World Cup semis: The stories you definitely won't see

Mahinda Rajapaksa invites Queen Elizabeth II and John Key to chill out at the World Cup semi-final

Sri Lanka's President (& head of government), Mahinda Rajapaksa, has invited New Zealand's head of state Queen Elizabeth II and the head of government John Key to enjoy his hospitality during the World Cup semi-final at the Premadasa stadium as part of a diplomatic coup. The two island nations have been engaged in a 'cold war' since December 2006 after Murali was controversially run out even as he was walking to congratulate Sangakkara on his brilliant 100 at Christchurch.

---

Nathan Guy warns team against any attempts to smoke weed before semi-final

New Zealand's Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy, has issued a strict warning to the New Zealand team ahead of the World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. Acknowledging that New Zealand cricketers had a past history, he indicated that the team was under surveillance. Smirking & refusing to comment when this reporter asked him if he knew what South Africa's batsmen were smoking during the quarter-final, he said "I don't know about that, but what they were doing was a phonetically similar 7 letter word ending with 'oking'".

---

All set for mother of all semi-finals

Sri Lanka's media have lapped up the world's attention around the semi-final featuring Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Hordes of politicians, businessmen & celebrities have landed in Colombo. All hotels in and around Colombo have hung 'house-full' signboards and tickets are being traded in the black markets at premiums exceeding 500% of the list price.

---

Will New Zealand finally break the World Cup jinx against Sri Lanka?

New Zealand's rugby fanatic media woke up on Saturday to the breaking news that their cricket team had finally got rid of their bogey side, South Africa. Their elation was tempered after the realization that the semi-final was against Sri Lanka, who they have never beaten in any knock-out game at an ICC event!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, headline, new zealand, semi-final, sri lanka, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:43 pm | Sledge/Read 23 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

World Cup - Surprise picks and omissions

Similar to India's 1 surprise pick & Sri Lanka's 2 surprise omissions in their 2011 World Cup squads, most other teams had at least one selection that was odd.

Australia picked Brett Lee and David Hussey, who hadn't played any internationals for nearly 1.5 years. With the tournament being played in the sub-continent, Australia picked 1.6 specialist spinners (Steve Smith bowls 6 overs per game on an average). Now that's a bizarre pick. Australia's part-time spin options are David Hussey (2 overs per game before he was picked in the squad) and Cameron White (2-3 overs per game when he had the skipper's trust and had not even bowled a single ball since August 2009). With 5 quicks & an all-rounder, clearly Australia are relying on pace to win. Seems like a gamble to me.

Despite investing nearly a year in Craig Kieswetter and Steve Davies, England went back to Matt Prior. Other than that, the squad seems reasonably balanced, with a couple of bits-and-pieces players in Luke Wright & James Tredwell.

Luke Woodcock is the unknown player in New Zealand's squad. He hadn't even played an ODI before he was picked. The squad seems weak on the batting though, and the opening slot hasn't yet been sorted out.

Pakistan didn't have any major surprises in the squad, but they did come up with one bolter. They didn't name a captain! That said, the batting definitely looks shaky with only Younis Khan & Misbah having the skills to do a good job with the middle overs. Only 2 specialist spinners were picked, which seems odd for a Pakistani side playing a World Cup in the sub-continent.

South Africa, by contrast, picked 3 specialist spinners, 2 of who are newbies. South Africa's problem is with #6, #7 and #8. Having dropped Boucher, who used to come in at #6 & #7 and salvage a crisis, they don't have too many experienced players to fill up those slots. The batting essentially ends after Duminy (typically at #5).

West Indies have picked just 5 bowlers (3 quicks & 2 spinners) and are obviously hoping that Dwayne Bravo will bowl his full spell and pick up wickets regularly.

The other omission was that of Eden Gardens. The ground won't host the India v England game & the match will now be played at Bangalore. But there seems to be some ambiguity around it. Kyazoonga, the official ticketing partner, doesn't list the India v England game. Does this mean backroom negotiations are still going on, and Eden Gardens will get the game?

Actually, the Cricket Association of Bengal, which is really the main agency to be blamed for the fiasco, should just relinquish its hosting rights for the other games at the ground, each of which is guaranteed to bring in crowds of at least 90000.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, australia, england, new zealand, pakistan, south africa, squad, west indies, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:54 am | Sledge/Read 97 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini

In December 2009, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson were involved in a downright ugly altercation at the WACA test. Johnson wasn't really the trouble-maker then, but less than three months later, during the Napier ODI against New Zealand, he was the instigator.

After being smacked for consecutive boundaries by Scott Styris in the last two balls of his 10-over quota (46th over of the innings), Johnson totally lost it.

He screamed at Styris and definitely head-butted him (see video #1 and video #2).

There were only two reasons why the situation didn't get worse - Styris was wearing a helmet, and Brad Haddin pushed Johnson away from the scene.

Again, as was the case at Perth, the umpire did nothing!

After the game, Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee had a man-to-man talk with Mitchell Johnson and Scott Styris and fined them 60% and 15% of their match fee.

Johnson was charged with a level 2 offence (2.2.4 dealing with inappropriate and deliberate physical contact). Styris was charged with a level 1 offence (2.1.8 dealing with actions contrary to the spirit of cricket, bringing the game into disrepute).

So let's go back in time. In December, Johnson brought the game into disrepute and his actions were contrary to the spirit of the game. At that same time, Sulieman Benn was given suspension points and missed two ODIs.

Yet, while Benn got suspension points, the ICC media release makes no mention of Johnson getting suspension points. I'm definitely not making the case that Benn got a harsh punishment. But the point here is around how somehow the ICC match referees tend to close at least one eye when it comes to judging Australian players' behaviour.

One suspension point means the player misses an ODI or T20 international. Two suspension points means the player misses a test or two ODIs/T20 internationals.

Clause 7.3 of the code of conduct deals with repeat offences within a 12 month (not calendar year) period. A repeat of a level 1 offence results in a fine between 50-100% of the match fee and/or 2 suspension points. A repeat of a level 2 offence results in between 2 and 8 suspension points.

In December, Johnson was hauled up under a level 1 offence charge. Last week, he was hauled up under a level 2 offence. But in both situations, his act was the same - inappropriate physical contact. Given the recurrence, it seems fairly obvious that he should have been suspended for at least 1 ODI, in addition to a monetary penalty.

Since he pleaded guilty early on, thereby escaping the match referee's wrath (?), I hereby anoint Mitchell Johnson the new Harry Houdini.

What's your opinion?

How did Mitchell Johnson get away without being banned for at least 1 ODI?
	He knows Ranjan Madugalle's dark secrets and is blackmailing him
	There was serious plea bargaining
	Ricky Ponting demanded that Madugalle take his word that Johnson was not guilty of anything
	Mitchell Johnson is the new Harry Houdini
	He's Aussie

Labels: australia, ban, behaviour, benn, chappell-hadlee, houdini, icc, johnson, match referee, new zealand, spirit of cricket, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Where's the ruthlessness?

It is now a week since India won the test series against New Zealand 1-0. Yet, as has already been commented in a lot of places, the scoreline should really have been 2-0.

In just 7 tests as India's captain (won 5, drawn 2), MS Dhoni has already twice exhibited a strangely defensive mindset. First, at Mohali against England where the batting was needlessly defensive in the 1st innings and and an unnecessary and unhealthy focus on seeing if Gambhir and Yuvraj could get their centuries in the 2nd innings.

At Wellington, I don't think the declaration was significantly delayed. I know setting a target of 600+ in the last innings is a bit outlandish, but at least the positive intent was there while batting. The main problem is that the field setting during New Zealand's "chase" was ridiculously defensive a lot of the time, particularly after McCullum was wrongly given out.

For some strange reason, Daniel Vettori was allowed to pick up singles. Now, he's not a bad batsman and but for the need to preserve the image of New Zealand's "batsmen" he'd have consistently gone in at #5 or #6. Yet, given the state of the game and the immense pressure he'd have been under, there was a real shortage of close-in fielders. This tendency to "allow" the "better" lower order batsman to get off strike with the intention of focussing on the bunny at the other end is something I've seen several Indian teams employ. I dare say, it has failed every single time, for a variety of reasons (poor field placement, dropped catches, bad fielding, plain luck, etc.)

The ruthlessness that you expect from a side which targets a #1 position in ODIs by 2009 and in tests by 2010 (incidentally the very first time that a short-term vision is being outlined by someone representing the BCCI) has been absent for a while.

One could point out that South Africa lost the Sydney test while Australia lost at Cape Town. After all, if the other top two sides also seem to take it easy in "dead rubbers", why blame India?

Yet, why should the Indian team use the current Australian team as benchmark? Why not set new standards?

In the 18 series that Dhoni has captained, India have lost the final match after sealing the series on 4 occasions (v Pakistan in India, v Sri Lanka away twice and the recent ODI series v New Zealand). Add in the diffidence at Mohali and Wellington and you have to question if the team management is satisfied being a #3 side or if it really wants to be #1 soon.

There is absolutely no doubt that the side has the ability to do even better. What it does need though is someone other than Yuvraj at #6. Yuvraj is 27 while the others vying for the slot (Suresh Raina, Subramaniam Badrinath & Rohit Sharma) are 22, 28 and 25. In fact, if Irfan Pathan sorts out his bowling soon enough, I'd add him to the mix as well. After Sourav Ganguly's retirement, none of the top 6 bowl anything other than spin (excluding Tendulkar's all-sorts). So Irfan would provide a wonderful option. He can't bat worse than Yuvraj, so all he has to do is to get the bowling together and contribute something like 15-5-35-1 (with the occasional 2-3 wicket "haul") every innings as a 3rd seamer. That would be invaluable.

So really there's nothing to be lost in giving these chaps a few chances. I wouldn't associate any stigma with Yuvraj Singh not being able to make it in test cricket. He is one of the best batsmen in limited overs cricket. He has had enough opportunities, and I'll stick to my stand. He is an excellent replacement batsman, but he should never be a first choice pick despite him playing the odd sensational innings.

For all the talk of Michael Bevan not succeeding in test cricket, I think it suffices to point out his ODI record and the number of times he's won a game for Australia. There're several other players who come to mind - notably Symonds and Rhodes (batting & fielding) & Harris and Saqlain (bowling). Does that diminish their achievements? I don't think so. I'm not devaluing test cricket. But assuming that achievements in test cricket count significantly more than those in the other formats of the game is unfair.

A statistic to end this - Before this series win, the last time India won the test and ODI series of a tour (excluding those involving Bangladesh & Zimbabwe) was in Pakistan in 2004. If you exclude the sub-continent, the last occasion was in England in 1986.

Labels: dhoni, india, new zealand, positive intent, ruthlessness, statistic, yuvraj

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:12 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India to play 3 tests in New Zealand

After India cancelled the tour of Pakistan, the situation was such that the players would have had no international cricket between Dec 24 and Mar 3 and only some of them would have featured in the Ranji Trophy semi-finals and final. The BCCI was hit significantly by the cancellation of the tour in terms of revenues from TV and hence started talks with New Zealand's cricket board to include an extra test in that tour.

It is likely that the original request from the BCCI was for making it a 2-test 7-ODI series. I guess Cricket NZ shot down the idea. In any case, credit to both parties for the revised schedule.

The original schedule comprised of 1 T20 game, a warm-up game, 2 tests and 5 ODIs. Under the new schedule, India will play 2 T20 games, 3 tests and 5 ODIs, which means the warm-up game has been scrapped. I'm not too concerned about the absence of a warmup game since the bulk of the Indian team would have featured in the ODIs, the only exceptions being Dravid, Laxman & perhaps Mishra.

Labels: bcci, india, new zealand

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:18 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ODI cricket digs its own grave

At a time when there is a lot of discussion about the future of 50-over cricket given the advent of Twenty20, yesterday's proceedings in the 2nd one-dayer between England and New Zealand came at absolutely the worst possible time.

The game started at 3 pm (local time) because of heavy rain, which wasn't a problem. But, fascinatingly enough, the players went for a 30 minute lunch break even though it was well past 'lunch time'. Like Vettori and Collingwood say, common sense seemed to be lacking.

I have ranted here in the past about some totally illogical decisions related to lunch and tea breaks.

In 2004, again in a game involving England and New Zealand, play started 2 hours late. Yet, the umpires called for 'lunch' even though conditions were perfectly okay for play to start. In 2005, during Pakistan's tour of India, play only started at 2 pm local time. So why on earth did they have to go off for tea!?

Also yesterday, New Zealand had a maximum of 23 overs (unless there was another rain delay) to get the runs but rain started at the end of the 19th over. Take a look at the ICC ODI playing conditions.

Clause 12.4.2 b (iii) which deals with the length of innings of the team batting second in a limited overs game says

To constitute a match, a minimum of 20 overs have to be bowled to the team batting second subject to the innings not being completed earlier.

. Law 21.2 defines a win in a limited overs game.

Save for circumstances where a match is awarded to a team as a
consequence of the opposing teams refusal to play (Law 21.3), a result can be achieved only if both teams have had the opportunity of batting for at least 20 overs, unless one team has been all out in less than 20 overs or unless the team batting second scores enough runs to win in less than 20 overs.

Save for circumstances where a match is awarded to a team as a consequence of the opposing teams refusal to play (Law 21.3), all matches in which both teams have not had an opportunity of batting for a minimum of 20 overs, shall be declared no result.

If a game has been reduced to 23 overs because of weather conditions, it is highly likely that 20 overs may not be bowled to the team batting second. Instead, the rules need to be changed in such a manner that a certain %age of the maximum overs for the innings need to be bowled. That number could either be 40% (20 overs for a 50 over game) or it could be something like '40% or 10 overs, whichever is higher'. Such a change would ensure that teams, spectators, fans and audiences get the satisfaction out of having watched a completed game.

It really is high time the ICC had a serious re-think about how to apply common sense in such situations as well as think about doing away with the tea break in test matches altogether. Surely if players can do without a rest day, they can do without a 20 minute tea break. Replace the tea break with a 5 minutes drink break and we can get in at least 3 more overs in the day!

Update: The 'Ostrich' has partially fixed the issue. Henceforth, umpires are empowered to alter the duration of the innings interval.

But, this is a classic case of missing the wood for the trees. By reducing the interval by say 15 minutes, 3 overs would be gained. Nevertheless, if the rains had come down in the 19th over, the game would still have been a no-result. The root cause here is the restriction that a 50-over game needs a minimum of 20 overs to be bowled to the side batting second for the game to qualify to have a result.

As per the ICC's rules for Twenty20 internationals, 5 overs need to be bowled for the side chasing. This is delicious irony: A 23-over game is a no-result because 20 overs haven't been bowled, while a 20-over game could have a result if 5 overs have been bowled!

Labels: england, icc, lunch, new zealand, odi, ostrich, playing conditions, rain, rules, tea

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:17 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Crisis time for cricket?

It doesn't seem like a great time to be a cricket administrator, especially if you aren't an Indian cricket administrator. I'd say this is a pretty testing time for cricket and I really hope the powers-that-be recognize it and fix the real problems.

New Zealand cricket could really do with some help. Shane Bond's NZ Cricket contract was terminated since he wanted to play in the Indian Cricket League. Scott Styris retired from test cricket to focus on playing limited overs cricket. He'd only played 8 tests in the last 3 years, compared to 49 ODIs and 13 Twenty20 games in that same period. I just don't understand exactly how playing 3 tests a year stressed him out. Most other players play between 8 and 12 tests a year on an average! Stephen Fleming may retire from test cricket less than a year after retiring from ODIs after the 2007 World Cup. A whole bunch of Pakistani cricketers, including Mohammad Sami and Naved-ul-Hasan Rana, have joined the ICL.

Update on 14 Feb: Stephen Fleming has confirmed that he will retire after New Zealand's upcoming test series against England.

The Indian Cricket League isn't the only reason why players are retiring. The Indian Premier League (website) is also likely to result in several cricketers in the twilight of their careers retiring to earn a lot of money for a few weeks of effort. Adam Gilchrist is possibly only the first of a long list. Australia's star players are at loggerheads with their cricket board over potential sponsor clashes in the Indian Premier League. Simon Taufel is indicating that he may not renew his umpiring contract with the ICC. Given the umpiring cock-ups we've seen recently and the number of umpires available/eligible, this is a huge problem for the ICC. I'm fairly sure quite a few English county sides are worried as well, since the star overseas players they have signed up, at huge costs, would miss a few weeks of their county commitments to play in the IPL. There was a suggestion by an administrator (possibly from the IPL committee) that the ICC's Future Tours Programme (FTP) could be changed to accomodate IPL tournaments.

But is it fair to assume that the BCCI is the only one which will be sitting pretty? I'm not so sure about it. As various commentators have observed, given the amount of money the franchise owners have pumped in, they will eventually demand that their players be more frequently available to them. Even if they agree to priority being given for international cricket commitments, the owners could insist that the players join the teams late and play IPL games instead of playing in warm-up games. Alternately, they could insist that players play for their IPL sides when they're rested or in-between tours. Will the IPL cannibalize the BCCI's domestic cricket tournaments? Eventually, could the IPL cannibalize international cricket per se to the extent that players will opt for the IPL over an international tour?

So what are the problems here?

• Availability of players: The IPL may insist, eventually when it is successful, that players need to spend more time playing their league rather than international cricket. Can cricket boards make it very clear to the IPL and the franchisees that their contracted players will be available only if they are fit and there are no international or domestic commitments? They may allow players who are dropped to participate in the IPL. Hence this implies that the board's international commitments and domestic cricket tournaments take precedence over the IPL tournaments.
  
• Players retiring to play in the IPL: Once a player retires from international cricket, they are no longer contracted to the cricket board. Hence the board cannot bar a player from playing in the IPL. At most, if the player is still playing domestic cricket, then his state association can do something about it.
  
• Umpires causing the same problems as players: Like Taufel is possibly hinting, he could join the IPL at the expense of his international umpiring career. Also, umpires could opt to umpire IPL games rather than tests or ODIs.
  
• Player/Umpire contracts being terminated since they want to be part of the ICL: This potentially results in a dwindling player/umpire pool for the cricket board since the current ICC policy is that the ICL is an unauthorized tournament.

Labels: australia, bcci, bond, book cricket, fleming, icc, india, indian cricket league, indian premier league, ipl 2008, new zealand, retire, stephen fleming, styris, taufel, twenty20, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:00 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Craig McMillan retires

Craig McMillan, who once suffered the ignominy of not picked to play against Bangladesh, has just announced his decision to retire from international and domestic cricket.

Does this mean he will sign-up for the Indian Cricket League? Or will he be content playing book cricket?

Labels: book cricket, indian cricket league, mcmillan, new zealand, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:26 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sri Lankan Party at Sabina



In today's first semi final of Cricket World Cup 2007, Sri Lanka stamped their class on the Kiwis and urged on by strong crowd support went on to crush the Kiwis by 81 runs. Winning the toss, the Sri Lankans, showing the bravado that has won them many fans, elected to bat first on a wicket that promised to assist New Zealand's pacers.

Captain Mahela Jayawardene's decision seemed to backfire in the third over, when star batsman Sanath Jayasuriya's stumps were clattered by a James Franklin delivery. Franklin bowled well at the star of the innings, but the same couldn't be said for Shane Bond, who picked the worst time to have a bad performance. His first over went for 9 runs as he strayed down leg side, allowing Upul Tharanga to glance the ball for a boundary down to fine leg. The day would get much worse for Bond.





Bond had his worst day of the tournament.


After Jayasuriya's dismissal, Tharanga took the fight to the Kiwis, hitting 73 off 74 deliveries. He received little support at the other end, as Kumar Sangakkara consumed all of 42 deliveries in making 18, while not rotating the strike. When Sangakkara got out, Jayawardene replaced him and struggled the keep the scoreboard ticking over at the start of his innings. His first 25 runs came in more than 50 deliveries, at a time when Tharanga was going at more than a run-a-ball at the other end. In fact it seemed that Jayawardene was more content to block deliveries rather than to give the strike back to Tharanga. When Tharanga was dismissed, first Chamara Silva (21 off 33) and then Tillakaratne Dilshan, 30 off 27, continued where Tharanga left off. However it was Jayawardene who was the real star of the show. Breaking lose of his shackles, Jayawardene blasted 98 runs off the last 62 deliveries he faced. His first World Cup ton of 115n.o. off only 109 deliveries was extremely well placed as his first 19 deliveries had yielded only 2 runs. He received a little luck though in the 46th over when a top edged sweep burst through Shane Bond's hands at fine leg, only to land exactly on top of the boundary rope for six.

With every four and six of the Sri Lankan innings, the roughly 75% full Sabina Park cheered loudly, as horns blared, drums were beaten and music flowed from all around the ground. There were many Sri Lankans and Kiwis, but there were also English, Pakistani, Indian and West Indies supporters in attendance and the majority of them threw their support behind the dashing Sri Lankans. It was the kind of atmosphere that the World Cup had missed for much of the tournament.




Some Indian and Pakistani fans even united in their support for Sri Lanka.



Jayawardene's heroics had lifted Sri Lanka to 289/5 off 50 overs, presenting a challenge that seemed very steep for the Kiwis. The Lankans had scored 102 off their last 10 overs to reach the daunting total. New Zealand's ace Bond, had gone for 59 runs off his 10 overs. He had been averaging less than 3 runs per over previously in the tournament.



Lasith Malinga bowled with pace and venom.

When the Kiwis set out to bat, they were pinned down early by brilliant fast bowling from Chaminda Vaas and Lasith Malinga. Malinga had New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming lbw in the second over. Vaas and Malinga took full advantage of the overcast conditions and Malinga in particular bowled at seering pace early on. In one stretch, with Malinga touching 94mph, poor Ross Taylor could not even get a touch on Malinga's deliveries as he was beaten repeatedly by pace and movement.


After the early damage had been done, a stubborn Peter Fulton and an attacking Scott Styris took New Zealand to 105/2 in the 22nd over. Styris' innings was threatening to bring New Zealand back into the game, before he chipped a tame catch to Jayasuriya off Dilshan. The fall of Styris' wicket triggered a collapsed for the Kiwis as they lost 5 wickets for 11 runs to the spin of Muttiah Muralitharan and Jayasuriya. Muralitharan proved to be more than a handful and his off breaks and doosras baffled the Kiwis.



Murali's 4/31 took him past the 50 wicket mark in World Cups and gave him 23 wickets in this World Cup, tying teammate Vaas for the highest ever total in a single World Cup.

The Kiwis' dramatic slide from 105/2 to 116/7 was too much to overcome and a tenth wicket partnership of 59 between Franklin (30n.o) and Jeetan Patel (34) only delayed the inevitable. When Patel holed out to Dilhara Fernando at long on, New Zealand had lost by 81 runs. The Sri Lankan bowling except for Fernando and to a lesser extent Jayasuriya, was stifling. After such an imperious start to the tournament the Kiwis' World Cup ended with two consecutive defeats in which they lost by a combined 286 runs.

Sri Lanka will now await the winner of tomorrow's second semi final between Australia and South Africa. After going for 45 off 5 overs, including 5 no balls and a wide and being warned twice in his first over for running on the pitch, Fernando will be hard pressed to be in the squad for the finals on Saturday, but otherwise the Sri Lankans will be looking to these same players to recapture the glory of their 1996 World Cup triumph.

(Croos posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, new zealand, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Sean @ 7:44 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

All-conquering Aussies reduce Kiwis to minnows

Australia 348 New Zealand 133

At least the West Indies didn't lose to Australia this bad. Not even Scotland lost to them this bad.

Australia firmly stamped their authority on the tournament and especially on the Kiwis today. In a ruthlessly efficient performance the Australians blasted the Kiwis for a 215 run defeat. This was the sixth victory of over 200 runs at this tournament, the other 5 by minnows Scotland, Holland and Bermuda. On this day, New Zealand firmly belonged in that company as they were outclassed on every level. It must have been sweet revenge for the Aussies, who suffered a rare sweep just 2 months ago against these same Kiwis.

After the early loss of Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting and Matthew Hayden blasted the New Zealand attack around the park in Grenada. The Kiwis were noticeably missing their best bowler in Shane Bond, said to be ill, and opening bowlers Michael Mason and James Franklin had no answer for Ponting and Hayden as they both went at 9+ runs per over. After Hayden was third out for 103 off 100 balls in the 33rd over, New Zealand gained a measure of control over the innings as the slow bowling of Daniel Vettori, Jeetan Patel and Scott Styris limited the run feast. It was then that Shane Watson, in his first match back from injury clobbered the Kiwis for 50 off 28 balls taking Australia's total to 348/6.

New Zealand got off to a promising reply at 21 in the 4th over, but captain Stephen Fleming was given out caught behind off Tait when the ball clearly brushed his arm and missed the bat. From there, the Kiwis lost wickets regularly as only Peter Fulton (62) offered any resistance to Tait, McGrath and Hogg. When Fulton was last out, bowled behind his legs by Hogg, the Kiwis had succomed to their largest ever ODI defeat.

Australia have now won 21 straight World Cup matches. They haven't had much resistance at this World Cup, with only England briefly threatening to put up a challenging score against them. I wonder what would happen if a team, like South Africa, batted first and put over 300 on the board? What would happen then if a team refused to fold meekly before the Aussies?

(Cross-Posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, new zealand, world cup

Thus spake Sean @ 10:57 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

World Cup semi-finalists decided

South Africa have joined Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka in the semi-final list after whipping England at Barbados. It is fair to say that the four best sides of the tournament will play the semis, for none of the other contenders with a long shot, England and West Indies, have played well enough to deserve a place in the last four.

Although the remaining games are of academic interest since the semis lineup is already decided, what will be of interest is who plays who in the semi finals at Jamaica and St. Lucia. If Australia win against New Zealand, they will obviously top the table. That would also more or less ensure that Sri Lanka would be #2 assuming Sri Lanka whip Ireland today. Even if Australia lose to New Zealand, as long as it isn't a humiliating defeat, their net run-rate will ensure that they will top the table. South Africa's net run rate is the lowest of the four. It is so low that it would take some strange and terrible cricket from the other teams to allow South Africa to improve their ranking. So it is very very likely that the semi-final lineup would be Sri Lanka v New Zealand on 24 April at Jamaica and Australia v South Africa at St. Lucia.

Most of the games in Jamaica in this World Cup have been low-scoring ones, Pakistan v Zimbabwe where Pakistan made 349 being the only time a side made 250 at the ground. St. Lucia seems to have assisted batsmen a little more, with 3 scores above 250.

We're now finally nearing the business end of the tournament, and it feels ridiculous that although the semi-finalists are decided, we've to wait for nearly another week before the first semi-final! I really hope that the ICC and the organizers of the 2011 World Cup do something about the scheduling so that people retain interest in the tournament.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, england, new zealand, south africa, sri lanka, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:44 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Baffling field placement

Yesterday, as Daniel Vettori ran in to bowl the 5th ball of the 44th over against West Indies, he was on a hat-trick. Skipper Stephen Fleming had placed a silly-point for Collymore, the number 11. Strangely, there was no short-leg or backward short-leg.

If I were the skipper and the opposition was 176/9 with 6 more overs to go and no half-decent batsman at either end, I'd pressurize the batsman with a lot of fielders around the bat.

After Collymore kept out the hat-trick ball, Fleming moved the silly point out. I found that baffling. I've seen that happen so often. Is the ball after a potential hat-trick ball any less important? Why do captains do it? Yes, the bowler didn't get 3 in 3, but by moving the fielder out, you're probably reducing the chances of getting 3 in 4.

If I were the skipper (and I've never skippered anything higher than teams representing my college and workplace), I'd keep the fielders in even after the hat-trick has been averted!

Labels: captaincy, field placement, fleming, new zealand, stephen fleming, vettori, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:07 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The storm before the calm

England are playing New Zealand this evening in a match that, quite obviously, is vital to both teams.

Both should qualify, despite the presence of Kenya. But going into the Super Eight on effectively -2 points is a big disadvantage, especially as both will have lined the other up for some easy points. Theoretically, Australia and South Africa shouldn't care about the result of their match, as they should both make the semis anyway. They will, of course, but it will matter less.

It's likely that two of Australia, South Africa, India, and Sri Lanka will enter the Super Eight hurting from a loss. All of these teams will be looking to New Zealand and especially England for one of the four wins they (probably) need to reach the semi-finals. So the winner can afford to attempt to muddle through rather than go for broke, and we know how well muddling through can go.

After this match, both England and New Zealand play two minnows. For the winner, it's the perfect opportunity to lose form. For the loser, it's an opportunity to either build confidence or slide to an embarrassing defeat. Sadly, thanks to the carry-over of points, there's no incentive for teams to manufacture results to knock another team out as they'd only disadvantage themselves in the Super Eight.

Labels: 2007 world cup, england, new zealand, world cup

Thus spake Geoff @ 4:52 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia do it again

Australia have just been beaten 3-0 in the final game of this year's Chappell-Hadlee trophy. New Zealand have chased down 347, which would mean that the top four run-chases in one-day international history, including the 438-thingie game, have been against Australia. This is also Australia's fifth consecutive one-day loss.

All this makes our poll more relevant than ever! So go ahead and vote!

Update: I do need to rub it in. Here's a comparison of two Australian national cricket teams. One of them has lost 5 in a row. The other has has won 9 in a row!

Labels: australia, chappell-hadlee, new zealand

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:36 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

World Cup squads: Australia, Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka

Australia, who've lost three out of their last four one-dayers, have included Brad Haddin, Brad Hodge and Shaun Tait in the squad and left out Cameron White and Stuart Clark. Gilchrist is expected to join the squad only around the end of the first stage.

Across the Tasman sea, Daryl Tuffey has popped in out of nowhere to be picked in New Zealand's World Cup squad after Kyle Mills' injury last month. In an unprecedented move, Shane Bond has been declared fit to play two consecutive series.

Yesterday, Sri Lanka announced a predictable, well-settled squad for the tournament. Nuwan Zoysa and Upul Chandana have been left out, despite not getting any opportunity to present their cases during the on-going one-day series in India.

Bangladesh, who've won 11 out of their last 12 ODIs (v/s Zimbabwe and Scotland) and lost 13 out of their last 15 ODIs against teams who can play ODI cricket (the two wins coming against Sri Lanka and Australia), have picked Mushfiqur Rahim as the keeper, leaving out Khaled Mashud. Khaled Mahmud's non-inclusion could mean he's definitely retired now.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bond, new zealand, squad, sri lanka, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:06 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England on a winning streak

Following India's exploits last month when they won two games in a row after a period of 7 months, England have caught up by winning two in a row (first Australia and then England New Zealand) after a similar gap of 7 months. In June 2006, they beat Ireland and Sri Lanka in consecutive games. Pakistan at Trent Bridge and Edgbaston to draw the series 2-2.

Labels: Commonwealth Bank Series, england, india, new zealand, streak

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:00 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Not so much a "New Zealand Day"

The frustration for Kiwi supporters continued yesterday as their side chocked a spluttered their way through the final overs of the final One Dayer in the preliminary stages of the Commonwealth Bank Series. So disappointing after such a great start.

Steve Flemming looked elegant at times during his 106 which while being the back bone of the innings, probably slowed them down at the critical time and left the very capable tail which includes the never-say-die Daniel Vetori and the sweet hitting, baby-face Franklin. NZ fell 14 runs short on their national day - why is it they play so much above themselves when they are against the Aussies - if it is just Trans-Tasman rivalry, they really ought to find a way to lift like that for all their games. They are a serious challenger for the World Cup at their best, and in danger failing in the qualifiers at their worst.

I for one find them one of the most entertaining sides when they're on, but they find so many ways to be off, it's frustrating.

Cross posted on STUmpcam

Labels: Commonwealth Bank Series, new zealand

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 5:49 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Nicely fixed tri-series?

If Australia had beaten England today, there'd have been very little interest in the final game of the league phase of the on-going triangular series. This is how the points table currently looks.

Match 10 of 12	P	W	L	NR	T	BP	Points	NRR	For	Against
Australia	7	6	1	-	-	3	27	+0.912	1569 / 296	1536 / 350
New Zealand	6	2	4	-	-	1	9	+0.069	1470 / 300	1442 / 298.3
England	7	2	5	-	-	1	9	-0.904	1385 / 349.5	1446 / 297.2

England v New Zealand on Feb 6 is going to be a crucial game. New Zealand are sufficiently ahead on net run-rate to not be significantly affected even if they lose to Australia on Sunday. England and New Zealand are level on points, including bonus points. This is the kind of situation which tournament organizers dream of - a final day contest to determine a finalist. Especially a tournament such as this which has been as one-sided as it can possibly get, until New Zealand started spicing it up from last week.

Full credit to England, especially Ed Joyce, who'd have been wondering until today if his decision to ditch Ireland for England was right.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Australian team had been 'encouraged' to go easy keeping in mind the larger picture. Did anyone see the shot Clarke played? Glenn McGrath ... bowling second change in a one-day international which Australia was taking seriously? Yeah right! Glenn McGrath ... batting at #10? The only time he's batted higher than #11 so far was in the light-hearted tsunami relief game in 2005. Definitely seems to indicate some skullduggery going on!

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, england, match fixing, new zealand

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:10 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Help us to help ourselves - John Buchanan

Fed up with the standard of cricket dished out by Australia's opponents in the triangular one-day series so far, Australia's coach John Buchanan has lashed out in his progress report, on the Cricket Australia website.

Sources within Cricket Australia told this correspondent that they were considering talking to the US Library of Congress to license the famous poster and revamp it. The first draft of the poster looks like this.



Buchanan accused England's and New Zealand's batsmen of not forcing Australia's bowlers to bowl yorkers, bouncers etc. thereby stunting the development of his side's bowler's one-day skills and decision making skills when under the cosh as well as not giving his fielders enough balls to pounce upon.

Our ability to deliver yorkers, length balls, bouncers, variety balls (such as slower balls, cutters, etc) has not been placed under constant scrutiny by an opposition batting lineup.

This testing of our bowlers’ response to situations when we have lost control (temporarily hopefully) is not happening. In essence, the batting efforts of our opposition are not assisting the development of our bowlers’ One-Day skills and the decision making that accompanies being placed under the microscope of competition.

And while this is not occurring, we cannot have our fielding tested also for its ability to create and make opportunities.

If anyone's ever seen a more blatant case of self-aggrandizement, please let us know!

Hang on, Buck! If your fielders aren't getting enough opportunities to cause/create dismissals, then your bowlers are to blame for getting batsmen out lbw or bowled. If your bowlers aren't getting enough practice and are not being forced to adopt different plans to dismiss batsmen, its their fault surely. Why weren't they charitable enough to allow England and New Zealand to get over 280 each time?

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings' - Julius Caesar, Act I, sc. ii

Labels: australia, buchanan, Commonwealth Bank Series, england, new zealand

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:51 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Every cloud has a Silva lining

Sri Lanka's Chamara Silva, who made a pair on debut at Christchurch to join the likes of Gooch, Rutherford and Saeed Anwar, has made up for his disappointing first two outings with scores of 61 and 79* (so far) at Wellington. His two innings, along with Sangakkara's brilliance, Malinga's pace and Murali's wiles have put Sri Lanka in a wonderful position (363 runs ahead with 5 wickets in hand) to draw the series.

Labels: new zealand, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:20 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]