Manuvir> You are right in that Azhar appears to be talking about
Manuvir> Bedade's wicket, not Bedade. However, he also says, and I
Manuvir> quote: "had he stayed another 30 runs we would have got
Manuvir> our target". The distinction you are making so much of is
Manuvir> fine at best, and imaginary at worst. Read the article
Manuvir> and the impression you come away with is that he's only
Manuvir> mentioned Bedade's wicket as cause for the debacle. Even
Has he really? In fact the title of the article which you posted was
"Azhar blames loss on poor shots". You see no other mention of that
statement in the article - so how do you know the complete statement,
and the fact that Azhar blamed *only* Bedade. You are basing your
opinions from a third person account - and seem to be revealing your
bias (which you admit somewhere down the line in this article). And
contrary to your opinion, one doesn't need a degree in psychology to
interpret "he looked so much in command, 30-40 more runs from him and
we would have been home" as praise. And do you remember what the
situation was when Bedade's wicket fell? India were around 160/4,
needing 90 odd runs at 6 an over, with 6 wickets in hand and two
*specialist* batsmen playing on 40+. If Azhar were to claim that we
lost the match at an earlier point than this - then he would have
revealed a singular lack of faith in those two *specialist* batsmen.
Manuvir> if he isn't directly blaming him, it sounds unfair that
Manuvir> he fails to mention the other wickets and singles out
Again how do you know? Did the title "Azhar blames loss on poor shots"
(notice "shots" --> ^)
appear out of thin air? Could it be that the person who filed this
report did some editing on his own?
Manuvir> Bedade's. If this is how he praises his players, they
Manuvir> must all have degrees in psychology to play under him. As
I have replied to this.
Manuvir> it is poor Kapil is in Haryana wondering why he was
Manuvir> stupid enough to take Azhar's advice (re: making himself
Manuvir> available) so seriously.
That whole episode is quite intriguing and hazy - for instance
Vishwanath's two statements on consecutive days seem contradictory.
Manuvir> Finally, there is no Azhar baiting here. If anyone is
Manuvir> being baited it is Rohan, and other diehard Azhar
Well - I took your bait, although I am not a diehard fan of anyone
(except "Bestest" :-)).
Manuvir> Ok, I'll admit it. I am also a little peeved that when
Manuvir> Azhar came out with that statement about the BCCP I
Manuvir> defended him here in good faith; after the Kapil Dev
Manuvir> episode I am sceptical of all Azhar's press statements.
There. So you do admit to prejudice clouding your judgement. I took
care to reply to your article in full. "The ball", as the cliche goes,
"is in your court".