We all knew it, didn’t we? Inside our hearts we knew that Sri Lanka looked a much better outfit than the Indians. We just hoped that they would pick themselves up for this so important match. But, pressure got to the Indians. No devils in the pitch. In fact, India had the better of the batting conditions. At lunch, I expected India to chase successfully, ridiculed what Tony Greig had to say about India’s chances.
Talking about him, I was amused to see how he quoted some past results to substantiate his argument that India would find it difficult to chase down the target. Notes in hand, with the zeal of an MBA-aspirant trying to make his point in a group discussion, he argued that only three times in the past has any team managed to score above 250 on that ground while chasing. As if, to suggest that scores of 250 were very difficult to achieve batting second on that wicket. However, a closer look at the table shown on the screen revealed that all the three 260 plus scores were reached within the 44th over. A very healthy run rate of just under six an over. Of the rest of the seven scores, only once did the chasing team batted for the full quota of overs. A closer look at the statistics would have revealed that teams did not reach 250-plus scores because more often than not they didn’t have to. Now, Sri Lanka might be his favourite team, and he may be a great commentator, but that does not mean he can walk away with such nonsensical arguments. It was actually very reassuring to see that table at that point of time. I was smiling.
Not for long though. Unfortunately, he was right. At least his prediction was, if not the argument. India made rough weather of the achievable target yet again. Any other team probably would have achieved it. In spite of Muralitharan. Any other team which wanted to win.
But not the Indian team, which didn’t want to lose. India gave in to the fear of losing. Lose, they can’t. Because, back home, crores of fans expect them to win. Cricket, sadly, is a religion in India. And Gods are never expected to fail, are they? Defeats such as these reveal the human side of them. They, the Gods, do come off their high pedestals now and then.
In my beloved country, the average Joe, or Joydeep, if I may, sees his personal triumph in the team’s victory. An Indian win makes him smile, makes him forget that his career is heading nowhere, that he has not achieved his monthly sales target, that his boss shouted at him unnecessarily in the morning, that his wife chided him for forgetting to pick up some odd thing from the supermarket. Rahul Dravid & Co. will deal with all these worries for him. Wait till the match starts.
These eleven men have too much to handle, too many Joydeeps to satisfy. And to their credit, they don’t want to disappoint. That, unfortunately, more often than not, is their undoing. A Yuvraj, who majestically pummeled Sri Lanka into submission only a month ago, loses his mind and scurries to lose his wicket. This is what pressure of expectations does to the Indian players. Sadly, that is not going to change till we have other sports at which Indians are world class. More Gods to share the load. More Gods, till their abundance make them not so godly. For cricket is arguably the only sport at which India has consistently performed, well, relatively speaking. We have chess. We have tennis, but victories are too few and far between. And we almost always have to share them with some other country.
Yesterday was simply not their day. The fact that they tried is enough for me, they did, believe me. I could see that in the woebegone looks of Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag as the last Indian wicket fell. They didn’t want to lose. I am sure they must be feeling miserable enough. Let us not add to their misery by venting our misplaced frustrations. The average Joydeep will have to find a way to deal with his problems himself for some time. Only for some time though, for the Gods will find their way back to their pedestals sooner or later. And Joydeeps will smile again as they see Yuvraj smash their sorrows over the square leg boundary for six.
This Joydeep will wait for that day. For now, I just wish I could hug Dravid and say “better luck next time buddy”.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Inopportune giant-killing
So Pakistan are out of this World Cup. They will have to wait another four years, before they can have the chance of breaking the jinx of losing to India in the premier tournament. Poor me. Poor You. We have been left to watch ridiculous encounters between Ireland and the other teams entering the not so super eight. Do we expect Ireland to win another game in this tournament? That is unlikely, very unlikely, unless Kenya make it through by catching England off-guard. I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen.
I would rather watch Kevin Pietersen bat than Thomas Odoyo. I want to watch and enjoy good cricket. No flash-in-the-pan upsets that push good teams out of the tournament. Let us leave those to tournaments and bilateral series, which are of lesser importance. Not in the World Cups. The stage is too big for the minnows to play spoil sport. You might disagree with me. No, I don’t have anything against upsets. But the losing teams must be given enough opportunity to make amends. Otherwise, we would be left with mediocre games to watch. Honestly, do you expect Ireland to beat Pakistan even once in the next ten matches they play against each other? Assuming, of course, they are not fixed. Does Ireland deserve to figure in the super eight? I don’t think so.
We can, from the comforts of our drawing room couches and office cubicles, ridicule players for not playing well, for misfielding, for missing run outs, for dropping dollies, for playing irresponsible shots at crucial junctures, for making the wrong decisions. But aren’t they humans? Every team has off-days. Days when over-confidence, lethargy or the pressure of the occasion gets the better of the team. Why, even the ever consistent Australia lost to Bangladesh. Yes, that was an inconsequential series. Australians would never have taken the game lightly given the importance of the tournament. Maybe, but, did we really want the Pakistanis and possibly the Indians to be kicked out of this World Cup unceremoniously, based on a day’s performance? I am sure more than half the interest in the event will be lost should India also exit the tournament. That is not what the ICC, or the sponsors of the game want.
Who benefits by these upsets, anyway? Certainly not the ICC. Definitely not cricket. Not even the minnow winning the game. Where is Kenya now as a cricketing nation? Out of the 15 ODIs played by Kenya against the test playing nations in four years after the 2003 World Cup, it has not managed to win even a single game. And it was one of the semi-finalists of that tournament, remember? And why only 15 games in a span of four years? Well, that is an entirely different issue, not relevant to the current argument. The point is, apart from spoiling what could have been an engrossing contest between India and Sri Lanka in the semi-finals, the 2003 World Cup upsets amounted to nothing. So will this Irish win against Pakistan, in all probabilities, be. An inconsequential upset, as far as the future of Irish cricket is concerned.
Bangladesh, I agree, are a much better lot than the ‘minnows’ of the game. Bangladesh have certainly improved as a team over the years. But, I would laugh at you if you said Bangladesh deserved to go into the super eight ahead of India. In my opinion, Bangladesh caught India napping. Why, Mortaza’s bowling notwithstanding, Tamim Iqbal’s flair notwithstanding, Bashar’s impudence not withstanding, India are more likely to be consistent with their performance in the super eight stage than Bangladesh. To be honest, Bangladesh did beat India fair and square, but it is unlikely that they will turn in such a performance in this World Cup again, now that the teams know what they are capable of.
The problem actually lies in the format of the tournament. The format itself makes the tournament susceptible to such upsets. And ICC has to have a league phase before the round-robin phase, just because there are too many teams playing in the tournament. One bad day can virtually relegate a good team out of the tournament in the league phase. We can’t have a round-robin of 16 teams. That would mean 120 matches in the round-robin stage itself. Almost half the year will be lost deciding the champions. Or, we have a format where each team meets the other two times before deciding the top two. That would mean 24 extra matches. The best option, in my view, would be to play lesser number of teams. Nine test playing nations, and the top three ICC Trophy division-1 teams. Twelve teams and 69 matches. Longer tournament, but definitely a fairer one. Where one upset doesn’t push a team out of the tournament. Where, greats like Sachin Tendulkar and Inzamam-ul-Haq are given the opportunity to bow out gracefully, with the satisfaction of having tried their best. The ICC owes them the opportunity. It is time ICC avoids such anti-climaxes in the World Cup for the good of the game.
This week, the cricketing world lost the opportunity to see a soporific Inzamam orchestrating a thrilling run chase with nonchalant ease. By this Saturday, we may have lost the opportunity of watching two veterans, Tendulkar and Mcgrath, battle it out in the middle. As a lover of the game, I hope they do get to go at each other’s jugular, for one last time. The victor does not matter, the battle does.
I would rather watch Kevin Pietersen bat than Thomas Odoyo. I want to watch and enjoy good cricket. No flash-in-the-pan upsets that push good teams out of the tournament. Let us leave those to tournaments and bilateral series, which are of lesser importance. Not in the World Cups. The stage is too big for the minnows to play spoil sport. You might disagree with me. No, I don’t have anything against upsets. But the losing teams must be given enough opportunity to make amends. Otherwise, we would be left with mediocre games to watch. Honestly, do you expect Ireland to beat Pakistan even once in the next ten matches they play against each other? Assuming, of course, they are not fixed. Does Ireland deserve to figure in the super eight? I don’t think so.
We can, from the comforts of our drawing room couches and office cubicles, ridicule players for not playing well, for misfielding, for missing run outs, for dropping dollies, for playing irresponsible shots at crucial junctures, for making the wrong decisions. But aren’t they humans? Every team has off-days. Days when over-confidence, lethargy or the pressure of the occasion gets the better of the team. Why, even the ever consistent Australia lost to Bangladesh. Yes, that was an inconsequential series. Australians would never have taken the game lightly given the importance of the tournament. Maybe, but, did we really want the Pakistanis and possibly the Indians to be kicked out of this World Cup unceremoniously, based on a day’s performance? I am sure more than half the interest in the event will be lost should India also exit the tournament. That is not what the ICC, or the sponsors of the game want.
Who benefits by these upsets, anyway? Certainly not the ICC. Definitely not cricket. Not even the minnow winning the game. Where is Kenya now as a cricketing nation? Out of the 15 ODIs played by Kenya against the test playing nations in four years after the 2003 World Cup, it has not managed to win even a single game. And it was one of the semi-finalists of that tournament, remember? And why only 15 games in a span of four years? Well, that is an entirely different issue, not relevant to the current argument. The point is, apart from spoiling what could have been an engrossing contest between India and Sri Lanka in the semi-finals, the 2003 World Cup upsets amounted to nothing. So will this Irish win against Pakistan, in all probabilities, be. An inconsequential upset, as far as the future of Irish cricket is concerned.
Bangladesh, I agree, are a much better lot than the ‘minnows’ of the game. Bangladesh have certainly improved as a team over the years. But, I would laugh at you if you said Bangladesh deserved to go into the super eight ahead of India. In my opinion, Bangladesh caught India napping. Why, Mortaza’s bowling notwithstanding, Tamim Iqbal’s flair notwithstanding, Bashar’s impudence not withstanding, India are more likely to be consistent with their performance in the super eight stage than Bangladesh. To be honest, Bangladesh did beat India fair and square, but it is unlikely that they will turn in such a performance in this World Cup again, now that the teams know what they are capable of.
The problem actually lies in the format of the tournament. The format itself makes the tournament susceptible to such upsets. And ICC has to have a league phase before the round-robin phase, just because there are too many teams playing in the tournament. One bad day can virtually relegate a good team out of the tournament in the league phase. We can’t have a round-robin of 16 teams. That would mean 120 matches in the round-robin stage itself. Almost half the year will be lost deciding the champions. Or, we have a format where each team meets the other two times before deciding the top two. That would mean 24 extra matches. The best option, in my view, would be to play lesser number of teams. Nine test playing nations, and the top three ICC Trophy division-1 teams. Twelve teams and 69 matches. Longer tournament, but definitely a fairer one. Where one upset doesn’t push a team out of the tournament. Where, greats like Sachin Tendulkar and Inzamam-ul-Haq are given the opportunity to bow out gracefully, with the satisfaction of having tried their best. The ICC owes them the opportunity. It is time ICC avoids such anti-climaxes in the World Cup for the good of the game.
This week, the cricketing world lost the opportunity to see a soporific Inzamam orchestrating a thrilling run chase with nonchalant ease. By this Saturday, we may have lost the opportunity of watching two veterans, Tendulkar and Mcgrath, battle it out in the middle. As a lover of the game, I hope they do get to go at each other’s jugular, for one last time. The victor does not matter, the battle does.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
My Maiden Post
My friends suggested that I should start writing blogs about cricket. Some, out of genuine belief in my so called passion for the game, and some out of not so benign intentions. One of them went so far that he created a blog page for me and also suggested what I should be writing on for a start. He said that I should ‘predict’ the chances of the teams winning the World Cup, as if it was the easiest and most logical thing to do!!! So with the intention of not disappointing him, I take his advice and set forth to write whatever balderdash my mind cares to churn out. After all in my beloved country, everybody is an ‘expert’ when it comes to cricket.
It is foolish to predict the outcome of any sport. Even ones that involve Roger Federer and Tiger Woods. But since the very purpose of this blog is to foresee the future, I will sit down to the task of doing so. I will, however, not be unrealistic enough to name THE team that emerges victorious from the tournament. Nobody can. Not in any sport. Definitely not in cricket. But I will name the teams which, according to me on current form and strength should make the final four.
This is probably the first world cup in which the 21-yard square has been talked about to such an extent.
With the first set of warm-up matches over, we have a fair indication of what we can expect from the West Indian pitches. Obviously, I am no expert but one Mr. Brian Charles Lara, expects them to be on the slower side. So I choose to go by whatever he says. Newly laid or not, expect them to play similar to how they did in the warm up games. Those 250ish strips, in which either you have to be a grafter of the ilk of a Dravid or a Kallis, or a blaster of the kind of a Symonds or a Dhoni to dominate the game.
In my view, this World Cup is going to be about specialist batsmen and slow/spin bowlers. Batsmen need to have patience, no hitting through the line, on the up, that is not going to work. On most of the pitches the ball is not going to come on to the bat well. Spinners are going to get some help from the pitch and slow bowlers are going to be difficult to get away with. So, which of the teams have resources that can match the requirement of the conditions?
India, probably never before in World Cups looked this good to reach the semis even before the start of the tournament. Rahul Dravid is going to play a crucial role if India has to reach the semis. The team is going to play around him. Probably he will end up scoring the most runs for India, if not in the whole tournament. Tendulkar likes to dominate bowlers, which he might not be able to do always in this tournament, especially against slow medium pacers. If he keeps his cool and doesn’t look to get on top by manufacturing shots, he will have another very successful campaign. India also has big-hitters coming down the line in Dhoni and possibly Sehwag. Although, I am not sure Sehwag has the temperament to keep his cool while chasing. He might be useful batting at 6 or7 in the first innings. India will have an edge over other teams in the bowling department. While Kumble and Harbhajan are proven performers, the part-time slow/spin bolwers in Sehwag, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Yuvraj will have a part to play. Ganguly should be bowled more in this tournament. He has lost a yard or two but can swing the ball, and is arguably a more disciplined seamer than Tendulkar. Batsmen are going to struggle getting him off the strip, provided he maintains decent line and length. Indian fielding will not be as bad as it has been projected to be. Let us wait and see. Good chances for India overall, but as we know, India can pull out loses from thin air.
Sri Lanka also looks a good unit. They have all the ingredients to last the distance. The main worry for them will be the form of Jayawardane, if he picks up the threads, the team will get the essential backbone. He will play the role of a Dravid for India or a Kallis for SA. Sangakara, Jayasuriya, Atapattu and Dilshan Tilakaratne make up an experienced batting line-up for Sri Lanka. Jayasuriya will have his task cut out as a bowler. He will have to bowl his full quota of 10 overs. Stump to stump, he will be difficult to get away, without the batsman taking risk. Sri Lanka would do well to have Malinga Bandara in the line-up. A bowler to watch for. Not many spinners have deceived Sachin Tendulkar in flight. Not even the man Bandara has modeled his bowling action on. Chaminda Vaas is a wily customer. He is going to trouble the batsmen with
economical bowling. Fielding was never an issue for the Lankans, so let us not waste time discussing that. Sri Lanka, with a few things tweaked here and there, look good enough to trouble the best.
West Indies has played some competitive cricket over the last year or so. Lara, Gayle, Marlon Samuels, Chanderpaul, Dwayne Bravo have all been among runs lately. Ramnaresh Sarwan has been a worry. But, he must be very keen to prove a point or two to the selectors. Bowling is the weaker link. WI doesn’t have a good spinner in the line-up. However, Gayle usually bowls a decent tight line and can fire in a surprise yorker or two, a la Afridi syle. Bradshaw and Bravo have very good slower deliveries which, as India found out in its last tour to the Caribbean, are very difficult to score off. But, Bradshaw’s form has not been so good of late. Collymore is also reasonably thrifty. A career economy of 4.31 in 77 ODIs is not bad, is it? Jerome Taylor is a useful bowler in my view. He should pick up a wicket or two in the initial stages to rattle the opposition. West Indies, in my view, is the most likely team to beat Australia before the semi-finals. Home advantage should give its batsmen and bowlers that extra edge.
This place is open to three teams in my view. Australia, South Africa and yes, England. No, don’t snigger yet. I will stick to my view of spinner playing a crucial role in this World Cup. Australia has Brad Hogg, who is restrictive at best, and South Africa has left behind Paul Harris, who might have been useful in these conditions. England scores over both of them in the spin department. Monty Panesar is not going to win England matches consistently. But he will certainly provide the breakthroughs at crucial times in the game.
Australia has one of the best batting line-ups in the tournament, if not the best. It does score over South Africa and England in this department. However, Ricky Ponting may just fail to come to terms with the low bounce on some of the pitches. Likes to pull a lot and drives fluently, which might not be possible in these pitches. His form will decide whether Australia progresses to the semi-finals or not. The law of averages has been trailing Ponting’s batting average for quite some time now. It is high time it caught up. Symonds holds the key. He is the much needed brawny batsman for Australia. He has the much needed power to score the boundaries on pitches where timing the ball is an issue. Moreover, he has the knack of picking up wickets with his medium pacers, which if he doesn’t play, will be sorely missed. Australia’s bowling is their weaker link. Not much experience in that, apart from McGrath. Hussey will be the backbone for the team. But he has this tendency to cut the ball on to his wickets on slow pitches. Australia will be largely banking on their excellent fielding and strong batting to carry them through to the semis.
South Africa’s batting will revolve around Kallis and Prince. I don’t see the rest contributing much. You will probably see Graeme Smith getting out LBW or trying to work the ball to the leg-side. Their batting in my view is the weakest among the three teams in question. A big negative for SA is the absence of a quality spinner. Pollock will be economical as usual but will that be enough? It probably will not be.
England, the big plus for them is two plodders in the middle order. Bell and Collingwood. Collingwood is a batsman in the Steve Waugh mould. Works hard for his runs, doesn’t look good while batting, exactly as Waugh did not. But, has the never-say-die attitude, which was the hallmark of Waugh. Bell also works for his singles and doubles and plays well within himself. Kevin Pietersen is going to struggle a bit. But he might turn a match on its head, if he applies himself. The issue with England is that it is the only team amongst the top eight that is playing a wicketkeeper, who is not a proven batsman. This team probably has all the ingredients, but in limited measures. One of the best all rounders in Flintoff, one of the best timers of the ball in Pietersen, one of the best captain in Vaughan, if he plays, a very good spinner in Panesar, and a workhorse in Paul Collingwood. With a bit of luck, they might spring a surprise.
A close call between Australia and England as far as I am concerned. But I will be a bit more adventurous and zero in on England to fill the last slot in the semi-final line-up. Going a bit overboard, I know, but that’s that.
New Zealand is average, both in their batting and bowling departments. No good specialist batsman to speak of except perhaps Fleming, who is not in form. Bowling depends heavily on Bond and Vettori. Bond’s pace might help the batsmen on these wickets anyway. Oram and McCullum are useful all rounders, but the team might not do anything to write home about.
Of course, we can never write-off Pakistan. But the problem with the team is that it has been distracted too much from the game. The team will miss Asif, for sure. And also Razzaq, more for his big-hitting and match finishing skills. A very good batting line-up, up there with the best, but arguably the worst bowling team out of the premier eight. Fielding is also an issue. They will need Imran Khan Niazi to come back from retirement to win the tournament. I suspect Inzi bhai is not inspirational enough to lead this team to its second success.
I will also spare some space for Bangladesh, not because they beat NZ in the warm-up game, but because they have some good talent coming up and probably will play in conditions similar at home. Slow and low wickets, aiding spin. Had they not been grouped with India and Sri Lanka, better players of spin bowling in the game, I would have backed them to spring a surprise.
I guess that is enough for my first blog. My benevolent and not so benevolent friends are waiting eagerly to read through my views. So I will not make them wait any longer.
It is foolish to predict the outcome of any sport. Even ones that involve Roger Federer and Tiger Woods. But since the very purpose of this blog is to foresee the future, I will sit down to the task of doing so. I will, however, not be unrealistic enough to name THE team that emerges victorious from the tournament. Nobody can. Not in any sport. Definitely not in cricket. But I will name the teams which, according to me on current form and strength should make the final four.
This is probably the first world cup in which the 21-yard square has been talked about to such an extent.
With the first set of warm-up matches over, we have a fair indication of what we can expect from the West Indian pitches. Obviously, I am no expert but one Mr. Brian Charles Lara, expects them to be on the slower side. So I choose to go by whatever he says. Newly laid or not, expect them to play similar to how they did in the warm up games. Those 250ish strips, in which either you have to be a grafter of the ilk of a Dravid or a Kallis, or a blaster of the kind of a Symonds or a Dhoni to dominate the game.
In my view, this World Cup is going to be about specialist batsmen and slow/spin bowlers. Batsmen need to have patience, no hitting through the line, on the up, that is not going to work. On most of the pitches the ball is not going to come on to the bat well. Spinners are going to get some help from the pitch and slow bowlers are going to be difficult to get away with. So, which of the teams have resources that can match the requirement of the conditions?
India, probably never before in World Cups looked this good to reach the semis even before the start of the tournament. Rahul Dravid is going to play a crucial role if India has to reach the semis. The team is going to play around him. Probably he will end up scoring the most runs for India, if not in the whole tournament. Tendulkar likes to dominate bowlers, which he might not be able to do always in this tournament, especially against slow medium pacers. If he keeps his cool and doesn’t look to get on top by manufacturing shots, he will have another very successful campaign. India also has big-hitters coming down the line in Dhoni and possibly Sehwag. Although, I am not sure Sehwag has the temperament to keep his cool while chasing. He might be useful batting at 6 or7 in the first innings. India will have an edge over other teams in the bowling department. While Kumble and Harbhajan are proven performers, the part-time slow/spin bolwers in Sehwag, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Yuvraj will have a part to play. Ganguly should be bowled more in this tournament. He has lost a yard or two but can swing the ball, and is arguably a more disciplined seamer than Tendulkar. Batsmen are going to struggle getting him off the strip, provided he maintains decent line and length. Indian fielding will not be as bad as it has been projected to be. Let us wait and see. Good chances for India overall, but as we know, India can pull out loses from thin air.
Sri Lanka also looks a good unit. They have all the ingredients to last the distance. The main worry for them will be the form of Jayawardane, if he picks up the threads, the team will get the essential backbone. He will play the role of a Dravid for India or a Kallis for SA. Sangakara, Jayasuriya, Atapattu and Dilshan Tilakaratne make up an experienced batting line-up for Sri Lanka. Jayasuriya will have his task cut out as a bowler. He will have to bowl his full quota of 10 overs. Stump to stump, he will be difficult to get away, without the batsman taking risk. Sri Lanka would do well to have Malinga Bandara in the line-up. A bowler to watch for. Not many spinners have deceived Sachin Tendulkar in flight. Not even the man Bandara has modeled his bowling action on. Chaminda Vaas is a wily customer. He is going to trouble the batsmen with
economical bowling. Fielding was never an issue for the Lankans, so let us not waste time discussing that. Sri Lanka, with a few things tweaked here and there, look good enough to trouble the best.
West Indies has played some competitive cricket over the last year or so. Lara, Gayle, Marlon Samuels, Chanderpaul, Dwayne Bravo have all been among runs lately. Ramnaresh Sarwan has been a worry. But, he must be very keen to prove a point or two to the selectors. Bowling is the weaker link. WI doesn’t have a good spinner in the line-up. However, Gayle usually bowls a decent tight line and can fire in a surprise yorker or two, a la Afridi syle. Bradshaw and Bravo have very good slower deliveries which, as India found out in its last tour to the Caribbean, are very difficult to score off. But, Bradshaw’s form has not been so good of late. Collymore is also reasonably thrifty. A career economy of 4.31 in 77 ODIs is not bad, is it? Jerome Taylor is a useful bowler in my view. He should pick up a wicket or two in the initial stages to rattle the opposition. West Indies, in my view, is the most likely team to beat Australia before the semi-finals. Home advantage should give its batsmen and bowlers that extra edge.
This place is open to three teams in my view. Australia, South Africa and yes, England. No, don’t snigger yet. I will stick to my view of spinner playing a crucial role in this World Cup. Australia has Brad Hogg, who is restrictive at best, and South Africa has left behind Paul Harris, who might have been useful in these conditions. England scores over both of them in the spin department. Monty Panesar is not going to win England matches consistently. But he will certainly provide the breakthroughs at crucial times in the game.
Australia has one of the best batting line-ups in the tournament, if not the best. It does score over South Africa and England in this department. However, Ricky Ponting may just fail to come to terms with the low bounce on some of the pitches. Likes to pull a lot and drives fluently, which might not be possible in these pitches. His form will decide whether Australia progresses to the semi-finals or not. The law of averages has been trailing Ponting’s batting average for quite some time now. It is high time it caught up. Symonds holds the key. He is the much needed brawny batsman for Australia. He has the much needed power to score the boundaries on pitches where timing the ball is an issue. Moreover, he has the knack of picking up wickets with his medium pacers, which if he doesn’t play, will be sorely missed. Australia’s bowling is their weaker link. Not much experience in that, apart from McGrath. Hussey will be the backbone for the team. But he has this tendency to cut the ball on to his wickets on slow pitches. Australia will be largely banking on their excellent fielding and strong batting to carry them through to the semis.
South Africa’s batting will revolve around Kallis and Prince. I don’t see the rest contributing much. You will probably see Graeme Smith getting out LBW or trying to work the ball to the leg-side. Their batting in my view is the weakest among the three teams in question. A big negative for SA is the absence of a quality spinner. Pollock will be economical as usual but will that be enough? It probably will not be.
England, the big plus for them is two plodders in the middle order. Bell and Collingwood. Collingwood is a batsman in the Steve Waugh mould. Works hard for his runs, doesn’t look good while batting, exactly as Waugh did not. But, has the never-say-die attitude, which was the hallmark of Waugh. Bell also works for his singles and doubles and plays well within himself. Kevin Pietersen is going to struggle a bit. But he might turn a match on its head, if he applies himself. The issue with England is that it is the only team amongst the top eight that is playing a wicketkeeper, who is not a proven batsman. This team probably has all the ingredients, but in limited measures. One of the best all rounders in Flintoff, one of the best timers of the ball in Pietersen, one of the best captain in Vaughan, if he plays, a very good spinner in Panesar, and a workhorse in Paul Collingwood. With a bit of luck, they might spring a surprise.
A close call between Australia and England as far as I am concerned. But I will be a bit more adventurous and zero in on England to fill the last slot in the semi-final line-up. Going a bit overboard, I know, but that’s that.
New Zealand is average, both in their batting and bowling departments. No good specialist batsman to speak of except perhaps Fleming, who is not in form. Bowling depends heavily on Bond and Vettori. Bond’s pace might help the batsmen on these wickets anyway. Oram and McCullum are useful all rounders, but the team might not do anything to write home about.
Of course, we can never write-off Pakistan. But the problem with the team is that it has been distracted too much from the game. The team will miss Asif, for sure. And also Razzaq, more for his big-hitting and match finishing skills. A very good batting line-up, up there with the best, but arguably the worst bowling team out of the premier eight. Fielding is also an issue. They will need Imran Khan Niazi to come back from retirement to win the tournament. I suspect Inzi bhai is not inspirational enough to lead this team to its second success.
I will also spare some space for Bangladesh, not because they beat NZ in the warm-up game, but because they have some good talent coming up and probably will play in conditions similar at home. Slow and low wickets, aiding spin. Had they not been grouped with India and Sri Lanka, better players of spin bowling in the game, I would have backed them to spring a surprise.
I guess that is enough for my first blog. My benevolent and not so benevolent friends are waiting eagerly to read through my views. So I will not make them wait any longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)