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

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:11 am | Sledge/Read 132 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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 ]

No authoritative performances in the league stage

A month after taking a shot at the semi-final line up for the 2011 World Cup, it is now obvious that that either India or Australia will make it to the semi-final. That quarter-final will be played 1 day after the 8th anniversary of an inconsequential World Cup game, the last time these 2 teams met at the World Cup.

The oddest part about the first round was that none of the major teams actually stamped their authority on the league stage. Australia was expected to blow away opponents with their bowling, but the only teams to suffer the wrath of Australia's 'quick gun Murugan' attack were Zimbabwe & New Zealand. Sri Lanka, Kenya, Canada & Pakistan were largely untroubled. Pakistan outwitted Sri Lanka and Australia, nearly slipped up against Canada and got thrashed by New Zealand. New Zealand got thrashed by Australia and Sri Lanka, but thrashed Pakistan in-turn.

India and England tried their best to give Group B a lot of close games, and looked thoroughly unconvincing. While England did win against #3 ranked South Africa, India's wins came against teams ranked #8 and #9. South Africa were commanding overall, but had a brain fade against England. They've been celebrating the last over win against India as evidence that they've finally got rid of the 'chokers' tag. Sadly though, that win came in an inconsequential game. They will need to do this in a knock-out game to prove that their debutant players don't get the choker tag along with the national cap! West Indies and Bangladesh were generally incompetent but did show some promise.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan did enough to suggest that the best way to catch Australia unawares was on a slow turning wicket. I don't particularly care if Ricky Ponting thinks such wickets are essentially 'rolled mud'. Since this is an ICC event, and the ICC has control over everything that happens at the ground, I assume that the pitches are prepared by the ICC's team. If that's the case, Ponting can't complain about anything.

If the pitches are prepared by the hosting country's curator(s), then you have to question if that's fair. For a World Cup event, home advantage should be limited to playing in familiar surroundings, getting a lot of crowd support, being able to include replacement players at really short notice, etc.

I don't know if Ponting will be playing during the 2015 World Cup, but I'd be interested to see how he reacts if the Sri Lankan captain says they were playing on a trampoline after seeing balls whiz past their heads at Perth. He wouldn't like it, would he?

As for the semi-final lineup, it does seem from the Australia-New Zealand and New Zealand-Zimbabwe matches at Ahmedabad (venue for Australia v India) that the side batting first can be blown away. Mirpur (Pakistan v West Indies & New Zealand v South Africa) definitely assists spinners. Colombo (Premadasa) also shows that spin will rule. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the semi-final lineup was Australia v Pakistan and South Africa v Sri Lanka.

In other news, Shoaib Akhtar said bye bye to international cricket after a mercurial career that included 100 mph deliveries, drugs, ball tampering, fighting with a teammate, faking injury, etc.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, akhtar, prediction, retire, shoaib akhtar, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:53 pm | Sledge/Read 16 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 ]

2011 World Cup squads - Sri Lanka & India

Around 10 days ago, Sri Lanka announced the 15-member squad for the 2011 World Cup and it contained 2 bizarre omissions - Jayasuriya & Vaas. Now, why would you include these two in the preliminary 30-member squad two weeks earlier and leave them out without them having played any ODIs in-between to improve or worsen their chances of selection?

It's not like they have been active ODI players over the last 1-2 years. Jayasuriya last played an ODI in December 2009 while Vaas last turned out in August 2008! Why did they even get picked in the squad of 30 in the first place?

The BCCI did something similar earlier today. Piyush Chawla, who would most likely be the player Makarand Waingankar alluded to in the context of age manipulation, hasn't played an ODI since July 2008. Yet, he was picked in the 15-member Indian squad.

There are only 2 problem selections in the squad - Piyush Chawla and the absence of a reserve wicket-keeper. I am not sure if the playing conditions have been drawn up, but it is quite likely that if a player is coming into the World Cup with a known injury (i.e. didn't pick it up on/off the field during the tournament), a replacement player may not be allowed. Even when a replacement is allowed, the injured player cannot play any further part in the tournament.

The BCCI selectors are essentially punting on skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni not injuring himself through the tournament. That's a huge risk to take with someone who has played the 2nd most number of internationals since 2008, the triple role he plays and the multiple injuries he has been playing through.

Dinesh Karthik would have been a good 2nd choice wicket-keeper especially given his ability to keep reasonably well and play counter-attacking innings. But his last 5 ODI innings produced 30-odd runs.

With Virat Kohli (unlikely to regularly feature in the playing XI), Suresh Raina & Yusuf Pathan the only decent fielders, and the likes of Ashish Nehra, Munaf Patel, Yuvraj Singh (a pale shadow of his 2000-2006 days), Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh & Praveen Kumar being first XI choices, India's opponents will have loads of opportunities to pick up at least 1-2 extra runs an over without even trying to hit a boundary or six.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, india, squad, sri lanka, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:38 pm | Sledge/Read 8 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for a reality check and some common sense

For nearly a week now, India's 1983 World Cup winning team has been feted every day. Obviously they do deserve it all, for what they actually did still gives me goose-pimples.

But frequently, the gloating does get to me. It really is time for a reality check. The fact is that, like it or not, Malcolm Speed has been right (barring 1 or 2 exceptions) about India not translating its administrative and money power off the field into victories on it for nearly two decades now.

Significant test series wins, especially overseas (pedantic question: If the team goes to Pakistan from a flight originating from New Delhi, does it count as an overseas trip?!) have been rare. Since 2003, it is around one a year: Pakistan in 2004, West Indies in 2006 and England in 2007.

It is only in the last year or so that the Indian team has done reasonably consistently in limited overs cricket (fifty overs and Twenty20), with the Commonwealth Bank Series win in Australia and the Twenty20 World Cup. Before these wins, you've to go as far back as the 2002 NatWest Series for a win in a multi-nation tournament.

Hence, it is very important that the BCCI administrators, the selectors, the coaching staff and the leadership team amongst the players (Kumble, Dhoni, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Zaheer, to name a few) get together and come up with a strategy on what and how Indian cricket will achieve on the field over the next decade.

I've never really had too much respect for the ECB or the England cricket team. But having said that, the ECB came up with such a plan in 2005. Their aim was to become the best test team by 2009. Whether they reach that goal is not quite the point, at least they have a plan to get there and there's some motivation to execute on the plan. I haven't seen any such attempt from the BCCI.

So that's the reality check part of this post.

The common sense bit has two parts.

Part one is in the context of the controversy a couple of days ago in the England v New Zealand one-dayer where Sidebottom (bowler) collided with Elliott (batsman) when the batsman was going for a quick single. Watch the video and see some photos.

Elliott and Sidebottom were floored, Bell threw the ball to Pietersen who was at the non-striker's end stumps and ran out Elliott. There is absolutely no doubt that as per the law, Elliott was run out since Sidebottom's actions and his injury did not come under the purview of Law 23 (Dead ball).

Elliott received some treatment since he seemed injured. The umpires conferred among themselves, and then checked with Collingwood if he wanted to withdraw his appeal. Collingwood was perfectly justified in not recalling Elliott. There was far too much at stake: New Zealand needed 26 (39) with 3 wickets in hand and the series was level 1-1 with one more game to go.

Lots of commentators are passing judgement on how Collingwood was not right and he had violated the spirit of the game. Some say that the umpires should have stepped in and called a dead ball. But this was, in no way, a case of a wilful and deliberate collision by Sidebottom. In fact, no bowler (especially a fast bowler) would ever want to have such a forceful collision deliberately, because the resultant injury could force him out of the game forever!

There are two options:

1. Do nothing. The law stays as it is.
   
2. Change the law such that if any sort of collision occurs, regardless of the severity or whether it was deliberate, the ball should be called a dead ball.

I would vote for #1 so that references to the 'spirit of cricket' can be countered with the fact that the umpires only did what the law said.

We keep seeing these instances of people going by the law and getting castigated for it. Here're three samples.

• In 1981, Greg Chappell instructed Trevor Chappell to bowl under-arm when New Zealand needed 6 to tie the game, with one ball remaining.
  
• In 2005, Darrell Hair flicked off the bails and declared that Pakistan had forfeited the Oval test.
  
• In 2006 during a test against New Zealand, Murali was stupid enough to leave his crease and run up to congratulate Sangakkara on his century (video) while the ball was still in play. Fleming was asked a lot of questions about whether it was right to appeal for the run out.

In all these cases, the players and the umpires followed the law. More importantly, they followed the law as it existed then. Subsequently, laws were changed to ban under-arm bowling and to transfer the power of deciding on a game forfeit to the match referee.

The second part on common sense is about the real farce that is developing with respect to Zimbabwe's presence in international cricket. South Africa and England have snapped cricketing relations with Zimbabwe. Barely three months ago, the ICC's board let the ZCU off scot-free despite there being enough cause for concern over handling of finances and the state of cricket in the country. It is high time the ICC did something about Zimbabwe. More importantly, the BCCI needs to realize that it can't continue to be solely focussed on its self-interest to the extent that international cricket gets devalued. Zimbabwe is obviously important in the context of votes, but if the BCCI's administrators act sanely and keep the interests of the game in mind, they may not even need votes at ICC meetings!

Zimbabwe doesn't feature in the ICC test rankings since they haven't played a test for nearly three years now. The last time Zimbabwe won a ODI against major countries other than Bangladesh was in November 2007 (against West Indies). Before that, we go back to November 2003 (West Indies again!). They've been that pathetic.

Let's just give you some idea of how long ago they last played a test. That last test featured Sourav Ganguly as India's captain and Greg Chappell as India's coach. This was the test after the one where Ganguly revealed that Chappell had asked him to quit as captain. In 3 years, so much has changed: Ganguly was out of the side for over a year while Chappell resigned after the pathetic show at the 2007 World Cup.

Yet, Zimbabwe continues to receive assistance and funds from the ICC. This just doesn't make sense. Even if the BCCI does plan to object to Zimbabwe's status being demoted, they should come up with an alternate plan that improves the standard of cricket as well as making the ZCU more accountable for its actions.

Labels: 1983, bcci, common sense, icc, india, laws, rules, spirit of cricket, twenty20 world cup, umpires, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC gets a few things right at least

The ICC's board met yesterday and there were quite a few significant announcements.

• It emphasized that bilateral series commitments would take precedence over IPL. Now will the WICB do something about Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who say they will play in the IPL rather than against Australia? I suppose player contracts would have clauses that prevent players from plying their trade elsewhere when they are required to turn out for the national side. That aspect can and should be enforced against Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan. Unlike the bans imposed on ICL players, I don't think this is a restraint of trade situation.
  
• The Zimbabwe Cricket Union gets away scot-free despite the continued scrutiny over the handling of ICC-released funds for over three years now.
  
• The format for the 2011 World Cup is finalized. My post a year ago or so proposed only the top 8 teams having an automatic qualification while the remaining teams play against the ICC trophy finalists in a round-robin manner with the top 2 making it to the main draw. The main draw would have 2 groups of 5 teams each, played in round-robin. The top 3 from each group qualify for a Super Six round with the top 4 being the semi-finalists. There'd be a total of 42 games played, 32 of them being in the main tournament. Subsequent comments argued (rightly) for the second stage being a quarter-final knockout. This'd reduce the number of main draw games to 27. The ICC's thinking is on the lines of all 10 full ODI playing countries being joined by the top 4 finishers from a qualified (presumably the ICC trophy). The 14 teams are split into 2 groups of 7 each. The top 4 from each group go on to play quarter-finals and the winners of the quarter finals play the semis. This means there'd be 28 47 (2 x 7C2 + 4 + 2 + 1) games. Perhaps, in the interest of 'inclusivity' in cricket, the ICC's format is acceptable. That's far too many games!
  
• Player referrals will be trialled from South Africa's tour of England this summer. I eagerly look forward to player revolts, especially by lower order batsmen and part-time bowlers, against captains and team management, who discourage them from appealing against on-field umpire decisions so that the better batsmen or bowlers can benefit, just in case the appeal isn't worth it.
  
• Darrell Hair, who was hung out to dry in around November 2006, has been reinstated and will be eligible to umpire games between full member teams until March 2009, when his contract expires. This was always the right thing to do. Darrell Hair is a good umpire. He isn't incompetent, when you compare him with Bucknor or Benson. He took a harsh decision on 20 Aug 2006, but it was the right decision.
  
• Imtiaz Patel has been 'selected' as the CEO, but the negotiations are not yet done. Last year, we saw a similar situation with the farce around Graham Ford's appointment, and subsequent withdrawal, as India's coach. Why did the ICC put its foot firmly in its mouth by prematurely announcing Imtiaz Patel's name when he hadn't even agreed?!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, ball tampering, forfeit, hair, icc, indian premier league, ipl 2008, oval 2006, pakistan, reviews, scheduling, twenty20, west indies, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Seven year old Andrew Symonds

No. This is not a post about how the seven year old Andrew Symonds broke the local under-15 record for the longest six.

It is about him being blissfully unaware of Australia's celebrations after they won the 1999 World Cup. Sample these pictures: Mark Waugh & McGrath, #26 - TPFKASW & Shane Warne and being feted by the Mayor during the ticker-tape parade in Sydney.

The only reason I can ascribe to him being unaware of the celebrations is that he wasn't yet born in 1999 (which explains the post title!). Perhaps that explains why he reckons that Australia have been very humble.

It is easy to be humble when you are bloody expected to win every single tournament in sight, and when reaching only the semi-final is considered a failure. But I'm sure Australia weren't exactly humble in 1999. In 1987, the Australian public and administrators did not perhaps comprehend how important winning the World Cup was. After all, this was a tournament held in India, not in Australia, West Indies or England, was it?

This doesn't mean that the celebrations are apt. They are certainly over the top, especially given a tougher assignment awaits. But it's not a bad thing enjoying the moment, is it?

Labels: australia, india, symonds, twenty20 world cup, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2007 Colin Cowdrey lecture

The 2007 MCC Colin Cowdrey lecture was delivered by Christopher Martin-Jenkins, the Chief Cricket Correspondent of 'The Times'. Incidentally, his (CMJ's, not Cowdrey's!) son, Robin Martin-Jenkins, thwarted the Indians twice during the tour game against Sussex.

His talk (text & audio) focussed on players 'walking' when they know they're out, speeding up over rates, 4-day tests (in contrast, last year, Inzy was talking about six day tests!), an innovative bidding option at the toss, having just 3 umpires around, a shorter 2011 World Cup, the BCCI's 'administration', the ICC's stand on Zimbabwe and the recent influx of non-England born players into the England team.

Broadly, there's not much I disagree with. I totally agree that teams need to bowl their overs much faster than they are right now. Monetary fines are not the solution. Docking runs, not allowing teams to complete their innings, giving runs to the opposition or forcing the team bowling slowly to take 11 or 12 wickets rather than 10, etc. seem the right way to go.

I'm not a huge fan of walking. While my argument isn't based on the fact that decisions even out (they don't!), I believe that batsmen have a right to wait for the umpire to make a decision. The other problem I have with 'walking' is that there's a huge potential for players to walk when it is convenient. In my opinion, Gilchrist abuses the 'karma' he has earned.

I don't think 4-day tests are a solution. That could be a reality when teams bowl 20 overs per hour, but I don't see that happening soon.

I totally agree that the BCCI's lack of transparency, over-commercialized mentality, etc. are pathetic, but that seems to be a recurring theme across all cricket boards. Why else would everyone agree to play Australia/India/Pakistan in venues spread all over the world?

The fact that Zimbabwe are now out of the ICC test rankings means that the administration has failed the players. Yet, they're not held accountable - at least not yet.

Past Colin Cowdrey lectures were delivered by Richie Benaud, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Clive Lloyd, Geoff Boycott and Martin Crowe.

Labels: 2011, bcci, colin cowdrey lecture, icc, spirit of cricket, walking, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Wanted: Twenty20 specialists for India

I started writing this piece a couple of days ago, after reading reports of how the ECB selectors picked a non-specialist Twenty20 side against West Indies and instead decided that those who played the fifty-over game would also fit into the scheme of things in Twenty20.

This led me into thinking about how the BCCI should also not make the same mistake. There're a few one-day players among those who played against South Africa recently who would be misfits in Twenty20. The list starts with one of my most favourite cricketers of all-time, Rahul Dravid. He's a brilliant batsman, and has totally turned it around in one-day cricket over the past 6-7 years. But he's unsuited for Twenty20. Simply because of his strike-rate (71) is not good enough in a game where teams score at between 8 and 10 runs an over.

The second person who shouldn't figure in the list is Sourav Ganguly, for similar reasons (strike rate 74) and in addition, his average fielding. His bowling is never going to be threatening in a Twenty20 game anyway!

I'm ambivalent about Sachin Tendulkar. He can really score quickly in one-dayers, when the mood seizes him. He's a pretty decent fielder too, especially in the outfield and he's snapped up quite a few nice catches after his return to the slip cordon. I'd pick him for the tournament because of his batting and fielding and I hope he doesn't ask the captain to let him bowl :)

Ramesh Powar has been quite impressive with his bowling, but his batting and fielding have so far been very unconvincing. Hence, he too must not figure in the final squad.

Sreesanth still doesn't seem to have figured out how to bowl in one-day cricket. His bowling length, which is a great asset in test cricket, allows batsmen to belt him around in the limited overs game. Hence, he too must not feature in the final squad.

Update on 7 July

The BCCI announced a 30-member probables list for the Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa. Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar don't feature in the list, because they asked not to be considered. I'm hoping that the BCCI selectors weren't seriously considering them anyway! While you're at it, you might as well vote on if they should be picking and choosing when/where to play.

The list of probables has quite a few recent rejects: Varinder Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Suresh Raina, Mohammad Kaif and Irfan Pathan. In addition, there're quite a few players from the under-19 and under-22 ranks: Manoj Tiwary (who'd have been cursing himself after injuring himself in Bangladesh), Cheteshwar Pujara, Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Rohit Sharma, Joginder Sharma, etc.

The two interesting names in the list are Aniruddh Srikkanth and Niraj Patel. Aniruddh is the son of former India opener (and someone who'd have potentially felt extremely at home in Twenty20) Krishnamachari Srikkanth. As for Niraj Patel, I've seen him play quite a few extrely mature Bevanesque (or perhaps we can now call it Yuvrajesque?!) innings in a few domestic one-day games and I was wondering if he was lost to Indian cricket. Turns out that he's been very consistent for his state/zone over the past 2-3 years and scored lots of runs, fairly rapidly, in the Mushtaq Ali Trophy last season.

I wonder who the captain would be. My pick would be Yuvraj or Dhoni.

Labels: dravid, ganguly, india, squad, tendulkar, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Recent posts on AOL

1. Wishlist for the 2011 World Cup.
   
2. In such a rapid set of one-dayers (India in Ireland), what the Indian team needs to do is to get the momentum going by winning the first 2-3 games.
   
3. South Africa wants Australia to give up its monopoly over hosting Boxing Day and New Year's Day tests. This was always going to happen at some point of time or the other. What should the BCCI do?

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, aol, australia, bcci, guest blogger, india, scheduling, south africa, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

News from England

Harbhajan Singh has very mischievously signed on with Surrey from July. It isn't immediately clear when his term there would end.

With the Indian team having more unfit players than fit ones, he will fancy his chances soon. I'm sure Varindar Seewag Virender Sehwag is also on the look-out for a county side which would accomodate the tremendous starts he'd provide them as an opener in all forms of the game (for e.g., 23 in 21 balls in county cricket, 23 in 16 balls in a one-dayer and 23 in 11 balls in Twenty20).

Today is also the 75th anniversary of India's first ever test match (Lord's, 1932) and the 24th anniversary of Kapil flashing that toothy grin (Lord's, 1983).

I'm not going to claim I saw the World Cup final live. I was fast asleep. As an eight-year-old, I didn't know what was happening, except that there were a bunch of uncles and aunts staying up till late in the night to see India take on West Indies. The first time I knew about the result was when they excitedly shook me awake screaming something to the effect of "We have won the World Cup".

More than being a fly on the wall in the Indian dressing room after the win, I'd love to have been around in the West Indian dressing room! Of course, retribution was quick and painful!

Labels: 1932, 1983, england, first test, india, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:53 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Problems aplenty for Australia

Though the Aussies have just crushed every possible opponent and have won the World Cup for the third successive time, its not without a few problems. Infact, Rohit Brijnath aptly explains their problems and compares with India and also sees that India are better off even without the victories. He sums up brilliantly...

In short, the Australians play brilliant cricket but do not enjoy the game. Not like us. Which is why, one can now reveal, they sent Greg Chappell to India. But apparently en route he forgot his orders. He thought he was here to teach. But it was to learn.

He has infact written it even before the World Cup final victory, but does it matter at all?

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Ganesh @ 11:56 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A round Telegraph table

Scyld Berry moderates a wonderful discussion at a virtual round-table between Atherton, Strauss, Sangakkara and Ian Chappell. As you'd expect from these folks, there's a lot of sense. Ian Chappell though had me in splits quite a few times.

Berry: Was it too long? The ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed didn't think so until last week.

Chappell: Malcolm has been living in Dubai for too long. As I've said before, they've got a hotel under the sea there and a ski resort in the desert. It's too far away from reality.

Berry: Plenty of room in the dressing-room for ice-baths?

Chappell: Is an ice-bath where you keep the beers for after the game?

Berry: Let us turn, Kumar, to your stumping of Brian Lara in Guyana.

Sangakkara: Sometimes I break the stumps far too often and this time I was lucky. I have to stand up a lot now. Wickets are getting better and medium-pace or fast-medium bowlers are beginning to suffer [from batsmen going down the pitch] and you have to stand up.

Chappell: Are wickets getting better or slower....

Berry: Andrew, what was your favourite moment?

Chappell: Getting picked?

Labels: 2007 world cup, strauss, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:29 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

World Cup final run-rates

Australia scored the quickest ever in a World Cup final; Sri Lanka had the quickest score for a losing team. Sri Lanka also lost their record as the only team to have reached the World Cup final and never lost. Winners in bold:

Year	Team	Runs	Wickets	Overs	RpW	RpO
2007	Australia	281	4	38	70.25	7.39
2003	Australia	359	2	50	179.50	7.18
1999	Australia	133	2	20	66.50	6.65
2007	Sri Lanka	215	8	36	26.88	5.97
2003	India	234	10	39.4	23.40	5.95
1996	Sri Lanka	245	3	46.2	81.67	5.29
1987	Australia	253	5	50	50.60	5.06
1992	Pakistan	249	6	50	41.50	4.98
1987	England	246	8	50	30.75	4.92
1975	West Indies	291	8	60	36.38	4.85
1996	Australia	241	7	50	34.43	4.82
1979	West Indies	286	9	60	31.78	4.77
1975	Australia	274	10	58.4	27.40	4.67
1992	England	227	10	49.2	22.70	4.60
1979	England	194	10	51	19.40	3.80
1999	Pakistan	132	10	39	13.20	3.38
1983	India	183	10	54.4	18.30	3.35
1983	West Indies	140	10	52	14.00	2.69

Labels: 2007 world cup, final, run-rate, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Geoff @ 8:57 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What the rest of the cricketing world should not do

After yesterday's World Cup win, Glenn McGrath retired from international cricket, indeed from all forms of cricket, which makes him an automatic inclusion in the All-Star Book Cricket XI, in tests and ODIs. This means that the test XI would be: Mark Richardson, Michael Slater, Nasser Hussain, Damien Martyn, Graham Thorpe, Chris Cairns, Heath Streak (c), Jack Russell (wk), Cathryn Fitzpatrick, Glenn McGrath and Allan Donald. Fitzpatrick replaces Pearson while McGrath comes in instead of DeFreitas.

The ODI XI would be: Craig Wishart, Michael Slater/Nasser Hussain, Damien Martyn, Graham Thorpe, Michael Bevan (c), Chris Cairns, Heath Streak, Ridley Jacobs (wk), Glenn McGrath and Allan Donald. Once again, he replaces DeFreitas in the side.

Oh, for a good spinner to form two world beating sides!

What the other cricketing teams cannot and must not do is to wait for Australia's bowling lineup to disintegrate in the absence of Warne & McGrath. That may or may not happen. Even if it does, it could be short-lived. The onus is on the other teams to improve and become better each day - physically & mentally, at batting, bowling and fielding.

Australia have taken one-day cricket to a new level, especially after Ricky Ponting took over. New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa have, at different points in time during the tournament, looked capable of rocking Australia's boat. But these were unsustained efforts. To beat Australia now, opponents need to be at the top of their game across 100 overs, like I pointed out after the ICC Champions Trophy. Sri Lanka bowled well (barring Vaas) for the first half-dozen overs. Sri Lanka batted well for around half-a-dozen overs when Sangakkara and Jayasuriya stepped it up. It was never going to be enough!

Labels: 2007 world cup, book cricket, mcgrath, retire, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:13 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A fitting end...

Well, what can you say about the calamity, the debacle, the shamozzle that was the final of the 2007 World Cup other than, fitting.

The best team won - the most worthy challenger throughout the tournament made it to the final, Glenn McGrath goes out on a high, and the long drawn out, badly organised tournament ended in a debacle, in darkness, with wides being called, video referees making decisions, all this, after the batsmen had already left the field for bad light. This tournament will not be forgotten now and changes will be made. A thrilling cracker of a final would've pushed all the other nonsense to the background and maybe have smoothed some issues over - now, we will never forget it.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought once you went off for light of rain, you couldn't come back until the light improves or the rain stops.

If we believe the commentators, there was even talk of coming back the next day to complete the match, at one point - what a joke.

Anyway, the important points are - Sri Lanka were gallant in defeat, I guess acknowledging that they were probably not going to win anyway, but clearly could have been quite justified in being very upset at how their assault on a winning total was inhibited by lack of accurate information and organisation - and, that other point - Australia won the World Cup.

You beauty!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bad light, gilchrist, mcgrath, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 7:09 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

One nice big laugh at Rudi Koertzen please!

Neither his country, nor he will be out on the field during the final tomorrow.

Steve Bucknor's presence in his fifth consecutive final is the clearest indicator of how crappy West Indies have been, especially in one-day cricket, over the past 15 years. David Shepherd umpired three consecutive finals (1996, 1999 and 2003). That shows how poor England were at one-day cricket! Zimbabwe have never had an umpire in a World Cup final, which is an obvious indicator of how good they have been!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bucknor, koertzen, sri lanka, umpires, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:49 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Go, the sub-continent

Sri Lanka: The last team to beat Australia in a World Cup final.

Pakistan: The last team to beat Australia in a World Cup game.

India: The last team to play Australia in a World Cup final.

Bangladesh: The last team I will mention here.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bangladesh, india, pakistan, sri lanka, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:03 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Capitulation - Outplayed and out-psyched

I commented over on Will's site during the first devastating and match winning 10 overs of the Aus v SA semi-final, that I haven't enjoyed watching a one day match this much since 1999 - yep, that other semi-final.

Contrasting means, to the same end though. Many people say "we want good close, exciting matches". They must be supporters of other sides! When it's your side playing, I don't care how much they win by, and just quietly when it's South Africa you're thumping - I say bring it on! I'd rather that than a tie any day.

I sat down to take in this game thinking I wouldn't be able to stay up late enough into the night (with work the next day) to see anything too decisive. Especially when South Africa won what everyone thought would be potentially a match winning toss - I figured they'd post some sort of reasonable total and Australia would struggle. I honestly thought, based on what Botham and other commentators were saying, that 250 odd would be too much for the Aussie's to chase down, under pressure, late on a dieing wicket.

Well the wicket never got a chance to die, and by the time I was forced to retire to bed, the matched seemed fairly safe. Thanks mainly to a mind melt down by captain Graeme Smith, who seemed to think he was Matty Hayden, walking down the track - twice - missing both, the first nearly an edge and second taking off stump, then disintergration by Kallis, who was completely sucked in by the Aussie's talk. Kallis fell hook, line and sinker for the talk about "letting him occupy the crease and take up valulable deliveries", managing to strike one nice four then being cleaned up by a regulation, full pitched McGrath ball, while Kallis was stretching across from somewhere over on the leg side? Mind boggling! Even Andre Nell was seen to be shaking his head - no doubt because bowling to the looming low total was never going to leave him much room for sledging.

McGrath, who many believed shouldn't go on this tour, moved to front runner for taking out the player of the series. No-one will write him of now, even when he's been out of the game for 10 years! He cleaned up Kallis, was lucky when Prince chased what, had it not been for his thick outside edge would've been a side, then, possibly the most important one of all - Boucher - so often a lower order thorn in the side of the opposition, was dismissed by a ripper, moving away, taking the edged and finished off by big Matty Hayden. At 5 for 27, SA got another let off with Gibbs given not out, from what seemd like a fairly obvious inside edge. 6 for 27 would've seen a total around 50 I believe, as it was they only managed to limp to 149.

Australia cruised passed, the one concern - Gilchrist again failing. Surely now, he'll make up for everything with a classic Gilly ton in Glenn McGrath's fair well performance, a World Cup Final which could be a "three-peat" for the Aussies.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, south africa, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 8:22 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]