World Cup review - Part 1 - Australia, Bangladesh, England, India & Ireland
28 years ago, I was rudely woken up by relatives screaming "We have won the World Cup". It is quite likely that
Saturday's final between India & Sri Lanka also ended around the same time as
that game in 1983. I was well awake this time around!
I can't recall exactly when I started following cricket with a lot of interest, but I definitely recall watching games from the 1985 World Championship of Cricket in Australia keenly. I did watch at least 1 day's play of the
India v Pakistan test at Chepauk in 1987 and definitely remember Azhar taking a blinder of a catch. I can't recollect if it was off a spinner (Maninder) or off a medium pacer (Raju Kulkarni), most likely the latter since I didn't bunk school, and the last day of the test was on a Sunday. The
1987 tied test at Chepauk enthralled me. A few months earlier, I had read an account of the final over of the
Brisbane tied test. Around the same time that the India v Australia game was coming to an end, with India in a winning position (50-odd runs to get with 5 wickets in hand), I was at my music class, and wondered aloud if a tie was possible. Needless to say, I got thrashed when umpire Vikram Raju's finger went up.
Back to the present though. The final was an excellent exhibition of classy batting by Jayawardene, who I
still believe to be over-rated in comparison to Sangakkara, nice partnerships (Sangakkara-Dilshan, Mahela-Samaraweera & Mahela-Kulasekara, Gambhir-Virat & Gambhir-Dhoni) and a fair amount of power-hitting at the end.
Now that the tournament has ended though, teams & individuals need to introspect into whether they have achieved what they set out to.
Australia needs to take a serious look at their approach to grooming spin bowlers. Under Ricky Ponting's captaincy (possibly because of his limitations when it came to playing spin bowling in tests), the only time he used "spin" with some degree of seriousness was when he was washing his clothes. They've never identified any sort of backup options for
Shane Warne other than Stuart "watch-me-bowl-a-half-tracker" MacGill. They need to find at least 1 more young batsman to play alongside Watson, Clarke & Ponting. It is rare for Aussie ex-captains to
play on for too long after they've
quit as captain. While Ponting may play on until the 2013 & 2014 Ashes, it is quite likely that he'd have quit ODI cricket by then.
Bangladesh need to have a rethink about their domestic cricket structure, and ensure that the top 25-30 players get a lot more exposure to cricket against first-class teams from countries that are better than them. It's quite obviouso that the talent is there, but they're not progressing beyond an odd upset every World Cup and getting thrashed by the rest of the stronger sides. Given their proximity to India & the vote that they bring to India's table at the ICC, I can't understand why they don't engage in some quid pro quo for test & ODI tours to India, and for IPL sides to pick their players.
England performed extremely well against the stronger sides, but lost it against the weaker ones (and barely survived against West Indies). This seems to indicate that it isn't a skill problem, but an inability to understand how to play limited overs cricket. Constantly complaining about the schedule doesn't get them anywhere. The Ashes-World Cup schedule was known well in advance, and they had the better part of 3-4 years since the 2007 World Cup to have a squad of 20-odd quality players to pick from. They have the bowling. Anderson, Broad, Ajmal Shahzad, Tremlett & Swann are a pretty handy lineup. But the batting is far too unidimensional with Strauss, Trott, Bell and Collingwood providing at least 2 too many 'bat 30+ overs' batsmen & only Pietersen, Bopara and Morgan providing the flair.
India won despite a bowling attack that was under threat of being smacked around every game, and a fielding unit (barring 2 or 3 players) which was ever willing to help opponents convert 1s into 2s, 2s into 3s, routine saves into 4s, etc. There's absolutely no doubt that they were the best side of the tournament, and they defeated all the top sides barring South Africa (England, perhaps conveniently, don't count). Yet, players like Virat Kohli & Sreesanth need to think about their game, and what they want to achieve. It is bizarre that Kohli, at 22, is unable to adapt his game to a situation where he goes in at #6 with a couple of overs left to go. He has to realize that he may not go in at #4 with 30 overs to go every time! Similarly, Sreesanth needs to realize that this was his 'last chance saloon'. He only had 2 opportunities to prove that he can be an effective #2 or #3 bowler in ODIs, and he fluffed up both times. If his strength is around generating late outswing, why did he
pitch it so short on a very flat batting track in the final? Ashwin has most likely become the 2nd choice spinner, and I'd expect that he gets a lot more games over the span of the next 6-10 months to show that he can do a good job.
Ireland had at least 2 opportunities other than the game against England (v Bangladesh & v West Indies) to show that they should be given
many more opportunities to compete against good sides, and also that a World Cup was better off with them than without them.
Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, australia, bangladesh, england, india, ireland, replica, world cup
A moronic run-out decision
Yesterday, in the
Bangladesh v Pakistan game at the Asia Cup, Pakistan's
Umar Amin was declared run out by the third umpire for no apparent reason.
He had driven the ball to long-on and taken a single. Since the bowler, Mahmudullah, was bowling from around the wicket, Umar walked across to the other side, oblivious to the fact that his bat was not grounded and no part of his person was grounded behind the 'popping crease' at the bowler's end.
Mahmudullah saw this and took off the bails. The on-field umpire got confused and handed over control to the third umpire. After multiple views, Umar Amin was ruled out.
This, despite law 23 (
Dead ball) explicitly saying that a ball was dead when it was finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler. Yes, the bowler's end umpire has to be satisfied that the fielding side and both batsmen also considered the ball to not be in play.
But even the smallest bit of common sense would indicate that there was no way Umar was attempting a second run. He was switching ends.
The ball was most definitely not in play.
Where's common sense when you need it most?
At least in the
Murali run-out by McCullum instance, Murali actually walked out of the crease. Whether it was to attempt a second run or to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara is a moot point.
In Umar Amin's case, there's no way he was out!
Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, laws, pakistan, umpires
Bangladesh are indeed ordinary
India were
expected to thrash Bangladesh, and when the winning margins are 100+ runs and 10 wickets, it is fair to say
Bangladesh were thrashed. Bangladesh had fun for at most 1.5 days - day 1 of the first test and around 50 overs on day 3 of the second test.
There was a lot written about Sehwag's comment before the first test on
Bangladesh being an 'ordinary' side. Sehwag was perhaps being politically uncorrect, saying such a thing in Bangladesh, especially when the BCCI had played a huge role in Bangladesh getting test status.
Yet, the facts are that barring
a series win against a West Indies 'B' team, they had achieved zilch in nearly a decade of test cricket. There have been a few individual achievements (e.g. Aminul Islam in their first ever test,
Ashraful v India in 2004,
Shahriar Nafees v Australia in 2006, Shakib forming the '
SLA Atlas' club along with Vettori and occasional bursts from Mortaza).
They did run Pakistan and Australia close. They do indicate that they can be occasionally competitive. However, the reality
is that as of the start of this series,
they hadn't made 300 in the first innings of a test since April 2006, which was also the last time one of the batsmen
scored a first-innings century.
The malaise hasn't just been with the batting. On an average, opponents can expect that
one of their top 7 batsmen will score a
first innings 100 every time they face Bangladesh.
There was absolutely no need for Sehwag to be politically correct. I'll repeat what I wrote
nearly 6.5 years ago.
I wonder why captains are nowadays so politically correct. I'm not saying the captain should do a Richie Richardson and claim that the visiting Aussies have been the worst side to play West Indies in the last 20 years after losing the series. Tony Greig's attempt to make WI "grovel" backfired spectacularly. But why does Steve Waugh not say Australia is going to crush Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?
On a parting note, why on earth did the proceedings break for lunch with Bangladesh on the verge of defeat at 312/9? Why can't the playing conditions be changed to allow captains to opt for extra time regardless of whether it is close of play or not?
Currently, under clause 16.2 of the
test match playing conditions, the umpires can extend play by 30 minutes at the end the day (except the last day) if either captain puts in the application in triplicate along with a photocopy of their last 5 years income tax payment statements and if the umpires believe that the extension could end the ordeal for everyone.
Statistical trivia: This is only the
7th time that a side has reached the target in less than 3 balls.
Labels: bangladesh, india, lunch, playing conditions, rules
WICB and WIPA combine to help West Indies set unwanted record
Directly as a result of the farcical
WIPA v WICB impasse, West Indies provided Bangladesh its
2nd ever test win a couple of days ago.
Players are totally entitled to receive contracts, but in the absence of these contracts, is industrial action in a sporting scenario the right option? It is not as though the West Indies players were blameless. They didn't have contracts because they refused to sign the contracts that the WICB offered. Did the WICB offer favourable terms? Perhaps not. As it is, West Indies cricket has suffered majorly in the past couple of years with sponsors pulling out.
Would Digicel, the current sponsor, have had the right to demand that the WICB field a XI that would enhance the Digicel brand? Wouldn't Digicel's contract with the WICB have referred to WICB attempting to/ensure that the best players turned out for the West Indies? It's quite obvious that Digicel wouldn't like to have been associated with a side led by Floyd Reifer, who got a birthday present in the form of the captaincy a couple of weeks before his 37th birthday. It's like England naming Ian Ward or Aftab Habib captain and India naming Vijay Bharadwaj skipper. Of course, one thing is for sure - captaincy has a positive impact on Reifer's batting. His batting average went up by a whopping 36% (7.87 to 10.7).
The reality is that regardless of the result of the game, no side would have "won" or proved anything. Had West Indies' B side beaten Bangladesh, it would have told us that Bangladesh aren't even good enough to beat a second string WI XI. Now that Bangladesh have won, as a corollary, it implies that West Indies cricket is so much lacking in depth that a 2nd XI loses to Bangladesh. I suspect with the exception of perhaps New Zealand, every other country's 2nd XI should be able to beat Bangladesh.
As a result of the feud between the cricket board and the players, the test had 9 debutants (7 for West Indies, 2 for Bangladesh) and
this is the first time since 1961 that 9 or more players have debuted in a test that wasn't the first test played by a country (or the first one played after a prolonged break).
Bangladesh v India in 2000 had 14 debuts, Zimbabwe v India in 1992 had 10 debuts (all the Zimbabwe players except Traicos), West Indies v South Africa in 1992 had 13 debuts (South Africa's first test after re-admission) and Sri Lanka v England in 1982 had 12 debuts. Most of the other games that had a lot of debuts were those played shortly after World War II.
Labels: bangladesh, contracts, debut, industrial action, statistic, strike, west indies, wicb, wipa
ICL, IPL, Bangladesh cricket and a BCCI website!
A fortnight or so ago, six Bangladesh cricketers
sent in their resignation letters to the Bangladesh Cricket Board, to join the
Indian Cricket League and play as a team called the
'Dhaka Warriors'.
The board responded by
banning them for 10 years. But it was pretty obvious that Bangladesh cricket was in serious shit. Big brother, the BCCI, stepped in to help out. How did the BCCI help? It offered to
include more Bangladesh players in the 2009 edition of the
Indian Premier League and a Bangladesh team in the 2010 Twenty20 Champions League.
The BCCI's decision is so ridiculous. The Bangladesh Cricket Board does
not benefit when its players play in the IPL, or the Champions League. The players do. At this point in time, no cricket board gets any payment for releasing its contracted players for the IPL.
Perhaps the better option for the BCB would have been to get the BCCI to agree to a rapidly scheduled home-and-away test & ODI series. Bangladesh was to have
played tests in India in April 2005. That then got postponed,
so often, that no-one seriously expects it to materialize.
In a path-breaking, breathtaking and least-anticipated development last week, the BCCI
launched its website (
www.bcci.tv) over a decade ahead of schedule. One of the first few decisions taken by the outgoing BCCI President, Mr. Sharad Pawar, was to target a 2020 launch of the BCCI's own website.
It's perhaps apt to mention though that during the 2006 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy, you could
buy tickets on www.bcci.tv. After that tournament, the site lay dormant, until it sprung to life over the weekend!
Amazingly enough, it even has RSS feeds for
press releases and
cricket news!
Labels: bangladesh, bcci, india, indian cricket league, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20, website
More torture for ODI cricket watchers
The
2007 World Cup lasted nearly 1.5 months and
involved 16 teams. It is common knowledge and
opinion that the tournament was
really and got boring far too often for one that was touted as the ICC's flagship tournament.
At least the ICC is
doing something about the format for the 2011 World Cup.
But when it comes to a 'much-ado-about-nothing' tournament, nothing beats the Asia Cup. Beginning tomorrow, the cream of Asian cricket (
6 teams) will feature in the tournament, over a span of 2 weeks. The tournament is eagerly expected to be very tightly fought with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and UAE in one group while Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are in the other group.
I'm fairly sure that the organizers reckon that there is always the likelihood of an upset by
UAE or Hong Kong which could throw up a surprise 2nd round lineup. But I'd reckon the chances of that are lesser than the probability that the ICC will wake up to its responsibilities, or indeed the likelihood that
someone will clarify why the
BCCI announces decisions on ICL players playing in the Champions League when Cricket Australia is supposed to be drawing up the rules!
Instead of getting the tournament done and dusted with as soon as possible by having the top 2 qualifiers from each group play in the semi finals, spectators & viewers will undergo the torture of watching these 4 teams play in a league. The schedule doesn't make it immediately apparent, but it seems like the top 2 from that league play in the final.
It gets even more sickening when you realize that 3 out of the 6 teams were playing in a triangular
barely 10 days ago. So the organizers could have just had one single tournament, the Asia Cup, and donated some money to the Bangladesh Cricket Board instead of having the triangular tournament there!
Yet another case of ODI cricket digging its own grave.
Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, hong kong, india, minnows, odi, pakistan, scheduling, sri lanka, uae
2007: The year of the minnows?
For the first time in over five seasons,
2001/02 being the last time this happened,
Mumbai will not feature in the semi-final stage of the Ranji Trophy. Saurashtra will join Delhi, Baroda & Uttar Pradesh in the semi-final lineup.
I've always felt that the Ranji Trophy really needed to be fine-tuned to ensure that states didn't have multiple teams representing the region (Baroda, Saurashtra & Gujarat; Vidarbha, Maharashtra & Mumbai; Andhra & Hyderabad) as well as a revamp required to exclude the likes of Services, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Saurashtra, Jammu & Kashmir and Goa purely on the basis of their past performance over the 70+ year history of the Ranji Trophy. So, Saurashtra's success is a surprise to me, and makes me eat humble pie.
Perhaps 2007 is the year of the 'minnow': Saurashtra reaching the semi-final of the Ranji Trophy (who knows, what'd happen next!),
Tasmania reached the Pura Cup final, Durham fell short of eventual County Championship winners Sussex by just 4.5 points,
Zimbabwe beat Australia at Twenty20 while
Ireland &
Bangladesh created major upsets at the
World Cup.
Labels: australia, bangladesh, baroda, durham, india, ireland, minnows, mumbai, ranji trophy, saurashtra, semi-final, sussex, tasmania, twenty20 world cup, uttar pradesh, zimbabwe
Ireland Wins Again!
Irish cricket continued to make impressive strides when they comprehensively defeated Bangladesh today in Barbados. The Irish were cheered on by thousands of supporters, including a strong contingent of locals. Electing to bat first on a bouncy wicket, the Irish built a competitive total of 243/7. The foundation for the total was laid by openers,
William Porterfield and
Jeremy Bray, who put on 92 for the first wicket. Man of the match Porterfield made 85. The Irish were aided by dropped catches and missed run out chances by the Bangladeshis who were ragged in the field. Even with the missed chances the Bangladeshis still were able to record 4 run outs as the Irish pressed for twos and quick singles when the boundaries dried up in the middle of the innings. A quick fire 48 off 44 balls by
Kevin O'Brien and 30 off 23 by captain
Trent Johnston revived the innings at the end and helped Ireland to post the challenging score.
Bangladesh lost wickets early and often in reply as they struggled against the Irish seamers. When Boyd Rankin had Mohammad Ashraful 5th out caught at fine leg, the writing was on the wall as Bangladesh were only on 102. 67 runs later the innings folded on 169 to give Ireland a commanding 74 run win. The Irish bowlers might just be starting a new dance fad called "the funky chicken" as Johnston and now
Dave Langford-Smith have been doing the strangest wicket-taking celebratory dance I've ever seen on a cricket pitch. (See a picture of Langford-Smith's dance
here)
Of note is that Ireland (on 2 points) now leapfrog Bangladesh in the Super Eights table and are currently in 7th position due to their superior net run rate. Bangladesh, who now has officially been eliminated from semi final consideration, languish at the bottom of the table. The West Indies are tied with Bangladesh and Ireland on 2 points, but still have an outside shot at the semi finals. However, it is also highly possible that the once proud team from the Caribbean could end up fighting Ireland and Bangladesh for that last placed spot in the Super Eights table.
(Cross posted from
Rain, No Play)
Labels: 2007 world cup, bangladesh, ireland, world cup
"We'll get them in singles"
We'll never know what Collingwood and Nixon are currently telling each other after England've managed to spectacularly cock up an easy chase
against Bangladesh. England slipped from 110/4 to 110/6 in the space of a Mohammad Rafique over. Collingwood and Nixon have so far dealt mainly in singles.
Maybe they actually
did say what
GeoffGeorge Hirst may have told Wilfred Rhodes during the
1902 Ashes test at The Oval.
Labels: 2007 world cup, bangladesh, england, world cup
Time to review the Net Run Rate rule
The Net Run Rate calculation is used during multi-team tournaments as a 'tie breaker' when two or more teams are level on points and in their head-to-head results. Net Run Rate for a team is the run rate at which the team has scored runs minus the run rate which the team has conceded in all the games they've played. So if team A played two games, scoring 300 in 50 overs and 120 all out and conceded 280 in 50 overs and 121 in 30 overs, their net run rate would be -0.81 (Their run rate is 4.2 [420 in 100 ov] and they conceded 5.01 [401 in 80 ov]).
The problem with this method is that teams which are in trouble and need to improve their net run rate will obviously try to do so against
weaker opponents, like India did against Bermuda a couple of days ago. My suggestion is that the net run rate calculation should first involve only the teams that are tied on points & head to head results. If that doesn't work (for e.g. if there were two teams tied thus and the game between them, the obvious way to find the NRR in games involving them, was tied/washed out), only then the net run rate calculation should be extended to all matches they played in. Doing so would increase the importance of the matches between these teams and reduce the games against the weaker teams.
So, if Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka are tied on points and in their head-to-head games (i.e. if India defeat Sri Lanka), the first tie breaker should be the run rates in the Bangladesh-India, Bangladesh-Sri Lanka and India-Sri Lanka games. The
calculations would then be a little different, obviously. The NRR, before the India-Sri Lanka game, would be Bangladesh -1.87, India -0.14 and Sri Lanka +3.93, as opposed to the
how it looks now (Bangladesh -2.00, India +2.57 and Sri Lanka +4.59). Using such a model, the only possibilities for Bangladesh to go through are Sri Lanka winning against India with India folding up for something like 125 and Sri Lanka getting the runs in 14 overs or so or India making 200 and Sri Lanka making 201 in 18 overs or so.
In fact, I wanted to put up this post yesterday, complete in the knowledge that this sort of net run rate calculation would mean that India would have been at a disadvantage. Bangladesh have done themselves
no favours by losing so heavily to Sri Lanka. But Sri Lanka are looking awesome and it's going to take more than a special last-ditch effort for India to win. Sri Lanka would obviously like Bangladesh to qualify along with them so that they take two points into the Super Eight stage. So we're definitely not going to see any lack of effort on their side, since a loss decreases their chances of qualifying.
Labels: 2007 world cup, bangladesh, india, sri lanka, world cup
Understanding The Psyche of the So-Called Sub-Continental Cricket Fan
Rodney Cavalier, the chairman of Sydney Cricket Ground, once said that cricket as sport had the capacity to “engage of all the spectators’ senses”; it provides what he called “a soporific indifference to time and circumstance”. Even though Cavalier made that observation while celebrating the cerebral elements of the sport and the art and literature it inspires ahead of the New Year’s Test in Sydney three years ago, in a way, his account also explains some of the more extreme reactions that cricket routinely brings here in the sub-continent.

Burning posters and effigies, angry slogan clad rallies, and more outrageous protests by stoning players’ houses, calls for them to be arrested, they’re bank accounts be sealed, all this just in response to a loss at the World Cup. This latest stream of violence from some fans in both India and
Pakistan that has led to increased security outside players’ homes has come after the two sides’ upset defeats against Bangladesh and Ireland respectively; reversibly fans
in Bangladesh have reportedly come out on the streets to celebrate, with firecrackers, high waving flags and nationalistic chants.
Such extreme reactions are not one off.
In Ranchi, the hometown of Indian wicket keeper batsman Dhoni, some 200 angry “fans” stormed the player’s under construction house after India’s loss, one of them complaining that he was "banking more on modelling than wicket-keeping and batting". State authorities have had to as result assign paramilitary units for the protection of Dhoni’s property. Speaking of which, this property, reportedly, a 360 square metre (4,000 square feet) plot of land, worth five million rupees ($110,000) was “awarded” to Dhoni by the Jharkand State it self.
So you’re left wondering what’s more outrageous, the fact that the state government decided to honor a cricketer by giving him free land, or the fact that angry fans tried to mob it after the said player had a bad day in the office. What drives such excessive reactions? Is it merely that ability of cricket to make its followers indifferent to time and circumstance and in this case, indifferent to logical perspective as well, or is it something deeper rotted, underlying and more sinister?
Amit Varma, whilst writing in
The Mint,
suggests that it’s driven by a misplaced since of “nationalism associated with cricket”. “This is a product of our past:” he writes, “For the first few decades of our independence, there was nothing at which an Indian could point and say, “Ah, India dominates in that, it can show the rest of the world how it’s done.” Cricket, for what its worth, turned out to be something we weren’t too bad at.” And the media he adds, “cannot separate nation from cricket either”, “some of our best writers still talk of our players being symbols of a newly assertive India, of how the journey of the cricket team mirrors the rise of our nation, and other such impressive-sounding rubbish”.
Whilst the perceptions here in Pakistan may not be decidedly the same, in fact, given the new spiritual look of the team, many commentators have argued the image Inzamam’s men project is contradicting that of Musharaf’s modern and liberal ‘enlightened moderated’ Pakistan, but that sense of correlating cricket with national pride and shame, nevertheless exists.
Amongst many of the fans that were on the streets pleading emotionally for the government to take action by withdrawing all the awards given to the players and management, there was a certain Yasir Ali, from Inzamam’s hometown Multan, “That is the least they can do for the shame and disgrace they have brought upon us” he lamented, adding that “They must be made to pay for their spineless performance”. In Hyderabad, another protester, club cricketer Saleem Kazi, asserted while taking part in the mock burial that they had “every right” to vent their anger given “people celebrated when the team won”. Obviously, no even ever told Saleem that two wrongs never make a right; placing cricketers on a pedestal when they win as if they were national saviors is just as wrong as demeaning them as insults to the nation when they lose.
Sportsmen and women are perceived as ambassadors for their nations at some levels through out the world, but such exaggerated chauvinism is unique to the subcontinent, and may well be the reflection of some of our hidden insecurities. But the misplaced nationalism theory still doesn’t completely explain the violence. You can be passionate about a sport, even regard it as matter of national disgrace or honor if the team loses or wins, but why go to such lengths to peruse this idea that in the process disregard all natural parameters of life?
Some play cards in the aforementioned protests to Pakistan’s loss chanted “death to Inzi, death to Woolmer”; the world and Woolmer’s mourning family, can now only wonder how much the unrelenting stresses of such a job may have contributed to his eventual tragic death yesterday. But the very next day, my local paper still reports that some ‘fans’ are expected to take out a protest rally in front of the Karachi Press Club, the cricket induced nationalism shouldn’t entice people to such acute lack of sensitivity, and disrespect of human life it self.
Such thoughtlessness too is not a one-off. Prem Panicker, a long time cricket writer for Rediff.com, for instance,
discovered this condolence message for Woolmer’s family at the Rediff message board with a shocking recommendation for the Indian coach Greg Chapel:
“i think greg chappel should also learn from this thing.,.,1 advice fr him is -if he cannot lead the team of india.,.,he should commit suicide.,.,its like playinn wid d semtiiments of the billion ppl of india…”
Prem wonders “what kind of warped mind will view the death of one giant of sport, to advise another to kill himself?”, but it seems few things came in the way of the fanatical obsession some people have. You’d have hoped the sudden nature and timing of Woolmer’s tragic death would have put some perspective back into these guys, but perhaps, as Prem implies, this is what their 'passion' for cricket has brought them to, “mental myopia” and “moral atrophy”. May God bless the soul of Bob Woolmer, and guide these ignorant out of their misery they’re in.
Cross Posted at Sundries & Cricket Bloggers of PakistanLabels: 2007 world cup, bangladesh, india, mobs, pakistan, world cup
Double Shocker!

In probably the most stunning day of cricket in the history of the World Cup, Pakistan crashed out of the World Cup at the hands of associate nation Ireland and favourites India were cut down by unfancied Bangladesh. India are now in serious danger of bowing out in the group stage.
In Jamaica, on St. Patrick's day, the Irish created the biggest upset in World Cups since Kenya defeated the Windies in 1996. Irish captain Trent Johnston, won the toss and inserted the opposition on a pitch that offered some sideways movement early on. Andre Botha was the bowling star for the Irish, returning the unworldly figures of 2 wickets for 5 runs off 8 overs, including maidens. Botha got the key wicket of Pakistan captain Inzamam, as the Pakistanis lost wickets early and often. The Pakistanis never got on top of the bowling and were pinned down as they folded for 132 in 45.4 overs. Extras topscored at 29, including a massive 22 wides by the Irish bowlers. The Pakistani batting has been a major disappointment this World Cup. The best word I can think of to describe their batting is "neutered", as they lacked passion or even any sense of life in their batting.

N'iall O'Brien topscored with 72.
In reply, a solid 72 by man of the match N'iall O'Brien, took the Irish to the 3 wicket win. Mohammad Sami was the only Pakistani bowler on show that consistently looked capable of taking a wicket.
Sami took 3/29
His fiery pace earned him figures of 3/29 from his ten overs. Those figures weren't enought to stop the Irish on this day, and when Johnston hit Azar Mahmood for six to win the match, the overwhelmingly pro-Ireland crowd went wild.
In Trinidad, India have found themselves on the outside of the "group of death". A listless, uninspiring performance by the Indians, means that they must beat Sri Lanka, or they will be joining Pakistan with an early exit.
Batting first, the Indians failed to cope with the pace of Mashrafe Mortaza (4/38) nor the left arm spin of Mohammad Rafique and Abdur Razzak, 3 wickets a piece. These three bowlers were among the leading wicket takers in ODIs last year, so their returns should not be shocking. Sourav Ganguly topscored with a grinding 66 off 129 balls as India were bowled out for 191 in the 50th over.
The Bangladeshis then coolly knocked off the runs, with teenagers Tanim Iqbal, Mushfiqur Rahim and Saqibul Hasan making half centuries. They reached their target for the loss of only 5 wickets to claim their second ever World Cup win.
Not that we like to brag, but we did say that Ireland were a dangerous team
here,
here and
here. On St Patrick's Day, all the luck was with the Irish, lets' hope that that luck runs out when they meet the Windies. It may still be hard to believe that the Irish actually knocked off the Pakistanis, so here's one more picture to prove it:

The West Indies will do well to avoid losing to Zimbabwe and Ireland next week, as they no longer have the points from the Pakistan match to take to the Super Eights.
Labels: 2007 world cup, bangladesh, india, ireland, pakistan, world cup
Minnow words
'Minnow' is a term used to refer to
small fish. In sport, it also refers to small/underdog teams who're competing with established giants.
At this World Cup, although
Geoff had England in his list of ODI 'minnows', the minnow teams are (in alphabetical order): Bangladesh (despite wins against
Sri Lanka,
Australia and
India in the last 2.5 years), Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands, Scotland and Zimbabwe.
Ergo, half of the teams in this World Cup count as minnows. Australia's
thrashing of
Scotland and Sri Lanka
doing the same to Bermuda will undoubtedly get people asking the ICC more questions about why these countries are playing at the World Cup. Like Stuart pointed out, a close game between the minnow was realistically the only way there could be some interest in a game, say between
Ireland and Zimbabwe.
This discussion on minnow teams is interesting and it comes at a time when Tasmania, who
topped the points table in this season's Pura Cup, find themselves
in the Pura Cup final, against New South Wales, starting next week.
If Australia's cricket administrators
had stuck to their stand and not included Tasmania in the domestic competition at all, or had included it say in the 1990s rather than
in 1977/78, we may not have seen the emergence of the likes of
David Boon or
boring run-machine Ricky Ponting.
Ponting ought to realize that Tasmania was a minnow too. He spoke out against
minnow teams for this World Cup and also during the
2004 ICC Champions Trophy. To be fair to him, he does have a point. The ICC gives these teams a series of big games once in a couple of years (at the ICC Champions Trophy and at the World Cup). There's no doubt that these minnow teams feel hopelessly out of depth in such events. The better way to get these teams to improve their standards are to first make them play more games with each other (which the ICC is doing) and to have them play against at least one major team on an annual basis, so that by the time they get to a major ICC tournament, they've played against at least some of the major teams at least once.
In other minnow news, there seems to be dissent in the English ranks. When England were 4-0 down against India last year, Hoggard commented that
he'd rather take a 5-fer in an Ashes win than a 5-fer in a World Cup win. Of course, they were his views. Michael Vaughan though seemed to offer a different take now that
the Ashes were lost 5-0. He said
I guess winning the tournament, with the relative inexperience of our bowling attack and where we've been in one-day cricket recently, would be a bigger achievement than winning the Ashes.
The general rule of thumb, by the way, is that England
always have an inexperienced bowling attack. Find me one series in the last couple of years where England's captain/coach haven't been quoted as saying their bowling was inexperienced. I'm fairly sure they said it before the
2005 Ashes too.
Back to what Vaughan said though. He's obviously saying that he'd be happier with winning a World Cup (with this team) than the Ashes.
Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bangladesh, bermuda, canada, england, holland, kenya, minnows, netherlands, ponting, scotland, tasmania, vaughan, world cup, zimbabwe
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.