As the other sports forums seem to have taken old to some respect, well here is a cricket forum. NOTE: This forum will be heavily moderated and can be revoked at any time is discussions go out of hand.
Now I know that with Rahul's cricket, nothing is casual, unconscious or accidental. Before he went on tour, I would pack all his other bags, but his cricket kit was sacred - I did not touch it; only he handled it. I know if I packed only two sets of informal clothes, he would rotate them through an entire tour if he had to and not think about it. He has used one type of moisturising cream for 20 years because his skin gets dry. Nothing else. He doesn't care for gadgets, and barely registers brands - of watches, cologne or cars. But if the weight of his bat was off by a gram, he would notice it in an instant and get the problem fixed.
Only once, I remember, he returned from a Test and said, "I got a bit angry today. I lost my temper. Shouldn't have done that." He wouldn't say more. Many months later, Viru [Sehwag] told me that he'd actually thrown a chair after a defeat to England in Mumbai. He'd thrown the chair, Viru said, not because the team had lost but because they had lost very badly.
One word has attached itself to Dravid wherever he has gone: gentleman. The word is often misunderstood. Gentlemanliness is not mere surface charm - the easy lightness of confident sociability. Far from it: the real gentleman doesn't run around flattering everyone in sight, he makes sure he fulfils his duties and obligations without drawing attention to himself or making a fuss. Gentlemanliness is as much about restraint as it is about appearances. Above all, a gentleman is not only courteous, he is also constant: always the same, whatever the circumstances or the company.
In that sense, Dravid is a true gentleman. Where many sportsmen flatter to deceive, Dravid runs deep. He is a man of substance, morally serious and intellectually curious. For all his understatement, he couldn't fail to convey those qualities to anyone who watched him properly.
In the q&a that followed his speech, one answer got close to the core of his personality. What motivated him still, after all these years and so many runs? Dravid said that as a schoolboy, he remembered many kids who had at least as much desire to play professional cricket as he did - they attended every camp and net session, no matter what the cost or the difficulty of getting there. But you could tell - from just one ball bowled or one shot played - that they simply didn't have the talent to make it. He knew he was different. "I was given a talent to play cricket," Dravid explained. "I don't know why I was given it. But I was. I owe it to all those who wish it had been them to give of my best, every day."
What a brilliant inversion of the usual myth told by professional sportsmen: that they had unexceptional talent and made it to the top only because they worked harder. Dravid spoke the truth. Yes, he worked hard. But the hard work was driven by the desire to give full expression to a God-given talent.
In years to come, perhaps too late, we may realise what we have lost: the civility, craft and dignity that Dravid brought to every cricket match in which he played.
I would love it if the government sacked the board en masse under some form of mini-emergency powers and installed Dravid as a CEO instead of Shivlal Yadav, who seems to be some form of front-runner.
Yeah, can't believe Shivlal is a front runner. He is going to be worse than the current bunch. He is actually the pits! He destroyed the careers of so many young and promising players from Hyderabad. We would have seen this last of Rayudu if Shivlal ends up getting the job.
Prasen, Rayudu did have a decent year and not a failure like you had mentioned. He was moved to #6. To some extent, he did perform well when it mattered (especially in the finals).
Rayudu never fails Yes, he did play a secondary role in the finals. Pollard's innings was the difference. You can argue that if Rayudu failed, Mumbai would not have a large enough total to defend and you are right in that he contributed in that match in a supporting role. But over the course of the tournament, he failed. And, that is not because he came at #6. Look at qualifier #1, he had enough balls to bat and score. He failed. One can repeat the exercise over many matches in this IPL. Compare that with what Dhoni did. He also came lower down the order but he got runs and got them fast.
Bhagatgavri is the first forum member (postman) who posts (delivers) like non-forum members, delivers his thoughts in a decent manner, and has passionate posts.
Yes, Rahul Dravid is a class act. Unlike lots of people, Rahul Dravid is well aware of what it takes to earn a doctorate. His mother earned one, I believe.
I would actually like the opposite. Meaning I am not giving up my earned one. But, getting a honorary degree (from a good place, without bribing, I mean giving them an endowment, etc.) maybe a sign of something bigger. It means that you are a big shot, no?
Given Dravid's stature a Doctorate from Bangalore University would have been completely insignificant. So yeah he was very respectful in the way he turned it down, but I wouldn't read too much into it. It was just a wise way of turning down something he didnt care much about.
Yes, he did play a secondary role in the finals. Pollard's innings was the difference. You can argue that if Rayudu failed, Mumbai would not have a large enough total to defend and you are right in that he contributed in that match in a supporting role. But over the course of the tournament, he failed. And, that is not because he came at #6. Look at qualifier #1, he had enough balls to bat and score. He failed. One can repeat the exercise over many matches in this IPL. Compare that with what Dhoni did. He also came lower down the order but he got runs and got them fast.
