Group 4 SA2

PRESENTED BY :

RIZWAN AKHTAR

AYAN DAS

SANDEEP SAHA

ABHISHEK MUKHERJEE

DEEPAK GANDHI

Sourav Ganguly : A Case ARNAB BANERJEE

study On Leadership
 “The Lagaan Comes Back Home” was the headlines of a
national daily when Sourav led the team to victory in the Nat
west trophy in 2002.Chasing a target of326 seemed
impossible but was achieved by ‘Team India’ in an
unprecedented fashion, and who can forget the shirt waving
exercise in the balcony of Lords: The Mecca Of Cricket.
This Win Further resolved his ability as a leader.

 India became the joint winner of the ICC Champions trophy

with Sri Lanka

 He, till date is the most successful Indian Captain with 21

test wins as a captain and with a success rate of 42%. A
feat unparalleled by any other Indian Captain
 The World Cup of 2003 did not start on a happy note for
India as they lost to Australia in just theirsecond game of
the tournament but then came the turn round and they
reached the final of that
world cup.

 India toured Australia where they were considered the

underdogs; Sourav who was susceptible against the bouncers
took Aussies by surprise in the very first match by scoring a
hundred. Though India took the lead in the second test they
could only manage to draw the test series.

 He became the most successful captain of India after India

won the test series against Pakistan in 2004. He led India to
13 test victories,
I ) Meritocracy : Meritocracy is appointment of peoples on the basis of
their talent and ability So, if we are talking about S. Ganguly
then we must say that he is very much concussing about
Meritocracy. He took talent like Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan
Singh, Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra, Yuvraj Singh or Mohammed
Kaif.

II ) An eye for talent : This is one of the important traits for any
successful manager like Ganguly. As an example , Javagal Srinath
selected by Ganguly before World Cup 2003 and was the leading
wicket taker for India.

III ) Nurturing talent:- sourav did not stop with just identifying talent. He
had a knack for removing the fear of failure from the minds of
these young players. When Sehwag was asked to open the innings
in test matches, he was worried that failure would mean being
dropped. Ganguly told him that failure as an opener would not see
him dropped, but would only see reverted to the middle order;
his place in the team would be safe. There can be no doubt that
the confidence arising from such an assurance played a part in
Sehwag’s scores as an opener in the 2002- 2005 periods.
.
IV ) Insistence on continued performance : Sourav never seemed to have a
problem with balancing the need to encourage a talented youngster
with the need to include a better performer or to demand better
standards from the youngster. Ganguly backed Akash Chopra
throughout the tour of Australia, but midway through the Pakistan tour
that followed, he dropped him to accommodate Yuvraj Singh in the
team. In the series that followed, Yuvraj in turn, was dropped owing
to poor performances. The players who get into this can never let
their standards drop as their performance is closely watched in every
match to see whether they should remain in the fast track or not.

V ) Indifference to criticism : It seems Sourav did not spend much time

worrying about whether his actions and decisions met with general
approval or not. He did what he thought was right for the team and
lived with the consequences of that.Ganguly has spoken in an interview
about how he had advised Rahul Dravid not to worry about what people
wrote about him. Ganguly seemed to accept that criticism went with
the job and never lost sleep over it. Sourav thinks that leaders need
to develop a thick skin. It is a lonely job and brickbats and bouquets
have to be treated alike. The leader who seeks approval is unlikely to
take the tough decisions that are sometimes necessary.
VI )No personal insecurity and preference for match winners :

Ganguly was nowhere near being the best player in the team and
he didn’t seem to be bothered by this. He had such confidence in
his standing as a `leader' that he could rejoice in his teammates
ability to outshine them with the bat. At the same time, he was
never exactly a passenger. Except towards the end of their
tenures, he was clearly good enough to be in the team. Clearly,
Sourav has been equally comfortable with two roles – as performer
and as the enabler of others' performance. How obvious and yet
how difficult! Sourav was very strident and unapologetic in his
preference for potential match-winners over steadyperformers.
The potential match winners Yuvraj, Harbhajan and Sehwag were
preferred over their more staid counterparts like Mohammed Kaif,
Sanjay Bangar and even Anil Kumble; Dravid was the sole
exception.
Winston Churchill was a great leader during World War II, but not
after the War. Because the quality of leadership depends on the
leader’s context, his or her ability to get the sense of a situation
is fundamental. Leaders may change settings, but they must fully
understand their new circumstances. Every leader brings with
him/her certain ideas, concepts and theories which are pertinent to
the current working scenario. However , the only constant is
change. Therefore, what is contemporary now might be obsolete in
future .Therefore every leader must change his/her outlook based
on the business requirements. However, those leaders who don’t
incorporate these changes fade away only to be replaced by a more
contemporary one. 
A. “ Now or Never ”- On having reached the finals of the
2003 World Cup reflects his Visionary attitude

B.  I have to make this boy play for India ” – On seeing

Dhoni for the first time in a domestic match. This reflects
his Eye for talent.

C. “ I never try to make right Decision, but I make a decision

and make work right.” - On winning a test match. This
reflects his attitude of Indifference to criticism
Thank you !!!

The End