked the batsmen rather then conceding singles off every ball. The fielders were a bit lethargic – Yuvraj Singh dropped a sitter and the bowlers were content with minimum runs in their quota of overs. 
Spinners, especially Murali Karthik, was very selfish as he was not turning or flighting the ball which could have drawn the batsman out of the crease. The referee should have taken all this into consideration before punishing Ganguly who is at the moment a confused man. 
K Amul Chander
Blame all
The captain alone should not be punished for the slow over-rate. The whole team should bear the burden. This decision needs to be reviewed again.
S R Gopal
Keep to the game
All games should be played in a ‘gentlemanly’ manner – more so cricket. If Ganguly had thought about his responsibilities, this would not have happened. 
If rules are flouted – in fact Ganguly was banned earlier for a similar offence – the person deserves to be punished. In fact Sourav should have been banned for life.
G K Raman
It is just...
The punishment is just. It’s not the first time that Ganguly has been rapped. He should have learnt from his past mistakes. But he is arrogant. He has become a liability to the team. 
M S Ananda Rao
Too many times
Though the ban appears to be harsh, one should not forget that Ganguly has been violating the ICC code of discipline a number of times in spite of warnings. Also as captain, he is chiefly responsible for the slow over-rate. 
K S Ramu
Good medicine
Ganguly should accept the punishment as a ‘bitter medicine’ which will cure his ‘disease’. He should not lose sight of the fact that cricket fans are unhappy about his bad performance.
K V Seetharamaiah
Darwin’s theory
Many animals hibernate. This is due to the fact they can’t withstand climatic changes. In the same way Sourav, who was the captain of cricket team, now finds it difficult to cope with the challenges of cricket. He needs to be rejuvenated. The only way out is for him to hibernate, and rejuvenate. himself...so the game can move up to an international standard. It’s Darwin’s theory: no one is indispensable. It’s nature’s way of natural selection, survival of the fittest.
Sreelatha S
The solution
This is a harsh and hasty decision. While I agree that unfair practices can delay or prolong match proceedings and put the other team in a disadvantageous position. This is condemnable, but the circumstances in which the match referee makes a decision definitely needs to be reviewed. While the captain will have to accept responsibility for the actions of his team, he alone is not to be blamed for the game. The whole team is responsible for the slow over-rate. A possible solution is to fine the captain for the first offence, the team for the second, and thereafter, ban the captain but certainly not for six matches! 
J V Shivaprakash
A boon
Ganguly’s performance has been very poor. Should he not retire on his own?
The team cannot wallow in past glory. Banning Ganguly from 6 matches is a boon to Ganguly. 
D K Vaidyanathan 

God is off colour 
Punishment? Any response is bound to be subjective. He deserves it. This skipper, since 1997, holds the dubious distinction of being penalised thrice for ‘display of dissent’. What he did not persuade himself to do or what the BCCI did not dare to do, the ICC has done. It is a sign of maturity that he was not included in the Kanpur ODI team, the ICC's leniency notwithstanding. In his heydays, Ganguly did give us immense cricketing pleasure, make no mistake about it. But we should shun emotional hiccups and sentimental shibboleths. After all, we live in the present and this ‘God of the Off’ is now woefully off colour. Incidentally, is the contract system for the three grades (with the more than decent fee package that goes with it) performance/incentive based? If not, is it not ill conceived? The drubbing we got today in Kanpur leads us to yet another basic issue. Isn’t it time to prepare for the next World Cup? (Pakistan seems to be ready.) Some of our icons are inexorably becoming long on age and complacency, and short on reflexes and skills. 
P T Rengarajan      
 
EXPERT OPINION  

ICC decision harsh, BCCI’s pusillanimous

By V Krishnaswamy
 
The decision to hand out a six-match suspension to Sourav Ganguly is certainly very harsh and one that is bound to be watered down when the Indian skipper’s appeal is heard by Michael Bellof, ICC’s Chairman of the Code of Conduct Committee later in the week. But, what is worse than this severe decision is the pusillanimous attitude of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. (BCCI).
Even at their best, the BCCI and the selectors have never been a spunky lot. More so, when it comes to tough decisions like dropping a captain. So, when Ganguly was handed a six-match ban, which would come into effect only after his appeal has been heard — that happens later this week after the last two one-dayers against Pakistan — the Board and the selectors virtually jumped the gun and “dropped” him. But they couched it by saying “he was not considered in view of the prevailing circumstances”.
What pray are the “prevailing circumstances”? Are they alluding to the fact that Ganguly has been struggling to put bat to ball ? Or was the Board waiting for such a chance to drop Ganguly, but lacked guts to do it on cricketing merits? Hey, how slow can a team be? A couple of overs short, may be four, but then the team has already been penalised for it. The ICC rules, themselves, including when the suspension comes into effect, is entirely another debate.
Frankly, a slow over-rate is not the fault of the captain alone. It is the result of a combination of factors. The captain, merely because of his position, has to take the blame. In such circumstances, it is imperative for the Board to morally support the skipper — and the best way it can do it is by keeping him in the squad — till such time as the appeal has been heard. Is it not done, when a player is called for “chucking”?
If the Board wanted to “drop” Ganguly for the last two games, they should have said it as because of his “lack of form” instead of hiding behind the thin cloak offered by the International Cricket Council. If the selectors felt that Ganguly still had a rightful place in the side for the first four matches he should have been there for the last two, too, pending the hearing.
Ganguly has been an exemplary captain. In modern Indian cricket, seldom has a captain been so successful in binding a team as he has. If only Ganguly had taken the toughest of all decisions by standing down of his own accord for a match or two in between, he would have set a new benchmark in Indian cricket.
But, even the toughest of captains are human at heart. In Indian conditions, where domestic cricket is hardly watched, even by the selectors, it is tough to take that route back into the team, once one is dropped. Ganguly also had the added temptation of getting to the landmark of 10,000 runs in limited overs cricket and all it would have required is one passably decent innings of 60-odd runs. But, that one innings of salvation did not come and instead came a ban, which may not even stick in its present harsh fashion.
The ultimate tragedy for Indian cricket would not be that Sourav Ganguly’s career is coming to slow halt, but the fact how the Indian Board is allowing it to happen. 
Grace and merit continue to be missing from their dictionaries.

(The writer is a Delhi-based sports journalist)