Ganguly - sentimentalist attachment or cricketing value?

Here, Ranatunga suggests that Ganguly's hunger be welcomed as a positive addition to the Indian team.

In my previous post I had perhaps taken the same 'sentimental' line that other writers had - when writing on Ganguly. That is, give the man a better deal, just because he had done so much for Indian cricket. There is a flaw in this reasoning of course, and it should be acknowledged. That is, no one deserves a place in the Indian side for that reason - he should do so for cricketing reasons. So, are there good cricketing reasons for having Ganguly in the side?


On Cricinfo again, Anil Nair says no, and links the ruthlessness needed to deal with the Ganguly omission as essential for India's move to modernity:

Now, at the very least, I'm not sure that developing a ruthless streak - in pursuit of quality - apparently - is essential for modernity. (THAT is a huge topic, and I'm going to defer talking on that for a moment). But lets keep the discussion in cricketing terms. Nair suggests that Ganguly will not survive the pace attacks that are coming up - Akhtat and Harmison will find him out and that will be the end of it. Fair enough, these worries are real (they extend to other members of the Indian side as well, though, for as the South Africans showed in the brief ODI series, when a real pace attack shows up, this Indian batting looks decidedly more wobbly). And if the intention is to develop a pair of openers then retaining Gambhir and bringing in Jaffer made more sense.