Greg had his flaws

I refer to your Cover Story, `A coach who believed in youth', by S. Dinakar (Sportstar, April 14). I would like to differ with the author.

Greg Chappell was never a straight-talking coach. He was always trying the divide and rule method.

Incidentally, I also refer to the remarks of his brother Ian Chappell on TV (Extra Innings). He was critical of England coach Duncan Fletcher for fiddling around with the batting order. Whereas he was all praise for his brother Greg for his innovations and experiments with the Indian batting order.

Had Greg allowed Sachin Tendulkar to open with Ganguly and dropped Sehwag, the result would have been positive.

N. Mahadevan, Chennai Wright was a better coach

S. Dinakar's Cover Story (Sportstar, April 14) was interesting. But it would have been complete if a comparison had been made between Chappell's methods and that of his predecessor John Wright.

In fact, during Wright's tenure Team India did better. It entered the World Cup final and also recorded a historic Test and ODI series win in Pakistan. Further, the team did much better in Australia.

Wright made the best use of the existing system, rather than trying to change the whole set-up. His genial, methodical ways were complementary in nature to the team's captain in contrast to the authoritarian or confrontational style of Greg.

Suresh Manoharan, Hyderabad BCCI should be firm

Now the confrontation is on between the BCCI and the sponsors. The Board must under no circumstances bow down to the sponsors' bullying tactics. It should be made clear that cricket is not played for their benefit. If the players don't agree to the conditions laid down by the Board they are free to leave. There are many youngsters waiting in the wings.

However, there is no sign of any revamping in the functioning style of the BCCI itself. The Board has VPs who have little or no cricketing credentials. At least two VPs should be tried and tested ex-cricketers. One should be made responsible for all aspects of the game and the other should look after the players' welfare and act as a liaison officer for them. The Board should stop pampering the star players. The much idolised and iconised players have no sense of pride or accountability. The selectors also don't have the guts to drop them for their continued non-performance.

Shanmugam Mudaliar, Pune