That is a statement Arun Lal would have been proud of. Also, I think you are again incorrectly assuming that the decisions you suggest were the right ones. I of course cannot prove it, but you are using your gut instinct just as Dravid used his. He was the one playing there, knowing the conditions, etc. In fact, if anything, I would go with his gut instinct instead of yours.
Well obviously when you make a choice, you are neglecting other ones. How do you know that exploring another path wouldn't result in a 20 run over? The bottom-line is you don't. So my point is Dravid isn't the biggest reason we lost the first ODI--it was there easily better bowling. And also as the last two games showed, the conditions suited them better.
Really? I don't think it is exactly routine to throw the ball to a debutant with 2 overs to go and the match being tight. Maybe in the middle overs--but at a crucial juncture like that? I didn't agree with that decision from Dravid. But that still doesn't mean that your claim that Dravid "doesn't think on his feet" and goes "by the book" is correct. In fact, giving it to Tendulkar would be going by the book. History has shown that Tendulkar gets the crucial wickets, even though he is a little expensive. I wish Dravid had gone a little more by the book.
And about the personal comments. If you think that we lost the match primarily because of Dravid's captaincy and not because the conditions suited their better bowlers, then I will just have to read your posts with a pinch of salt to account for the bias you have against the man.
And finally, do you give Dravid credit for tossing Yuvraj the ball in the 2nd and 3rd ODIs? He bowled pretty well. Or is Dravid's performance as captain only restricted to the sub-zero ratings?
:
