Sourav Ganguly after his arrival in Calcutta on Saturday. Picture by Gautam Bose

Calcutta: It’s a different numbers game and coach Greg Chappell’s accusations against Sourav Ganguly don’t really add up.

For example, he has charged Sourav with dividing the team to ensure he keeps the captaincy.

Fact is anybody looking to extend his captaincy would work towards keeping everyone happy. A divided house only causes problems.

Moreover, Sourav (incidentally, our most successful Test captain) has been the architect of Team India as we’ve known it for the past few years.

Why would he destroy it?

Chappell also crucified Sourav by saying he’s not physically or mentally fit.

If The Telegraph’s sources have got it right, then Sourav put in more than the required training sessions in Zimbabwe.

Obviously, he isn’t a Mohammed Kaif, but the effort to improve is there.

Sourav has never been the fittest around, but there are others who aren’t hot in the field either.

That he did more than what was required rebuts Chappell’s charge that he doesn’t follow fitness training schedules.

As for the mental toughness bit, Sourav couldn’t have got a Test hundred in Bulawayo if he wasn’t right up there with the toughest: That innings came just days after the coach had asked him to step down.

Where Chappell’s allegation about imaginary injuries is concerned, Sourav played with a band on his right elbow ? apparently, borrowed from vice-captain Rahul Dravid.

The final word will rest with physio John Gloster, but why would Sourav wear a band if he didn’t fear the beginning of a tennis elbow?

Then, if the lack of respect for Sourav’s leadership is true, then Chappell has himself played the biggest hand in undermining the players’ faith in their captain.

The team is bound to doubt the captain’s leadership if the coach asks him to step down on the eve of a Test series.

For all his stature, the e-mail episode has presented Chappell, too, in a poor way.

It was, after all, on Monday that he issued a signed statement (in Harare) which conveyed a very different picture.

Question is: Why did Chappell star in a charade if he’d already condemned Sourav in an e-mail to the Board president?

No answer can be convincing enough.