A slightly odd couple of days in London
The teams competing in the two semi finals of the World Cup are what people have been expecting for the last several weeks, and the matchups are what has been expected since the Bangladesh victory over South Africa on Easter Saturday. Second plays third, Sri Lanka versus New Zealand, on Tuesday, and first plays fourth, Australia versus South Africa, on Wednesday.
Trying to find public places in which one can watch the second halves of these matches in London this week is going to be a bit of a challenge, as both matches class with Champions League soccer matches. On Tuesday Liverpool play Chelsea and on Wednesday Manchester United play AC Milan. While I have occasionally pretended to be a Manchester United supporter, the thought that I would watch a Manchester United game (nomatter how important) over a World Cup cricket semi-final involving Australia is just ludicrous. (In truth I would watch just about any international cricket match ahead of just about any soccer match).
Finding venues that will be showing the cricket but not the football is going to be difficult. Some sports venues will have multiple events going on on different televisions, and in such venues I might be able to watch cricket in a corner, but in truth I do not want to watch the game in a pub full of braying, drunk, soccer fans. What I want is a venue that will be showing the cricket, and the cricket only. I don't really know any authentic Australian bars in London. There is a chain of "Walkabout", supposedly Australian bars, but these are much more Australian theme bars than actual Australian venues. Just try getting the management to switch the TV from soccer to cricket on a Sunday afternoon. No chane. They know where the money is, and it is certainly not Australians. (Okay, the one in Shepherd's Bush tends to fill with actual Australians and there will be plenty there on Wednesday night, but it is a big soulless place and there will be far too much contamination from football supporters. I am sure there is somewhere in the capital where Sri Lankans will be hanging out and watching the games, but I know not where. It may well be a restaurant rather than a bar, also. (Certainly in Brick Lane in the heart of Bangladeshi district, there have been many curry houses advertising "We have Sky Sports" during this tournament).
I think I am most likely to choose the same option I chose when this problem came up earlier in the tournament. When Australia played South Africa in the first round, there was an England European Championship qualifying match against Israel the same evening. All London's pubs were full of ghastly thuggish football supporters and had enormous bouncers on the door. On that occasion I made my way to the Springbok Bar, which exists in a long narrow basement close to Covent Garden. The venue was packed, but there was no security and no bouncers on the door, South African cricket fans apparently being unlikely to riot. (This is an authentic South African bar - a place where South Africans hang out). There was no football. Everyone was watching cricket. I was an Australian, and although I was cheering the opposition I was perfectly welcome to do so. I made a couple of good natured jokes with some nearby South Africans, and their response was to tell me their names and invite me to join them at their table. At the end of the game we all shook hands and they wished me a good evening. Some of them got a bit annoyed when their team fell behind and lost, but none of it was directed at any of the Australians present. There has been a certain amount of bad blood at times between Australian and South African sporting teams at times, but you don't see it between individual fans. The South Africans certainly do have the best central London venue for watching this cricket World Cup, and I shall be there on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Alas
World Cup blogging on this site has been light to non-existent over the last week. Alas, the interminable nature of the Super 8 got to me. The inevitable has of course happened, and the four semi-finalists are Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa, as looked obvious about three games into the Super Eight. The story of the tournament (from a cricketing point of view, at least) has really been just how unbelievably bad the supposedly "good" teams outside that list of four have been. India and Pakistan failed to make the super eight. The West Indies and England did make the super eight, but since doing so have managed to play so unspeakably badly that I suspect they almost wished they had gone home early. England's fans must be suicidal this morning after this debacle. (On the other hand, any England fans who genuinely were suicidal are probably long dead). The Guardian's over by over commentary is, however, hilarious, if not quite up to the standard of the Guardian's legendary greatest ever commentary.
Compliments to the four teams who have made the semi-finals though. All four have played good to excellent cricket, most consistently the Australians and least consistently the South Africans. I will be blogging properly again in the approach to the semi finals and final, as a minimum.
World Cup blogging on this site has been light to non-existent over the last week. Alas, the interminable nature of the Super 8 got to me. The inevitable has of course happened, and the four semi-finalists are Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa, as looked obvious about three games into the Super Eight. The story of the tournament (from a cricketing point of view, at least) has really been just how unbelievably bad the supposedly "good" teams outside that list of four have been. India and Pakistan failed to make the super eight. The West Indies and England did make the super eight, but since doing so have managed to play so unspeakably badly that I suspect they almost wished they had gone home early. England's fans must be suicidal this morning after this debacle. (On the other hand, any England fans who genuinely were suicidal are probably long dead). The Guardian's over by over commentary is, however, hilarious, if not quite up to the standard of the Guardian's legendary greatest ever commentary.
Compliments to the four teams who have made the semi-finals though. All four have played good to excellent cricket, most consistently the Australians and least consistently the South Africans. I will be blogging properly again in the approach to the semi finals and final, as a minimum.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Australia's 5th bowler riddle
They say that 'catches win matches', but on the whole it is bowlers who make the difference. If, as a captain, you have bowlers who are able to either keep a cap on the flow of runs, or is able to take wickets, or ideally, both, then you are better placed then the captain who does not. And this is especially true in World Cup cricket. You need to have at least two solid match-winners and plentiful backup.
In 1999, Australia had McGrath and Warne, with Reifell, Moody and Fleming providing sound support. In 2003, Australia had McGrath and Lee, with support from Bichel, Gillespie and Hogg. In 2007, Australia has McGrath and Tait, with Bracken and Hogg in support. One name less, you'll notice.
It worries me that Australia is playing with just four frontline bowlers. Since Watson's injury, Ponting has put his faith in Clarke and Symonds to do the job, but in this sort of competition, they will be exposed and given some hammer. That is what happened to them in the England game. It is something that just puts that little bit of extra pressure on the four frontline bowlers.
They've coped well enough so far, to be honest. The basic stats (McGrath 15 wickets @ 14, Hogg 12 @ 18, Bracken 10 @ 16 and Tait 11 @ 22) comprise a 'beautiful set of numbers'. But that has been against some modest opposition. Australia have only played against three of the senior eight nations, and two of them (England and West Indies) were never regarded as serious rivals to win the World Cup. The one side that is a serious rival, South Africa, scored almost 300.
Australia play Ireland tonight, in a game that I hope provides us with an easy win, but not too easy. I would like to see our bowlers have a serious dip at wiping the Irish out as quickly as possible in response to a score north of 350. After that, things get much harder, with the Sri Lankans and New Zealanders being the last games before a sudden-death semi finals.
My concern is that after not performing to the optimum with four bowlers in the last super-8 games, either Stuart Clark or Mitchell Johnson is brought into the side 'cold' for a sudden death semi-final. That is possible. Clarke and Symonds went for 67 in their ten overs in the England game, and McGrath went for 62 off 9.5. That is fine, because the other bowlers were able to keep things tight. Against Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the other frontline bowlers might also go for plenty as well, and this might force Ponting's hand to bring in the 5th seamer. And while I am sure that whoever that is will jump at the opportunity, you don't want someone having their first run of the tournament in the semi-final stages.
After all, with the batting power at Australia's disposal, with all of the first three batsmen in pretty good form, there's not going to be a lot of work to do for the #7 batsman. Hodge does make a good designated fielder, but I would just prefer to have a geniune seaming option.
(Crossposted from Sportsman's Journal)
They say that 'catches win matches', but on the whole it is bowlers who make the difference. If, as a captain, you have bowlers who are able to either keep a cap on the flow of runs, or is able to take wickets, or ideally, both, then you are better placed then the captain who does not. And this is especially true in World Cup cricket. You need to have at least two solid match-winners and plentiful backup.
In 1999, Australia had McGrath and Warne, with Reifell, Moody and Fleming providing sound support. In 2003, Australia had McGrath and Lee, with support from Bichel, Gillespie and Hogg. In 2007, Australia has McGrath and Tait, with Bracken and Hogg in support. One name less, you'll notice.
It worries me that Australia is playing with just four frontline bowlers. Since Watson's injury, Ponting has put his faith in Clarke and Symonds to do the job, but in this sort of competition, they will be exposed and given some hammer. That is what happened to them in the England game. It is something that just puts that little bit of extra pressure on the four frontline bowlers.
They've coped well enough so far, to be honest. The basic stats (McGrath 15 wickets @ 14, Hogg 12 @ 18, Bracken 10 @ 16 and Tait 11 @ 22) comprise a 'beautiful set of numbers'. But that has been against some modest opposition. Australia have only played against three of the senior eight nations, and two of them (England and West Indies) were never regarded as serious rivals to win the World Cup. The one side that is a serious rival, South Africa, scored almost 300.
Australia play Ireland tonight, in a game that I hope provides us with an easy win, but not too easy. I would like to see our bowlers have a serious dip at wiping the Irish out as quickly as possible in response to a score north of 350. After that, things get much harder, with the Sri Lankans and New Zealanders being the last games before a sudden-death semi finals.
My concern is that after not performing to the optimum with four bowlers in the last super-8 games, either Stuart Clark or Mitchell Johnson is brought into the side 'cold' for a sudden death semi-final. That is possible. Clarke and Symonds went for 67 in their ten overs in the England game, and McGrath went for 62 off 9.5. That is fine, because the other bowlers were able to keep things tight. Against Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the other frontline bowlers might also go for plenty as well, and this might force Ponting's hand to bring in the 5th seamer. And while I am sure that whoever that is will jump at the opportunity, you don't want someone having their first run of the tournament in the semi-final stages.
After all, with the batting power at Australia's disposal, with all of the first three batsmen in pretty good form, there's not going to be a lot of work to do for the #7 batsman. Hodge does make a good designated fielder, but I would just prefer to have a geniune seaming option.
(Crossposted from Sportsman's Journal)
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I am back in London
The latest couple of games have been quite predictable. New Zealand beat Ireland by 129 runs. Ireland perhaps did well to restrict New Zealand to 263, but the Irish batting was unimpressive and New Zealand won easily. New Zealand continue to look very impressive. They perhaps lack the batting firepower of Australia or South Africa, but they have better and cleverer bowling and Fleming is the best captain in the tournament. (If anyone who is reading this is not a regular cricket fan, let me emphasise that the quality of the captain in cricket matters perhaps more than in any other sport. It matters a lot).
Today, South Africa were way too good for the West Indies. Many of us would have loved an upset, as a West Indian victory would have meant that the struggle was really on for the fourth semi-final place. However, the South African victory must be a relief for them after thair lost to Bangladesh, and they are once again on target to make the semi-finals. South Africa scored 4/356 thanks to 146 to de Villiers (who is having a fine tournament) and plenty of runs to Kallis, Gibbs, and Boucher. The West Indian batting did not collapse, but nor was it good enough either. Sarwan managed to score 92 and Powell got 48 not out at the end. If the West Indies had batted first I would have said that 9/289 off 50 overs was a good score, but chasing 357 it just meant that they lost. West Indies are now fall all practical purposes out of the tournament. I think that from here only England can challenge South Africa for that fourth place. (Table here. More thoughts from me on the state of the tournament and how this compares to previous World Cups tomorrow.
Plus of course I will be talking about tomorrow's game between England and Bangladesh. Bangladesh will be looking to follow up their victory over South Africa with another win or at least another good performance. England need to win to effectively remain in the tournament. There is no chance that England will underestimate their opposition, and in truth I thought England played okay against Australia despite being outplayed. I expect England will win and keep a chance of making the semi-finals. If Bangladesh win, England are effectively eliminated. Bangladesh's poor run rate means that making the semi finals is a tall order for them, even if they beat the West Indies as well.
The latest couple of games have been quite predictable. New Zealand beat Ireland by 129 runs. Ireland perhaps did well to restrict New Zealand to 263, but the Irish batting was unimpressive and New Zealand won easily. New Zealand continue to look very impressive. They perhaps lack the batting firepower of Australia or South Africa, but they have better and cleverer bowling and Fleming is the best captain in the tournament. (If anyone who is reading this is not a regular cricket fan, let me emphasise that the quality of the captain in cricket matters perhaps more than in any other sport. It matters a lot).
Today, South Africa were way too good for the West Indies. Many of us would have loved an upset, as a West Indian victory would have meant that the struggle was really on for the fourth semi-final place. However, the South African victory must be a relief for them after thair lost to Bangladesh, and they are once again on target to make the semi-finals. South Africa scored 4/356 thanks to 146 to de Villiers (who is having a fine tournament) and plenty of runs to Kallis, Gibbs, and Boucher. The West Indian batting did not collapse, but nor was it good enough either. Sarwan managed to score 92 and Powell got 48 not out at the end. If the West Indies had batted first I would have said that 9/289 off 50 overs was a good score, but chasing 357 it just meant that they lost. West Indies are now fall all practical purposes out of the tournament. I think that from here only England can challenge South Africa for that fourth place. (Table here. More thoughts from me on the state of the tournament and how this compares to previous World Cups tomorrow.
Plus of course I will be talking about tomorrow's game between England and Bangladesh. Bangladesh will be looking to follow up their victory over South Africa with another win or at least another good performance. England need to win to effectively remain in the tournament. There is no chance that England will underestimate their opposition, and in truth I thought England played okay against Australia despite being outplayed. I expect England will win and keep a chance of making the semi-finals. If Bangladesh win, England are effectively eliminated. Bangladesh's poor run rate means that making the semi finals is a tall order for them, even if they beat the West Indies as well.
Monday, April 09, 2007
There's none better
I've seen every great fast bowler since Dennis Lillee. I saw all the great West Indians, from Roberts to Ambrose, I saw Lillee, I see McGrath, I've seen the great Pakistanis, Wasim and Waqar, and I've seen Sir Richard Hadlee. None of them are actually better then Shane Bond. Injuries have blighted his career, but New Zealand are just as likely to win the 2007 World Cup as Australia are, and he's the reason why. Read more about him in Rahul Bhattacharya's profile.
I've seen every great fast bowler since Dennis Lillee. I saw all the great West Indians, from Roberts to Ambrose, I saw Lillee, I see McGrath, I've seen the great Pakistanis, Wasim and Waqar, and I've seen Sir Richard Hadlee. None of them are actually better then Shane Bond. Injuries have blighted his career, but New Zealand are just as likely to win the 2007 World Cup as Australia are, and he's the reason why. Read more about him in Rahul Bhattacharya's profile.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Risk and Reward
Batting first in a one day international is a quite different thing to batting second. When you bat first, there is one thing that you must not do at any cost, which is fail to bat out the full 50 overs. Sides bat in orrder to bat at the fastest possible rate, but if wickets fall such that it looks like they may not bat out the full 50 overs, they slow down so as to minimise the risk of losing wickets.
However, when batting second, the risk is a different thing. Sides know exactly how many runs they have to score. The aim is not to make as many runs as possible, but to bat in such a way that the chance of not making the runs in the requisite 50 overs is minimised. When the target is a difficult one, this can make for exciting cricket, as exciting cricket must be played to make the target. When the target is a very easy one, then it can make for exciting cricket too, as once batsmen have their eye in it is in their interests to get it done as quickly as possible in order to avoid silly things going wrong, bad weather, or whatever.
Middling targets can make for boring cricket. Trying to get the runs too quickly can lead to wickets falling and the chance of a loss. Getting the runs safely and carefully involves less risk, but is less fun to watch. A lot of one day matches are like this, and these are why one day games can make for boring cricket. The middle 25 overs of such games are dull, as batsmen preserve their wickets and just stay in tough with the total. (Perhaps one reason Twenty20 cricket is a success is that these middle 20 overs are eliminated).
Which is to say that game I wam now watching is like this. As I speak, Austrlia are 2/179, needing a further 69 to win off 88 balls. The run rate required has been around 5.5 an over for the last 30 overs or so, although it has just dropped a little. Gilchrist and Hayden were out in the first 20 overs, and it was 2/89 off 19.1 overs. No problem, but it was best from there to just take the easy runs and not lose wickets. That was exactly what Ponting and Clarke did, getting their eyes in and keeping the run rate needed at just over five an over.
Since I wrote the above, Ponting has managed to get run out. With 15 overs remaining the run rate came down, and it looked like an 8 wicket victory with a couple of overs and another Ponting century was on the cards. However, the English fielding has been good all day (whcih justified the care) and Collingwood threw down the wicket at the batsman's end in the 41st over and Ponting was out for 86. This was annoying for him, but the bulk of the work was done. It is now 3/202 off 41.1 overs. 46 runs are needed off 53 balls. Symonds has come in instead of Hussey. Perhaps the Australians have an early dinner reservation. Still, very disciplined performance by Australia here.
Update:Symonds and Clarke got Australia home with no difficulty, by seven wickets with 2.4 overs to spare. Symonds scored 28 not out and managed a few clean hits that suggested that there is no trouble with his batting form. This is good, given that he may well be a key player for Australia in the final stages of this tournament. Clarke was really good today, scoring 55 not out and anchoring the innings after Ponting went. The Australians will be happy with today's result. It was in the end very convincing. England didn't bowl or field especially badly, but Australia were simply better. The one thing about this result for England is that the margin was relatively low in terms of overs remaining. Their net run rate will not take a huge hit, and this could still matter. That said, they do not look competitive with the best sides in the tournament.
Tomorrow we have Ireland v New Zealand. I think I shall spend the day sightseeing.
Batting first in a one day international is a quite different thing to batting second. When you bat first, there is one thing that you must not do at any cost, which is fail to bat out the full 50 overs. Sides bat in orrder to bat at the fastest possible rate, but if wickets fall such that it looks like they may not bat out the full 50 overs, they slow down so as to minimise the risk of losing wickets.
However, when batting second, the risk is a different thing. Sides know exactly how many runs they have to score. The aim is not to make as many runs as possible, but to bat in such a way that the chance of not making the runs in the requisite 50 overs is minimised. When the target is a difficult one, this can make for exciting cricket, as exciting cricket must be played to make the target. When the target is a very easy one, then it can make for exciting cricket too, as once batsmen have their eye in it is in their interests to get it done as quickly as possible in order to avoid silly things going wrong, bad weather, or whatever.
Middling targets can make for boring cricket. Trying to get the runs too quickly can lead to wickets falling and the chance of a loss. Getting the runs safely and carefully involves less risk, but is less fun to watch. A lot of one day matches are like this, and these are why one day games can make for boring cricket. The middle 25 overs of such games are dull, as batsmen preserve their wickets and just stay in tough with the total. (Perhaps one reason Twenty20 cricket is a success is that these middle 20 overs are eliminated).
Which is to say that game I wam now watching is like this. As I speak, Austrlia are 2/179, needing a further 69 to win off 88 balls. The run rate required has been around 5.5 an over for the last 30 overs or so, although it has just dropped a little. Gilchrist and Hayden were out in the first 20 overs, and it was 2/89 off 19.1 overs. No problem, but it was best from there to just take the easy runs and not lose wickets. That was exactly what Ponting and Clarke did, getting their eyes in and keeping the run rate needed at just over five an over.
Since I wrote the above, Ponting has managed to get run out. With 15 overs remaining the run rate came down, and it looked like an 8 wicket victory with a couple of overs and another Ponting century was on the cards. However, the English fielding has been good all day (whcih justified the care) and Collingwood threw down the wicket at the batsman's end in the 41st over and Ponting was out for 86. This was annoying for him, but the bulk of the work was done. It is now 3/202 off 41.1 overs. 46 runs are needed off 53 balls. Symonds has come in instead of Hussey. Perhaps the Australians have an early dinner reservation. Still, very disciplined performance by Australia here.
Update:Symonds and Clarke got Australia home with no difficulty, by seven wickets with 2.4 overs to spare. Symonds scored 28 not out and managed a few clean hits that suggested that there is no trouble with his batting form. This is good, given that he may well be a key player for Australia in the final stages of this tournament. Clarke was really good today, scoring 55 not out and anchoring the innings after Ponting went. The Australians will be happy with today's result. It was in the end very convincing. England didn't bowl or field especially badly, but Australia were simply better. The one thing about this result for England is that the margin was relatively low in terms of overs remaining. Their net run rate will not take a huge hit, and this could still matter. That said, they do not look competitive with the best sides in the tournament.
Tomorrow we have Ireland v New Zealand. I think I shall spend the day sightseeing.
Wandering around Paris
After some Steak Tartare and perhaps a little too much Cotes du Rhone at a cafe in the 5th arrondisement, I seem to have stumbled into The Bombadier in Sq. P. Langevin. I have everything I need here: cricket, coffee, English supporters to taunt (or vice versa, depending on circumstances) even a power outlet for my laptop. Finding places to watch the cricket in Paris has not turned out to be difficult: I watched Bangladesh v South Africa yesterday in The Cricketer, up near St Augustin. I may still head for the Frog and Princess later, depending on mood.
As it is, Hodge is in for Watson for Australia. I am not sure this is a great move, as Australia's bowling needs strengthening, and this weakens it. The batting may well be stronger with Hodge in, but who cares? The batting was awesome already.
Hodge started very well with the ball. Neither Vaughan nor Strauss could take the pace, and both played on to Hodge. As I speak, it is 2/49 in the 13th over. Pieterson and Bell are going after McGrath a little in the second power play. Michael Clarke is also bowling early. It may well be that Australia are a bowler short, and Ponting is trying to get through the weakness early and is keeping the best bowlers early. It might or might not be working. If one of these batsmen were to get out relatively early, I think one would say it has worked. If they get 40 off the five over power play, not so much.
Update: Pieterson and Bell are batting well now. As it happens, Australia got 35 off that five over power play. In particular they got 13 runs off over 15. At that point Ponting did not take the third power play, but he kept bowling his lesser bowlers, clearly to get the ten overs from the weaker bowlers out of the way as early as possible As I write, it is 138/2 after 25 overs. Bell and Pieterson both have 50s and Pieterson looks dangerous. Clarke and Symonds have bowled eight overs between them, so Ponting can strengthen the bowling soon and not have to worry about the bowling weakness later. However, he still has to play the final power play soon. I doubt he will want to start it any later than 30 overs, but he will presumably want to do it when wickets are falling. It is a bit of a dilemma. (This is assuming Glenn McGrath can bowl well. At the moment he has three overs for 25 runs, which is not great. If he can't it is worse). Ponting dropped Bell of Symonds' bowling a couple of overs ago. It was a very difficult chance and it would have been a blinder had he taken it, but Ponting almost got it and was clearly furious with himself for missing it).
England are playing well here. Australia need wickets.
Further Update: 146/2 after 26 overs. Ponting has taken the Powerplay and brought Tait on to bowl. Crunch time.
Even further update. Australia got back on top during that power play, but it started out frustrating. Tait did immediately slow the run rate, but in the third over of the play Pieterson hit a straightish ball and hit an easy catch to Matthew Hayden at long off. Hayden promptly dropped it. The Ponting dropped catch was difficult and excusable, but this one was a sitter. Brag Hogg was fielding nearby and could have taken it also. At least the two players did not collide a la Steve Waugh / Jason Gillespie.
However, Glenn Mcrath's second over of the spell (the fourth of the power play) was a beauty. Bell mistimed a drive which was taken (regulation - thank goodness) by Hussey in the covers. The partnership of 140 was an excellent one and Bell batted excellently for 77, but it was over. The next over Collingwood got an edge to a fast one from Tait and it was 167 for four. It is now 168 for four after 31. 22 runs and 2 wickets off the five overs. Pieterson is still not out and England could still score 300, but it looks much better for Australia. Ponting has immediately brought Brad Hogg back into the attack at the end of the power play. (Hogg has bowled well for 0/28 off six so far.
Furthest update for this postEngland were evetually all out for 247 off 49.5 overs. This was an excellent containing bowling performance from Australia, who looked like conceding a lot more at one point. Pieterson slowed down as he approached his century, got it, and then got out. This didn't strike me as an impressive team performance. Excellent bowling from Tait, Bracken and Hogg. More from me after I have had some dinner, but I think Australia should get these runs without that much difficulty.
After some Steak Tartare and perhaps a little too much Cotes du Rhone at a cafe in the 5th arrondisement, I seem to have stumbled into The Bombadier in Sq. P. Langevin. I have everything I need here: cricket, coffee, English supporters to taunt (or vice versa, depending on circumstances) even a power outlet for my laptop. Finding places to watch the cricket in Paris has not turned out to be difficult: I watched Bangladesh v South Africa yesterday in The Cricketer, up near St Augustin. I may still head for the Frog and Princess later, depending on mood.
As it is, Hodge is in for Watson for Australia. I am not sure this is a great move, as Australia's bowling needs strengthening, and this weakens it. The batting may well be stronger with Hodge in, but who cares? The batting was awesome already.
Hodge started very well with the ball. Neither Vaughan nor Strauss could take the pace, and both played on to Hodge. As I speak, it is 2/49 in the 13th over. Pieterson and Bell are going after McGrath a little in the second power play. Michael Clarke is also bowling early. It may well be that Australia are a bowler short, and Ponting is trying to get through the weakness early and is keeping the best bowlers early. It might or might not be working. If one of these batsmen were to get out relatively early, I think one would say it has worked. If they get 40 off the five over power play, not so much.
Update: Pieterson and Bell are batting well now. As it happens, Australia got 35 off that five over power play. In particular they got 13 runs off over 15. At that point Ponting did not take the third power play, but he kept bowling his lesser bowlers, clearly to get the ten overs from the weaker bowlers out of the way as early as possible As I write, it is 138/2 after 25 overs. Bell and Pieterson both have 50s and Pieterson looks dangerous. Clarke and Symonds have bowled eight overs between them, so Ponting can strengthen the bowling soon and not have to worry about the bowling weakness later. However, he still has to play the final power play soon. I doubt he will want to start it any later than 30 overs, but he will presumably want to do it when wickets are falling. It is a bit of a dilemma. (This is assuming Glenn McGrath can bowl well. At the moment he has three overs for 25 runs, which is not great. If he can't it is worse). Ponting dropped Bell of Symonds' bowling a couple of overs ago. It was a very difficult chance and it would have been a blinder had he taken it, but Ponting almost got it and was clearly furious with himself for missing it).
England are playing well here. Australia need wickets.
Further Update: 146/2 after 26 overs. Ponting has taken the Powerplay and brought Tait on to bowl. Crunch time.
Even further update. Australia got back on top during that power play, but it started out frustrating. Tait did immediately slow the run rate, but in the third over of the play Pieterson hit a straightish ball and hit an easy catch to Matthew Hayden at long off. Hayden promptly dropped it. The Ponting dropped catch was difficult and excusable, but this one was a sitter. Brag Hogg was fielding nearby and could have taken it also. At least the two players did not collide a la Steve Waugh / Jason Gillespie.
However, Glenn Mcrath's second over of the spell (the fourth of the power play) was a beauty. Bell mistimed a drive which was taken (regulation - thank goodness) by Hussey in the covers. The partnership of 140 was an excellent one and Bell batted excellently for 77, but it was over. The next over Collingwood got an edge to a fast one from Tait and it was 167 for four. It is now 168 for four after 31. 22 runs and 2 wickets off the five overs. Pieterson is still not out and England could still score 300, but it looks much better for Australia. Ponting has immediately brought Brad Hogg back into the attack at the end of the power play. (Hogg has bowled well for 0/28 off six so far.
Furthest update for this postEngland were evetually all out for 247 off 49.5 overs. This was an excellent containing bowling performance from Australia, who looked like conceding a lot more at one point. Pieterson slowed down as he approached his century, got it, and then got out. This didn't strike me as an impressive team performance. Excellent bowling from Tait, Bracken and Hogg. More from me after I have had some dinner, but I think Australia should get these runs without that much difficulty.
Michael Jennings Cricket quote of the day
Ponting is a punter at the races, but on the cricket field he's a boy scout. He always comes well prepared, and if England aren't similarly fore-armed they'll be making a fatal mistake.
Ian Chappell on Ricky Ponting as he previews tonight's Australia vs England match.
Ponting is a punter at the races, but on the cricket field he's a boy scout. He always comes well prepared, and if England aren't similarly fore-armed they'll be making a fatal mistake.
Ian Chappell on Ricky Ponting as he previews tonight's Australia vs England match.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
How do you say "La Gloire" in Bengali?
Before the World Cup, I wrote "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", with the eight teams I was referring to being Australia, New Zealand, England, the West Indies, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Of course, I soon ate a certain amount of crow after Bangladesh and Ireland scored victories and India and Pakistan were eliminated.
However, although Bangladesh did what was expected to beat Bermuda and qualify for the Super Eights, their next few games were not all that impressive. They lost heavily to Sri Lanka in the first round, and then to New Zealand and Australia in the Super Eights. My thoughts were that if they could beat Ireland and scrape a victory against one of the underperforming sides or England and West Indies, they would go hoem with their heads high and a successful World Cup behind them, and strong prospects of doing better next time.
Going into today's match, there were really two opinions about Bangladesh's presence in the Super Eights. There was the "The minnows have ruined the World Cup by making the Super Eight" position, and there was the "Bangladesh's cricket team is on the rise" position (put eloquently by Rahul Bhattacharya in the linked artcle - go read it). I do not and did not agree with the first position - Bangladesh and Ireland earned their places and India and Pakistan deserved to go out - but I none the less missed the excitement of having India in particular in the tournament. On the second, well, I am delighted that Bangladesh are improving, particularly given the enthusiasm of the players and most Bangladeshis I meet, but I still had doubts as to wether Bangladesh had reached the point where they were a competitive side.
I did not give them any chance against South Africa today. I really should have learned better after the India match. I will not doubt them again - they deserve their place as a major international side. They played splendidly against South Africa today, and deserved their win.
Bangladesh got off to a decent start, scoring 41 for the first wicket. They then lost four wickets, and were 4/84 after 24 overs. They could have lost heart at that point, but they did not. Aftab Ahmed stuck in for 35 as Mohammad Ashruful batted superbly, ultimately being out for 87 in the last over. Thanks to lower order support from Mushrafe Mortaza at the end, Bangladesh ended up with an excellent score of 8/251 off 50 overs. That was certainly something to bowl at, and when they came out they were more enthusiastic in the field than just about any side I have ever seen. Rasel and Razzak removed the dangerous trio of Smith, Kallis, and de Villiers, and it was 3/64. Prince fell soon after to a fine run out, and at that point Bangladesh were on top. And they didn't ever lose it. Saqibul Hasan was on a hat trick after removing Boucher and Kemp with successive balls. (The first dismissal was very intelligent. Having been hit for six by Boucher the previous ball, Hasan tempted Boucher to go for it again, and he was caught in the outfield. The second was a very good caught and bowled, and to say that Hasan was ecstatic doesn't beging to go there). Pollock and Gibbs (who came in with a runner at 7, after getting injured earlier) hung in for a bit, but they weren't getting the run rate. In any event, if there was danger Tamim Iqbal threw down the stumps to remove Pollock - an even better run out than the first one. Dav Whatmore has taught his team to field, and in a match like this this matters. Gibbs hung in to the end, scoring 56 not out, but I was not impressed. I have no idea how badly injured he is, but he made no attempt to score boundaries and just take the loss. He didn't seem adequately disgusted with the match situation, either, shaking hands with his partner and smiling when he got his 50. Steve Waugh wouldn't have tolerated this.
But it was all over when South Africa were bowled out for 184 in the 49th over. Bangladesh won by 67 runs.
Looking at the table the fourth place in the semi-finals is more open. South Africa are still probably favoured to get there, but England, Bangladesh and even the West Indies have a chance. It may be that a side will make it with only six points. If that happens, England are a strong chance, as their run rate is presently better than the others. They must try to beat Australia tomorrow, or at the worst, if they do lose they must do so narrowly to preseve that run rate. Bangladesh have the worst run rate due to the heaviness of their earlier defeats to Australia and New Zealand. To go through they still probably need to beat all of England, West Indies, and Ireland. Although all of these are probably easier than South Africa today, asking them to win all three is a lot.
But they must now be confident. Good luck to them.
Correction: When I originally posted this, I said that "Bangladesh lost heavily to India in the first round". Obviously I meant to type "Sri Lanka", not India. Sorry.
Before the World Cup, I wrote "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", with the eight teams I was referring to being Australia, New Zealand, England, the West Indies, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Of course, I soon ate a certain amount of crow after Bangladesh and Ireland scored victories and India and Pakistan were eliminated.
However, although Bangladesh did what was expected to beat Bermuda and qualify for the Super Eights, their next few games were not all that impressive. They lost heavily to Sri Lanka in the first round, and then to New Zealand and Australia in the Super Eights. My thoughts were that if they could beat Ireland and scrape a victory against one of the underperforming sides or England and West Indies, they would go hoem with their heads high and a successful World Cup behind them, and strong prospects of doing better next time.
Going into today's match, there were really two opinions about Bangladesh's presence in the Super Eights. There was the "The minnows have ruined the World Cup by making the Super Eight" position, and there was the "Bangladesh's cricket team is on the rise" position (put eloquently by Rahul Bhattacharya in the linked artcle - go read it). I do not and did not agree with the first position - Bangladesh and Ireland earned their places and India and Pakistan deserved to go out - but I none the less missed the excitement of having India in particular in the tournament. On the second, well, I am delighted that Bangladesh are improving, particularly given the enthusiasm of the players and most Bangladeshis I meet, but I still had doubts as to wether Bangladesh had reached the point where they were a competitive side.
I did not give them any chance against South Africa today. I really should have learned better after the India match. I will not doubt them again - they deserve their place as a major international side. They played splendidly against South Africa today, and deserved their win.
Bangladesh got off to a decent start, scoring 41 for the first wicket. They then lost four wickets, and were 4/84 after 24 overs. They could have lost heart at that point, but they did not. Aftab Ahmed stuck in for 35 as Mohammad Ashruful batted superbly, ultimately being out for 87 in the last over. Thanks to lower order support from Mushrafe Mortaza at the end, Bangladesh ended up with an excellent score of 8/251 off 50 overs. That was certainly something to bowl at, and when they came out they were more enthusiastic in the field than just about any side I have ever seen. Rasel and Razzak removed the dangerous trio of Smith, Kallis, and de Villiers, and it was 3/64. Prince fell soon after to a fine run out, and at that point Bangladesh were on top. And they didn't ever lose it. Saqibul Hasan was on a hat trick after removing Boucher and Kemp with successive balls. (The first dismissal was very intelligent. Having been hit for six by Boucher the previous ball, Hasan tempted Boucher to go for it again, and he was caught in the outfield. The second was a very good caught and bowled, and to say that Hasan was ecstatic doesn't beging to go there). Pollock and Gibbs (who came in with a runner at 7, after getting injured earlier) hung in for a bit, but they weren't getting the run rate. In any event, if there was danger Tamim Iqbal threw down the stumps to remove Pollock - an even better run out than the first one. Dav Whatmore has taught his team to field, and in a match like this this matters. Gibbs hung in to the end, scoring 56 not out, but I was not impressed. I have no idea how badly injured he is, but he made no attempt to score boundaries and just take the loss. He didn't seem adequately disgusted with the match situation, either, shaking hands with his partner and smiling when he got his 50. Steve Waugh wouldn't have tolerated this.
But it was all over when South Africa were bowled out for 184 in the 49th over. Bangladesh won by 67 runs.
Looking at the table the fourth place in the semi-finals is more open. South Africa are still probably favoured to get there, but England, Bangladesh and even the West Indies have a chance. It may be that a side will make it with only six points. If that happens, England are a strong chance, as their run rate is presently better than the others. They must try to beat Australia tomorrow, or at the worst, if they do lose they must do so narrowly to preseve that run rate. Bangladesh have the worst run rate due to the heaviness of their earlier defeats to Australia and New Zealand. To go through they still probably need to beat all of England, West Indies, and Ireland. Although all of these are probably easier than South Africa today, asking them to win all three is a lot.
But they must now be confident. Good luck to them.
Correction: When I originally posted this, I said that "Bangladesh lost heavily to India in the first round". Obviously I meant to type "Sri Lanka", not India. Sorry.
Friday, April 06, 2007
I am in Paris until Tuesday evening
I haven't blogged on Wednesday's England v Sri Lanka game, which in a way is a shame, because it was probably the best game of cricket in the tournament so far. The game swang to England, to Sri Lanka, to England, to Sri Lanka, and then England managed to just about eke out the runs, with Bopora and Nixon batting well at the end.
But, Nixon got out with a couple of overs to go, and England ultimately found themselves with Bopora needing to score three runs to win off the last ball of the match from Fernando. Fernando finished the innings with what may have been an interesting piece of gamesmanship, although I am sure he would deny it. Dilhara Fernando came in to bowl the last ball, but didn't release the ball, claiming to have messed up his runup. Having thus distracted the batsman, he came in again and bowled a beauty, clean bowling Bopora and winnig the game for Sri Lanka by two runs. Sri Lanka are now clearly in a safe place on the table, and a semi-final lineup of Australia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and New Zealand looks likelier than ever. If South Africa beats Bangladesh tomorrow, all those four teams will have six points (Sri Lanka and South Africa having played one extra game each), England and the West Indies will each have two, and Bangladesh and Ireland none. That gap between fourth and fifth will be hard to close.
In truth though, I am not sure Sri Lanka should be terribly positive about their performance. Their top order did not bat all that well, and their score of 235 was probably a good way short against opposition with stronger batting. They had several chances to really put their foot on the England throat, but couldn't do it, winning rather luckily at the end. I think Sri Lanka's position on the table is fair - they have had two very close ones and have won and lost one each, but I think Australia would have scored 100 runs more than Sri Lanka did against that England attack, and in that case England would have had no chance. Sri Lanka can always surprise anyone, but I think at the moment they are looking weaker than Australia or New Zealand.
The tournament resumes tomorrow with South Africa taking on Bangladesh. That should be a straightforward win for South Africa, and then Australia takes on England on Sunday. Australia will have comething to prove after their losses in the CB trophy in Australia, and I think they will come out with all guns blazing. If Australia bat first, I would expect them to get a very big score. With Watson's injury, it will be interesting to see who Australia bring in. They will probably bring in Brad Hodge, but that will weaken the bowling, which I am not sure is a great idea. The batting can be weakened a little without it mattering, but the bowling is more marginal. It might be better to bring in a specialist bowler like Mitchell Johnson. We will see what they do.
If any readers are in Paris, I will be watching at least some of the match in the Frog and Pricess in St Germain. The pub has WiFi. I am the guy with the Sony Vaio subcompact laptop who is in need of a haircut.
I haven't blogged on Wednesday's England v Sri Lanka game, which in a way is a shame, because it was probably the best game of cricket in the tournament so far. The game swang to England, to Sri Lanka, to England, to Sri Lanka, and then England managed to just about eke out the runs, with Bopora and Nixon batting well at the end.
But, Nixon got out with a couple of overs to go, and England ultimately found themselves with Bopora needing to score three runs to win off the last ball of the match from Fernando. Fernando finished the innings with what may have been an interesting piece of gamesmanship, although I am sure he would deny it. Dilhara Fernando came in to bowl the last ball, but didn't release the ball, claiming to have messed up his runup. Having thus distracted the batsman, he came in again and bowled a beauty, clean bowling Bopora and winnig the game for Sri Lanka by two runs. Sri Lanka are now clearly in a safe place on the table, and a semi-final lineup of Australia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and New Zealand looks likelier than ever. If South Africa beats Bangladesh tomorrow, all those four teams will have six points (Sri Lanka and South Africa having played one extra game each), England and the West Indies will each have two, and Bangladesh and Ireland none. That gap between fourth and fifth will be hard to close.
In truth though, I am not sure Sri Lanka should be terribly positive about their performance. Their top order did not bat all that well, and their score of 235 was probably a good way short against opposition with stronger batting. They had several chances to really put their foot on the England throat, but couldn't do it, winning rather luckily at the end. I think Sri Lanka's position on the table is fair - they have had two very close ones and have won and lost one each, but I think Australia would have scored 100 runs more than Sri Lanka did against that England attack, and in that case England would have had no chance. Sri Lanka can always surprise anyone, but I think at the moment they are looking weaker than Australia or New Zealand.
The tournament resumes tomorrow with South Africa taking on Bangladesh. That should be a straightforward win for South Africa, and then Australia takes on England on Sunday. Australia will have comething to prove after their losses in the CB trophy in Australia, and I think they will come out with all guns blazing. If Australia bat first, I would expect them to get a very big score. With Watson's injury, it will be interesting to see who Australia bring in. They will probably bring in Brad Hodge, but that will weaken the bowling, which I am not sure is a great idea. The batting can be weakened a little without it mattering, but the bowling is more marginal. It might be better to bring in a specialist bowler like Mitchell Johnson. We will see what they do.
If any readers are in Paris, I will be watching at least some of the match in the Frog and Pricess in St Germain. The pub has WiFi. I am the guy with the Sony Vaio subcompact laptop who is in need of a haircut.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Michael Jennings Cricket quote of the day
In Pakistan the power of cricket is such that when I interviewed General Musharraf my ice-breaker was: "Mr President, I must apologise on behalf of my country." "Do you mean for colonialism?" he replied, faintly puzzled. "No," I said, "for the fact that an English umpire gave your captain out lbw yesterday when he clearly wasn't."
From that moment on we were bosom pals. The same tactic would not be so effective, I suspect, with Messrs Blair, Brown or Cameron.
UK Daily Telegraph writer Donald Trelford gives us an insight into sub-Continental attitudes to cricket.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Not the debacle we expected
Michael correctly noted that this World Cup is becoming a debacle. However, it is doing so in a way that was not expected.
Most of the fears surrounding this tournament in the leadup was about the ability of the West Indies to host it properly. There were fears that the new stadiums would not be finished in time, and there were also worries that the transport infrastructure of the region would buckle under the strain of so many tourists. There was also a concern that the relaxed attitude of the region would not be compatible with the 'just in time' demands of event organisers and television broadcasters.
These fears have largely been unfounded- the stadiums are finished, the tourists have disappeared with the demise of the Indian and Pakistani teams, and apart from the notable slackness of the ground authorities to clean up the rain in the Bangladesh vs Australia fixture, the hosts have been competent.
The debacle has instead come from the ICC, and it comes in two major forms. The first is the scheduling, which has caused the tournament to drag out for too long. During the group phases there were two matches a day, which is fine. It is also compatible with most major television networks. What we have is a situation where there are 24 super 8 fixtures- they could have been played in a little over 2 weeks, and instead the whole thing is dragging over close to four weeks. This taxes the patience and interest of even the most ardent cricket fans. We aren't even half way through the super 8 phase and already it is hard to maintain interest.
The other problem is that the ICC has swamped the grounds with so many rules, regulations, and price gouging that they have alienated the paying public from attending, especially the locals. International tourists, who have paid considerable sums of money to attend feel compelled to put up with this, but the local fans have voted with their feet by staying home. This situation has come about because the ICC has been seduced by the corporate dollar. Therefore, the ICC considers its customers to be the television customers and the sponsors it can attract. However, the ICC is only attractive to these organisations in as much as it provides access to customers; by treating cricket fans in such a high-handed manner, the ICC is actually devaluing itself. There is already talk that the Korean chaebol LG is 'reviewing' its sponsorship. (This is code for not renewing). This is probably actually caused by India's failure to make the super 8s, but the constant images of empty stadiums that we see underline the ICC's failure at every point. It would be better for everyone if the ICC at this stage simply opened the games up for free and quit banning horns and acting like Big Brother. That would require that ICC admit that it has been wrong, and that is something Big Brother can never do.
The former editor of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, Tim de Lisle, has more thoughts on this issue.
Michael correctly noted that this World Cup is becoming a debacle. However, it is doing so in a way that was not expected.
Most of the fears surrounding this tournament in the leadup was about the ability of the West Indies to host it properly. There were fears that the new stadiums would not be finished in time, and there were also worries that the transport infrastructure of the region would buckle under the strain of so many tourists. There was also a concern that the relaxed attitude of the region would not be compatible with the 'just in time' demands of event organisers and television broadcasters.
These fears have largely been unfounded- the stadiums are finished, the tourists have disappeared with the demise of the Indian and Pakistani teams, and apart from the notable slackness of the ground authorities to clean up the rain in the Bangladesh vs Australia fixture, the hosts have been competent.
The debacle has instead come from the ICC, and it comes in two major forms. The first is the scheduling, which has caused the tournament to drag out for too long. During the group phases there were two matches a day, which is fine. It is also compatible with most major television networks. What we have is a situation where there are 24 super 8 fixtures- they could have been played in a little over 2 weeks, and instead the whole thing is dragging over close to four weeks. This taxes the patience and interest of even the most ardent cricket fans. We aren't even half way through the super 8 phase and already it is hard to maintain interest.
The other problem is that the ICC has swamped the grounds with so many rules, regulations, and price gouging that they have alienated the paying public from attending, especially the locals. International tourists, who have paid considerable sums of money to attend feel compelled to put up with this, but the local fans have voted with their feet by staying home. This situation has come about because the ICC has been seduced by the corporate dollar. Therefore, the ICC considers its customers to be the television customers and the sponsors it can attract. However, the ICC is only attractive to these organisations in as much as it provides access to customers; by treating cricket fans in such a high-handed manner, the ICC is actually devaluing itself. There is already talk that the Korean chaebol LG is 'reviewing' its sponsorship. (This is code for not renewing). This is probably actually caused by India's failure to make the super 8s, but the constant images of empty stadiums that we see underline the ICC's failure at every point. It would be better for everyone if the ICC at this stage simply opened the games up for free and quit banning horns and acting like Big Brother. That would require that ICC admit that it has been wrong, and that is something Big Brother can never do.
The former editor of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, Tim de Lisle, has more thoughts on this issue.
This is a strange World Cup
Since I last wrote, there have been two games. Yesterday, New Zealand overpowered Bangladesh. (A frew runs to Tamim Iqbal, Aftab Ahmed, and Mohammad Rafique for Bangladesh. Wickets to Oram, Styris, and Bond. Bangladesh all out 174. A century to Stephen Fleming and New Zealand managed a devastatingly easy nine wicket winwith more than 20 overs to spare. Today wasn't greatly different. Ireland could only muster 8/152 off the reduced 35 overs against South Africa, with White and Morgan each able to muster about 30. Wickets to Pollock, Langeveldt (who does have my favourite name of any player in the World Cup) and Hall. South Africa then breezed past the total for the loss of only three wickets thanks to 64 not out from Kallis. (In truth, Ireland put up a slightly better fight than did Bangladesh yesterday, but both were absolute thrashings).
Although Ireland and Bangladesh earned their places in the Super Eight fair and square, the absence of India and Pakistan is really being felt. There are too many mismatches, and the identity of the semi-finalists seems clear all ready. The next two and a half weeks of the Super Eight feel pointless. There is some slight possibility that England might make some sort of a fight for a place in the semis, but that is about it for uncertaintly. If Sri Lanka comprehensively beat England tomorrow, then even that uncertainty is largely gone, unless there is a truly horrendous form reversal after that. The only interest in the rest of the Super Eight stage after that is really whether Ireland or Bangladesh can upset the West Indies or England. While it would be nice for them if they do, this isn't going to carry any interest with respect to the result of the tournament.
Once we do get to the semi-finals there are lots of possibilities, but frankly I just wish we could get on to them now. Because the next two and a half weeks have little point. The Indians sponsors (for who they were created) don't care, and nor do I think do anybody else. This tournament is turning into a debacle.
Since I last wrote, there have been two games. Yesterday, New Zealand overpowered Bangladesh. (A frew runs to Tamim Iqbal, Aftab Ahmed, and Mohammad Rafique for Bangladesh. Wickets to Oram, Styris, and Bond. Bangladesh all out 174. A century to Stephen Fleming and New Zealand managed a devastatingly easy nine wicket winwith more than 20 overs to spare. Today wasn't greatly different. Ireland could only muster 8/152 off the reduced 35 overs against South Africa, with White and Morgan each able to muster about 30. Wickets to Pollock, Langeveldt (who does have my favourite name of any player in the World Cup) and Hall. South Africa then breezed past the total for the loss of only three wickets thanks to 64 not out from Kallis. (In truth, Ireland put up a slightly better fight than did Bangladesh yesterday, but both were absolute thrashings).
Although Ireland and Bangladesh earned their places in the Super Eight fair and square, the absence of India and Pakistan is really being felt. There are too many mismatches, and the identity of the semi-finalists seems clear all ready. The next two and a half weeks of the Super Eight feel pointless. There is some slight possibility that England might make some sort of a fight for a place in the semis, but that is about it for uncertaintly. If Sri Lanka comprehensively beat England tomorrow, then even that uncertainty is largely gone, unless there is a truly horrendous form reversal after that. The only interest in the rest of the Super Eight stage after that is really whether Ireland or Bangladesh can upset the West Indies or England. While it would be nice for them if they do, this isn't going to carry any interest with respect to the result of the tournament.
Once we do get to the semi-finals there are lots of possibilities, but frankly I just wish we could get on to them now. Because the next two and a half weeks have little point. The Indians sponsors (for who they were created) don't care, and nor do I think do anybody else. This tournament is turning into a debacle.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Things remain predictable
Ian Chappell has a piece on Cricinfo in which he decries the way in which apparently good sides seem to be falling away from the leaders, and in which he argues that Australia and New Zealand are the only two sides still looking good, and that there is therefore a good chance that those two sides will meet in the final.
I don't really disagree with any of this. An Australia v New Zealand final is very possible, and I am certainly disappointed with the performances of the West Indies and England (and for that matter Pakistan and Inida) in this tournament. Chappell is critical of the South African batting against Sri Lanka and their bowling against Australia, and also by the Sri Lankan top order batting against South Africa. These are fair criticisms, but they are only about one or two matches (or parts of matches). It would be foolish to write off either Sri Lanka or South Africa at this point. All either side needs to do is make the semi-finals (which is looking pretty easy for both) and then win two matches. And the strengths of both sides are considerable.
As it happened, Sri Lanka's top order batted well against the West Indies today. Sri Lanka lost Tharanga and Sangakkara early to be 2/35, but Jayasuriya and Jayawardene then batted superbly, putting on nearly 200 as Jayasuriya scored 115 and Jayawardene (who, incidentally and very well deservedly is named one of the five cricketers of the year in the new Wisden) 82. At 2/218 off 34.4 overs, a score of 330 or 340 was possible, but Sri Lanka were pegged back perhaps a little and ended up with 5/303 after Dilshan hit 39 off 22 balls at the end.
The way the West Indies have been batting, that was likely to be plenty, and so it turned out. The West Indies lost Gayle, Bravo and Lara quite quickly and it was 3/42 off 10.1 overs. After that they were never really in it, and although Chanderpaul (76) and Sarwan (44) put on 92 for the fourth wicket they were a very long way below the Sri Lankan run rate and they were only adding respectability. Once they were out, any respectability went quickly, as wickets tumbled and the West Indies were all out for 190, a third consecutive pathetic defeat for the West Indies with Sri Lanka winning by 113 runs. Wickets were shared around, but Malinga took the two important wickets of Gayle and Chanderpaul. His form is important. He is a bowler who can rapidly turn around a match the way Brett Lee can for Australia when he is playing. (It is such a shame that he isn't).
The table looks like this.
Sri Lanka will take heart at this after their lacklustre performance against South Africa. This was a good win. On the other hand, the West Indies remain dreadful. They will still likely (but not definitely) make the semi-finals if they can defeat South Africa, Bangladesh and England. This is an easier combination of opponents than Australia, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka, but on presently form their chances of winning all three games do not look good. Their next game is not until April 10, so they do have time to regroup, but oh boy do they need to regroup.
We are in fact only a quarter of the way through the Super Eights - six games have been played. However, the semi-finals almost seem settled, with Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa lookings odds on to be the four semi-finalists. The one proviso is that England and South Africa have each only played one Super Eight game, and each have two points. (It would have been more interesting if Sri Lanka had got that last wicket against South Africa, because in that case South Africa would really be playing catchup, albeit with weaker opposition in front of them than behind them). The expectation is that South Africa will get well ahead of England on the basis of form and ability, not on presently positions on the table. If South Africa could unexpectedly lose a game or England unepectedly win one, then things could be interesting. I stress could, because in truth I doubt it.
In the short terms, this would require England to upset Sri Lanka on Wednesday, and I can't see that.
New Zealand v Bangladesh in Antigua tomorrow. New Zealand are making all the correct noises about not taking Sri Lanka lightly, but I can't see the game being remotely close. New Zealand are not going to let their guard down, and Bangladesh are not good enough to beat them if they do not.
Ian Chappell has a piece on Cricinfo in which he decries the way in which apparently good sides seem to be falling away from the leaders, and in which he argues that Australia and New Zealand are the only two sides still looking good, and that there is therefore a good chance that those two sides will meet in the final.
I don't really disagree with any of this. An Australia v New Zealand final is very possible, and I am certainly disappointed with the performances of the West Indies and England (and for that matter Pakistan and Inida) in this tournament. Chappell is critical of the South African batting against Sri Lanka and their bowling against Australia, and also by the Sri Lankan top order batting against South Africa. These are fair criticisms, but they are only about one or two matches (or parts of matches). It would be foolish to write off either Sri Lanka or South Africa at this point. All either side needs to do is make the semi-finals (which is looking pretty easy for both) and then win two matches. And the strengths of both sides are considerable.
As it happened, Sri Lanka's top order batted well against the West Indies today. Sri Lanka lost Tharanga and Sangakkara early to be 2/35, but Jayasuriya and Jayawardene then batted superbly, putting on nearly 200 as Jayasuriya scored 115 and Jayawardene (who, incidentally and very well deservedly is named one of the five cricketers of the year in the new Wisden) 82. At 2/218 off 34.4 overs, a score of 330 or 340 was possible, but Sri Lanka were pegged back perhaps a little and ended up with 5/303 after Dilshan hit 39 off 22 balls at the end.
The way the West Indies have been batting, that was likely to be plenty, and so it turned out. The West Indies lost Gayle, Bravo and Lara quite quickly and it was 3/42 off 10.1 overs. After that they were never really in it, and although Chanderpaul (76) and Sarwan (44) put on 92 for the fourth wicket they were a very long way below the Sri Lankan run rate and they were only adding respectability. Once they were out, any respectability went quickly, as wickets tumbled and the West Indies were all out for 190, a third consecutive pathetic defeat for the West Indies with Sri Lanka winning by 113 runs. Wickets were shared around, but Malinga took the two important wickets of Gayle and Chanderpaul. His form is important. He is a bowler who can rapidly turn around a match the way Brett Lee can for Australia when he is playing. (It is such a shame that he isn't).
The table looks like this.
| Super 8 | Played | Won | Lost | Tied/NR | Pts | Net RR |
| Australia | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2.014 |
| Sri Lanka | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2.069 |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.982 |
| England | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.047 |
| South Africa | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -0.714 |
| West Indies | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | -1.177 |
| Ireland | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1.019 |
| Bangladesh | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3.776 |
Sri Lanka will take heart at this after their lacklustre performance against South Africa. This was a good win. On the other hand, the West Indies remain dreadful. They will still likely (but not definitely) make the semi-finals if they can defeat South Africa, Bangladesh and England. This is an easier combination of opponents than Australia, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka, but on presently form their chances of winning all three games do not look good. Their next game is not until April 10, so they do have time to regroup, but oh boy do they need to regroup.
We are in fact only a quarter of the way through the Super Eights - six games have been played. However, the semi-finals almost seem settled, with Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa lookings odds on to be the four semi-finalists. The one proviso is that England and South Africa have each only played one Super Eight game, and each have two points. (It would have been more interesting if Sri Lanka had got that last wicket against South Africa, because in that case South Africa would really be playing catchup, albeit with weaker opposition in front of them than behind them). The expectation is that South Africa will get well ahead of England on the basis of form and ability, not on presently positions on the table. If South Africa could unexpectedly lose a game or England unepectedly win one, then things could be interesting. I stress could, because in truth I doubt it.
In the short terms, this would require England to upset Sri Lanka on Wednesday, and I can't see that.
New Zealand v Bangladesh in Antigua tomorrow. New Zealand are making all the correct noises about not taking Sri Lanka lightly, but I can't see the game being remotely close. New Zealand are not going to let their guard down, and Bangladesh are not good enough to beat them if they do not.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Austtralia continue on their way
As Scott wrote, England did what was necessary (ie they won) against Ireland yesterday, but they could not be said to have been impressive. A similar situation was never likely between Australia and Bangladesh today. Australia look too focused and too disciplined to give Bangladesh a break.
Due to a lot of overnight rain, the outfield in Antigua was drenched, and a lot of work to dry the outfield was necessary before any play was possible. No play was possible until well after the scheduled interval, and eventually when play started the game had been reduced to 22 overs a side. By the eight over mark, Bangladesh had lost four wickets for 37, and after that Bangladesh just eked out runs to survive the full 22 overs, ending up with 6/104 off their 50 overs, with Saqibul Hasan and Mashrafe Mortaza and Habibul Bashar scoring most of the runs between then with about 25 each. McGrath was the most successful bowler with 3/16. His second wicket of Aftab Ahmed took him past Wasim Akram to make him the highest wicket taker in World Cup cricket.
Australia got the runs with ease, and with ten wickets remaining. Gilchrist score 59 off 44 balls with eight fours and a six, and Hayden 47 off 39 with three fours and three sixes. This only took the Autstralians 13.5 overs, and the win win was the easiest imaginable. Bangladesh shouldn't take this too hard - in their present mood Australia are doing it to everybody - and will hopefully show fight in their upcoming games. That said, they have a rough patch, as their next two games are against New Zealand next Monday and then South Africa next Saturday. (They should find their final three games after that against England, Ireland and the West Indies easier going).
Australia on the other hand now have a bit of a break - their next game is against England on Easter Sunday April 8. I think they have earned a couple of days rest.
Tomorrow we have West Indies v Sri Lanka. A West Indian victory in this would open the tournament up a lot, but on recent form I really can't see it. Sri Lanka to win that one easily.
As Scott wrote, England did what was necessary (ie they won) against Ireland yesterday, but they could not be said to have been impressive. A similar situation was never likely between Australia and Bangladesh today. Australia look too focused and too disciplined to give Bangladesh a break.
Due to a lot of overnight rain, the outfield in Antigua was drenched, and a lot of work to dry the outfield was necessary before any play was possible. No play was possible until well after the scheduled interval, and eventually when play started the game had been reduced to 22 overs a side. By the eight over mark, Bangladesh had lost four wickets for 37, and after that Bangladesh just eked out runs to survive the full 22 overs, ending up with 6/104 off their 50 overs, with Saqibul Hasan and Mashrafe Mortaza and Habibul Bashar scoring most of the runs between then with about 25 each. McGrath was the most successful bowler with 3/16. His second wicket of Aftab Ahmed took him past Wasim Akram to make him the highest wicket taker in World Cup cricket.
Australia got the runs with ease, and with ten wickets remaining. Gilchrist score 59 off 44 balls with eight fours and a six, and Hayden 47 off 39 with three fours and three sixes. This only took the Autstralians 13.5 overs, and the win win was the easiest imaginable. Bangladesh shouldn't take this too hard - in their present mood Australia are doing it to everybody - and will hopefully show fight in their upcoming games. That said, they have a rough patch, as their next two games are against New Zealand next Monday and then South Africa next Saturday. (They should find their final three games after that against England, Ireland and the West Indies easier going).
Australia on the other hand now have a bit of a break - their next game is against England on Easter Sunday April 8. I think they have earned a couple of days rest.
Tomorrow we have West Indies v Sri Lanka. A West Indian victory in this would open the tournament up a lot, but on recent form I really can't see it. Sri Lanka to win that one easily.
On this showing, England won't be in the semi-finals
England played Ireland last night in the Super 8's and although they did enough to win, they did not do enough to convince me, and I suspect others, that they will progress any further in the tournament.
To my eyes, it did not seem like an established international team taking on a minnow- for large swathes of the game, it seemed like a meeting of equals. Bangladesh will take a lot of heart from England's inability to rise to the occasion. England will no doubt say that they did enough to win, and that is true. But there was nothing in their performance to suggest that they'll give the slightest trouble to the 'big four' emerging- South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand.
What was wrong was simply a lack of 'big-match' intensity in England's performance, except for Collingwood at the end of England's innings and Flintoff's at the end of Ireland's innings. It was an underwhelming performance by England and they'll have to work much harder if they are to challenge Sri Lanka next week.
Ireland on the other hand once again put in a performance that was greater then the sum of its parts, although Niall O'Brien's 63 was a great knock. There might be a few more Irish surprises in this World Cup yet.
England played Ireland last night in the Super 8's and although they did enough to win, they did not do enough to convince me, and I suspect others, that they will progress any further in the tournament.
To my eyes, it did not seem like an established international team taking on a minnow- for large swathes of the game, it seemed like a meeting of equals. Bangladesh will take a lot of heart from England's inability to rise to the occasion. England will no doubt say that they did enough to win, and that is true. But there was nothing in their performance to suggest that they'll give the slightest trouble to the 'big four' emerging- South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand.
What was wrong was simply a lack of 'big-match' intensity in England's performance, except for Collingwood at the end of England's innings and Flintoff's at the end of Ireland's innings. It was an underwhelming performance by England and they'll have to work much harder if they are to challenge Sri Lanka next week.
Ireland on the other hand once again put in a performance that was greater then the sum of its parts, although Niall O'Brien's 63 was a great knock. There might be a few more Irish surprises in this World Cup yet.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
I hate to say it, but the West Indies are dreadful
I was perhaps a little too hard on the Sri Lankans yesterday. They made a few mistakes, and were outplayed and lost the game, but at least they showed some fight. If one ball from Malinga had been ever so slightly differently aimed, they would have won.
The contrast with today was really striking. The West Indies batted first in similar conditions to those on which Australia scored 322 on Tuesday. As one expects from New Zealand, the bowling was tight and the fielding was good. And the West Inides just succumbed to this. Bond took 3/31. Oram 3/23. Vettori 3/39. Lara hung in for a bit, but didn't get going, and the rest of the side just got out to terrible shot selection and a complete lack of discipline. Gayle 44 and Lara 37 were the only batsmen who got 20. The West Indies got a lousy 177, and there was no way this was enough.
New Zealand lost Fulton to the second ball of the innings, but that was the most joy that the West Indians got. To insipid bowling from the West Indians, New Zealand carefully and slowly got the runs. Fleming got 45, McMillan 33 no out and Styris 80 not out. The Australian couple in the pub where I was watching the game were critical of the New Zealanders for not scoring the runs faster, but I wasn't. New Zealand want to get the points, and not slip up. They did that. New Zealand won, easily, by seven wickets. Solid performance by New Zealand. Terrible performance by the West Indies. Bangladesh will be fancying their chances against the West Indies if they continue to play like this.
The table looks like this.
It is likely that eights points will be needed to make the semi finals, although this is not certain. (It is actually possible for sides to score as many as ten points and miss out, but it requires very unusual circumstances for a side to score nine or more points and miss out. Eights points and missing out is quite conceivable, but still not all that likely. Similarly depending on other results it is possible for sides to qualify for the semi-finals with as few as four points, but this would require freak results. Six or seven points and a good run-rate might be enough, but no side can rely on this). Australia and New Zealand still have to play both Bangladesh and Ireland, and as both will have little difficulty beating those two sides on present form, one has to say it is very unlikely that either Australia or New Zealand will miss out on the semi-finals. The West Indies, Bangladesh, and Ireland are unlikely to make the semi-finals, so we essentially have three sides (Sri Lanka, South Africa, and England) in the hunt for the other two spots. England have not been impressive so far but have done enough. (Of course, three days ago this was also true of the West Indies). My money is still on Sri Lanka and South Africa, but a couple of good performances from England and they are in the semi-finals. And from there, who knows.
The next few days do not in truth look very interesting. England play Ireland tomorrow, and while as an Australian I would love to see an upset, it is unlikely. Australia play Bangladesh on Saturday, and the way Australia are playing at the moment I really cannot see Bangladesh getting close. On Sunday the West Indies play Sri Lanka. On present form, the West Indies will get destroyed, but if there was to be an upset it would put a cat amongst the pigeons and Sri Lanka, England, the West Indies would be frantically struggling for the last semi-final place. On Monday Bangladesh play New Zealand, and New Zealand should be too good (although go Bangladesh). Ireland play South Africa on Tuesday, which should be an easy win for the South Africans. It is not until England v Sri Lanka next Wednesday that we get something that promises to be a good game. Still, we can hope that something interesting happens between now and then.
On the other hand, if England, Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and South Africa win the games up to Tuesday, the table looks like this.
If Sri Lanka are then able to beat England on Wednesday, then we have a pretty clear situation of four likely semi-finalists and an uphill battle for other sides to challenge them. If England can win that, the last couple of spots will be much more open.
I was perhaps a little too hard on the Sri Lankans yesterday. They made a few mistakes, and were outplayed and lost the game, but at least they showed some fight. If one ball from Malinga had been ever so slightly differently aimed, they would have won.
The contrast with today was really striking. The West Indies batted first in similar conditions to those on which Australia scored 322 on Tuesday. As one expects from New Zealand, the bowling was tight and the fielding was good. And the West Inides just succumbed to this. Bond took 3/31. Oram 3/23. Vettori 3/39. Lara hung in for a bit, but didn't get going, and the rest of the side just got out to terrible shot selection and a complete lack of discipline. Gayle 44 and Lara 37 were the only batsmen who got 20. The West Indies got a lousy 177, and there was no way this was enough.
New Zealand lost Fulton to the second ball of the innings, but that was the most joy that the West Indians got. To insipid bowling from the West Indians, New Zealand carefully and slowly got the runs. Fleming got 45, McMillan 33 no out and Styris 80 not out. The Australian couple in the pub where I was watching the game were critical of the New Zealanders for not scoring the runs faster, but I wasn't. New Zealand want to get the points, and not slip up. They did that. New Zealand won, easily, by seven wickets. Solid performance by New Zealand. Terrible performance by the West Indies. Bangladesh will be fancying their chances against the West Indies if they continue to play like this.
The table looks like this.
| Super 8 | Played | Won | Lost | Tied/NR | Pts | Net RR |
| Australia | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.860 |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.982 |
| Sri Lanka | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1.972 |
| South Africa | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -0.714 |
| West Indies | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | -0.783 |
| England | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -0.942 |
| Ireland | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1.041 |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -4.304 |
It is likely that eights points will be needed to make the semi finals, although this is not certain. (It is actually possible for sides to score as many as ten points and miss out, but it requires very unusual circumstances for a side to score nine or more points and miss out. Eights points and missing out is quite conceivable, but still not all that likely. Similarly depending on other results it is possible for sides to qualify for the semi-finals with as few as four points, but this would require freak results. Six or seven points and a good run-rate might be enough, but no side can rely on this). Australia and New Zealand still have to play both Bangladesh and Ireland, and as both will have little difficulty beating those two sides on present form, one has to say it is very unlikely that either Australia or New Zealand will miss out on the semi-finals. The West Indies, Bangladesh, and Ireland are unlikely to make the semi-finals, so we essentially have three sides (Sri Lanka, South Africa, and England) in the hunt for the other two spots. England have not been impressive so far but have done enough. (Of course, three days ago this was also true of the West Indies). My money is still on Sri Lanka and South Africa, but a couple of good performances from England and they are in the semi-finals. And from there, who knows.
The next few days do not in truth look very interesting. England play Ireland tomorrow, and while as an Australian I would love to see an upset, it is unlikely. Australia play Bangladesh on Saturday, and the way Australia are playing at the moment I really cannot see Bangladesh getting close. On Sunday the West Indies play Sri Lanka. On present form, the West Indies will get destroyed, but if there was to be an upset it would put a cat amongst the pigeons and Sri Lanka, England, the West Indies would be frantically struggling for the last semi-final place. On Monday Bangladesh play New Zealand, and New Zealand should be too good (although go Bangladesh). Ireland play South Africa on Tuesday, which should be an easy win for the South Africans. It is not until England v Sri Lanka next Wednesday that we get something that promises to be a good game. Still, we can hope that something interesting happens between now and then.
On the other hand, if England, Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and South Africa win the games up to Tuesday, the table looks like this.
| Super 8 | Played | Won | Lost | Tied/NR | Pts | Net RR |
| Australia | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | - |
| New Zealand | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | - |
| Sri Lanka | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | - |
| South Africa | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | - |
| England | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | - |
| West Indies | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | - |
| Ireland | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | - |
| Bangladesh | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | - |
If Sri Lanka are then able to beat England on Wednesday, then we have a pretty clear situation of four likely semi-finalists and an uphill battle for other sides to challenge them. If England can win that, the last couple of spots will be much more open.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A fairly dull conclusion to one game, and something remarkable in another
Firstly, a piece of cricketing terminology. A "hat trick" is well known. This is when a bowler takes three wickets with three consecutive balls. These seem to be one in a career things in test criket for great bowlers. Shane Warne took one in test cricket. Glenn McGrath took one in test cricket. In one day international cricket they are a little more common as towards the end of the innings batsmen are more concerned with scoring runs than not getting out. However, they are still considered quite rare ans special when they happen.
A less well known piece of terminology is a "double hat trick". A first thought is that this might mean six wickets from six balls, but in fact it means four wickets from four consecutive balls. The "double" comes from the fact that four wickets in four balls contains two hat tricks, one with the first, second, and third balls, and one with the second, third, and fourth balls. As of this morning, nobody had ever taken a double hat trick in international cricket, although a very small number had happened in first class cricket.
But, back to that later. Firstly, today's cricket. The West Indies started their innings in Antigua today requiring 323 to beat Australia. It had rained overnight and the moisture in the air led to speculation that the ball would swing pretty much from the start. Thinking of Shaun Tait's successful inswingers against the South Africans on Saturday made us think that the West Indian batsmen might be in trouble.
And so it happened. McGrath and Tait got movement. Chanderpaul, Gayle, and Samuels were all out with only 20 runs on the board. Somehow that took them ten overs. (Part of the somehow was tight fielding and bowling from Australia, of course). Sarwan and Lara dug in, but the run rate required was fairly quickly qpproaching ten an over. The strategy seemed to be to stick in until about the 35th over, and then hope that Lara could find a really purple patch. It really would have had to have been something to even match Hayden's purple patch of the previous day, and it was always a really long shot. Lara stayed in, but lost Sarwan and Bravo along the way. At 5/132 in the 33rd over, Lara understood it was time, and went after Brad Hogg, in particular hitting a big six over long off. It was crunch time.
However, Hogg was as canny as always, and bowled an accurate ball with plenty of air in the next over, that hit the inside of Lara's pad right in front as he was trying to sweep. Lara was out LBW. For all practical purposes that was it. Hogg did almost exactly the same thing to Smith an over later - he was hit for six and then immediately bowled a good one and took the wicket, again lbw. Hogg is so good in these situations.
At that point the West Indians did not know whether to defend of attack pointlessly, and despite a solid 52 from wicket keeper Ramdin, they surrended the rest of their wickets fairly feebly to be all out for 219 off 45.3 overs. Australia won by an extremely convinving 103 runs. There is not much to say. The West Indies were never really in it. They were not impressive. Right now they do not look like making much of a challenge for the tournament. Thanks to scheduling and the rain delay, tomorrow will be the third day in a row that they have to play. They really need a win against New Zealand to get some confidence back.
Australia on the other hand were very impressive. Tait and Hogg bowled well again, Australia's fielding was good, and the batting was great yesterday. Hayden's batting was awesome. Australians were not certain whether to play him in this tournament, but we are now glad they did. Symonds needs still to spend more time in the middle - I might be tempted to bat him at three or four in one of the next games to give him a little time to get his eye in. Hussey similarly could use some runs, but it is probably to early to yet say he is out of form. The truth though is that Australia's batting is spectacular, and the bowling and feeling is better than I expected, and much better than I feared it might be.
In the other game, I was thinking positive things about Sri Lanka's chances, but they did not start well. Tharanga, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and went, and it was 5/98 off 24.3 overs. It was possible that they could have lost their remaining wickets and really suffered embarrassment, but Dilshan and Arnold both scored 50s, and took Sri Lanka to 5/195 off 45.5 overs. At that point, Sri Lanka should have got the score to about 230, which in tricky conditions would have been reasonable. However, Sri Lanka played the last five overs extremely badly. Dilshan and Arnold both got out attempting to push the run rate. This can happen, but the players who come in then have a responsibility to not waste the good work. That means under no circumstances get all out, and keep the scoreboard ticking over. Instead the remaining Sri Lankans attempted to do things like the first ball they faced for six, and thus get caught in the outfield first ball. Scoring three singles and then attempting to hit a six would have been much smarter, but there was none of this. Sri Lanka were all out after 49.3 overs for 209, having scored little more than ten runs in the last four overs. It was a waste of a good recovery, and at that point I was disappointed - Sri Lanka do not appear to be as canny a side as I thought.
South Africa lost de Villers in the first over, but after that Smith, Kallis, and then Gibbs appeared to be cruising to the target. South Africa took the score to 2/160 off 32 overs. At that point, I was talking on the phone to Brian Micklethwait. As we spoke, Muralitharan took two wickets in two balls to reduce the score to 4/160. He didn't complete the hat trick, and Brian and I both thought that it didn't matter and South Africa would win still win easily. Slightly prophetically I said that it would require something remarkable, like "Muralitharan now taking a hat trick" (in addition to those wickets) for Sri Lanka to win.
It didn't initially appear to happen. Kemp got out a little later to take it to 5/182, but there was plenty of time and it still looked easy enough. However, Malinga was bowling. Malinga is a wonderful bowler to watch when on his day. He has a Jeff Thomson like slingshot action, and although he ocasionally sprays it around, he is very fast and very hard to play when on his game.
However, at 5/106 with four needed to win, this did not seem to matter. Malinga removed both Kallis and Hall to really good fast yorkers with the last two balls of the 45th over. This was impressive, but the interest was still really whether the game would finish in the 46th over to deny him the chance to go for his hat trick in the 47th. It didn't, and Kallis faced in on the hat trick ball. Kallis went for a square drive, nicked it and was caught behind. That hat trick was taken, but there were only three runs needed and two wickets and three overs to go. This probably the moment when the South Africans got nervous. Malinga, amazingly, bowled the next ball This was yet another screaming yorker and Ntini was bowled first ball. Malinga had taken the first double hat trick in the history of international cricket.
South Africa could suddenly lose it. It still required another wicket though. If the South Africans could avoid this, then they would get the runs and win. Malinga had to take another wicket. He almost did, his next ball just missing the stumps. I am so sorry he didn't do it, because a triple hat trick to win a match from an impossible position would have been one of the great moments in one day cricket. Langevelt (who, I think, has one of the best names in world cricket) survived the over, and he and Peterson got the runs and got South Africa home. For some stupid reason (well, for taking 5/39) Langevelt was given the man of the match award. Sometimes it should be given to a player from the losing side, and this actually was one of those times. This game will be remembered for Malinga's double hat trick and his bowling, and it should have been given to him
Still, South Africa won by one wicket with ten balls to spare. In truth, South Africa will take more from this game from Sri Lanka. South Africa were on top for the whole game except for five minutes at the end. Their bowling was good, and their top order was pretty good too. Sri Lanka did not look well organised when batting or bowling. The fact that they got back into it speaks well of them, and having a fine bowler like Malinga in form is good, but their canniness and ability to graft a win looks worse after today than it did before.
In truth though, both sides showed weakness. As these are the second and third favourites in the tournament and I am an Australian, I thought it was a very positive day.
Firstly, a piece of cricketing terminology. A "hat trick" is well known. This is when a bowler takes three wickets with three consecutive balls. These seem to be one in a career things in test criket for great bowlers. Shane Warne took one in test cricket. Glenn McGrath took one in test cricket. In one day international cricket they are a little more common as towards the end of the innings batsmen are more concerned with scoring runs than not getting out. However, they are still considered quite rare ans special when they happen.
A less well known piece of terminology is a "double hat trick". A first thought is that this might mean six wickets from six balls, but in fact it means four wickets from four consecutive balls. The "double" comes from the fact that four wickets in four balls contains two hat tricks, one with the first, second, and third balls, and one with the second, third, and fourth balls. As of this morning, nobody had ever taken a double hat trick in international cricket, although a very small number had happened in first class cricket.
But, back to that later. Firstly, today's cricket. The West Indies started their innings in Antigua today requiring 323 to beat Australia. It had rained overnight and the moisture in the air led to speculation that the ball would swing pretty much from the start. Thinking of Shaun Tait's successful inswingers against the South Africans on Saturday made us think that the West Indian batsmen might be in trouble.
And so it happened. McGrath and Tait got movement. Chanderpaul, Gayle, and Samuels were all out with only 20 runs on the board. Somehow that took them ten overs. (Part of the somehow was tight fielding and bowling from Australia, of course). Sarwan and Lara dug in, but the run rate required was fairly quickly qpproaching ten an over. The strategy seemed to be to stick in until about the 35th over, and then hope that Lara could find a really purple patch. It really would have had to have been something to even match Hayden's purple patch of the previous day, and it was always a really long shot. Lara stayed in, but lost Sarwan and Bravo along the way. At 5/132 in the 33rd over, Lara understood it was time, and went after Brad Hogg, in particular hitting a big six over long off. It was crunch time.
However, Hogg was as canny as always, and bowled an accurate ball with plenty of air in the next over, that hit the inside of Lara's pad right in front as he was trying to sweep. Lara was out LBW. For all practical purposes that was it. Hogg did almost exactly the same thing to Smith an over later - he was hit for six and then immediately bowled a good one and took the wicket, again lbw. Hogg is so good in these situations.
At that point the West Indians did not know whether to defend of attack pointlessly, and despite a solid 52 from wicket keeper Ramdin, they surrended the rest of their wickets fairly feebly to be all out for 219 off 45.3 overs. Australia won by an extremely convinving 103 runs. There is not much to say. The West Indies were never really in it. They were not impressive. Right now they do not look like making much of a challenge for the tournament. Thanks to scheduling and the rain delay, tomorrow will be the third day in a row that they have to play. They really need a win against New Zealand to get some confidence back.
Australia on the other hand were very impressive. Tait and Hogg bowled well again, Australia's fielding was good, and the batting was great yesterday. Hayden's batting was awesome. Australians were not certain whether to play him in this tournament, but we are now glad they did. Symonds needs still to spend more time in the middle - I might be tempted to bat him at three or four in one of the next games to give him a little time to get his eye in. Hussey similarly could use some runs, but it is probably to early to yet say he is out of form. The truth though is that Australia's batting is spectacular, and the bowling and feeling is better than I expected, and much better than I feared it might be.
In the other game, I was thinking positive things about Sri Lanka's chances, but they did not start well. Tharanga, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and went, and it was 5/98 off 24.3 overs. It was possible that they could have lost their remaining wickets and really suffered embarrassment, but Dilshan and Arnold both scored 50s, and took Sri Lanka to 5/195 off 45.5 overs. At that point, Sri Lanka should have got the score to about 230, which in tricky conditions would have been reasonable. However, Sri Lanka played the last five overs extremely badly. Dilshan and Arnold both got out attempting to push the run rate. This can happen, but the players who come in then have a responsibility to not waste the good work. That means under no circumstances get all out, and keep the scoreboard ticking over. Instead the remaining Sri Lankans attempted to do things like the first ball they faced for six, and thus get caught in the outfield first ball. Scoring three singles and then attempting to hit a six would have been much smarter, but there was none of this. Sri Lanka were all out after 49.3 overs for 209, having scored little more than ten runs in the last four overs. It was a waste of a good recovery, and at that point I was disappointed - Sri Lanka do not appear to be as canny a side as I thought.
South Africa lost de Villers in the first over, but after that Smith, Kallis, and then Gibbs appeared to be cruising to the target. South Africa took the score to 2/160 off 32 overs. At that point, I was talking on the phone to Brian Micklethwait. As we spoke, Muralitharan took two wickets in two balls to reduce the score to 4/160. He didn't complete the hat trick, and Brian and I both thought that it didn't matter and South Africa would win still win easily. Slightly prophetically I said that it would require something remarkable, like "Muralitharan now taking a hat trick" (in addition to those wickets) for Sri Lanka to win.
It didn't initially appear to happen. Kemp got out a little later to take it to 5/182, but there was plenty of time and it still looked easy enough. However, Malinga was bowling. Malinga is a wonderful bowler to watch when on his day. He has a Jeff Thomson like slingshot action, and although he ocasionally sprays it around, he is very fast and very hard to play when on his game.
However, at 5/106 with four needed to win, this did not seem to matter. Malinga removed both Kallis and Hall to really good fast yorkers with the last two balls of the 45th over. This was impressive, but the interest was still really whether the game would finish in the 46th over to deny him the chance to go for his hat trick in the 47th. It didn't, and Kallis faced in on the hat trick ball. Kallis went for a square drive, nicked it and was caught behind. That hat trick was taken, but there were only three runs needed and two wickets and three overs to go. This probably the moment when the South Africans got nervous. Malinga, amazingly, bowled the next ball This was yet another screaming yorker and Ntini was bowled first ball. Malinga had taken the first double hat trick in the history of international cricket.
South Africa could suddenly lose it. It still required another wicket though. If the South Africans could avoid this, then they would get the runs and win. Malinga had to take another wicket. He almost did, his next ball just missing the stumps. I am so sorry he didn't do it, because a triple hat trick to win a match from an impossible position would have been one of the great moments in one day cricket. Langevelt (who, I think, has one of the best names in world cricket) survived the over, and he and Peterson got the runs and got South Africa home. For some stupid reason (well, for taking 5/39) Langevelt was given the man of the match award. Sometimes it should be given to a player from the losing side, and this actually was one of those times. This game will be remembered for Malinga's double hat trick and his bowling, and it should have been given to him
Still, South Africa won by one wicket with ten balls to spare. In truth, South Africa will take more from this game from Sri Lanka. South Africa were on top for the whole game except for five minutes at the end. Their bowling was good, and their top order was pretty good too. Sri Lanka did not look well organised when batting or bowling. The fact that they got back into it speaks well of them, and having a fine bowler like Malinga in form is good, but their canniness and ability to graft a win looks worse after today than it did before.
In truth though, both sides showed weakness. As these are the second and third favourites in the tournament and I am an Australian, I thought it was a very positive day.
Michael Jennings Cricket quote of the day
Definitely no one will be going for autographs any more.
-Bangladesh cricket captain Habibal Bashar displays a new level of toughness about his country's cricket as they try to shake the 'minnow' tag.
Definitely no one will be going for autographs any more.
-Bangladesh cricket captain Habibal Bashar displays a new level of toughness about his country's cricket as they try to shake the 'minnow' tag.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The rain in Antigua ruins my evening
As I thought might happen this morning, the winner of the toss in the game between the West Indies and Australia did indeed choose to send the opposition in. It may have been that Brian Lara wanted to see how the pitch behaved for someone else before his side attempted to bat on it, or it may just have been that he thought that Australia have a weakness defening targets, but in any event Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden found thmeselves batting at 2.30pm this afternoon London time, whatever the time may have been in Antigua. The batsmen got off to a middling start: Gilchrist got and edge and was out cheaply, and Ponting was okay (although still perhaps a little below his best) before being brilliantly run out by Ramnaresh Sarwan for 35. Clarke looked okay for 41, and Symonds and Hussey didn't do that much, being out for 9 and 13 respectively. Hussey hasn't really found form yet in this tournament, and Symonds is recovering from an injury. Both of them could do with some time in the middle.
However, Hayden stayed in, and accumulated runs. He wasn't really quick about it, but was not especially slow either. Australia seemed headed for about 300 - with the possibility of more if someone got hitting - until about the 42 over mark. At that point Hayden really got his eye in, hitting two sixes and a four during the 45th over, and two fours and a six off the 46th. At that point Australia had 5/284 with four overs to go, and Hayden was 152 not out. If Hayden could follow up those two overs with four more in which he kept the strike to end the innings, Australia would be around 360 at the end, and Hayden would be close to one of the holy grails of cricket - the first double century in one day international cricket. It would be in a serious match against serious opposition in the World Cup, and on a reasonably large ground. A 200 will be scored by somebody eventually, and a circumstance like this would be good for it.
Unfortunately, it then started raining. The players went off. The game was not shortened, but it was about 20 minutes before the players came back on again. Unfortunately Hayden's timing was not quite what it was before he went off. He cut the first ball for four, whereas before the break he would have hit it for six. The first ball of the next over he tried to hit for six over long off. Again, before he went off he would have succeeded, but trying to hit the ball for six over long off is a risky shot when there is a player fielding at long off, and Hayden was caught by Samuels off Bravo. Make no mistake, it was a really outstanding innings from Hayden, but it wasn't far from being an innings of legend, so the rain break was a shame.
Watson again demonstrated the ability to play shots bother powerful and clever in the final stages, and although there were no more sixes he scored a number of fours. Australia ended up with 6/322 off 50 overs. In truth this was an excellent score, although I think the rain delay actually cost them twenty to forty runs.
And that was it for the day. The rain fell again, and although there were various attempts to get the West Indian innings started, none of them succeeded. At one point it looked like they would just get on the field in time, and the chase would be reduced to a frantic 20 over scramble. (WestIndies would have needed 163 from 20 overs).
As it happens, the game is still a full 50 over match, and the West Indies need 323 off 50 overs tomorrow to win the match. The pitch is good to bat on, but the ground is large and the boundaries are long. In my mind, the West Indies need something special from Brian Lara to win it. I don't think the other players are quite good enough. This all assumes that Australia's much tighter and improved bowling from the other night at least partly remains. I think it will. Australia's problems stemmed at least partly from selection errors and, mercifully, selection now seems pretty right.
In any event, come back to check the accuracy of my predictions tomorrow, as well as South Africa versus Sri Lanka in Guyana. Are Sri Lanka as I think they might be? Assuming there is no more rain, we will have a better idea by this time tomorrow.
As I thought might happen this morning, the winner of the toss in the game between the West Indies and Australia did indeed choose to send the opposition in. It may have been that Brian Lara wanted to see how the pitch behaved for someone else before his side attempted to bat on it, or it may just have been that he thought that Australia have a weakness defening targets, but in any event Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden found thmeselves batting at 2.30pm this afternoon London time, whatever the time may have been in Antigua. The batsmen got off to a middling start: Gilchrist got and edge and was out cheaply, and Ponting was okay (although still perhaps a little below his best) before being brilliantly run out by Ramnaresh Sarwan for 35. Clarke looked okay for 41, and Symonds and Hussey didn't do that much, being out for 9 and 13 respectively. Hussey hasn't really found form yet in this tournament, and Symonds is recovering from an injury. Both of them could do with some time in the middle.
However, Hayden stayed in, and accumulated runs. He wasn't really quick about it, but was not especially slow either. Australia seemed headed for about 300 - with the possibility of more if someone got hitting - until about the 42 over mark. At that point Hayden really got his eye in, hitting two sixes and a four during the 45th over, and two fours and a six off the 46th. At that point Australia had 5/284 with four overs to go, and Hayden was 152 not out. If Hayden could follow up those two overs with four more in which he kept the strike to end the innings, Australia would be around 360 at the end, and Hayden would be close to one of the holy grails of cricket - the first double century in one day international cricket. It would be in a serious match against serious opposition in the World Cup, and on a reasonably large ground. A 200 will be scored by somebody eventually, and a circumstance like this would be good for it.
Unfortunately, it then started raining. The players went off. The game was not shortened, but it was about 20 minutes before the players came back on again. Unfortunately Hayden's timing was not quite what it was before he went off. He cut the first ball for four, whereas before the break he would have hit it for six. The first ball of the next over he tried to hit for six over long off. Again, before he went off he would have succeeded, but trying to hit the ball for six over long off is a risky shot when there is a player fielding at long off, and Hayden was caught by Samuels off Bravo. Make no mistake, it was a really outstanding innings from Hayden, but it wasn't far from being an innings of legend, so the rain break was a shame.
Watson again demonstrated the ability to play shots bother powerful and clever in the final stages, and although there were no more sixes he scored a number of fours. Australia ended up with 6/322 off 50 overs. In truth this was an excellent score, although I think the rain delay actually cost them twenty to forty runs.
And that was it for the day. The rain fell again, and although there were various attempts to get the West Indian innings started, none of them succeeded. At one point it looked like they would just get on the field in time, and the chase would be reduced to a frantic 20 over scramble. (WestIndies would have needed 163 from 20 overs).
As it happens, the game is still a full 50 over match, and the West Indies need 323 off 50 overs tomorrow to win the match. The pitch is good to bat on, but the ground is large and the boundaries are long. In my mind, the West Indies need something special from Brian Lara to win it. I don't think the other players are quite good enough. This all assumes that Australia's much tighter and improved bowling from the other night at least partly remains. I think it will. Australia's problems stemmed at least partly from selection errors and, mercifully, selection now seems pretty right.
In any event, come back to check the accuracy of my predictions tomorrow, as well as South Africa versus Sri Lanka in Guyana. Are Sri Lanka as I think they might be? Assuming there is no more rain, we will have a better idea by this time tomorrow.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Super Eight begins with three big games
Tomorrow, Australia takes on the West Indies in Antigua. Australia come fresh off their fine win against South Africa, and will be on a high. West Indies have perhaps been less impressive in the tournament so far, but they won all three games in the first round and carried two points over into the Super Eight, so they did none the less do everything that was asked of them. I think the cricketing world would love a home win in this tournament, and I wouldn't mind it myself. However, I none the less do not want them to beat us. Similarly, while I would like to see Brian Lara batting at his best in the tournament, I would once again prefer he did it against South Africa, or perhaps England. However, if he did it against us, I wouldn't mind too much. There are few things in cricket that are finer to watch than Brian Lara at his best.
I do not know what the pitch in Antigua is going to be like, and I do not know what a good score is going to be. It is possible that Ponting does not really know either. Threfore I think it might be a game in which the captain who wins the toss might elect to bat second. None the less, both sides have stronger batting than bowling, so the side that does bat first may well have a chance to score a big total. It will be interesting to see what happens.
On Wednesday, South Africa take on Sri Lanka in Guyana. South Africa were steadily firming second favouries until their loss to Australia on Saturday, when they eased a bit. Sri Lanka are now given shorter odds than South Africa, and have looked hungry and disciplined in the tournament so far. We shall see if South Africa can fight back, but my money is on Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka can win this one, South Africa will have to then win four out of five to make the semi-finals, so it is looking like they will need to concentrate.
On Thursday, West Indies take on New Zealand, again in Antigua. New Zealand unfortunately will be missing Lou Vincent, who is out of the tournament after breaking his wrist in training, which is very bad luck for him and New Zealand. (His tournament so far was inconsistent - two ducks and a century. I am sure he would have liked to have had a chance to decide on the field whether he was having a good or bad tournament). Shane Bond versus Brian Lara could be an interesting duel. West Indies have the power to overwhelm New Zealand, but New Zealand have the niggling players and tactical skills to take advantage of any ill discipline or casual cricket on the part of the West Indies. Should be an interesting game.
If the West Indies lose both games, I think the case that they were flattered by winning their group and carrying points over into the Super Eight would be a strong one. If they can win at least one of the two games, things will be going well for them.
Tomorrow, Australia takes on the West Indies in Antigua. Australia come fresh off their fine win against South Africa, and will be on a high. West Indies have perhaps been less impressive in the tournament so far, but they won all three games in the first round and carried two points over into the Super Eight, so they did none the less do everything that was asked of them. I think the cricketing world would love a home win in this tournament, and I wouldn't mind it myself. However, I none the less do not want them to beat us. Similarly, while I would like to see Brian Lara batting at his best in the tournament, I would once again prefer he did it against South Africa, or perhaps England. However, if he did it against us, I wouldn't mind too much. There are few things in cricket that are finer to watch than Brian Lara at his best.
I do not know what the pitch in Antigua is going to be like, and I do not know what a good score is going to be. It is possible that Ponting does not really know either. Threfore I think it might be a game in which the captain who wins the toss might elect to bat second. None the less, both sides have stronger batting than bowling, so the side that does bat first may well have a chance to score a big total. It will be interesting to see what happens.
On Wednesday, South Africa take on Sri Lanka in Guyana. South Africa were steadily firming second favouries until their loss to Australia on Saturday, when they eased a bit. Sri Lanka are now given shorter odds than South Africa, and have looked hungry and disciplined in the tournament so far. We shall see if South Africa can fight back, but my money is on Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka can win this one, South Africa will have to then win four out of five to make the semi-finals, so it is looking like they will need to concentrate.
On Thursday, West Indies take on New Zealand, again in Antigua. New Zealand unfortunately will be missing Lou Vincent, who is out of the tournament after breaking his wrist in training, which is very bad luck for him and New Zealand. (His tournament so far was inconsistent - two ducks and a century. I am sure he would have liked to have had a chance to decide on the field whether he was having a good or bad tournament). Shane Bond versus Brian Lara could be an interesting duel. West Indies have the power to overwhelm New Zealand, but New Zealand have the niggling players and tactical skills to take advantage of any ill discipline or casual cricket on the part of the West Indies. Should be an interesting game.
If the West Indies lose both games, I think the case that they were flattered by winning their group and carrying points over into the Super Eight would be a strong one. If they can win at least one of the two games, things will be going well for them.
Making the pitch
One of the interesting factors in the group phases was the differences in the pitch conditions in the four venues that games have been played at so far. And as you would expect, the games have reflected those conditions.
Basically you can divide the groups into two- in Jamaica, the Sabina Park wicket was green and seamy, and offered plenty to the bowlers early on. The Queens Park Oval in Trinidad did not offer quite so much, but the prevailing weather conditions conspired to give bowlers plenty of assistance.
Whereas at St. Lucia and especially St. Kitts, there was little to assist the bowlers, just a flat pitch and short boundaries.
This was reflected in the results; there were big upsets in Jamaica, where Ireland were able to scrounge a tie against Zimbabwe, and to beat Pakistan. Meanwhile, Bangladesh were able to bowl wonderfully well in Trinidad to knock over a lazy Indian team, which has seen them eliminated from the tournament.
But in the batting friendly conditions of St. Lucia and St. Kitts, there has not been a sniff of an upset. The Test nations went through and the minnows were duly hammered.
The ICC and ground authorities world-wide are deluded into thinking that because crowds want to see lots of boundaries that flat tracks are the way to go. But what spectators really want to see are tight, exciting finishes, and you need helpful bowling tracks for that. Consider Australia vs South Africa the other day. South Africa were in the hunt for half of their innings, but once they lost a couple of wickets, they fell away and were beaten by 83 runs. In ODI terms, 83 runs is a fairly large margain. Had the match been played in fairer conditions, it might have gone right down to the wire.
But in the Super Eight phase, the matches move to Antigua and Guyana, and into brand new grounds. New grounds mean new pitches, which is good news, as new pitches are rarely batsmen friendly. I am hoping that we can still see some upsets in this stage of the tournament, and lots of close results ahead.
One of the interesting factors in the group phases was the differences in the pitch conditions in the four venues that games have been played at so far. And as you would expect, the games have reflected those conditions.
Basically you can divide the groups into two- in Jamaica, the Sabina Park wicket was green and seamy, and offered plenty to the bowlers early on. The Queens Park Oval in Trinidad did not offer quite so much, but the prevailing weather conditions conspired to give bowlers plenty of assistance.
Whereas at St. Lucia and especially St. Kitts, there was little to assist the bowlers, just a flat pitch and short boundaries.
This was reflected in the results; there were big upsets in Jamaica, where Ireland were able to scrounge a tie against Zimbabwe, and to beat Pakistan. Meanwhile, Bangladesh were able to bowl wonderfully well in Trinidad to knock over a lazy Indian team, which has seen them eliminated from the tournament.
But in the batting friendly conditions of St. Lucia and St. Kitts, there has not been a sniff of an upset. The Test nations went through and the minnows were duly hammered.
The ICC and ground authorities world-wide are deluded into thinking that because crowds want to see lots of boundaries that flat tracks are the way to go. But what spectators really want to see are tight, exciting finishes, and you need helpful bowling tracks for that. Consider Australia vs South Africa the other day. South Africa were in the hunt for half of their innings, but once they lost a couple of wickets, they fell away and were beaten by 83 runs. In ODI terms, 83 runs is a fairly large margain. Had the match been played in fairer conditions, it might have gone right down to the wire.
But in the Super Eight phase, the matches move to Antigua and Guyana, and into brand new grounds. New grounds mean new pitches, which is good news, as new pitches are rarely batsmen friendly. I am hoping that we can still see some upsets in this stage of the tournament, and lots of close results ahead.
England poor – Flintoff – empty seats – South Africa lose momentum - lots of TV sets – England poor at soccer too
This is not Michael or Scott, this is Brian Micklethwait, guest posting at Michael's about the cricket, from a non-Oz, London point of view.
I've been sitting in my kitchen in London, keeping track of the scores on Ceefax (never mind) during the day if I'm at home, and then watching and hard discing the highlights on BBC1 TV, at around midnight. Most of the latest show was padding, a lot of repetitious stuff about Scotland and Ireland and all those sixes that Herschelle Gibbs hit off that Dutch guy, again, with a lot of archive video of Sobers, again. And in among that, there was the Bangladesh Bermuda game that Michael has already described. There was hardly anything about India, which is the real story of this game. Couldn't we have had video of agonised Indians in Mumbai, watching appalled as the Bermudans dropped the catches that would have made it Bangladesh four or five down and wobbly, instead of three and cruising?
So anyway, aside from the Bob Woolmer murder mystery and resulting controversy (apart from that Mrs Lincoln ...?) what else do I notice about this Cricket World Cup?
First things first. England look very ropey, with the recent ODI success against Australia in Australia looking more and more of an Australian aberration as the days go by. But, in ODI knock out tournaments, good sides can look very good, right up to the bit where they get knocked out by a side that looked rather poor until then. That, after all, is what happened to Australia in Australia. I hope England can do well, but to do well they will have to do much better.
I hated all the grovelling that Flintoff had to do, after going out on a bender. Okay it was a bit stupid and all that, but being a sportsman is like being a sort of paid child, and I expect childishness from these people, some of them anyway. Sober citizens like Michael Vaughan, who play cricket the way Chartered Accountants do whatever it is they do to accounts, are sober citizens off the field also and to go to bed sober, at their proper bedtime. But Flintoff? He's a boy-man if ever there was one, like Ian Botham before him. And now he's in the West Indies. Of course he would drag some of his friends out with him to try some of the local tipples at the first possible opportunity, and then want to have a go on a bicycle boat.
As so often with World Cups of all kinds, a TV viewer like me can't help notice how few of the locals are bothering to turn up to watch the games. Given how important TV is in all this, can't the TV people buy up the spare tickets and give them away, preferably to young and pretty people, maybe even paying them or otherwise bribing them to show up and fill all those swathes of empty plastic seats? Maybe the locals have already bought all tickets, but then they only show up towards the end, after work, if it looks like it's a good game.
The Australia South Africa (oops wrong link) game was the first one to really get my attention. As Michael has already written here, he witnessed the conclusion of that game in a South African London bar. I was with him there for a while, just when the South African innings was fatally losing its momentum. This showed, I think, how important it is for an ODI batting side, once it is going well, to go on going well. A couple of wickets and everything can change in a blink. From being set fair to get three hundred, they can suddenly be struggling to get over two hundred. Or in this case they can be half way to nearly four hundred with only one wicket down, and still lose by a hundred.
I don't usually watch sport in bars, and I was struck by the sheer number of TV sets there were in this one, even little ones at each of the little tables in the corridor where we watched it, not just big screens in the big bar areas. Cheap flatscreen TVs is what this is all about. Remember those how the first pub TVs used to lean precariously out into the room, to accommodate the bulges behind them. Those days are long gone.
Most of sport-gawping London's attention on Saturday night seemed to be on the Israel England soccer game, which I ignored, sensing tedium and disappointment. I was not wrong. (England are not the same without Beckham, a greatly underrated individual in my opinion.) Before we watched the South Africa game, Michael and I had tried another place where they were showing England versus Kenya, the end of the Kenya innings. But then they switched to the soccer. I should have known, what with the brain-dead chanting that fat blokes in T-shirts had already started doing: Ing! Ger! Land! Ing! Ger! Land! I hate that.
This is not Michael or Scott, this is Brian Micklethwait, guest posting at Michael's about the cricket, from a non-Oz, London point of view.
I've been sitting in my kitchen in London, keeping track of the scores on Ceefax (never mind) during the day if I'm at home, and then watching and hard discing the highlights on BBC1 TV, at around midnight. Most of the latest show was padding, a lot of repetitious stuff about Scotland and Ireland and all those sixes that Herschelle Gibbs hit off that Dutch guy, again, with a lot of archive video of Sobers, again. And in among that, there was the Bangladesh Bermuda game that Michael has already described. There was hardly anything about India, which is the real story of this game. Couldn't we have had video of agonised Indians in Mumbai, watching appalled as the Bermudans dropped the catches that would have made it Bangladesh four or five down and wobbly, instead of three and cruising?
So anyway, aside from the Bob Woolmer murder mystery and resulting controversy (apart from that Mrs Lincoln ...?) what else do I notice about this Cricket World Cup?
First things first. England look very ropey, with the recent ODI success against Australia in Australia looking more and more of an Australian aberration as the days go by. But, in ODI knock out tournaments, good sides can look very good, right up to the bit where they get knocked out by a side that looked rather poor until then. That, after all, is what happened to Australia in Australia. I hope England can do well, but to do well they will have to do much better.
I hated all the grovelling that Flintoff had to do, after going out on a bender. Okay it was a bit stupid and all that, but being a sportsman is like being a sort of paid child, and I expect childishness from these people, some of them anyway. Sober citizens like Michael Vaughan, who play cricket the way Chartered Accountants do whatever it is they do to accounts, are sober citizens off the field also and to go to bed sober, at their proper bedtime. But Flintoff? He's a boy-man if ever there was one, like Ian Botham before him. And now he's in the West Indies. Of course he would drag some of his friends out with him to try some of the local tipples at the first possible opportunity, and then want to have a go on a bicycle boat.
As so often with World Cups of all kinds, a TV viewer like me can't help notice how few of the locals are bothering to turn up to watch the games. Given how important TV is in all this, can't the TV people buy up the spare tickets and give them away, preferably to young and pretty people, maybe even paying them or otherwise bribing them to show up and fill all those swathes of empty plastic seats? Maybe the locals have already bought all tickets, but then they only show up towards the end, after work, if it looks like it's a good game.
The Australia South Africa (oops wrong link) game was the first one to really get my attention. As Michael has already written here, he witnessed the conclusion of that game in a South African London bar. I was with him there for a while, just when the South African innings was fatally losing its momentum. This showed, I think, how important it is for an ODI batting side, once it is going well, to go on going well. A couple of wickets and everything can change in a blink. From being set fair to get three hundred, they can suddenly be struggling to get over two hundred. Or in this case they can be half way to nearly four hundred with only one wicket down, and still lose by a hundred.
I don't usually watch sport in bars, and I was struck by the sheer number of TV sets there were in this one, even little ones at each of the little tables in the corridor where we watched it, not just big screens in the big bar areas. Cheap flatscreen TVs is what this is all about. Remember those how the first pub TVs used to lean precariously out into the room, to accommodate the bulges behind them. Those days are long gone.
Most of sport-gawping London's attention on Saturday night seemed to be on the Israel England soccer game, which I ignored, sensing tedium and disappointment. I was not wrong. (England are not the same without Beckham, a greatly underrated individual in my opinion.) Before we watched the South Africa game, Michael and I had tried another place where they were showing England versus Kenya, the end of the Kenya innings. But then they switched to the soccer. I should have known, what with the brain-dead chanting that fat blokes in T-shirts had already started doing: Ing! Ger! Land! Ing! Ger! Land! I hate that.
Interesting
Just looking at the readership stats, I see I have a reader in Saint George Basseterre, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis. I would like to hope that Ricky Ponting is a regular reader, but I suspect he probably isn't. Anyway, hello, whoever you are. If you got to see Australia v South Africa live, I am very jealous.
Just looking at the readership stats, I see I have a reader in Saint George Basseterre, Basseterre, Saint Kitts and Nevis. I would like to hope that Ricky Ponting is a regular reader, but I suspect he probably isn't. Anyway, hello, whoever you are. If you got to see Australia v South Africa live, I am very jealous.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)