Yesterday, England and Pakistan won the women's and men's T20 World Cup titles.
Both teams played excellently throughout the tournament, and really peaked when it mattered - in the semi and the final. The England women's team was unbeaten in the tournament (and in fact set a record for the highest successful chase in Women's T20 internationals) while Pakistan's men lost 2 games (against England [men] & Sri Lanka). While Sri Lanka seemed to have run short of motivation yesterday, Pakistan's short-pitched bowling ploy early on was wonderfully executed.
It is so ironic that players from the current World T20 championship winning team will not be part of the Champions Twenty20 League. Oh, have you ever seen a more 'broken' official site?
India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.
Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.
The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
They are not fatigued
They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.
He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.
I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.
It's funny how Shane Warne's brain works. I daresay quite a few other Aussie cricketers (current and former), cricket administrators and cricket commentators/writers would have also thought along similar lines after Australia were bundled out of the T20 World Cup.
Although Australia will still be hurting, this could be a blessing in disguise for the Ashes. They will be able to have a short break to get this out of their systems and then tick along with their practice out of the spotlight before the warm-ups. They have one focus now, no distractions before July 8 in Cardiff.
So let's see how the column would have read in a few other situations.
Australia progress to stage 2, England don't: England will be hurting, this could have been a great opportunity to get in some more confidence and match-practice ahead of the Ashes. Their confidence would have taken a battering. England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. It's no good playing only warm-ups before such an important series.
Both teams progress to stage 2: Australia will take a lot of confidence going in to the Super Eight stage. They were among the pre-tournament favourites, but they went into this tournament pretty cold. England, on the other hand, had enough match-practice with the games against West Indies. As for the impact on the Ashes, will it impact the way England bat in the tests? It's no good scoring 180 in 20 overs in a test match if you're all out by then. Australia, on the other hand, have players who can adapt to all forms of the game.
Both teams are knocked-out in the first round: England's confidence would have taken a battering. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. This will seriously impact their Ashes prospects. Australia never really take T20 seriously, but England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010.
Even if VISA is one of the 'commercial partners' of the T20 World Cup, to heck with ambush marketing.
Tickets to the game: Not applicable Food & drink: Not applicable Watching (on TV) Ricky Ponting play a dumb shot off Mendis: Worth being awake at past 1 am The look on Ricky Ponting's face as his dream fades: Priceless!
It is my firm belief that England should just withdraw from the competition so that the Ashes series can begin a week or so ahead of schedule.
I don't think it was a brilliant idea to have the Indian Premier League before the Twenty20 World Cup. It was poor thinking on part of the Indian cricket officials.
Maybe he knows something about the international cricket calendar and global weather patterns that no-one else does.
The period from April to June is typically the leanest for international cricket because to a large extent, West Indies and England are the only places where cricket can be played. It is far too hot in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh and cold in Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. Even in England, April and May are the rainy months.
Given contractual commitments, the IPL had to happen. There was a lot that the IPL organizers did wrong when it came to engaging the Indian government. There was no way that the tournament would be postponed (because there simply was no other free slot available) or cancelled (telecast rights, team owners having spent millions of $ in securing the services of players). So, the tournament went to South Africa, and was a rip-roaring success primarily because of the quality of cricket.
There's also no doubt that the Indian players have been on the road for the last 3-4 months after the tour of Pakistan was cancelled, playing ODIs in Sri Lanka, touring New Zealand and then the IPL. Yet, I don't quite think they're at a stage where they're jaded.
Given a choice between turning up for a T20 World Cup after playing 15 T20 games involving most of the best cricketers and ODIs & a single T20 game against Australia's third choice XI, I know which one I'd prefer if I was an international cricketer.
Going by Latif's logic, countries that didn't contribute significantly to the IPL player base should do very well at the T20 World Cup. So which country has the most number of players in their T20 World Cup squads who didn't show up at the IPL? Let's exclude the Associates teams for obvious reasons.
Country
# of players
Australia
11
Bangladesh
13
England
9
India
0
New Zealand
8
Pakistan
15
South Africa
3
Sri Lanka
5
West Indies
11
The semi-final lineup suddenly looks so bloody obvious: Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies and Australia.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original
content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions
expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.