The Super Eight is Settled
The final match in the first round occurred today, when Bangladesh played Bermuda. Bangladesh needed to win, draw, or tie this match to make the Super Eight. If they failed, India would rather improbably go through. However, that was never likely. The game was, however, repeatedly delayed by rain. In the end, after a number of delays the game was reduced to 21 overs per side. Bermuda scored 9/94 off 21 overs. Abdur Razzak took 3/20 for Bangladesh, but wickets were shared around. Thanks to the subtle (but completely fair) details of the Duckworth Lewis rule, Bangladesh were required to score 96 off 21 overs to win. This was never going to be difficult, but chases of this nature almost always have a hiccup or two along the way, and this was no exception. Mukuddem took three wickets for Bermuda, the score was 3/37, everyone got nervous in the Bangladesh dressing room, and then.....
And then Bangladesh cruised home. Saqibul Hasan and Mohammad Ahraful scored 26 not out and 29 not out respectively. Bangladesh won by seven wickets with 3.3 overs remaining. Bangladesh qualified for the Super Eight, with much apparent joy in the Bangladesh dressing room. Bangladesh are delighted to make the Super Eight, and I am sure quite amused that they have done better than either India or Pakistan. Their task now is to win at least a couple of their remaining six games. If they go home having beaten Ireland and one other side in the Super Eight, and are able to finish sixth (or similar) in the World Cup, they would go home with their heads high and it genuinely would be a job well done.
I haven't discussed India's elimination on this blog in cricketing terms. I may (or may not) discuss this tomorrow, which is (thankfully) a rest day in the tournament. The main story from their last game was continues fine form from Sri Lanka, who are now rated second favourites (after Australia) by bookmakers to win the tournament. This is fair - they are clearly a real chance. And England have won the games they were supposed to (finishing with yesterday's easy victory over Kenya) to go through to the second round. England haven't been especially impressive and I do not expect them to make the semi-finals, but they have done what was necessary so far. When you consider that both Pakistan and India were unable to do what was necessary, and that England failed to get to the second round in either of the last two World Cups, then they must be given at least some credit for achieving this.
But here we have it. The Super Eight consists of Sri Lanka, Australia, West Indies, New Zealand, England, Ireland, South Africa, and Bangladesh. After points and run rates are carried over, they are in that order on the table. The carrying over of points into the Super Eight has worked well this time. I doubt anyone thinks that the present table positions are unfair. At the start of the tournament I predicted that South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and India would make the semi-finals. Those predictions are looking good except for the fact that India have been eliminated from the tournament. Australia are the obvious side to substitute into my semi-final predictions.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Super Eight seems settled, and I may have regained faith in the Australian team.
About 18 months ago, I started to get worried about the Australian one day team. There was nothing wrong with the batting - when you have Gilchrist, Ponting, Hussey, and Symonds in the team, and people like Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke, and Simon Katich in the second list, you have nothing much to complain about. However, the bowling worried me. I have mixed feelings about Brett Lee as a test bowler, but in one day cricket, he is a terrific finisher. The side batting second can be four or five down and looking like getting the target, and two or three fast yorkers from him and the game is over. However, the rest of the bowling looked tepid. Glenn McGrath was coming to the end of a great career. And beyond that Australia was playing a series of tepid seam bowlers in the middle order. Opposition batting lineups were slowly figuring this out. This came to a head in my mind against New Zealand in Wellington in December 2005, when Australia allowed New Zealand to score 320 and 322 in consecutive matches batting second. Australia won that series, and (largely through batting strength kept winning that season, but they always looked shakey in the middle overs batting second. In Johannesburg later that season they did (famously) manage the extraordinary feat of failing to defend 434. My mind is still boggling at that one. (That said, I know no cricket fan whose mind is not.
Again though, Australia seemed to recover, winning a One Day Series in Malaysia, the Champions Trophy, and seeming to be just fine until half way through the CB series in Australia in January. However, they still wobbled in the middle overs when attempting to defend targets. I was not convinced, and my expectation was that they would go into the World Cup full of confidence, be found out horribly, and then bomb out of it. There seemed a complete lack of appreciation of the problems in the Australian camp, with comments being made about Australia wishing for "more fight from the opposition", and the bowling balance being completely wrong. I continued telling anyone who would listen that I thought Australia would not win the World Cup.
And then Australia were found out early, or so it appeared, losing three times to England at the end of the CB series to lose the tournament, and then losing 3-0 horrendously to New Zealand in the Chappell Hadlee trophy, by ten wickets and then failing to defend 336 and 346 in consecutive matches. All my fears had been confirmed, and Australia were not much of a chance. At the start of the tournament when I previewed the sides on this blog, I predicted Australia to miss the semi-finals. I didn't really believe that - a colleague at work asked me to actually put money on the prediction and I declined - but my expectation was that some other side would eliminate Australia quickly in a semi-final. And that may still happen.
But the tournament started oddly. India and Pakistan either bombed out or appeared in great risk of doing so. The competition was less. Australia and South Africa defeated lesser opposition easily. Anticipation was high for yesterday's match. The game was on the small ground at St Kitts. Given the batting strength of the two sides and the quality of the pitch, big scores were expected. Presumably betting on Australia's reputation of being unable to defend, South African captain Graeme Smith won the toss and sent Australia in. Australia came out of the blocks firing. Matthew Hayden seems to have finally figured out how to play one day cricket, and he and Adam Gilchrist came out of the blocks firing, putting on 106 in 14.5 overs for the first wicket. Hayden then went on with it, scoring the fastest century in World Cup history before he was out and it was 2/167 after 23.3 overs. At that point 400 was on, and I thought that was needed, but the South African bowlers and fieldsmen then did a good job of containing the Australians. It seems remarkable to say that when they ultimately scores 377, but the boundaries largely dried up after about 35 overs. Ponting was sluggish by his standards. Michael Clarke at times played shots that demonstrated why the amounts of hype that accompanies his arrival to the word stage were so large, and played the odd stupid shot and was luck that a couple of catches were dropped. But he generally played well for 92 off 75 balls to accompany Ponting's 91 off 91. Australia really needed one of those players to hit sixes in the last five overs, but it just didn't happen. They both got out, and Symonds came in briefly, played a couple of shots that demonstrated that he will be fine by the semi-finals (in injury recovery terms) and then got out. Hussey came and went, and Watson came in and played a few nice shots, but nobody really boosted the run rate. The last ten overs did not feature much of an acceleration. I thought Australia were 30 to 50 runs short of what they needed. It is a remarkable change in one day cricket that a side can score 6/377 off 50 overs and I can think this, but I did and do.
South Africa came out to bat, and South Africa scored 154 for no wicket off the first 20 overs. All my worst fears were confirmed. Australia couldn't defend anything. There was a brief respite when de Villiers was run out for 92 off 70 balls thanks to a great direct hit from the outfield from Shane Watson. At the time I felt a certain feeling or irony ("Our bowlers *still* can't take a wicket") but it was crucial. Kallis came in and started slowly. Smith kept going full ahead. I was watching the game in the Springbok Bar in Covent Garden (which was one of the few bars in London with no England football supporters in it and where the main game was the cricket) and the crowd was happy, cheering every four.
However, Kallis batting slowly mattered, because he didn't accelerate. Smith had to retire hurt with a cramp, and suddenly the runs stopped. Australia's fielding was excellent, and the bowling was suddenly tight. The required run rate started to move upwards. If this happens for a few overs this doesn't matter as much as some people think - a few sixes will bring it back down again - but the target was 378. That was still a lot. South Africa managed half the required score off 25 overs for the loss of only one wicket, but the second half suddenly looked a lot harder. Without Smith, Kallis' slow scoring suddenly mattered. Brad Hogg was on. Brad Hogg was bowling well. Some fine work from Hogg and Gilchrist had Gibbs stumped, McGrath had Prince caught shortly afterwards, and suddenly Australia was on top. Shaun Tait came on, and the ball started swinging. The fielding remained tight and the runs didn't restart. The South Africans tried to boost the run-rate, and rather than doing so wickets tumbled. Boucher and Kemp went to fine inswingers from Tait. Kallis didn't get out, but didn't score runs either, and the South African crowd in the bar started to savagely criticise him. Smith came back at a moment where fast runs were needed, and just got out to Hogg. At that point South Africa gave up, and batted on for a little as Australia cleaned up the tail. South Africa all out 294. Australia won by 83 runs. The South African supporters switched in about 30 minutes from cheering loudly and intently to savagely attacking their own players, wondering why South Africans were such chokers, and announcing how terrible it was to have one side winning all the time. If the players' confidence is as fragile as the fans, South Africa will not have much chance of winning the tournament.
From Australia's point of view, I couldn't help but be much more positive. The messing around with tepid medium-pacers has perhaps been fixed in time. Tait and Hogg are in the side, and were both excellent yesterday. Brackan, McGrath, and Watson were good. Australia's bowling stopped the flow of runs against good batting in a way they haven't for a while. I may regret saying this, but I think Australia might win this.
About 18 months ago, I started to get worried about the Australian one day team. There was nothing wrong with the batting - when you have Gilchrist, Ponting, Hussey, and Symonds in the team, and people like Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke, and Simon Katich in the second list, you have nothing much to complain about. However, the bowling worried me. I have mixed feelings about Brett Lee as a test bowler, but in one day cricket, he is a terrific finisher. The side batting second can be four or five down and looking like getting the target, and two or three fast yorkers from him and the game is over. However, the rest of the bowling looked tepid. Glenn McGrath was coming to the end of a great career. And beyond that Australia was playing a series of tepid seam bowlers in the middle order. Opposition batting lineups were slowly figuring this out. This came to a head in my mind against New Zealand in Wellington in December 2005, when Australia allowed New Zealand to score 320 and 322 in consecutive matches batting second. Australia won that series, and (largely through batting strength kept winning that season, but they always looked shakey in the middle overs batting second. In Johannesburg later that season they did (famously) manage the extraordinary feat of failing to defend 434. My mind is still boggling at that one. (That said, I know no cricket fan whose mind is not.
Again though, Australia seemed to recover, winning a One Day Series in Malaysia, the Champions Trophy, and seeming to be just fine until half way through the CB series in Australia in January. However, they still wobbled in the middle overs when attempting to defend targets. I was not convinced, and my expectation was that they would go into the World Cup full of confidence, be found out horribly, and then bomb out of it. There seemed a complete lack of appreciation of the problems in the Australian camp, with comments being made about Australia wishing for "more fight from the opposition", and the bowling balance being completely wrong. I continued telling anyone who would listen that I thought Australia would not win the World Cup.
And then Australia were found out early, or so it appeared, losing three times to England at the end of the CB series to lose the tournament, and then losing 3-0 horrendously to New Zealand in the Chappell Hadlee trophy, by ten wickets and then failing to defend 336 and 346 in consecutive matches. All my fears had been confirmed, and Australia were not much of a chance. At the start of the tournament when I previewed the sides on this blog, I predicted Australia to miss the semi-finals. I didn't really believe that - a colleague at work asked me to actually put money on the prediction and I declined - but my expectation was that some other side would eliminate Australia quickly in a semi-final. And that may still happen.
But the tournament started oddly. India and Pakistan either bombed out or appeared in great risk of doing so. The competition was less. Australia and South Africa defeated lesser opposition easily. Anticipation was high for yesterday's match. The game was on the small ground at St Kitts. Given the batting strength of the two sides and the quality of the pitch, big scores were expected. Presumably betting on Australia's reputation of being unable to defend, South African captain Graeme Smith won the toss and sent Australia in. Australia came out of the blocks firing. Matthew Hayden seems to have finally figured out how to play one day cricket, and he and Adam Gilchrist came out of the blocks firing, putting on 106 in 14.5 overs for the first wicket. Hayden then went on with it, scoring the fastest century in World Cup history before he was out and it was 2/167 after 23.3 overs. At that point 400 was on, and I thought that was needed, but the South African bowlers and fieldsmen then did a good job of containing the Australians. It seems remarkable to say that when they ultimately scores 377, but the boundaries largely dried up after about 35 overs. Ponting was sluggish by his standards. Michael Clarke at times played shots that demonstrated why the amounts of hype that accompanies his arrival to the word stage were so large, and played the odd stupid shot and was luck that a couple of catches were dropped. But he generally played well for 92 off 75 balls to accompany Ponting's 91 off 91. Australia really needed one of those players to hit sixes in the last five overs, but it just didn't happen. They both got out, and Symonds came in briefly, played a couple of shots that demonstrated that he will be fine by the semi-finals (in injury recovery terms) and then got out. Hussey came and went, and Watson came in and played a few nice shots, but nobody really boosted the run rate. The last ten overs did not feature much of an acceleration. I thought Australia were 30 to 50 runs short of what they needed. It is a remarkable change in one day cricket that a side can score 6/377 off 50 overs and I can think this, but I did and do.
South Africa came out to bat, and South Africa scored 154 for no wicket off the first 20 overs. All my worst fears were confirmed. Australia couldn't defend anything. There was a brief respite when de Villiers was run out for 92 off 70 balls thanks to a great direct hit from the outfield from Shane Watson. At the time I felt a certain feeling or irony ("Our bowlers *still* can't take a wicket") but it was crucial. Kallis came in and started slowly. Smith kept going full ahead. I was watching the game in the Springbok Bar in Covent Garden (which was one of the few bars in London with no England football supporters in it and where the main game was the cricket) and the crowd was happy, cheering every four.
However, Kallis batting slowly mattered, because he didn't accelerate. Smith had to retire hurt with a cramp, and suddenly the runs stopped. Australia's fielding was excellent, and the bowling was suddenly tight. The required run rate started to move upwards. If this happens for a few overs this doesn't matter as much as some people think - a few sixes will bring it back down again - but the target was 378. That was still a lot. South Africa managed half the required score off 25 overs for the loss of only one wicket, but the second half suddenly looked a lot harder. Without Smith, Kallis' slow scoring suddenly mattered. Brad Hogg was on. Brad Hogg was bowling well. Some fine work from Hogg and Gilchrist had Gibbs stumped, McGrath had Prince caught shortly afterwards, and suddenly Australia was on top. Shaun Tait came on, and the ball started swinging. The fielding remained tight and the runs didn't restart. The South Africans tried to boost the run-rate, and rather than doing so wickets tumbled. Boucher and Kemp went to fine inswingers from Tait. Kallis didn't get out, but didn't score runs either, and the South African crowd in the bar started to savagely criticise him. Smith came back at a moment where fast runs were needed, and just got out to Hogg. At that point South Africa gave up, and batted on for a little as Australia cleaned up the tail. South Africa all out 294. Australia won by 83 runs. The South African supporters switched in about 30 minutes from cheering loudly and intently to savagely attacking their own players, wondering why South Africans were such chokers, and announcing how terrible it was to have one side winning all the time. If the players' confidence is as fragile as the fans, South Africa will not have much chance of winning the tournament.
From Australia's point of view, I couldn't help but be much more positive. The messing around with tepid medium-pacers has perhaps been fixed in time. Tait and Hogg are in the side, and were both excellent yesterday. Brackan, McGrath, and Watson were good. Australia's bowling stopped the flow of runs against good batting in a way they haven't for a while. I may regret saying this, but I think Australia might win this.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Some background to India, Pakistan, and corruption
I wrote this overview for readers of Samizdata, many of who are American, but I think it belongs here as well
In 1983, India unexpectedly won the World Cup in England. This was a huge event for India, and it led to India and Pakistan asking for and gaining the right to host the 1987 World Cup. This was a big thing for the cricket World Cup, as it had been a largely English event (hosted by England, under English local playing conditions) until that point. The 1987 event ended up on the subcontinent at least partly because the England board had to some extent lost interest, and they weren't too bothered by somebody else taking it off their hands. (It wasn't too long later that the cricketing boards of the world - including England - started arguing bitterly over the right to host it - but interest in it was limited at that point).
India followed up the 1983 win with a win in the seven nation World Championship of cricket, held in Australia in 1985 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the state of Victoria (or some such excuse). At the time, this event was not regarded as much less than a World Cup (which was, as I said, England's event) - the key thing is that all seven test playing countries were participating. That 1983 win had something that the Australian organisers would not have preferred but which must have gone down well on the subcontinent - an India v Pakistan final, won by India.
Thus India in Pakistan went into the 1987 event believing that they were the teams to beat, and that the event represented a coming of age for subcontinental cricket. The two teams did indeed play well, topping the points tables in the two groups, and each playing home semi-finals. The expectation of everyone was that India and Pakistan would meet in the final.
This did not happen. Australia and England each won their respective semi-finals and met in the final, with Australia winning the tournament. (Expectations in Australia were so low that nobody had even purchased the television rights to the tournament until midway through it - and then after Channel Nine did so, it did not bother to show any of the semi-finals live, and then chose to show a movie rather than the second (England) innings of the final. Australians did not get to see Australia's first World Cup victory on live television). Some people in India compared the final to a wedding without the bridge and groom. The event was in truth a huge success, and probably the first major subcontinental media saturating cricket event, of a type we have had many of since. The victory by Australia seemed to many to be a complete fluke at the time, but looking from 2007 it seems almost fated - the first of a great many Australian victories that have filled the last 20 years. (I remember reading in an English newspaper a couple of months after the event that gave no credit to Australia whatsoever, blamed the victory mostly on Mike Gatting's reverse sweep, and that it was a game that "England would have won nine times out of ten". You cannot imagine an English commentator saying that about England v Australia matches these days, but that kind of attitude might help to explain why we still enjoy beating England so much.) 1987 was also probably the time when the curious inability of home sides to win the World Cup started to become lear. Nobody had expected England to win any of the three previous tournaments in England, and England did actually do well ennough, especially in 1979. However, India and Pakistan could not do it in 1987, and then Australia could not even make the semi-finals despite being pre-tournament favourites in 1992.
But as I was saying, 1987 was the first big subcontinental cricketing media event. The media has loved such events to promote the Indian team, promote the Pakistan team, promote the rivaly, and promote the media and products. In 1996 the tournament was back in India and Pakistan, but much the same thing happened. Unfortunatly from the organisers point of view, India and Pakistan ended up meeting in a knock out quarter final. (Knock-out quarter finals have not been used in a World Cup since. This is probably not a coincidence). India won this, but were beaten by Sri Lanka in a semi-final and went on to win the tournament. That rather romantic result made the tournament, but it was a more bad-tempered event than 1987, the low point being India defaulting the semi-final to Sri Lanka after a crowd riot when it became obvious Sri Lanka were going to win the match.
The two World Cups since then have been played in England and South Africa, and although the Indian money and sponsorship was present in both cases, it did not overwhelm the events. This was partly due to the cultures of the host countries, and partly due to the dominance of counries other than India and Pakistan. Pakistan made the final in England in 1999, but were overwhelmed by Australia in the final. That final was notable for two titanic struggles between Australia and South Africa in the Super Six round and the semi-final. In 2003 in South Africa India made the final and generally played well, but that tournament was notable for the truly awe inspiring dominance of Australia. No other side was ever in the hunt. There were stirrings of controversy and suspicion in those tournaments when occasional upsets occurred. However, in the cricketing world at large, there were unending one day internationals involving India and Pakistan (many played in the United Arab Emirates, which was apparently a hotbed of bookmaking and corruption) more and more Indian television money, Indian sponsorship, and at times dubious results and match fixing scandals. (The most publicised of these were the ones in which players and officials from countries other than India and Pakistan became implicated. The most notorious of these occurred in 2000, when South African captain Hansie Cronje was had a telephone conversation recorded in which he was talking to an Indian bookmaker and agreeing to fix matches. In the subsequent scandal, Cronje was given immunity from prosecution in return for testimony in which he told all. Cronje repeatedly changed his story, appearing to be trying to tell as little as he could get away with and then being found out repeately. Eventually a web of match fixing appeared, and it became clear that Cronje had hundreds of undisclosed bank accounts throughout the world. Despite Cronje's inconsistency, he kept his immunity and after getting a life ban from international cricket that he bizarrely but unsuccessfully contested in court he died mysteriously in a plane crash in South Africa in 2002).
This year's World Cup was given to the West Indies as a compromise at the end of a very bitter struggle for the rights to host the 1996 World Cup, that ended up in the Indian subcontinant that ocurred in around 1993. England considered that the 1966 tournament was "their turn", and India and Pakistan wanted to host the tournament for financial reasons. After a heated and apparently very bitter meeting, the tourmament was given to the subcontinentals, with an agreement that a "rotation" policy would be instituted going forwards, with the following tournaments given to England, South Africa, the West Indies, Australia, and then the subcontinent one more (it was a bit vague at that point). The Indians last year suggested that given the bulk of money in cricket now comes from India, they should not have to wait until 2016 to next host the tournament and should host every third tournament in future, The Australian board (presumably upon being offered a large sum of money) made way, and the 2012 tournament was given to India and Pakistan with the 2016 tournament going to Australia. (There will be a fight over the right to host the 2020 tournament between England and South Africa, as the Indians are going to clearly want 2024 and money will likely speak. All assuming that international cricket does not implode by then.
But, anyway, as a consequence of that deal of more than a decade ago, this present tournament is being held in the poor countries of the English speaking West Indies. It is clear now that inevitably Indian money and influence has dominated the planning and organisation of this tournament. As an example, the four major sponsors whose names appear on the grounds at every game are international companies, but with an Indian twist. We have "Hutch" - the Indian mobile phone company that has just been sold by Hong Kong Conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa to Vodafone. Hutchison runs mobile phone networks in lots of other countries as well as India, but under the brand "Three". It is their Indian business that is being promoted. (The business is going to be rebranded as "Vodafone" shortly. If that had happened first, an international business might have been able to get some value out of the sponsorship. Then we have "Hero Honda". This is another global company - the Japanese car company. But it is not just "Honda", it is the Indian subsidiary specifically. We have "Pepsi", obviously a global brand, but one with a long history of sponsoring Indian cricket. India, not coincidentally is a market where Pepsi does far better in its global war with Coke than it does in most plaes. And we have "LG", the Korean chaebol and the closest to a generally internationally aimed sponsorship of the four. But it is a chaebol very much aiming its sales at mid income markets like India. If Samsung were to advertise, that would not necessarily be aimed at India, as Samsung sees itself as much more a first world company. LG suits the Indian market.
This year's World Cup was, as I said, organised for the benefit of the subontinental and particularly Indian markets far more than any in some time. And from that perspective something went terribly wrong. It was supposed to be easy for the best eight teams including India and Pakistan to go through to the Super Eight stage of the tournament, which is to take up four weeks of the six and a half week schedule. However, four days into the tournament Pakistan managed to be eliminated, and India managed to lose unexpectedly, putting their place in the Super Eight in jeaopardy. Pakistan's coach Bob Wollmer was then murdered, with ramifications we are still trying to figure out. India then had a struggle to make Super Eight, needing to win against both Bermuda and Sri Lanka. They beat Bermuda easily enough, but yesterday lost badly to Sri Lanka, almost certainly ensuring that India will not progress further in the tournament. (To do so, Bermuda will have to beat Bangladesh tomorrow, which is inonceivable, not withstanding the fact that so far this is a tournament in which six inconceivable things seem to be regularly happening before breakfast.
A crucial break has opened up in international cricket in recent years. All the money has been generated in India, but the Indian team and its oldest rivals have simply not been as good as teams from other parts of the world. Teams from other parts of the world (most notably Australia) have been much better. In most professional sports, the market would correct this, and in some ways it has in cricket too. (The best side in the world is Australia. Australia and India play one another a lot, and the Australians are paid a great deal to do this. Australians are also paid a lot of money to be sponsored and to make advertisements by Indian companies). However, cricket's curious structure in which players play for national representative teams that play together for most of the year, and players are unable to transfer between teams has prevented this happening to an extent that would probably be healthy. (The subcontinental teams have of course been able to hire Australian and English/South African coaches in an attempt to improve their playing strength. Australian Dav Whatmore led Sri Lanka to the World Cup in 1996, and this has led to Pakistan and India to also import coaches. (Whatmore now coaches Bangladesh, whose victory of India last week completely threw a spanner in the works). After Bob Woolmer's murder, one does tend to think that they may difficulty hiring more, however. In particular, if I were Indian's Australian coach Greg Chappell, I would be getting on a plane back to Brisbane, and fast.
This strange structure has encouraged corruption, and the nature or the countries involved (India and Pakistan) has fed this hugely. As it happens, the early elimination of the teams representing and of most interest to the nation for whose benefit the tournament is essentially being held is having and will have huge financial ramifications, for sponsors, for television companies, and for bookmakers and gangsters, and for the International Cricket Council. One man has been murdered, but I think we have only seen the beginning of the fallout. The losers go up to some of the richest men in the world, but they are not really the problem. Rupert Murdoch can afford to shrug his shoulders. People with financial connections to the Bombay and Karachi underworlds cannot do so so easily. The question we are waiting for the answer to is just who, precisely, fits into this category of people, and how many of them are players, coaches, and administrators of the game of cricket.
I wrote this overview for readers of Samizdata, many of who are American, but I think it belongs here as well
In 1983, India unexpectedly won the World Cup in England. This was a huge event for India, and it led to India and Pakistan asking for and gaining the right to host the 1987 World Cup. This was a big thing for the cricket World Cup, as it had been a largely English event (hosted by England, under English local playing conditions) until that point. The 1987 event ended up on the subcontinent at least partly because the England board had to some extent lost interest, and they weren't too bothered by somebody else taking it off their hands. (It wasn't too long later that the cricketing boards of the world - including England - started arguing bitterly over the right to host it - but interest in it was limited at that point).
India followed up the 1983 win with a win in the seven nation World Championship of cricket, held in Australia in 1985 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the state of Victoria (or some such excuse). At the time, this event was not regarded as much less than a World Cup (which was, as I said, England's event) - the key thing is that all seven test playing countries were participating. That 1983 win had something that the Australian organisers would not have preferred but which must have gone down well on the subcontinent - an India v Pakistan final, won by India.
Thus India in Pakistan went into the 1987 event believing that they were the teams to beat, and that the event represented a coming of age for subcontinental cricket. The two teams did indeed play well, topping the points tables in the two groups, and each playing home semi-finals. The expectation of everyone was that India and Pakistan would meet in the final.
This did not happen. Australia and England each won their respective semi-finals and met in the final, with Australia winning the tournament. (Expectations in Australia were so low that nobody had even purchased the television rights to the tournament until midway through it - and then after Channel Nine did so, it did not bother to show any of the semi-finals live, and then chose to show a movie rather than the second (England) innings of the final. Australians did not get to see Australia's first World Cup victory on live television). Some people in India compared the final to a wedding without the bridge and groom. The event was in truth a huge success, and probably the first major subcontinental media saturating cricket event, of a type we have had many of since. The victory by Australia seemed to many to be a complete fluke at the time, but looking from 2007 it seems almost fated - the first of a great many Australian victories that have filled the last 20 years. (I remember reading in an English newspaper a couple of months after the event that gave no credit to Australia whatsoever, blamed the victory mostly on Mike Gatting's reverse sweep, and that it was a game that "England would have won nine times out of ten". You cannot imagine an English commentator saying that about England v Australia matches these days, but that kind of attitude might help to explain why we still enjoy beating England so much.) 1987 was also probably the time when the curious inability of home sides to win the World Cup started to become lear. Nobody had expected England to win any of the three previous tournaments in England, and England did actually do well ennough, especially in 1979. However, India and Pakistan could not do it in 1987, and then Australia could not even make the semi-finals despite being pre-tournament favourites in 1992.
But as I was saying, 1987 was the first big subcontinental cricketing media event. The media has loved such events to promote the Indian team, promote the Pakistan team, promote the rivaly, and promote the media and products. In 1996 the tournament was back in India and Pakistan, but much the same thing happened. Unfortunatly from the organisers point of view, India and Pakistan ended up meeting in a knock out quarter final. (Knock-out quarter finals have not been used in a World Cup since. This is probably not a coincidence). India won this, but were beaten by Sri Lanka in a semi-final and went on to win the tournament. That rather romantic result made the tournament, but it was a more bad-tempered event than 1987, the low point being India defaulting the semi-final to Sri Lanka after a crowd riot when it became obvious Sri Lanka were going to win the match.
The two World Cups since then have been played in England and South Africa, and although the Indian money and sponsorship was present in both cases, it did not overwhelm the events. This was partly due to the cultures of the host countries, and partly due to the dominance of counries other than India and Pakistan. Pakistan made the final in England in 1999, but were overwhelmed by Australia in the final. That final was notable for two titanic struggles between Australia and South Africa in the Super Six round and the semi-final. In 2003 in South Africa India made the final and generally played well, but that tournament was notable for the truly awe inspiring dominance of Australia. No other side was ever in the hunt. There were stirrings of controversy and suspicion in those tournaments when occasional upsets occurred. However, in the cricketing world at large, there were unending one day internationals involving India and Pakistan (many played in the United Arab Emirates, which was apparently a hotbed of bookmaking and corruption) more and more Indian television money, Indian sponsorship, and at times dubious results and match fixing scandals. (The most publicised of these were the ones in which players and officials from countries other than India and Pakistan became implicated. The most notorious of these occurred in 2000, when South African captain Hansie Cronje was had a telephone conversation recorded in which he was talking to an Indian bookmaker and agreeing to fix matches. In the subsequent scandal, Cronje was given immunity from prosecution in return for testimony in which he told all. Cronje repeatedly changed his story, appearing to be trying to tell as little as he could get away with and then being found out repeately. Eventually a web of match fixing appeared, and it became clear that Cronje had hundreds of undisclosed bank accounts throughout the world. Despite Cronje's inconsistency, he kept his immunity and after getting a life ban from international cricket that he bizarrely but unsuccessfully contested in court he died mysteriously in a plane crash in South Africa in 2002).
This year's World Cup was given to the West Indies as a compromise at the end of a very bitter struggle for the rights to host the 1996 World Cup, that ended up in the Indian subcontinant that ocurred in around 1993. England considered that the 1966 tournament was "their turn", and India and Pakistan wanted to host the tournament for financial reasons. After a heated and apparently very bitter meeting, the tourmament was given to the subcontinentals, with an agreement that a "rotation" policy would be instituted going forwards, with the following tournaments given to England, South Africa, the West Indies, Australia, and then the subcontinent one more (it was a bit vague at that point). The Indians last year suggested that given the bulk of money in cricket now comes from India, they should not have to wait until 2016 to next host the tournament and should host every third tournament in future, The Australian board (presumably upon being offered a large sum of money) made way, and the 2012 tournament was given to India and Pakistan with the 2016 tournament going to Australia. (There will be a fight over the right to host the 2020 tournament between England and South Africa, as the Indians are going to clearly want 2024 and money will likely speak. All assuming that international cricket does not implode by then.
But, anyway, as a consequence of that deal of more than a decade ago, this present tournament is being held in the poor countries of the English speaking West Indies. It is clear now that inevitably Indian money and influence has dominated the planning and organisation of this tournament. As an example, the four major sponsors whose names appear on the grounds at every game are international companies, but with an Indian twist. We have "Hutch" - the Indian mobile phone company that has just been sold by Hong Kong Conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa to Vodafone. Hutchison runs mobile phone networks in lots of other countries as well as India, but under the brand "Three". It is their Indian business that is being promoted. (The business is going to be rebranded as "Vodafone" shortly. If that had happened first, an international business might have been able to get some value out of the sponsorship. Then we have "Hero Honda". This is another global company - the Japanese car company. But it is not just "Honda", it is the Indian subsidiary specifically. We have "Pepsi", obviously a global brand, but one with a long history of sponsoring Indian cricket. India, not coincidentally is a market where Pepsi does far better in its global war with Coke than it does in most plaes. And we have "LG", the Korean chaebol and the closest to a generally internationally aimed sponsorship of the four. But it is a chaebol very much aiming its sales at mid income markets like India. If Samsung were to advertise, that would not necessarily be aimed at India, as Samsung sees itself as much more a first world company. LG suits the Indian market.
This year's World Cup was, as I said, organised for the benefit of the subontinental and particularly Indian markets far more than any in some time. And from that perspective something went terribly wrong. It was supposed to be easy for the best eight teams including India and Pakistan to go through to the Super Eight stage of the tournament, which is to take up four weeks of the six and a half week schedule. However, four days into the tournament Pakistan managed to be eliminated, and India managed to lose unexpectedly, putting their place in the Super Eight in jeaopardy. Pakistan's coach Bob Wollmer was then murdered, with ramifications we are still trying to figure out. India then had a struggle to make Super Eight, needing to win against both Bermuda and Sri Lanka. They beat Bermuda easily enough, but yesterday lost badly to Sri Lanka, almost certainly ensuring that India will not progress further in the tournament. (To do so, Bermuda will have to beat Bangladesh tomorrow, which is inonceivable, not withstanding the fact that so far this is a tournament in which six inconceivable things seem to be regularly happening before breakfast.
A crucial break has opened up in international cricket in recent years. All the money has been generated in India, but the Indian team and its oldest rivals have simply not been as good as teams from other parts of the world. Teams from other parts of the world (most notably Australia) have been much better. In most professional sports, the market would correct this, and in some ways it has in cricket too. (The best side in the world is Australia. Australia and India play one another a lot, and the Australians are paid a great deal to do this. Australians are also paid a lot of money to be sponsored and to make advertisements by Indian companies). However, cricket's curious structure in which players play for national representative teams that play together for most of the year, and players are unable to transfer between teams has prevented this happening to an extent that would probably be healthy. (The subcontinental teams have of course been able to hire Australian and English/South African coaches in an attempt to improve their playing strength. Australian Dav Whatmore led Sri Lanka to the World Cup in 1996, and this has led to Pakistan and India to also import coaches. (Whatmore now coaches Bangladesh, whose victory of India last week completely threw a spanner in the works). After Bob Woolmer's murder, one does tend to think that they may difficulty hiring more, however. In particular, if I were Indian's Australian coach Greg Chappell, I would be getting on a plane back to Brisbane, and fast.
This strange structure has encouraged corruption, and the nature or the countries involved (India and Pakistan) has fed this hugely. As it happens, the early elimination of the teams representing and of most interest to the nation for whose benefit the tournament is essentially being held is having and will have huge financial ramifications, for sponsors, for television companies, and for bookmakers and gangsters, and for the International Cricket Council. One man has been murdered, but I think we have only seen the beginning of the fallout. The losers go up to some of the richest men in the world, but they are not really the problem. Rupert Murdoch can afford to shrug his shoulders. People with financial connections to the Bombay and Karachi underworlds cannot do so so easily. The question we are waiting for the answer to is just who, precisely, fits into this category of people, and how many of them are players, coaches, and administrators of the game of cricket.
Friday, March 23, 2007
More speculation about Bob Woolmer's murder
Michael and Brian Micklethwait have indulged in some serious and thought-provoking speculation on the Woolmer affair. There are so many wheels within wheels in international cricket going on that are affected by this that 'trendy' universities will soon be offering degrees in 'cricket studies', and I'm not talking about the cover drive either.
Michael and Brian Micklethwait have indulged in some serious and thought-provoking speculation on the Woolmer affair. There are so many wheels within wheels in international cricket going on that are affected by this that 'trendy' universities will soon be offering degrees in 'cricket studies', and I'm not talking about the cover drive either.
Woolmer was murdered, and the days of meaningless games are over (assuming the cup itself is not meaningless).
As I suspect most readers of this blog are aware, Jamaican police have confirmed that Bob Woolmer was murdered, and we are having bizarre events occur like the police taking fingerprints of the entire Pakistan team. My assumption is that the murder was carried out by somebody connected with Pakistani bookmakers. As to why, the most convincing argument I can find comes from Guy Herbert on Samizdata.
I personally find it hard to believe that the murder was not in some way connected with Pakistan's loss to Ireland. That itself was such a remarkable event, and the two events came so close together that it seems unlikely they were not connected. It does seem very unlikely that bookmakers would want Pakistan eliminated so early in the tournament. The suggestion that Woolmer was murdered because he planned to write a book exposing what was going on in Pakistan has been much mentioned, but I don't buy it. I can buy the possibility of him being murdered over it, but the timing is all wrong. Why would bookmakers do it at a time when it would upset the World Cup, from which they were trying to make large sums of money? Scott believes that it may have been an enraged fun who had perhaps lost money on the match. This might be possible, but I don't really buy it either. The fan would have had to have located Woolmer's hotel room, been either invited into the room or in some way forced entry, and then murdered Woolmer and got out without causing suspicion or evidence or memories behind. I tend to think that if it were the "enraged" fan, then he would have been caught by now.
But this is all speculation. I do not know what is going on in Jamaica and I do not know any of the people involved. Hopefully Indian coach and former Australian captain Greg Chappell has good security. Also, I can't imagine there will be many foreign applicants for the now vacant position of coach of Pakistan.
Onto cricket. Two games yesterday, both fairly humdrum. Despite their heavy defeats by Australia and South Africa, the Netherlands demonstrated that they are much better than Scotland with an easy eight wicket win. New Zealand v Canada was more interesting. Thanks to 101 from Lou Vincent, 66 from Simon Fleming, 47 from Peter Fultun and 52 from Brendon McCullum, New Zealand amassed a huge 5/363 off their 50 overs. Most minnows would then crumble and get out for 130, but Canada took it to New Zealand. John Davison was the star of the minnow players at the last world cup (hitting the fastest century in World Cup history, and he hit 52 off 31 balls yesterday, followed by 40 from Barnett, 37 from Bagai, and 50 from Billcliff. At one point Canada were 2/188 in the 35th over, but the target was too high and they eventually crumbled and slowed to be out for 249 off 49.2 overs. (It is worth noting that Shane Bond was not playing. Canada would have been unlikely to score so many runs if he had been). New Zealand finish their first round matches with three wins out of three and will carry two points over into the Super Eight. New Zealand have been one of the most professional sides in the tournament in getting through the first round.
I think in cricketing terms the tournament really now gets going. Today we have India versus Sri Lanka in Trinidad and Ireland v West Indies in Jamaica. The first of these games is huge. India need to win to make the Super 8. If they do, they will also carry two points with them into the Super eight, and their position will be a good one for the rest of the tournament. If they lose, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will to through with Sri Lanka carrying over two points. These points are a big deal for Sri Lanka, but this is a bigger game for India, and for the organisers, and for the TV networks. If the occasion was equal for both sides, I would favour Sri Lanka, but here I just don't know. I call it 50-50. However, if India lose, I would advise Greg Chappell not to go anywhere alone for a little while.
The other game is West Indies versus Ireland. Both sides have made the super eight already and today's winner will carry over two points. The West Indies have been a little lackluster so far, but have in truth done everything asked of them, unlike (say) India. West Indian captain Brian Lara has said the right things about not underestimating Ireland today, and I am sure the West Indies won't underestimate Ireland, and as a consequence should win easily.
Tomorrow we have Australia v South Africa. Both sides have already qualified for the Super Eight, but the winner carries two points over. Both sides probably see the other as their biggest obstacle to winning the tournament.
There is also one other little oddity here. Australia have a 14 game winning streak in World Cup matches. This winning streak started in the 1999 final. Think about that. The winning streak started in the final of a match with semi-finals. How odd is that? The reason of course is that the game before that was the memorable tied semi-final between Australia and South Africa, and Australia went through to the final on the basis of a higher position in the Super Six. (Australia's unbeaten streak in World Cup matches is actually 20 games, which is pretty amazing). I am sure South Africa remember all this well, and they will be out for revenge.
Also tomorrow, we have Kenya versus England. If Kenya were to beat England Kenya would go through and England would be eliminated. England have been unimpressive, but still should win. However, Kenya are probably the best of the minnows if you do not count Bangladesh, and an upset, although improbable, is not impossible. Still England to win that one.
The first round matches then finish with Bermuda playing Bangladesh. Bangladesh will win this easily. Whether that result is a confirmation of their place in the Super Eight or just a consolation prize depends on the result today.
As I suspect most readers of this blog are aware, Jamaican police have confirmed that Bob Woolmer was murdered, and we are having bizarre events occur like the police taking fingerprints of the entire Pakistan team. My assumption is that the murder was carried out by somebody connected with Pakistani bookmakers. As to why, the most convincing argument I can find comes from Guy Herbert on Samizdata.
A hypothesis that fits this model is that Woolmer was killed because his team accidentally lost to Ireland, radically cutting down on subcontinental betting at the latter stages of the competition and thus bookies' profits. In the world of the gangster there can be no accidents, so someone had be blamed and someone had to pay.
I personally find it hard to believe that the murder was not in some way connected with Pakistan's loss to Ireland. That itself was such a remarkable event, and the two events came so close together that it seems unlikely they were not connected. It does seem very unlikely that bookmakers would want Pakistan eliminated so early in the tournament. The suggestion that Woolmer was murdered because he planned to write a book exposing what was going on in Pakistan has been much mentioned, but I don't buy it. I can buy the possibility of him being murdered over it, but the timing is all wrong. Why would bookmakers do it at a time when it would upset the World Cup, from which they were trying to make large sums of money? Scott believes that it may have been an enraged fun who had perhaps lost money on the match. This might be possible, but I don't really buy it either. The fan would have had to have located Woolmer's hotel room, been either invited into the room or in some way forced entry, and then murdered Woolmer and got out without causing suspicion or evidence or memories behind. I tend to think that if it were the "enraged" fan, then he would have been caught by now.
But this is all speculation. I do not know what is going on in Jamaica and I do not know any of the people involved. Hopefully Indian coach and former Australian captain Greg Chappell has good security. Also, I can't imagine there will be many foreign applicants for the now vacant position of coach of Pakistan.
Onto cricket. Two games yesterday, both fairly humdrum. Despite their heavy defeats by Australia and South Africa, the Netherlands demonstrated that they are much better than Scotland with an easy eight wicket win. New Zealand v Canada was more interesting. Thanks to 101 from Lou Vincent, 66 from Simon Fleming, 47 from Peter Fultun and 52 from Brendon McCullum, New Zealand amassed a huge 5/363 off their 50 overs. Most minnows would then crumble and get out for 130, but Canada took it to New Zealand. John Davison was the star of the minnow players at the last world cup (hitting the fastest century in World Cup history, and he hit 52 off 31 balls yesterday, followed by 40 from Barnett, 37 from Bagai, and 50 from Billcliff. At one point Canada were 2/188 in the 35th over, but the target was too high and they eventually crumbled and slowed to be out for 249 off 49.2 overs. (It is worth noting that Shane Bond was not playing. Canada would have been unlikely to score so many runs if he had been). New Zealand finish their first round matches with three wins out of three and will carry two points over into the Super Eight. New Zealand have been one of the most professional sides in the tournament in getting through the first round.
I think in cricketing terms the tournament really now gets going. Today we have India versus Sri Lanka in Trinidad and Ireland v West Indies in Jamaica. The first of these games is huge. India need to win to make the Super 8. If they do, they will also carry two points with them into the Super eight, and their position will be a good one for the rest of the tournament. If they lose, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will to through with Sri Lanka carrying over two points. These points are a big deal for Sri Lanka, but this is a bigger game for India, and for the organisers, and for the TV networks. If the occasion was equal for both sides, I would favour Sri Lanka, but here I just don't know. I call it 50-50. However, if India lose, I would advise Greg Chappell not to go anywhere alone for a little while.
The other game is West Indies versus Ireland. Both sides have made the super eight already and today's winner will carry over two points. The West Indies have been a little lackluster so far, but have in truth done everything asked of them, unlike (say) India. West Indian captain Brian Lara has said the right things about not underestimating Ireland today, and I am sure the West Indies won't underestimate Ireland, and as a consequence should win easily.
Tomorrow we have Australia v South Africa. Both sides have already qualified for the Super Eight, but the winner carries two points over. Both sides probably see the other as their biggest obstacle to winning the tournament.
There is also one other little oddity here. Australia have a 14 game winning streak in World Cup matches. This winning streak started in the 1999 final. Think about that. The winning streak started in the final of a match with semi-finals. How odd is that? The reason of course is that the game before that was the memorable tied semi-final between Australia and South Africa, and Australia went through to the final on the basis of a higher position in the Super Six. (Australia's unbeaten streak in World Cup matches is actually 20 games, which is pretty amazing). I am sure South Africa remember all this well, and they will be out for revenge.
Also tomorrow, we have Kenya versus England. If Kenya were to beat England Kenya would go through and England would be eliminated. England have been unimpressive, but still should win. However, Kenya are probably the best of the minnows if you do not count Bangladesh, and an upset, although improbable, is not impossible. Still England to win that one.
The first round matches then finish with Bermuda playing Bangladesh. Bangladesh will win this easily. Whether that result is a confirmation of their place in the Super Eight or just a consolation prize depends on the result today.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The World Cup has become complicated, even without the cricket
I am sure that my readers have noticed that my coverage of matches has dropped over the last few days. I have got home from work, sat down at the computer, and then felt like watching television, or have simply fallen asleep. It is not so much that the cricket has not been interesting - thanks to last Saturday's upsets the first section of the tournament has been rather more interesting that I had expected as the consequences filter through. It is more the Bob Woolmer affair. As a casually watching blogger, there is really nothing I can add in terms of what is happening.
On the actual cricket, well, I can follow what is going on from a desk and a sofa in London, and I can even lend a bit of insight. With respect to the Woolmer thing, I don't know anybody involved, and I have no idea what is being said in hotel breakfast rooms and bars and police stations in the Carribean. I can say that I am sorry to hear of Woolmer's death, but beyond that what is there to say?
Well, actually, I did say something on it in the Samzidata comments yesterday, so I suppose I can cut and paste that here. Pakistan cricket is a horrendous cesspool of corruption, cheating, bribery, and lord knows what else. Still, when I heard that Woolmer had died, I was expecting an announcement a couple of hours later that he had died of a heart attack, and that would be the end of it. It appears now that he was also diabetic, and although one can certainly die fairly suddenly as a consequence of this, when it happens there is again little mysterious and I would have expected a quick annoucement. The fact that nobody is saying anything makes me think the worst at this point. There is clearly a thorough investigation going on that the police are not talking about until they know more. And if the description of the death scene in one of Brian's links is accurate, that does not sound like a heart attack or a diabetic attack. I also find the timing of it - immediately after one of the bigger upsets in recent times - to be most peculiar. We all want to celebrate unexpected upsets, but there have been so many times in which odd tactics and unexpected results have in recent years turned out to have been fixed matches or the result of other intrigues, that one is sceptical. When the coach is possibly murdered a few hours after an upset, one wonders whether the upset and the death are connected. A few years ago I would not have comprehended that cricket would lead to speculation like this, but sadly it has.
I have always been very suspicous about the death of former South African captain Hansie Cronje in a plane crash in 2003. When someone as mixed up with gangsters as Cronje dies mysteriously, one tends to think the worst. I wouldn't have thought that Woolmer was mixed up with gangsters. However, nobody would have believed it of Cronje (who had a reputation for being honest, upstanding, and God-fearing) until he was caught red handed. Secondly, perhaps the situation is that to enter the Pakistan dressing room is to be mixed up with gangsters.
If this turns out to be murder, I think that Pakistan should be thrown out of international cricket. Given the nature of the ICC, I cannot believe it would actually happen, but it would be appropriate. If that is so, I would almost prefer that the World Cup not be proceeded with either. I get a sense that many of the players have rather lost their enthusiam for it, and rather want to go home.
Pakistan are going home, and I think that is fortunate. They apparently did not want to play their last game yesterday, but the organisers insisted that they did. This was good, because the integrity of the competition would have been further damaged by such a happening. The integrity of the last World Cup was badly damaged by defaults against Kenya and Zimbabwe, and we did not want that here. A default yesterday would have possibly sent Zimbabwe through to the Super 8 instead of Ireland, although it would have depended on the net run rate after Ireland had played the West Indies. As it was Ireland who had earned the place by beating Pakistan (regardless of any suspicions of mine), it was and is best that they go through rather than Zimbabwe going through on default. As it happened, once Pakistan were on the field they played better than they had in the earlier games that mattered. Thanks to 160 from Imran Nazir, Pakistan scored 349, being bowled out off the second last scheduled ball of the innings. At one point it looked like Nazir was on target to break the individual scoring record in one day internationals, for fortunately this did not happen. The holy grail of a one day international double century will some day come, and I do not want it to happen in a meaningless match against weak opposition when nobody wanted to be there. (If Adam Gilchrist or Matthew Hayden could do it in the World Cup final, that would be perfect). Zimbabwe were never in it, and were 3/30 off 10.2 overs when there was a rain delay. The target was reduced to 193 from 20 overs on the Duckworth-Lewis rule, but Zimbabwe managed to get bowled out for 99 off 19.1 overs, for an easy Pakistan victory. West Indies and Ireland go through from that group. The winner of the forthcoming West Indies v Ireland match will take two points through to the next round. One has to assume that will be the West indies.
In the other match, Sri Lanka took on Bangladesh, and there was interest in whether Bangladesh could challenge a prepared and wary Sri Lankan team. The answer: no. Sri Lanka got off to a flier, scoring 1/137 off the first 25 overs. Jayasuriya is enjoying his last World Cup, and scored 82 off 77 balls, before having to retire hurt with a leg injury. Although Jayasuriya later came back to complete his century (ending up with 109), he had been on target for something bigger before the injury. Sri Lanka ended up with 4/318, with scores around 50 to Jayawardene, Sangakkara, and Silva. Bangladesh were then not impressive with the bat, being bowled out for 112 after the target was reduced to 311 from 46 overs. Both the Sri Lankan and Indian run rates have now been boosted to such a point that it is not going to matter by how much Bangladesh can beat Bermuda if India beat Sri Lanka. Bangladesh't only hope now is for Sri Lanka to beat India.
Sri Lanka beating India is not a terribly unlikely outcome, but it is a terrible outcome for the organisers and TV networks. The whole tournament is being bankrolled by Indian money. To see this, just look at the ground advertising, which is virtually all for Indian companies. Interestingly enough, one of the biggest advertisers is "Hutch", which is Hutchison Essar, the Indian mobile phone company that has just been sold by Hong Kong comglomerage Hutchison Whampoa to Vodafone, and is about to be rebranded as "Vodafone". If they had already rebranded it, then they might even get something from the advertising after India get knocked out.
I am sure that my readers have noticed that my coverage of matches has dropped over the last few days. I have got home from work, sat down at the computer, and then felt like watching television, or have simply fallen asleep. It is not so much that the cricket has not been interesting - thanks to last Saturday's upsets the first section of the tournament has been rather more interesting that I had expected as the consequences filter through. It is more the Bob Woolmer affair. As a casually watching blogger, there is really nothing I can add in terms of what is happening.
On the actual cricket, well, I can follow what is going on from a desk and a sofa in London, and I can even lend a bit of insight. With respect to the Woolmer thing, I don't know anybody involved, and I have no idea what is being said in hotel breakfast rooms and bars and police stations in the Carribean. I can say that I am sorry to hear of Woolmer's death, but beyond that what is there to say?
Well, actually, I did say something on it in the Samzidata comments yesterday, so I suppose I can cut and paste that here. Pakistan cricket is a horrendous cesspool of corruption, cheating, bribery, and lord knows what else. Still, when I heard that Woolmer had died, I was expecting an announcement a couple of hours later that he had died of a heart attack, and that would be the end of it. It appears now that he was also diabetic, and although one can certainly die fairly suddenly as a consequence of this, when it happens there is again little mysterious and I would have expected a quick annoucement. The fact that nobody is saying anything makes me think the worst at this point. There is clearly a thorough investigation going on that the police are not talking about until they know more. And if the description of the death scene in one of Brian's links is accurate, that does not sound like a heart attack or a diabetic attack. I also find the timing of it - immediately after one of the bigger upsets in recent times - to be most peculiar. We all want to celebrate unexpected upsets, but there have been so many times in which odd tactics and unexpected results have in recent years turned out to have been fixed matches or the result of other intrigues, that one is sceptical. When the coach is possibly murdered a few hours after an upset, one wonders whether the upset and the death are connected. A few years ago I would not have comprehended that cricket would lead to speculation like this, but sadly it has.
I have always been very suspicous about the death of former South African captain Hansie Cronje in a plane crash in 2003. When someone as mixed up with gangsters as Cronje dies mysteriously, one tends to think the worst. I wouldn't have thought that Woolmer was mixed up with gangsters. However, nobody would have believed it of Cronje (who had a reputation for being honest, upstanding, and God-fearing) until he was caught red handed. Secondly, perhaps the situation is that to enter the Pakistan dressing room is to be mixed up with gangsters.
If this turns out to be murder, I think that Pakistan should be thrown out of international cricket. Given the nature of the ICC, I cannot believe it would actually happen, but it would be appropriate. If that is so, I would almost prefer that the World Cup not be proceeded with either. I get a sense that many of the players have rather lost their enthusiam for it, and rather want to go home.
Pakistan are going home, and I think that is fortunate. They apparently did not want to play their last game yesterday, but the organisers insisted that they did. This was good, because the integrity of the competition would have been further damaged by such a happening. The integrity of the last World Cup was badly damaged by defaults against Kenya and Zimbabwe, and we did not want that here. A default yesterday would have possibly sent Zimbabwe through to the Super 8 instead of Ireland, although it would have depended on the net run rate after Ireland had played the West Indies. As it was Ireland who had earned the place by beating Pakistan (regardless of any suspicions of mine), it was and is best that they go through rather than Zimbabwe going through on default. As it happened, once Pakistan were on the field they played better than they had in the earlier games that mattered. Thanks to 160 from Imran Nazir, Pakistan scored 349, being bowled out off the second last scheduled ball of the innings. At one point it looked like Nazir was on target to break the individual scoring record in one day internationals, for fortunately this did not happen. The holy grail of a one day international double century will some day come, and I do not want it to happen in a meaningless match against weak opposition when nobody wanted to be there. (If Adam Gilchrist or Matthew Hayden could do it in the World Cup final, that would be perfect). Zimbabwe were never in it, and were 3/30 off 10.2 overs when there was a rain delay. The target was reduced to 193 from 20 overs on the Duckworth-Lewis rule, but Zimbabwe managed to get bowled out for 99 off 19.1 overs, for an easy Pakistan victory. West Indies and Ireland go through from that group. The winner of the forthcoming West Indies v Ireland match will take two points through to the next round. One has to assume that will be the West indies.
In the other match, Sri Lanka took on Bangladesh, and there was interest in whether Bangladesh could challenge a prepared and wary Sri Lankan team. The answer: no. Sri Lanka got off to a flier, scoring 1/137 off the first 25 overs. Jayasuriya is enjoying his last World Cup, and scored 82 off 77 balls, before having to retire hurt with a leg injury. Although Jayasuriya later came back to complete his century (ending up with 109), he had been on target for something bigger before the injury. Sri Lanka ended up with 4/318, with scores around 50 to Jayawardene, Sangakkara, and Silva. Bangladesh were then not impressive with the bat, being bowled out for 112 after the target was reduced to 311 from 46 overs. Both the Sri Lankan and Indian run rates have now been boosted to such a point that it is not going to matter by how much Bangladesh can beat Bermuda if India beat Sri Lanka. Bangladesh't only hope now is for Sri Lanka to beat India.
Sri Lanka beating India is not a terribly unlikely outcome, but it is a terrible outcome for the organisers and TV networks. The whole tournament is being bankrolled by Indian money. To see this, just look at the ground advertising, which is virtually all for Indian companies. Interestingly enough, one of the biggest advertisers is "Hutch", which is Hutchison Essar, the Indian mobile phone company that has just been sold by Hong Kong comglomerage Hutchison Whampoa to Vodafone, and is about to be rebranded as "Vodafone". If they had already rebranded it, then they might even get something from the advertising after India get knocked out.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
India did what was necessary. Now we wait for Sri Lanka.
Since I last posted here, there have been four mathes, all of the "stronger side meets weaker side" variety. When a stronger side outclasses the opposition, there are usually two ways to go about it. The stronger side can either do what is needed and win comfortably and take the points without doing anything flashy or go out and hit the stuffing out of the weaker side to win by the largest possible margin.
Normally, I consider the second of these options to be slightly bad form, but there are certain cases when it is necessary. Yesterday's game between India and Bermuda was such a case. India knew that there is a strong chance that the teams who go through from group B will be decided by run rate. They also knew that they have more batting firepower than Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, so that if they beat Bermuda by the highest possible margin, it would likely make a big difference. So, after being sent in (and losing one quick wicket) India really went for it. Sehweg scored 114 in a 200 run partnership with Ganguly and then Yuvraj Singh scored 83 runs off 46 balls and Tendulkar 57 not out off 29. In all, India scored 5/413 off 50 overs including 18 sixes and 30 fours, the highest score in World Cup history. Bermuda batted better than some might have expected, scoring 156, largely thanks to 73 not out by David Hemp. Still, a huge 257 run win, exactly what India needed, both from the perspective of their confidence and the tournament.
Yoday, though, we discover if it was necessary. Sri Lanka play Bangladesh. If Bangladesh win, then Sri Lanka and India essentially play off for the second place in the Super eights after Bangladesh take the first. Run rate then does not matter, unless they play a tie. If Sri Lanka wins, and then India beats Sri Lanka, the three sides are level, and the two with the best run rate make it. In that event, Bangladesh are the most likely side to miss out.
Since I last posted here, there have been four mathes, all of the "stronger side meets weaker side" variety. When a stronger side outclasses the opposition, there are usually two ways to go about it. The stronger side can either do what is needed and win comfortably and take the points without doing anything flashy or go out and hit the stuffing out of the weaker side to win by the largest possible margin.
Normally, I consider the second of these options to be slightly bad form, but there are certain cases when it is necessary. Yesterday's game between India and Bermuda was such a case. India knew that there is a strong chance that the teams who go through from group B will be decided by run rate. They also knew that they have more batting firepower than Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, so that if they beat Bermuda by the highest possible margin, it would likely make a big difference. So, after being sent in (and losing one quick wicket) India really went for it. Sehweg scored 114 in a 200 run partnership with Ganguly and then Yuvraj Singh scored 83 runs off 46 balls and Tendulkar 57 not out off 29. In all, India scored 5/413 off 50 overs including 18 sixes and 30 fours, the highest score in World Cup history. Bermuda batted better than some might have expected, scoring 156, largely thanks to 73 not out by David Hemp. Still, a huge 257 run win, exactly what India needed, both from the perspective of their confidence and the tournament.
Yoday, though, we discover if it was necessary. Sri Lanka play Bangladesh. If Bangladesh win, then Sri Lanka and India essentially play off for the second place in the Super eights after Bangladesh take the first. Run rate then does not matter, unless they play a tie. If Sri Lanka wins, and then India beats Sri Lanka, the three sides are level, and the two with the best run rate make it. In that event, Bangladesh are the most likely side to miss out.
After the upsets, it is business as usual
This week's fixtures have been fairly humdrum in the group stages of the 2007 World Cup. So far, we have had minnows facing the giants, and there hasn't been a sniff of an upset. However, tonight's fixtures offer a chance, with Sri Lanka facing Bangladesh, and Pakistan facing Zimbabwe.
If Bangladesh win this fixture, they are almost certain of qualifying, and will probably top their group. However, they will find the Sri Lankans to be a tougher nut to crack then the Indians, who they caught on the hop. The pleasing thing though for Bangladesh is that if they bring their best game with them, they do give themselves a good chance of beating any side, now. However, if Sri Lanka bring their best game along, then Bangladesh have no chance. Sri Lanka must be accounted one of the tournament favourites, with a well balanced team.
Still it should be an interesting game.
Zimbabwe vs Pakistan would not normally be considered an interesting game. Zimbabwean cricket is at a low ebb and the West Indies saw them off the other day without raising a sweat. However, Pakistan are now in total disarray, and are only playing in this game under direct instruction. It is possible that their coach, Bob Woolmer, was actually murdered, and the general state of mind of the team can hardly be any worse. Zimbabwe, comprised of triers, might find Pakistan theirs for the taking. However, these events might also galvanise Pakistan to take out their frustrations on the Zimbabweans.
If Zimbabwe win the game, it throws the race in the group wide open. It will all come down to a do-or-die fixture between Ireland and West Indies, and it will come down to that old monster, Net Run Rate, to determine who qualifies. (assuming that West Indies beat Ireland.)
In the other groups, England still have to beat Kenya to be certain of qualifying. If they lose, the second position behind New Zealand will come down to Net Run Rate. In Group A, Australia and South Africa have already qualified. Putting the two strongest ODI nations with two of the weaker minnows was always going to be ugly, and so it has proved, although Scotland were gallant to bat through their 50 overs against South Africa yesterday.
So while this week has so far been fairly unremarkable in 2007 World Cup it should finish off on a high as the group phase winds up.
This week's fixtures have been fairly humdrum in the group stages of the 2007 World Cup. So far, we have had minnows facing the giants, and there hasn't been a sniff of an upset. However, tonight's fixtures offer a chance, with Sri Lanka facing Bangladesh, and Pakistan facing Zimbabwe.
If Bangladesh win this fixture, they are almost certain of qualifying, and will probably top their group. However, they will find the Sri Lankans to be a tougher nut to crack then the Indians, who they caught on the hop. The pleasing thing though for Bangladesh is that if they bring their best game with them, they do give themselves a good chance of beating any side, now. However, if Sri Lanka bring their best game along, then Bangladesh have no chance. Sri Lanka must be accounted one of the tournament favourites, with a well balanced team.
Still it should be an interesting game.
Zimbabwe vs Pakistan would not normally be considered an interesting game. Zimbabwean cricket is at a low ebb and the West Indies saw them off the other day without raising a sweat. However, Pakistan are now in total disarray, and are only playing in this game under direct instruction. It is possible that their coach, Bob Woolmer, was actually murdered, and the general state of mind of the team can hardly be any worse. Zimbabwe, comprised of triers, might find Pakistan theirs for the taking. However, these events might also galvanise Pakistan to take out their frustrations on the Zimbabweans.
If Zimbabwe win the game, it throws the race in the group wide open. It will all come down to a do-or-die fixture between Ireland and West Indies, and it will come down to that old monster, Net Run Rate, to determine who qualifies. (assuming that West Indies beat Ireland.)
In the other groups, England still have to beat Kenya to be certain of qualifying. If they lose, the second position behind New Zealand will come down to Net Run Rate. In Group A, Australia and South Africa have already qualified. Putting the two strongest ODI nations with two of the weaker minnows was always going to be ugly, and so it has proved, although Scotland were gallant to bat through their 50 overs against South Africa yesterday.
So while this week has so far been fairly unremarkable in 2007 World Cup it should finish off on a high as the group phase winds up.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Brief daily thoughts
Like everyone else, I was sorrowed and surprised to hear of Bob Woolmer's death. There really isn't much I can say. He was clearly a man who loved his cricket, and my condolences go out to his friends and family.
There is no need for more than a brief discussion of the day's play. Whereas yesterday was a day of upsets, everything went according to the script today. Australia had little trouble with Holland. Australia got off to a solid start before losing the wickets of Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting, to take the score to 3/116 of 20.1 overs. Hodge and Clark gave a texbook demonstration of how to play in such a situation, letting the scoreboard tick over at four or five an over, and not losing further wickets. As the 40 over mark approached, they boosted the scoring rate, and Hodge in particular really cut loose, eventually hitting seven sixes and scoring 123 off 89 balls before being out in the 48th over after a partnership of 204. Clarke ended up 93 not out off 85 balls and Watson a quick 12 off four balls to take Austalia to 5/358 off the 50 overs. The Dutch couldn't compete at all, steadily losing wickets to be all out for 129. Wickets were shared. McGrath and Bracken each took two and Hogg took four. Australia won by 229 runs
The two wins mean that for all practical purposes Australia are through to the super eight. (To miss out, Australia would have to lose to South Africa, Scotland would have to beat South Africa, and Scotland would have to beat the Netherlands, and all those games would have to have winning margins of about 250 runs. It isn't going to happen). Australia play South Africa on Friday. This is an important game, as the points will carry over into the super eight. Look to Austrlia to bring Andrew Symonds in for that game. I am not sure who Australia leave out though. Hodge and Clark would have been the most likely choices, but both played well today. I can't imagine they would leave out Hussey, so it is a difficult choice for the selectors.
In the other game, England played Canada. After England's off field indiscipline (that Philip has written about) they dropped Flintoff from the side and essentially stripped him of the vice-captaincy. England were sent in by Canada, and batted solidly but not spectacularly for the 50 overs. Runs from Joyce and Collingwood, and a few from Vaughan and Bopara got them an unexciting but perfectly adequate 6/278 off the 50 overs. Canada lost a couple of early wickets, and then weren't really in the hunt, although they batted solidly and England were at times a little sloppy in the field. Canada managed a total of 228/7 off the 50 overs, and England won by 51 runs.
This isn't really very impressive on the part of England - Kenya beat Canada much more convincingly last week than did England today - and England have not had an impressive tournament so far - but they are still perfectly on track to make the Super Eight. Assuming New Zealand beat Kenya on Tuesday, England will just need to beat Kenya on Satuday to go through. If they lose they will be out, but it will be nobody's fault but theirs. They should be strong enough to win easily enough. In the unlikely event that Kenya beat New Zealand, it may be that England's lacklustre performances will count against them in terms of net run rate. However, they will have the advantage of playing the last game in the group. They will know exactly what to do. And this is all speculation anyway. New Zealand are much too disciplined to lose to Kenya, so England are likely to have the simple equation of needing a win.
Tomorrow we have Bermuda versus India in Trinidad and West Indies versus Zimbabwe in Jamaica. It is very important indeed for India that they beat Bermuda by the largest possible margin. We may well see fireworks when India bats. If the West Indies beat Zimbabwe, then the West Indies are through. In the unlikely event that Zimbabwe wins, Group D becomes even more complicated than it is already.
Like everyone else, I was sorrowed and surprised to hear of Bob Woolmer's death. There really isn't much I can say. He was clearly a man who loved his cricket, and my condolences go out to his friends and family.
There is no need for more than a brief discussion of the day's play. Whereas yesterday was a day of upsets, everything went according to the script today. Australia had little trouble with Holland. Australia got off to a solid start before losing the wickets of Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting, to take the score to 3/116 of 20.1 overs. Hodge and Clark gave a texbook demonstration of how to play in such a situation, letting the scoreboard tick over at four or five an over, and not losing further wickets. As the 40 over mark approached, they boosted the scoring rate, and Hodge in particular really cut loose, eventually hitting seven sixes and scoring 123 off 89 balls before being out in the 48th over after a partnership of 204. Clarke ended up 93 not out off 85 balls and Watson a quick 12 off four balls to take Austalia to 5/358 off the 50 overs. The Dutch couldn't compete at all, steadily losing wickets to be all out for 129. Wickets were shared. McGrath and Bracken each took two and Hogg took four. Australia won by 229 runs
The two wins mean that for all practical purposes Australia are through to the super eight. (To miss out, Australia would have to lose to South Africa, Scotland would have to beat South Africa, and Scotland would have to beat the Netherlands, and all those games would have to have winning margins of about 250 runs. It isn't going to happen). Australia play South Africa on Friday. This is an important game, as the points will carry over into the super eight. Look to Austrlia to bring Andrew Symonds in for that game. I am not sure who Australia leave out though. Hodge and Clark would have been the most likely choices, but both played well today. I can't imagine they would leave out Hussey, so it is a difficult choice for the selectors.
In the other game, England played Canada. After England's off field indiscipline (that Philip has written about) they dropped Flintoff from the side and essentially stripped him of the vice-captaincy. England were sent in by Canada, and batted solidly but not spectacularly for the 50 overs. Runs from Joyce and Collingwood, and a few from Vaughan and Bopara got them an unexciting but perfectly adequate 6/278 off the 50 overs. Canada lost a couple of early wickets, and then weren't really in the hunt, although they batted solidly and England were at times a little sloppy in the field. Canada managed a total of 228/7 off the 50 overs, and England won by 51 runs.
This isn't really very impressive on the part of England - Kenya beat Canada much more convincingly last week than did England today - and England have not had an impressive tournament so far - but they are still perfectly on track to make the Super Eight. Assuming New Zealand beat Kenya on Tuesday, England will just need to beat Kenya on Satuday to go through. If they lose they will be out, but it will be nobody's fault but theirs. They should be strong enough to win easily enough. In the unlikely event that Kenya beat New Zealand, it may be that England's lacklustre performances will count against them in terms of net run rate. However, they will have the advantage of playing the last game in the group. They will know exactly what to do. And this is all speculation anyway. New Zealand are much too disciplined to lose to Kenya, so England are likely to have the simple equation of needing a win.
Tomorrow we have Bermuda versus India in Trinidad and West Indies versus Zimbabwe in Jamaica. It is very important indeed for India that they beat Bermuda by the largest possible margin. We may well see fireworks when India bats. If the West Indies beat Zimbabwe, then the West Indies are through. In the unlikely event that Zimbabwe wins, Group D becomes even more complicated than it is already.
Now that Flintoff has been sacked from the vice-captaincy and the management have asserted that they will not consider him for the role of captaincy in the World Cup (and probably not in the future), the experiment of the all-rounder has come to a close [again]. The conclusion fulfils the hallmarks of that word: unedifying.
Flintoff's record as captain will not stand up well in the annals. Yet, the episode in which he is finally reprimanded, involving allegations that he was drunk in charge of a pedalo, does hint that he had entered Situation Impossible. Some do not have the courage to cut through the knots that bind a particular impasse, such as resigning from the captaincy of the England cricket team. The acknowledgement of one's own failure is a difficult circumstance to embrace.
Coach Duncan Fletcher said Flintoff would not be considered for the captaincy should Michael Vaughan get injured in the World Cup.
He said in a statement: "Andrew Flintoff has been given warnings about his conduct and disciplined for previous incidents of this nature.
The Board of Selectors and the coach are responsible for ensuring that the best captain is chosen for the team. If the wrong cricketer is chosen, they should have the power and the skills to end his responsibility without undue damage to his skills or previous position within the team. Fletcher's statement on Flintoff does beg the question as to why he was chosen in the first place and retained his position in Australia. The depth of skilled cricketers within the England team is not so great that they can afford to sack a captain and remove him from the team.
England's management had initially refused to speculate on a report in Sunday's News of the World, under a back-page headline of "Sunk' n' Drunk - Freddie fined after pedalo booze shame", that stated that Flintoff had toppled into the water after a late-night drinking session at the Rumours Nightclub near England's team hotel in St Lucia. Fans who witnessed events contacted several British newspapers to tell them what they'd seen.
Nasser Hussain, Flintoff's former captain, praised England's management for their hard-line stance on Flintoff's antics. "There is a history to this story," Hussain told Sky Sports. "It is not the first time. In Australia he had three or four warnings about his drinking. The management felt enough is enough. At some stage you have to have some strong management, even with your best cricketer. Well done England for finally for having some strong management."
The end of Flintoff's captaincy prospects could have been handled better. Did the management wait for an 'event' to carry out the inevitable withdrawal of favour inflicting disruption and psychologically unsettling a team that is already lacking confidence?
A tragedy overshadows the cricket
Pakistan's coach, Bob Woolmer, has died. This Cricinfo obituary sums up his cricketing achievements.
Pakistan's coach, Bob Woolmer, has died. This Cricinfo obituary sums up his cricketing achievements.
An extraordinary day, and an amount of crow
In my preview of this tournament, I wrote the following.
Now that the extremely unlikely and the quite unlikely have both happened, I suppose I have to draw attention to it. When I made this comment and only discussed the prospects of the top eight sides, a well known Bangladeshi blogger did chide me a little in the comments of this blog for not previewing the other eight teams as well. There was no malice in my not doing this: I simply did not have time, and in many cases I simply did no know much about the teams in question. Of those I did, I didn't feel like writing about Zimbabwe, but I should have written about Bangladesh. Bangladesh have full international status and play regularly against the good teams of international cricket. Although they have shown fight at times, they have been slowly improving, and have won the occasional match against the strong sides of world cricket (most notably against Australia in England in 2005). With a population base of more than 100 million and great enthusiasm for cricket, I have always been of the opinion that Bangladesh would come good some time, but I wasn't sure when (and in truth I am still not, but more on that in a bit). Last year they played mainly against Zimbabwe, Kenya, and other lesser sides in one day matches rather than the stronger sides: their record was good, but when they had to play the stronger sides in the ICC Champions Trophy, they were beaten. However, it is clear that they had regular competition and had a chance to get their tactics and strategies right, for they were hugely impressive yesterday.
As most of my readers would know, yesterday there were two upsets: Bangladesh beat India and Ireland beat Pakistan. Ireland beating Pakistan was I think the most remarkable result in the history of the World Cup. Pakistan are now out of the tournament, and Ireland are very likely through to the Super 8. However, that match was a fluke. Ireland are a side put together from discards from other nations who can find some Irish ancestry. The winning six was hit by Ireland captain Trent Johnston, who happens to be a native of the Australian city of Wollongong (as for that matter am I). He is likely more Irish than I am, but only barely. Ireland do not have a strong domestic structure. This win does not herald a new age in Irish cricket, although the Irish supporters (who had come for the Six Nations rugby) in the Sports Cafe in Haymarket yesterday were clearly enjoying it. Pakistan were an obviously vulnerable side, and they collapsed. Watching the end of the match, everyone knew that when Ireland had Pakistan at 8/105 everyone knew that the two final wickets had to be taken quickly, as there was no guarantee that Ireland's batting could get even a modest target. The final 132 looked to me like it might have been too much, but Ireland just scraped home, thanks largely to 72 from Niall O'Brien. When O'Brien got out stumped to a stupid shot and two more wickets fell immediately, it looked like Ireland were going to stumble at the final moment. However, Niall's brother Kevin O'Brien and Trent Johnston played very carefully to get Ireland home. Carefully until the scores were level, anyway, when Johnstone finished the match with a big six.
The Bangladesh v India match was in a way similar but in a way different. Firstly, Bangladesh bowled with more discipline and skill than did Ireland. One can't say that India batted particularly well, but Bangladesh bowled with skill to take advantage of them. Mashrafe Mortaza took 4/38 off 9.3 overs. Syen Rasel took 0/31 off 10. Abdur Razzak took 3/38 off 10. Mohammad Rafique 3/35 off 10. This was good disciplined bowling all round. Bangladesh got India to 9/159, and then the last two batsmen dug on and got the score to 191. India had more runs than Pakistan, but there was far less concern in the Bangladesh game about the tail enders getting a few more runs. India's back had been broken, and if Bangladesh was a professional side, then they would be able to get 191 with not much more difficulty than 159. If Bangladesh were to win it, this would be about them showing they were a professional side.
And they did it easily enough. 51 to Tamim Iqbal. 56 non out to Mushfiqur Rahim. 53 to Saqibul Hasan. Bangladesh's captain (and so often their best batsman) Habibul Bashar got out for 1, but it did not matter as the job was largely done by then. A pretty professional performance by Bangladesh.
However, Bangladesh have plenty more to do. The table in group B looks like this
Disregarding any predictions I might have made about the likelihood of upsets so far, let us only consider situations in which Bermuda lose to both India and Bangladesh. (Bermuda are the weakest side in the tournament). There are two other games that matter: Sri Lanka v Bangladesh and Sri Lanka v India. If Bangladesh can beat Sri Lanka, then Bangladesh go through and top the group. The other team that goes through from that group is the winner of India v Sri Lanka. If Bangladesh lose to Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka beats India, then Bangladesh and Sri Lanka go through and India are eliminated. If on the other hand Bandladesh lose to Sri Lanka and India beats Sri Lanka, then all three are tied on points and it goes down to net run rate - essentially who can thrash Bermuda by the largest margin. Sri lanka have already beaten them by 221 runs. You would think that with Tendulkar, Dravid, and the like, India can do something similar. The question remains as to whether Bangladesh have the destructive batsmen to do this themselves. For Bangladesh it would be best if they can simply defeat Sri Lanka. It is clear though that despite yesterday's victory, Bangladesh have work to do to make the Super 8. At least they do if Sri Lanka are unable to beat India. Sri Lanka are a very good side though. They have an excellent chance of beating India. On the other hand, India will be very motivated for that match - I can't imagine returning to India would be much fun after failing to make the last eight.
For Bangladesh, the aim in the rest of the tournament is to prove that this result was no fluke, that they have risen up the ranks, and that they deserve to be treated as one of the major nations of world cricket going forwards. If they do no more than they have done already in this tournament, they have made a fine step forward. Win a few more games, and it is a lot more than that.
And for that matter, returning to Pakistan is not going to be much fun after Pakistan have failed to make the last eight. That one is not hypothetical. Pakistan are out. Look at Group D.
Pakistan are gone. Even if they win their last game against Zimbabwe, that will give them a maximum of two points. They cannot finish above Ireland, who have three points already. Zimbabwe and the West Indies are still to play, and the winner of that came will have at least three points. If that game is tied or no result, then the West Indies will have three points.
Ireland and the West Indies will go through from this group unless Zimbabwe can cause an upset. If Ireland and Zimbabwe both beat the West Indies, Ireland and Zimbabwe will go through. (I am not holding my breath). If Zimbabwe beat the West Indies and the West Indies beat Ireland then it goes down to net run rate between Ireland and Zimbabwe.
In a nutshell, it would be very unlucky for Ireland to miss out on the Super Eight from here. That point they got from the tie against Zimbabwe turns out to be immensely valuable. If they had lost to Zimbabwe, we would still be looking at Pakistan quite probably going through from Group D.
Okay, Australia v Holland and Canada v England today. Australia will want to give Holland similar treatment than what they got from South Africa, just to make a point to the South Africans, I fear. This might not be fun if you are Holland. The win will for all practical purposes mean Australia qualify for the super eight. England will need to beat Canada to remain comfortably in the competition. I am sure they will, although the question of by how much remains open.
In my preview of this tournament, I wrote the following.
There are 16 teams playing in this year's tournament: West Indies; Pakistan; Australia; Sri Lanka; South Africa; England; New Zealand; India; Scotland; Canada; Kenya; Bermuda; Ireland; Zimbabwe; Netherlands; and Bangladesh. Only the first eight of these teams have an chance of winning the tournament. It is unimaginable that any of the other eight could win it. The tournament organisers know this, which is why the second round consists of eight teams and the first stage is relatively short. It is extremely unlikely that any of the second eight teams will make the second round. It is quite unlikely that any of the second eight teams will win a game against any of the first eight, although such events have occurred in previous tournaments.
Now that the extremely unlikely and the quite unlikely have both happened, I suppose I have to draw attention to it. When I made this comment and only discussed the prospects of the top eight sides, a well known Bangladeshi blogger did chide me a little in the comments of this blog for not previewing the other eight teams as well. There was no malice in my not doing this: I simply did not have time, and in many cases I simply did no know much about the teams in question. Of those I did, I didn't feel like writing about Zimbabwe, but I should have written about Bangladesh. Bangladesh have full international status and play regularly against the good teams of international cricket. Although they have shown fight at times, they have been slowly improving, and have won the occasional match against the strong sides of world cricket (most notably against Australia in England in 2005). With a population base of more than 100 million and great enthusiasm for cricket, I have always been of the opinion that Bangladesh would come good some time, but I wasn't sure when (and in truth I am still not, but more on that in a bit). Last year they played mainly against Zimbabwe, Kenya, and other lesser sides in one day matches rather than the stronger sides: their record was good, but when they had to play the stronger sides in the ICC Champions Trophy, they were beaten. However, it is clear that they had regular competition and had a chance to get their tactics and strategies right, for they were hugely impressive yesterday.
As most of my readers would know, yesterday there were two upsets: Bangladesh beat India and Ireland beat Pakistan. Ireland beating Pakistan was I think the most remarkable result in the history of the World Cup. Pakistan are now out of the tournament, and Ireland are very likely through to the Super 8. However, that match was a fluke. Ireland are a side put together from discards from other nations who can find some Irish ancestry. The winning six was hit by Ireland captain Trent Johnston, who happens to be a native of the Australian city of Wollongong (as for that matter am I). He is likely more Irish than I am, but only barely. Ireland do not have a strong domestic structure. This win does not herald a new age in Irish cricket, although the Irish supporters (who had come for the Six Nations rugby) in the Sports Cafe in Haymarket yesterday were clearly enjoying it. Pakistan were an obviously vulnerable side, and they collapsed. Watching the end of the match, everyone knew that when Ireland had Pakistan at 8/105 everyone knew that the two final wickets had to be taken quickly, as there was no guarantee that Ireland's batting could get even a modest target. The final 132 looked to me like it might have been too much, but Ireland just scraped home, thanks largely to 72 from Niall O'Brien. When O'Brien got out stumped to a stupid shot and two more wickets fell immediately, it looked like Ireland were going to stumble at the final moment. However, Niall's brother Kevin O'Brien and Trent Johnston played very carefully to get Ireland home. Carefully until the scores were level, anyway, when Johnstone finished the match with a big six.
The Bangladesh v India match was in a way similar but in a way different. Firstly, Bangladesh bowled with more discipline and skill than did Ireland. One can't say that India batted particularly well, but Bangladesh bowled with skill to take advantage of them. Mashrafe Mortaza took 4/38 off 9.3 overs. Syen Rasel took 0/31 off 10. Abdur Razzak took 3/38 off 10. Mohammad Rafique 3/35 off 10. This was good disciplined bowling all round. Bangladesh got India to 9/159, and then the last two batsmen dug on and got the score to 191. India had more runs than Pakistan, but there was far less concern in the Bangladesh game about the tail enders getting a few more runs. India's back had been broken, and if Bangladesh was a professional side, then they would be able to get 191 with not much more difficulty than 159. If Bangladesh were to win it, this would be about them showing they were a professional side.
And they did it easily enough. 51 to Tamim Iqbal. 56 non out to Mushfiqur Rahim. 53 to Saqibul Hasan. Bangladesh's captain (and so often their best batsman) Habibul Bashar got out for 1, but it did not matter as the job was largely done by then. A pretty professional performance by Bangladesh.
However, Bangladesh have plenty more to do. The table in group B looks like this
| Group B | Played | Won | Lost | Tied/NR | Pts | Net RR |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4.860 |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.139 |
| India | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -0.139 |
| Bermuda | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -4.860 |
Disregarding any predictions I might have made about the likelihood of upsets so far, let us only consider situations in which Bermuda lose to both India and Bangladesh. (Bermuda are the weakest side in the tournament). There are two other games that matter: Sri Lanka v Bangladesh and Sri Lanka v India. If Bangladesh can beat Sri Lanka, then Bangladesh go through and top the group. The other team that goes through from that group is the winner of India v Sri Lanka. If Bangladesh lose to Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka beats India, then Bangladesh and Sri Lanka go through and India are eliminated. If on the other hand Bandladesh lose to Sri Lanka and India beats Sri Lanka, then all three are tied on points and it goes down to net run rate - essentially who can thrash Bermuda by the largest margin. Sri lanka have already beaten them by 221 runs. You would think that with Tendulkar, Dravid, and the like, India can do something similar. The question remains as to whether Bangladesh have the destructive batsmen to do this themselves. For Bangladesh it would be best if they can simply defeat Sri Lanka. It is clear though that despite yesterday's victory, Bangladesh have work to do to make the Super 8. At least they do if Sri Lanka are unable to beat India. Sri Lanka are a very good side though. They have an excellent chance of beating India. On the other hand, India will be very motivated for that match - I can't imagine returning to India would be much fun after failing to make the last eight.
For Bangladesh, the aim in the rest of the tournament is to prove that this result was no fluke, that they have risen up the ranks, and that they deserve to be treated as one of the major nations of world cricket going forwards. If they do no more than they have done already in this tournament, they have made a fine step forward. Win a few more games, and it is a lot more than that.
And for that matter, returning to Pakistan is not going to be much fun after Pakistan have failed to make the last eight. That one is not hypothetical. Pakistan are out. Look at Group D.
| Group D | Played | Won | Lost | Tied/NR | Pts | Net RR |
| Ireland | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.274 |
| West Indies | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.080 |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.000 |
| Pakistan | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -0.843 |
Pakistan are gone. Even if they win their last game against Zimbabwe, that will give them a maximum of two points. They cannot finish above Ireland, who have three points already. Zimbabwe and the West Indies are still to play, and the winner of that came will have at least three points. If that game is tied or no result, then the West Indies will have three points.
Ireland and the West Indies will go through from this group unless Zimbabwe can cause an upset. If Ireland and Zimbabwe both beat the West Indies, Ireland and Zimbabwe will go through. (I am not holding my breath). If Zimbabwe beat the West Indies and the West Indies beat Ireland then it goes down to net run rate between Ireland and Zimbabwe.
In a nutshell, it would be very unlucky for Ireland to miss out on the Super Eight from here. That point they got from the tie against Zimbabwe turns out to be immensely valuable. If they had lost to Zimbabwe, we would still be looking at Pakistan quite probably going through from Group D.
Okay, Australia v Holland and Canada v England today. Australia will want to give Holland similar treatment than what they got from South Africa, just to make a point to the South Africans, I fear. This might not be fun if you are Holland. The win will for all practical purposes mean Australia qualify for the super eight. England will need to beat Canada to remain comfortably in the competition. I am sure they will, although the question of by how much remains open.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Things I didn't mean, and walks in the park
Yesterday, I said "This should be very interesting, as it is our first chance to see if England are genuinely improved or if the Commonwealth Bank series was a walk in the park. Also, South Africa open their campaign against the Netherlands. That game should be a walk in the park for the South Africans". That of course is not what I intended to say. My mind was a sentence ahead of my fingers, and I put "a walk in the park" in the first sentence when I meant "a false dawn". I should probably use fewer cliches.
However, we did get the answer to the question. It was a false dawn. When I was composing my preview, I thought long and hard about what I thought about England. Their record in one day cricket is abysmal, except for that fine four game streak against New Zealand and Australia going into this tournament. Did that streak mean anything. Had they somehow overcome their manifest failings on most of the Ashes tour and had the professionalism that they showed in 2005 suddenly come back at the same time they had finally learned to play one day cricket.
It was in truth a tall order, and yesterday I think they proved it was a false dawn. New Zealand simply outplayed them. England lost Joyce off the first legitimate ball of the match and Bell and Vaughan not too long afterwards. (3/52). Collingwood and Pieterson then took the score to 133, but then there was a collapse. They were both out, so was Flintoff first ball, and then was Dalrymple. 7/138.
At that point it looked terrible for England, but they then took advantage of New Zealand's big weakness, which is that they are a lesser side when Simon Bond has no more overs to bowl. He bowled superbly yesterday (as he almost always does - he is really a fine player) to take 2/19 off ten overs. But he was bowled out, and New Zealand couldn't finish off the English. 42 to Nixon and 29 to Plunkett too England to 7/209 off their 50 overs. That was something to bowl at, and when New Zealand were 3/19 it looked like England had turned around a disastrous situation.
But they hadn't. From that point, New Zealand did what was needed with embarassing ease, only losing one more wicket. 27 to McMillan, 63 not out to Oram, 87 not out to Styris. England's bowling was ineffective. New Zealand got the runs with six wickets in hand and nine overs to spare, to win in the end with embarassing ease. New Zealand have their advertised weaknesses, but play well within them. England are not going very far in this tournament.
And it was indeed a walk in the park for South Africa. Not much to say really. The game was reduced to 40 overs due to rain, but South Africa scores 3/353 regardless. Kallis scored 128 not out, Smith scored 67, Gibbs scored 72, Boucher 75 not out. The Netherlands could only manage 9/132 off their 40 overs. The notables thing about the match was the Gibbs scored six sixes off an over against van Bunge, the first time it has been done in a one day international, and Boucher hit the fastest fifty in world cup history (from 21 balls). A rather brutal example of how a strong side can destroy a weak one if it really wants to.
Today India are playing Bangladesh and Pakistan are taking on Ireland. Ireland are on a high after their tie with Zimbabwe and Pakistan on a low after losing to the West Indies. A boilover would almost certainly be enough for Ireland to make the next roung, and Pakistan are unpredictable, but I don't really believe it will happen. Pakistan to win comfortable. India v Bangladesh has started, and Bangladesh are giving India a torrid time, and have them at 2/24 off ten overs. In my tournament preview, I only covered the top eight, and lumped Bangladesh with the minnows. This perhaps wasn't fair, as they are clearly the best of those eight sides. If they prove that it wasn't fair by winning criket matches, then I will be delighted to see it.
Yesterday, I said "This should be very interesting, as it is our first chance to see if England are genuinely improved or if the Commonwealth Bank series was a walk in the park. Also, South Africa open their campaign against the Netherlands. That game should be a walk in the park for the South Africans". That of course is not what I intended to say. My mind was a sentence ahead of my fingers, and I put "a walk in the park" in the first sentence when I meant "a false dawn". I should probably use fewer cliches.
However, we did get the answer to the question. It was a false dawn. When I was composing my preview, I thought long and hard about what I thought about England. Their record in one day cricket is abysmal, except for that fine four game streak against New Zealand and Australia going into this tournament. Did that streak mean anything. Had they somehow overcome their manifest failings on most of the Ashes tour and had the professionalism that they showed in 2005 suddenly come back at the same time they had finally learned to play one day cricket.
It was in truth a tall order, and yesterday I think they proved it was a false dawn. New Zealand simply outplayed them. England lost Joyce off the first legitimate ball of the match and Bell and Vaughan not too long afterwards. (3/52). Collingwood and Pieterson then took the score to 133, but then there was a collapse. They were both out, so was Flintoff first ball, and then was Dalrymple. 7/138.
At that point it looked terrible for England, but they then took advantage of New Zealand's big weakness, which is that they are a lesser side when Simon Bond has no more overs to bowl. He bowled superbly yesterday (as he almost always does - he is really a fine player) to take 2/19 off ten overs. But he was bowled out, and New Zealand couldn't finish off the English. 42 to Nixon and 29 to Plunkett too England to 7/209 off their 50 overs. That was something to bowl at, and when New Zealand were 3/19 it looked like England had turned around a disastrous situation.
But they hadn't. From that point, New Zealand did what was needed with embarassing ease, only losing one more wicket. 27 to McMillan, 63 not out to Oram, 87 not out to Styris. England's bowling was ineffective. New Zealand got the runs with six wickets in hand and nine overs to spare, to win in the end with embarassing ease. New Zealand have their advertised weaknesses, but play well within them. England are not going very far in this tournament.
And it was indeed a walk in the park for South Africa. Not much to say really. The game was reduced to 40 overs due to rain, but South Africa scores 3/353 regardless. Kallis scored 128 not out, Smith scored 67, Gibbs scored 72, Boucher 75 not out. The Netherlands could only manage 9/132 off their 40 overs. The notables thing about the match was the Gibbs scored six sixes off an over against van Bunge, the first time it has been done in a one day international, and Boucher hit the fastest fifty in world cup history (from 21 balls). A rather brutal example of how a strong side can destroy a weak one if it really wants to.
Today India are playing Bangladesh and Pakistan are taking on Ireland. Ireland are on a high after their tie with Zimbabwe and Pakistan on a low after losing to the West Indies. A boilover would almost certainly be enough for Ireland to make the next roung, and Pakistan are unpredictable, but I don't really believe it will happen. Pakistan to win comfortable. India v Bangladesh has started, and Bangladesh are giving India a torrid time, and have them at 2/24 off ten overs. In my tournament preview, I only covered the top eight, and lumped Bangladesh with the minnows. This perhaps wasn't fair, as they are clearly the best of those eight sides. If they prove that it wasn't fair by winning criket matches, then I will be delighted to see it.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Bowlers have a fighting chance in the 2007 World Cup, and I'm pleased.
Prior to the start of the 2007 World Cup, there was a lot of media speculation about some very high scores being made by the batting sides. There was even talk of 500 being possible. This would seem insane even a few years ago, but in the last 12 months it has been shown that 400+ scores are quite possible.
To score 500 would be very difficult, and a lot of things need to go right for it to happen, but there's so much limited overs cricket being played, and mostly in conditions strongly favouring the batsmen, that it seems that it is bound to happen eventually. However, from the early exchanges this week, it seems most unlikely that it will happen in the 2007 World Cup. As I write, New Zealand are giving England's batsmen a torrid time in their group game in St. Lucia. England will probably be content to get 200 at this rate, never mind 500.
There are plenty of people that think high scoring matches are a good thing- the game where Australia scored 434 and still lost last year was widely acclaimed to be one of the greatest games of all time. However, I think that is nonsense- the bowlers were reduced to mere bowling machines, and it is a form of cricket that is reduced to a mere batathon.
The majority of casual cricket viewers seem to like this form of cricket, but for me, cricket is a contest between bat and ball. So I've been delighted with the early games, where teams that are evenly matched fighting out moderately scoring games. The match between West Indies and Pakistan was a classic match- runs were possible for batsmen of talent, but there was enough in the wicket for bowlers to do well if they were good enough.
And with the scores likely to be more even, there is more chance of getting matches like the thriller between Zimbabwe and Ireland. And it is in the really close games that the real skill and character of the cricketer is revealed. In World Cup matches, this can mean the difference between becoming a part of cricket history and a legend of the game. Just ask Lance Klusener.
Prior to the start of the 2007 World Cup, there was a lot of media speculation about some very high scores being made by the batting sides. There was even talk of 500 being possible. This would seem insane even a few years ago, but in the last 12 months it has been shown that 400+ scores are quite possible.
To score 500 would be very difficult, and a lot of things need to go right for it to happen, but there's so much limited overs cricket being played, and mostly in conditions strongly favouring the batsmen, that it seems that it is bound to happen eventually. However, from the early exchanges this week, it seems most unlikely that it will happen in the 2007 World Cup. As I write, New Zealand are giving England's batsmen a torrid time in their group game in St. Lucia. England will probably be content to get 200 at this rate, never mind 500.
There are plenty of people that think high scoring matches are a good thing- the game where Australia scored 434 and still lost last year was widely acclaimed to be one of the greatest games of all time. However, I think that is nonsense- the bowlers were reduced to mere bowling machines, and it is a form of cricket that is reduced to a mere batathon.
The majority of casual cricket viewers seem to like this form of cricket, but for me, cricket is a contest between bat and ball. So I've been delighted with the early games, where teams that are evenly matched fighting out moderately scoring games. The match between West Indies and Pakistan was a classic match- runs were possible for batsmen of talent, but there was enough in the wicket for bowlers to do well if they were good enough.
And with the scores likely to be more even, there is more chance of getting matches like the thriller between Zimbabwe and Ireland. And it is in the really close games that the real skill and character of the cricketer is revealed. In World Cup matches, this can mean the difference between becoming a part of cricket history and a legend of the game. Just ask Lance Klusener.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
It probably doesn't matter for the tournament, but a first exciting match
The two games to conclude today had completely contrasting finishes. Sri Lanka finished off bowling out for 78, to complete a 243 run victory. Top order wickets to Lasith Malinga are encouraging for Sri Lanka - he is an exciting bowler when in form.
The other game was an absolute nailbiter. Set 222 to win, Zimbabwe lost wickets along the way, but looked for most of the time like they would probably ultimately scrape the runs. At 5/133 they were perhaps in a little trouble, but Stuart Matsikenyeri steadily compiled runs. At 5/203 off 43.4 overs they looked to be crusing home, and even at 6/212 off for 47.3 it did not look especially hard. Then, however there were wild swings. From needing 10 off 15 balls with four wickets in hand, three wickets fell for one run in ten balls, and suddenly Ireland were in the box seat, with Zimbabwe needing nine runs off the last over with one wicket in hand. However, Matsikenyeri was still batting and he managed to gain strike and Zimbabwe got eight runs off the first five balls of the over. Matsikenyeri only needed one run off the last ball and it looked Zimbabwe's game again, but he couldn't get it. Rainsford was run out in a suicidal attempt at a run, and Zimbabwe were all out for 221. The match was tied - only the third tie in World Cup history. The last such result was of course the extraordinarily memorable semi-final between Australia and South Africa in 1999. Zimbabwe were disconsolate and the Irish ecstatic, indicating the perceived positions of these sides. Matsikenyeri must have been livid considering all the wickets that fell at the other end - three of them run outs. His partners panicked - it is that simple.
Either of these sides have a clear task to achieve a place in the Super eight - they just have to beat Pakistan. If either side can do so, their three points will be above Pakistan's maximum of two points. It is a very tall order, but Pakistan are the most unpredictable and most vulnerable of the strong sides. It isn't likely, but it is not quite beyond the realms of possibility.
The two games to conclude today had completely contrasting finishes. Sri Lanka finished off bowling out for 78, to complete a 243 run victory. Top order wickets to Lasith Malinga are encouraging for Sri Lanka - he is an exciting bowler when in form.
The other game was an absolute nailbiter. Set 222 to win, Zimbabwe lost wickets along the way, but looked for most of the time like they would probably ultimately scrape the runs. At 5/133 they were perhaps in a little trouble, but Stuart Matsikenyeri steadily compiled runs. At 5/203 off 43.4 overs they looked to be crusing home, and even at 6/212 off for 47.3 it did not look especially hard. Then, however there were wild swings. From needing 10 off 15 balls with four wickets in hand, three wickets fell for one run in ten balls, and suddenly Ireland were in the box seat, with Zimbabwe needing nine runs off the last over with one wicket in hand. However, Matsikenyeri was still batting and he managed to gain strike and Zimbabwe got eight runs off the first five balls of the over. Matsikenyeri only needed one run off the last ball and it looked Zimbabwe's game again, but he couldn't get it. Rainsford was run out in a suicidal attempt at a run, and Zimbabwe were all out for 221. The match was tied - only the third tie in World Cup history. The last such result was of course the extraordinarily memorable semi-final between Australia and South Africa in 1999. Zimbabwe were disconsolate and the Irish ecstatic, indicating the perceived positions of these sides. Matsikenyeri must have been livid considering all the wickets that fell at the other end - three of them run outs. His partners panicked - it is that simple.
Either of these sides have a clear task to achieve a place in the Super eight - they just have to beat Pakistan. If either side can do so, their three points will be above Pakistan's maximum of two points. It is a very tall order, but Pakistan are the most unpredictable and most vulnerable of the strong sides. It isn't likely, but it is not quite beyond the realms of possibility.
A day when everything went as planned
There were of course two games yesterday. I have written about Australia v Scotland. The other was Kenya versus Canada. Canada scored a fairly respectable 199 - losing their last wicket off the last ball of their 50 overs. I think we are seeing fewer sides collapse terribly than was the case a couple of World Cups ago. Some sides might be a little short on talent, but they are better coached and better trained. This is leading to more solid batting performances, but I think less has changed in the bowling. That is more about raw skill.
However, that was not nearly enough for Kenya, who are better coached and have more talent. Kenya coasted home to 3/203 from 43.2 overs. Captain Stephen Tikolo - who always performs well at World Cup time and it would be interesting to know what he would have done for a stronger nation - scored an unbeated 72 after taking 2/34 with the ball. Kenya are in the same group as England and New Zealand, both of who they will find tough going. A combination of defaults, good performances, and home ground advantage rather amazingly got Kenya to the semi-finals last time, and although they looked solid today they will get nowhere near them this time.
Today we have Sri Lanka v Bermuda and Ireland v Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka scored 6/321 (runs to captain Jayawardene) and as I write Bermuda are being hopelessly outclassed and are 7/46. It has not been a good day for Bermuda. In the third over Kevin Hurdle bowled eight wides and noballs to make it a 24 ball over. Nobody should do that in any class of cricket. In the other game Ireland scored a respectable 9/221 off their 50 overs thanks to a century from opener Jeremy Bray. Zimbabwe are 0/24 off 4.2 overs. Zimbabwe should win this (although I am not convinced they should be playing in the tournament) but a slip or two and this could be the first close game of the tournament.
Everything is very predictable so far, however. We haven't had the remotest sign of an upset. However, England play New Zealand tomorrow. This should be very interesting, as it is our first chance to see if England are genuinely improved or if the Commonwealth Bank series was a walk in the park. Also, South Africa open their campaign against the Netherlands. That game should be a walk in the park for the South Africans.
There were of course two games yesterday. I have written about Australia v Scotland. The other was Kenya versus Canada. Canada scored a fairly respectable 199 - losing their last wicket off the last ball of their 50 overs. I think we are seeing fewer sides collapse terribly than was the case a couple of World Cups ago. Some sides might be a little short on talent, but they are better coached and better trained. This is leading to more solid batting performances, but I think less has changed in the bowling. That is more about raw skill.
However, that was not nearly enough for Kenya, who are better coached and have more talent. Kenya coasted home to 3/203 from 43.2 overs. Captain Stephen Tikolo - who always performs well at World Cup time and it would be interesting to know what he would have done for a stronger nation - scored an unbeated 72 after taking 2/34 with the ball. Kenya are in the same group as England and New Zealand, both of who they will find tough going. A combination of defaults, good performances, and home ground advantage rather amazingly got Kenya to the semi-finals last time, and although they looked solid today they will get nowhere near them this time.
Today we have Sri Lanka v Bermuda and Ireland v Zimbabwe. Sri Lanka scored 6/321 (runs to captain Jayawardene) and as I write Bermuda are being hopelessly outclassed and are 7/46. It has not been a good day for Bermuda. In the third over Kevin Hurdle bowled eight wides and noballs to make it a 24 ball over. Nobody should do that in any class of cricket. In the other game Ireland scored a respectable 9/221 off their 50 overs thanks to a century from opener Jeremy Bray. Zimbabwe are 0/24 off 4.2 overs. Zimbabwe should win this (although I am not convinced they should be playing in the tournament) but a slip or two and this could be the first close game of the tournament.
Everything is very predictable so far, however. We haven't had the remotest sign of an upset. However, England play New Zealand tomorrow. This should be very interesting, as it is our first chance to see if England are genuinely improved or if the Commonwealth Bank series was a walk in the park. Also, South Africa open their campaign against the Netherlands. That game should be a walk in the park for the South Africans.
Ponting is pissed off. Good
Australia opened their campaign yesterday with an easy win against Scotland. Gilchrist and Hayden ticket along at six an over until Gilchrist was out lbw to a messy attempted sweep. Scotland bowled tidily and accurately but without any great menace. (Someday I hope to see Gilchrist bat for a full 50 overs and score a double century. He always gets out in some silly fashion, however). Ponting then came in at three. And the best thing about it was that Ponting looked really annoyed. Annoyed with the criticism of the team going in to the tournament. Annoyed with the losing. Annoyed with Sunil Gavaskar. And the great thing about Ponting is that he likes to get annoyance out of his system by scoring lots and lots of runs. He batted solidly and powerfully, looking in superb form with some cracking hook shots. He was starting to accelerate and hit a few sixes, but unfortunately the players went off due to rain at 3/241 in the 41st over. At that point he was on 91 it looked like he was going to smash the players all over the place and score 150, but he didn't really get into it when the players game back. He got the hundred but got out for 113 not too long after. Australia batted solidly for a bit, and then Brad Hogg hit a quick 40 off 15 balls at the end. (Could someone explain to me why Hogg has been out of the side? He is a key player, and he was always obviously going to be a key player in this potentially low scoring tournament, both with the ball and the bat. He did it in the last World Cup for heaven's sake, and he is just as good a player now). Of the other Australian batsmen, Hayden got a useful 60 and Hodge and Clarke a few runs. (Clarke out bowled to a dreadful rush of blood shot. He still does that a little. He needs a good coach to get him to stop it.
I wish that we had Allan Border in some authority position. The fact that he came back and left again after some ridiculous dispute with the board does not make me happy). Still 6/334 off 50 overs was a good effort. No complaints from me.
Glenn McGrath was too good for the Scottish batsmen, taking 3/14 off six overs and reducing them to 5/42. That was that really. Ponting experimented with his spin attack now, bringing Brad Hodge on for a few overs. While experimenting with the spin attack now is a good idea, what the blazes were the Australians doing messing around with a mediocre all seam attack for the last six month. (Might I ask exactly why Brad Hogg was out of the side?). Hopefully though, some sort of sensible attack will be in place in time for the game against South Africa next Friday. Still, this one was way too good for Scotland, and they were bowled out for 131 off 40.1 overs and Australia won by 203 runs. Australian fams cannot complain about this. It was exactly the right opening to the tournament.
I have two questions though? First, what can we do to keep Ponting pissed off for the entire tournament? If he is really pissed off, he might score seven centuries and win the World Cup single handedly. He is good enough. Perhaps we could pay Sunil Gavaskar to continue making idiotically inflammatory remarks. Second, is Glenn McGrath going to be too good for batsmen from better sides than Scotland. Whether he is still himself or is essentially past it is one of those questions we don't know the answer to, but we probably will in a couple of weeks.
Australia opened their campaign yesterday with an easy win against Scotland. Gilchrist and Hayden ticket along at six an over until Gilchrist was out lbw to a messy attempted sweep. Scotland bowled tidily and accurately but without any great menace. (Someday I hope to see Gilchrist bat for a full 50 overs and score a double century. He always gets out in some silly fashion, however). Ponting then came in at three. And the best thing about it was that Ponting looked really annoyed. Annoyed with the criticism of the team going in to the tournament. Annoyed with the losing. Annoyed with Sunil Gavaskar. And the great thing about Ponting is that he likes to get annoyance out of his system by scoring lots and lots of runs. He batted solidly and powerfully, looking in superb form with some cracking hook shots. He was starting to accelerate and hit a few sixes, but unfortunately the players went off due to rain at 3/241 in the 41st over. At that point he was on 91 it looked like he was going to smash the players all over the place and score 150, but he didn't really get into it when the players game back. He got the hundred but got out for 113 not too long after. Australia batted solidly for a bit, and then Brad Hogg hit a quick 40 off 15 balls at the end. (Could someone explain to me why Hogg has been out of the side? He is a key player, and he was always obviously going to be a key player in this potentially low scoring tournament, both with the ball and the bat. He did it in the last World Cup for heaven's sake, and he is just as good a player now). Of the other Australian batsmen, Hayden got a useful 60 and Hodge and Clarke a few runs. (Clarke out bowled to a dreadful rush of blood shot. He still does that a little. He needs a good coach to get him to stop it.
I wish that we had Allan Border in some authority position. The fact that he came back and left again after some ridiculous dispute with the board does not make me happy). Still 6/334 off 50 overs was a good effort. No complaints from me.
Glenn McGrath was too good for the Scottish batsmen, taking 3/14 off six overs and reducing them to 5/42. That was that really. Ponting experimented with his spin attack now, bringing Brad Hodge on for a few overs. While experimenting with the spin attack now is a good idea, what the blazes were the Australians doing messing around with a mediocre all seam attack for the last six month. (Might I ask exactly why Brad Hogg was out of the side?). Hopefully though, some sort of sensible attack will be in place in time for the game against South Africa next Friday. Still, this one was way too good for Scotland, and they were bowled out for 131 off 40.1 overs and Australia won by 203 runs. Australian fams cannot complain about this. It was exactly the right opening to the tournament.
I have two questions though? First, what can we do to keep Ponting pissed off for the entire tournament? If he is really pissed off, he might score seven centuries and win the World Cup single handedly. He is good enough. Perhaps we could pay Sunil Gavaskar to continue making idiotically inflammatory remarks. Second, is Glenn McGrath going to be too good for batsmen from better sides than Scotland. Whether he is still himself or is essentially past it is one of those questions we don't know the answer to, but we probably will in a couple of weeks.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Thoughts on the World Cup format, and the opening match
While this World Cup follows recent tournaments in being too long, I think the present format is a substantial improvement on the previous ones. The last two tournaments divided the teams up into two pools, and played a round robin in each pool. The leading three teams in each group went through to the "Super Six" stage, in which they played the teams they had not played already. Points scored against teams that also went through were carried over, and points against teams that dropped out were not(*). At the end of the Super six, the six teams would have then played each other once in total, and the points table would reflect this.
The advantage of this system is that the relative strength of the two groups would be less of an influence on the semi-finalists than in a system with a longer knock-out stage. (For the ICC, the advantage was that it would make the tournament longer).
However, once the 1999 tournament started, various other issues came to light. For one thing, it meant that the results of very early games were still important quite late in the tournament. Some sides like to start relatively slowly and then raise their form as the important games arise. However, in this format some of the important games were very early. (Although some sides complained about this, in practice, this may have actually improved the tournament. Australia lost two games early, and then discovered that they could not afford to lose another game in the entire tournament. This led to an air of do or die desperation on their part that allowed them to raise their game to a point they might not have been able to in an easier situation, and led to some classic cricket).
Worse, than that, nobody knew which were the important games until later. As there were only six teams in the super six and as then (as now) there were eight strong teams, there was considerable doubt as to who would go through, and therefore from which games the points won would ultimately count. For a side that had qualified, the number of points carried over could be quite different depending on the results of other matches that were entirely out of the control of that side. In 2003, several games were defaulted by sides refusing to play games in Kenya or Zimbabwe, which led to weaker sides going through to the super six, points from these defaults ultimately determining places in the semi-finals as well as the super six, and points from very easy matches being carried over into the super six and points from very difficult ones being dropped.
This time, the format is a "Super Eight". The teams have been divided into four pools of four. Two teams go through to the super eight. Points against other teams that go through are carried over as with the super six, but this will only be points from one game. The lesser teams get to play three games each: enough to give them a taste of the tournament, but not so many games that they become a distraction in the more serious parts of the tournament. It is fairly clear which games will have points carried over in the early stages - those against the other strong teams. If it does not ultimately work out this way, it will be the fault of the side that doesn't carry over the points. Unpredictable events involving third parties are much less likely to come into it. When it comes to decide the semi-finalists, the vast bulk of the points taken into consideration (six sevenths) will have been played in the super eight stage and not the pool stage.
This all means that there are three kinds of matches in the pool stage. Firstly, there are games between two sides that are likely to go through to the super eight - these are important matches for the later stage of the tournament and the competing teams know this. Secondly, there are games between a likely qualifier and a non-likely qualifier. These are important in the sense that the likely qualifiers have to make sure not to lose them in order to make sure that they do in fact make the super eight, but how they manage it does not matter much. (Even if a strong side does lose one of these, they can still go through if they ensure they win their other games convincingly, and if this happens, the results of the upset probably do not cascade through). And there are games between two likely non-qualifiers. These are probably not big games from the perspective of the outcome of the tournament, but they are big games for the teams involved, as they are their best chance to play positive and winning criket in the tournament.
However, the carrying of points over does make at least some of the early round matches more important for the good sides. If there were no points carried over, the games between the two stronger sides would be of virtually no significance at all. As it is, they are games that they must concentrate on winning. One question applying to the first round of the tournament is one of the order of matches. Do strong sides prefer to have their "important" match first, then play the lesser sides, then get back into the series stuff, or do they prefer to play the weaker sides first, and then play the seven stronger sides one after another. Pakistan and the West Indies had the first situation, playing yesterday. South Africa and Australia, and also India and Sri Lanka have the second, playing each other right at the end of the first round. (India and Sri Lanka have the tougher group, as Bangladesh might be able to cause an upset earlier. If that happens, the final game in that group becomes a desperate scrap). England and New Zealand play in the middle of the group.
As it happens, in the first two days of the tournament, the schedule has given us one game of each of the three kinds. Yesterday, the opening game of the tournament was the first kind. Hosts the West Indies took on Pakistan. Pakistan's preparation has been terrible, and of the "big eight" teams, they are the one I was most likely to write off going in to the tournament. They lived up to that yesterday. Pakistan were able to take some early wickets (but not really enough to put them on top), and this was enough to slow the West Indian start, getting to a modest 3/77 off 23.5 overs. Pakistan also prevented any West Indian from getting a big score. However, the West Indians put in a solid team effort, with Lara, Bravo, and Samuels scoring runs, and Smith and Collymore doing the sometimes difficult thing of boosting the run rate when wickets fell at the end. 9/241 looked a decend score, although the question still remains as to what is and isn't a good score in this tournament. In this game, it was plenty. Pakistan just didn't get into it. They didn't try to go for much of a run rate, and lost wickets anyway, fallying to 6/116 off 32.5 overs. After that Shoaib Malik scored 62 off 54 balls, but the match was already lost and he didn't get Pakistan back into it. It was a pretty pathetic effort from them, but a good effort from the West Indies. Smith had a fine game taking 3/36 off his ten overs after scoring 32 off 15 balls. The West Indies completed an easy 54 run win.
Today we have Scotland v Australia and Kenya v Candada. Australia really need to win this one very easily to demonstrate that they are at least something like a little over their recent bad form. Scotland have been making remarks about fancying their chances, but Australia will be much too good. The question is by how much. Kenya v Canada should be more intersting, although Kenya have much more experience of this level of cricket than do Canada. Kenya should easily win this one. If they do not, then they have wasted quite a bit of ICC development money and the development they should have got out of quite a few games against good opposition.
(*) Note to purists. Yes, I am aware this that this was changed slightly in 2003. I am simplifying a little to make a point. For practical purposes the change made no difference.
While this World Cup follows recent tournaments in being too long, I think the present format is a substantial improvement on the previous ones. The last two tournaments divided the teams up into two pools, and played a round robin in each pool. The leading three teams in each group went through to the "Super Six" stage, in which they played the teams they had not played already. Points scored against teams that also went through were carried over, and points against teams that dropped out were not(*). At the end of the Super six, the six teams would have then played each other once in total, and the points table would reflect this.
The advantage of this system is that the relative strength of the two groups would be less of an influence on the semi-finalists than in a system with a longer knock-out stage. (For the ICC, the advantage was that it would make the tournament longer).
However, once the 1999 tournament started, various other issues came to light. For one thing, it meant that the results of very early games were still important quite late in the tournament. Some sides like to start relatively slowly and then raise their form as the important games arise. However, in this format some of the important games were very early. (Although some sides complained about this, in practice, this may have actually improved the tournament. Australia lost two games early, and then discovered that they could not afford to lose another game in the entire tournament. This led to an air of do or die desperation on their part that allowed them to raise their game to a point they might not have been able to in an easier situation, and led to some classic cricket).
Worse, than that, nobody knew which were the important games until later. As there were only six teams in the super six and as then (as now) there were eight strong teams, there was considerable doubt as to who would go through, and therefore from which games the points won would ultimately count. For a side that had qualified, the number of points carried over could be quite different depending on the results of other matches that were entirely out of the control of that side. In 2003, several games were defaulted by sides refusing to play games in Kenya or Zimbabwe, which led to weaker sides going through to the super six, points from these defaults ultimately determining places in the semi-finals as well as the super six, and points from very easy matches being carried over into the super six and points from very difficult ones being dropped.
This time, the format is a "Super Eight". The teams have been divided into four pools of four. Two teams go through to the super eight. Points against other teams that go through are carried over as with the super six, but this will only be points from one game. The lesser teams get to play three games each: enough to give them a taste of the tournament, but not so many games that they become a distraction in the more serious parts of the tournament. It is fairly clear which games will have points carried over in the early stages - those against the other strong teams. If it does not ultimately work out this way, it will be the fault of the side that doesn't carry over the points. Unpredictable events involving third parties are much less likely to come into it. When it comes to decide the semi-finalists, the vast bulk of the points taken into consideration (six sevenths) will have been played in the super eight stage and not the pool stage.
This all means that there are three kinds of matches in the pool stage. Firstly, there are games between two sides that are likely to go through to the super eight - these are important matches for the later stage of the tournament and the competing teams know this. Secondly, there are games between a likely qualifier and a non-likely qualifier. These are important in the sense that the likely qualifiers have to make sure not to lose them in order to make sure that they do in fact make the super eight, but how they manage it does not matter much. (Even if a strong side does lose one of these, they can still go through if they ensure they win their other games convincingly, and if this happens, the results of the upset probably do not cascade through). And there are games between two likely non-qualifiers. These are probably not big games from the perspective of the outcome of the tournament, but they are big games for the teams involved, as they are their best chance to play positive and winning criket in the tournament.
However, the carrying of points over does make at least some of the early round matches more important for the good sides. If there were no points carried over, the games between the two stronger sides would be of virtually no significance at all. As it is, they are games that they must concentrate on winning. One question applying to the first round of the tournament is one of the order of matches. Do strong sides prefer to have their "important" match first, then play the lesser sides, then get back into the series stuff, or do they prefer to play the weaker sides first, and then play the seven stronger sides one after another. Pakistan and the West Indies had the first situation, playing yesterday. South Africa and Australia, and also India and Sri Lanka have the second, playing each other right at the end of the first round. (India and Sri Lanka have the tougher group, as Bangladesh might be able to cause an upset earlier. If that happens, the final game in that group becomes a desperate scrap). England and New Zealand play in the middle of the group.
As it happens, in the first two days of the tournament, the schedule has given us one game of each of the three kinds. Yesterday, the opening game of the tournament was the first kind. Hosts the West Indies took on Pakistan. Pakistan's preparation has been terrible, and of the "big eight" teams, they are the one I was most likely to write off going in to the tournament. They lived up to that yesterday. Pakistan were able to take some early wickets (but not really enough to put them on top), and this was enough to slow the West Indian start, getting to a modest 3/77 off 23.5 overs. Pakistan also prevented any West Indian from getting a big score. However, the West Indians put in a solid team effort, with Lara, Bravo, and Samuels scoring runs, and Smith and Collymore doing the sometimes difficult thing of boosting the run rate when wickets fell at the end. 9/241 looked a decend score, although the question still remains as to what is and isn't a good score in this tournament. In this game, it was plenty. Pakistan just didn't get into it. They didn't try to go for much of a run rate, and lost wickets anyway, fallying to 6/116 off 32.5 overs. After that Shoaib Malik scored 62 off 54 balls, but the match was already lost and he didn't get Pakistan back into it. It was a pretty pathetic effort from them, but a good effort from the West Indies. Smith had a fine game taking 3/36 off his ten overs after scoring 32 off 15 balls. The West Indies completed an easy 54 run win.
Today we have Scotland v Australia and Kenya v Candada. Australia really need to win this one very easily to demonstrate that they are at least something like a little over their recent bad form. Scotland have been making remarks about fancying their chances, but Australia will be much too good. The question is by how much. Kenya v Canada should be more intersting, although Kenya have much more experience of this level of cricket than do Canada. Kenya should easily win this one. If they do not, then they have wasted quite a bit of ICC development money and the development they should have got out of quite a few games against good opposition.
(*) Note to purists. Yes, I am aware this that this was changed slightly in 2003. I am simplifying a little to make a point. For practical purposes the change made no difference.
Musing on the Minnows
Yesterday Michael discussed the prospects of the strong cricketing nations. The winner of the 2007 World Cup will almost certainly come out of those teams. It would be a massive upset if they did not.
However there are eight other participants in the tournament. This is a change for the World Cup- in the past, the minor cricketing countries did not play a great role in these tournaments. As recently as the 1992 tournament, only one participant was not a serious contender.
This more inclusive style of tournament is not to everyone's taste- both Michael Holding and Ricky Ponting have come out against it. Both men have played in winning World Cup sides and may approach the tournament from the point of view of the players- they want the best to go up against the best.
But minnows have been present in every tournament, and the 1975 minnow Sri Lanka grew into the 1996 World Cup Champions. While it is hard to imagine Bermuda or Holland ever becoming a serious contender, it is possible that one day Kenya or even Canada could develop into serious cricketing nations. This is why ICC likes to include them.
And, given their resources, I think that the minnow nations have a good enough record to justify their inclusion. The 1975 Sri Lankans did well, although they didn't win a game in the tournament; in 1983, Zimbabwe won their first ever World Cup game against Australia. In 1992, Zimbabwe were again competitive and won their game against England, who came runners up.
In 1996 came the biggest shock, when Kenya beat West Indies; 1999 brought Bangladesh's victory over Pakistan, and in 2003 there were no end of suprises- Canada beat Bangladesh, and notably, Kenya beat Sri Lanka and manged to make the semi-finals.
In 2007, there is some scope for upsets. Each pool consists of two minnows and two major nations, so there is a total of 16 games between minnows and majors. Of course, some victories would not be as surprising as others. Bangladesh have improved markedly in the past few years and if they beat either India or Sri Lanka it will be more an 'upset' then a 'boilover'.
Group C and Group D have mixes of nations that could cause upsets; both England and Pakistan have the sort of erratic form that leaves them vulnerable if a minnow nation catches them on a bad day.
And if by chance a minnow makes the 'Super 8' there is a chance of more boilovers.
So while the 'big boys' will fight it out for the 2007 World Cup, I think that the presence of the minnow nations is a positive for the tournament, adding to its entertainment value. Tonight, Kenya play Canada, a contest that Kenya should win. But it isn't a sure thing, and it should be more of a contest then Australia's match against Scotland.
But then Australia's form has been bad lately. Scotland beating Australia at cricket seems totally unthinkable, but they'll never get a better chance then tonight. Game on!
Yesterday Michael discussed the prospects of the strong cricketing nations. The winner of the 2007 World Cup will almost certainly come out of those teams. It would be a massive upset if they did not.
However there are eight other participants in the tournament. This is a change for the World Cup- in the past, the minor cricketing countries did not play a great role in these tournaments. As recently as the 1992 tournament, only one participant was not a serious contender.
This more inclusive style of tournament is not to everyone's taste- both Michael Holding and Ricky Ponting have come out against it. Both men have played in winning World Cup sides and may approach the tournament from the point of view of the players- they want the best to go up against the best.
But minnows have been present in every tournament, and the 1975 minnow Sri Lanka grew into the 1996 World Cup Champions. While it is hard to imagine Bermuda or Holland ever becoming a serious contender, it is possible that one day Kenya or even Canada could develop into serious cricketing nations. This is why ICC likes to include them.
And, given their resources, I think that the minnow nations have a good enough record to justify their inclusion. The 1975 Sri Lankans did well, although they didn't win a game in the tournament; in 1983, Zimbabwe won their first ever World Cup game against Australia. In 1992, Zimbabwe were again competitive and won their game against England, who came runners up.
In 1996 came the biggest shock, when Kenya beat West Indies; 1999 brought Bangladesh's victory over Pakistan, and in 2003 there were no end of suprises- Canada beat Bangladesh, and notably, Kenya beat Sri Lanka and manged to make the semi-finals.
In 2007, there is some scope for upsets. Each pool consists of two minnows and two major nations, so there is a total of 16 games between minnows and majors. Of course, some victories would not be as surprising as others. Bangladesh have improved markedly in the past few years and if they beat either India or Sri Lanka it will be more an 'upset' then a 'boilover'.
Group C and Group D have mixes of nations that could cause upsets; both England and Pakistan have the sort of erratic form that leaves them vulnerable if a minnow nation catches them on a bad day.
And if by chance a minnow makes the 'Super 8' there is a chance of more boilovers.
So while the 'big boys' will fight it out for the 2007 World Cup, I think that the presence of the minnow nations is a positive for the tournament, adding to its entertainment value. Tonight, Kenya play Canada, a contest that Kenya should win. But it isn't a sure thing, and it should be more of a contest then Australia's match against Scotland.
But then Australia's form has been bad lately. Scotland beating Australia at cricket seems totally unthinkable, but they'll never get a better chance then tonight. Game on!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Welcome to my World Cup blogging
Here are my brief portraits of the eight "good" sides in the cricket world cup that began today. I have a few more thoughts on Samizdata.
Semi-finalists: South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and India.
Finalists: South Africa and India
Champions: South Africa
However, the tourament is the most open I can remember. In the last five minutes I have changed the side I have predicted to win from Sri Lanka to India to South Africa. I really have no idea.
Here are my brief portraits of the eight "good" sides in the cricket world cup that began today. I have a few more thoughts on Samizdata.
- The West Indies are hosts of the tournament. The English speaking countries of the Carribean have fielded a single cricket team for about 80 years. This team slowly rose through the ranks of cricketing nations for its first decades of existence, and was extremely competitive from around 1960. In the mid 1970s it rose still further, and through having great fast bowlers and spectacular batsmen it dominated international cricket until the early 1990s. Since then it has suffered many defeats, but the team still contains some very impressive players. In full cry, present West Indian captain Brian Lara is one of the most awe inspiring players in world cricket. However, there are questions about his and the team's attitude. One sometimes thinks the players would rather visit nightclubs than cricket grounds. The West Indies will probably flame out at some point, but they may well play some great cricket before doing so. If they make the later stages of the tournament, this may concentrate their minds well enough to do well in those later stages.
- Australia are the defending champions, and are attempting to win the tournament for the third time in succession and the fourth time in total. Australia have lost a number of good players since the last World Cup, and have several injuries to key players. The lost of fast bowler Brett Lee is a big blow. Andrew Symonds and Matthew Hayden are important players, but will be back hopefully fit in time for the later stages of the tournament. Australia's batting is strong regardless of this, with Adam Gilchrist and Hayden destructive at the top of the order, Ricky Ponting in the middle order, and Sydmonds and Michael Hussey as finishers. However the bowling looks weak. Glenn McGrath (playing in his last tournament) was a great player but is not any more. Stuart Clark is a fine test bowler, but is untested in one day internationals. Andrew Symonds is unlikely to bowl much due to his injury. Brad Hogg is an effective spinner (and played a big role four years ago) but is curiously out of favour with the selectors and is low on confidence. Australia have lost their best finishing bowler in Lee. In truth though, Australia's middle over bowlers lost the plot about a year ago. Sides with decent batting can score an outrageous number of runs between the 20 and 45 over marks when Australia are batting. This has been obvious for at least a year, but team management has carried on as if there is no problem. Australia have been thoroughly found out in recent games, and go into the tournament having lost five games straight. They are very vulnerable to smart opposition who can outthink them and take advantage of the conditions. Although Australia are still favourites with bookmakers (although their odds have lengthened considerably over the last couple of months) I do not expect Australia to make the semi-finals. I hope I am wrong, but I do not really believe I am. It is almost beyond description how much I wish Shane Warne were playing.
- South Africa are second favourites with bookmakers, and have by far the best form of any team coming into the tournament, having destroyed Pakistan and India at home in their most recent series. Their batting side is very impressive, with players like Jacques Kallis, Graeme Smith, and Herschelle Gibbs having taken them to very large scores in recent games. Their bowling is good, but relatively unimaginative, being based around pace. This may not suit them in the West Indies. Their captain Graeme Smith is rather unimaginative and not a greet tactician. If there is a side that is going to power through the tournament and win it easily, the the South Africans are it. However, they stand to be surprised by a side that out thinks them at some point. If this happens prior to the semi-finals, it does not matter, as they should make the semi-finals easily enough with their present game. If it happens in the semi-final or final, they lose. History does not help. They have often played well at early stages of previous tournaments, but have then been out thought, out sledged, and overwhelmed by the occasion later on. And I am not sure what to make of their ability to be eliminated from previous world cups in truly bizarre circumstances, other than to see it at a tremendous source of amusement. They cannot possibly beat the previous world cup, in which they were eliminated after a rain shortened game was tied on the Duckworth-Lewis rule after the captain got his calculations wrong. Or can they?
- New Zealand are a side with a history of making the most of rather limited resources. Cricket is a very poor relation to rugby in New Zealand, which is a small country. None the less, its cricket team has a history of being very well captained and coached. In World Cups it has often played very well early in the tournament, but upon reaching the semi-finals the lack of depth and the lack of really top notch players has showed. The present side fits this description well Captain Stephen Fleming is the best captain in world cricket (and a good batsman). All rounder Jacop Oram has been playing superbly recently, and the middle and lower order have been batting with a wonderful never say die attitude. (New Zealand come into the tournament having beaten Australia 3-0 at home). Shane Bond is one of the great tragedies of modern cricket: a wonderful, technically correct seam bowler who would be one of the best bowlers in the world if injuries had not shortened his career. The conditions in the West Indies will suit him, and he will once or twice take five wickets and win a game for New Zealand. However, he is only allowed to bowl ten overs and the rest of New Zealand's bowling may not be good enough to finish the job. The Australia v New Zealand game from four years ago probably summarises the problem. Bond took 6/23 and reduced Australia to 7/84, but he was not allowed to bowl any more overs and Australia recovered to 208 and won the game easily. That kind of thing may happen again. New Zealand will make the semi-finals, but probably don't quite have the class to win the tournament.
- Sri Lanka revolutionised one day cricket with their performance in winning the 1996 World Cup, in which the quality of their batting and their strategy of attacking from the first ball when fielding restrictions in place surprised much of the rest of the cricketing world. (It shouldn't have, because they had been playing the strategy effectively for at least six months going into the tournament). It also marked their transition from the easybeats of world cricket to a powerful, dangerous side. Since then they have beaten and embarassed a lot of other teams, have annoyed and frustrated a lot of opposing players with their ruthless and forceful attitude to the game, and have caused considerable controversy by selecting spin bowler Muttiah Muralithuran, whose bowling action is considered by many to be of questionable legality. Still. they are a smart and canny side who can exploit difficult batting conditions. Whatever the merits of his action, Muralithuran will be a dangerous bowler in these conditions. Jayasuriya is back in the side for one final swing at the World Cup. There is plenty of batting talent in the side such as captain Mahela Jayawardene, Marvan Atapattu, and Kumar Sangakkara. Sri Lanka are going to be very dangerous indeed in this tournament. I wouldn't be very surprised if they won it.
- Not much can be said about Pakistan other than that they are Pakistan. They produce a large number of greatly talented and exciting players. However, the players seldom appear united on the field. They have an endless series of match fixing scandals, drug scandals, dressing room rebellions, weird political intrigues involving corrupt government ministers, and goodness knows what. Going into the world cup, the most recent problem is a drug scandal (steroids). Pakistan also lack the bowling strength of a few years back. There is nobody of the talent of Wasim Akram or Waqar Younis. The most exciting bowler than do have is Shoaib Akhtar, who was involved in the doping scandal, was "acquitted" and is now out "injured". In their most recent series Pakistan were horribly beaten by South Africa. The only captain who could ever make Pakistan play as something resembling a united team was Imran Khan, who took them to World Cup glory in 1992. Many of us have fond memories of a very young Inzamam al Haq playing spectacular shots under the MCG lights in that tournament. Inzamam is today captain of Pakistan, and in the years since has been consistently one of the world's finest batsmen. However I cannot sensibly see Pakistan overcoming their problems to get far in this tournament. On the other hand, sense and the Pakistan cricket team seldom seem to go together.
- India are the great enigma of world cricket. They won the World cup completely unexpectedly in 1983, when unbackable favourites the West Indies failed in the final . That inspired a huge party in India in response, but that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they did it in these days in which modern media and economic growth has drenched India in cricket to an extent that is hard to describe. India have great batsmen in Sachin Tendulkar, captain Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag, and fine spin bowlers in Harbhajan Singh. Their seam bowling is perhaps a little weaker and I am not sure they are a great tactical side, but if everything comes off they are likely to be extraordinarily likely to beat. They have a frustrating inconsistency about them, however. Some days (particularly in test series against Australia) they can be brilliant. In others deeply disappointing. Their form is mixed going into the tournament: they have recently beaten South Africa and the West Indies, but were badly beaten by South Africa over Christmas. That was in very different conditions though. I think if India get momentum going, they will be hard to stop. but it is very questionable whether they will get momentum going.
- And last, England. England are widely being predicted as being a dark horse in the series. after playing utterly terribly for most of the Australian summer, England turned around at the last possible moment in the Commonwealth Bank series, winning four games straight to take the tournament. The return of captain Michael Vaughan appears to make a huge difference to England. With him they believe in themselves. Without him they do not. Generally, though, England are well led, fit, and well coached. They played outstandingly to win the Ashes about 18 months ago.
That is the rub, however. Other than the last four matches, England's good performances in recent years have come in test cricket. In one day cricket, they have generally been terrible. I do not think they have enough tactics, enough game planning, and enough skill in one day games to win the tournament. Perhaps they will make the semi-finals. I think though that strategically better teams will come through in the end.
On the other hand, Vaughan is a very good captain. And the conditions will suit Monty Panesar. So who knows?
Semi-finalists: South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and India.
Finalists: South Africa and India
Champions: South Africa
However, the tourament is the most open I can remember. In the last five minutes I have changed the side I have predicted to win from Sri Lanka to India to South Africa. I really have no idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)