Test Team of the 2000s

As the 2000s come to a close, talk of the imminent death of Test cricket is rife. Yet the decade has seen Test cricket taken to a new level: gung-ho openers, ferocious lower-order hitting, reverse swing and arguably the two greatest spin bowlers of all time have ensured there has been plenty for fans to savour.

Here is a composite XI of all those who played Tests in the 2000s. All statistics are for the decade only, not the players’ careers. The five Australian faces are reward for a decade in which, bar the odd blip, they have taken the game to new heights.

Matthew Hayden (96 Tests in 2000s, 8364 runs @ 52.93)
Loathed by many as a caricature of the worst of Australians, Hayden was a brute of an opening batsman. His muscular hitting terrified many an opening bowler, as he amassed 29 centuries over the decade. Whether waltzing down the pitch to Shaun Pollock or slog-sweeping his way to 549 runs in three Tests in India in 2001, Hayden could be relied on to score quickly with his bludgeoning bat. On the rare occasions when he was tamed, as in England in 2005, Australia’s juggernaut acquired hitherto hidden vulnerability.

Virender Sehwag (72 Tests, 6248 runs @ 52.50)
You thought Hayden was scary? His strike-rate of 60 looks sedate when set against Sehwag’s scarcely credible 80. There is no one quite like Sehwag: the hand-eye co-ordination; the blistering bat-speed; the obliviousness to pressure, the opposition and the match situation. Yet, for all that, is not Sehwag’s most impressive attribute his concentration span? He has redefined the art of 'going big', with four 250+ scores, three at over a run-a-ball, in the decade. And he has done it regularly against the best, averaging 51 against Australia. To those who say he thrives only in good batting conditions, Sehwag’s 201*, out of 329, against Mendis and Murali in Sri Lanka was a devastating riposte.

Ricky Ponting (106 Tests, 9389 runs @ 58.68)
Over the decade, there has been no wicket more sought-after than Ponting, who has scored more Test runs and centuries than anyone else. Whilst seemingly eschewing risk, he has scored his runs at a
strike-rate of 62 over the decade, dominating bowling attacks and keeping alive the tradition that a side’s best batsman and captain should occupy the pivotal spot. Ponting’s sheer single-mindedness was epitomised by 576 runs at 82.28 in the 2006/07 Ashes whitewash.

Brian Lara (66 Tests, 6380 runs @ 54.06)
Perhaps perceived more as a man of the 1990s, Lara in fact scored 21 of his 34 Test centuries in the 2000s. Throughout, that x-factor, illustrated by his idiosyncratic high back-lift and scything of bowling through the offside, remained: Lara was a man who consistently demonstrated how thrilling the art of batsmanship could be. Few performances of the modern era can match Lara’s 688 runs in three matches in Sri Lanka in 2001 – though, typically, West Indies still lost every match. There was also the little matter of his 400* against England saw him, astonishingly, reclaim the Test record score.

Rahul Dravid (103 Tests, 8558 runs @ 54.85)
Few nicknames are as appropriate as the one that has been attributed to Dravid – simply ‘The Wall’. Sachin Tendulkar is the great icon of the Indian game, but it is Dravid who has been the key batsman in their crucial victories, displaying mastery of batting’s technical challenges especially when standing out away from home. His 305 runs, for once out, to defeat Australia at Adelaide in 2003 was testament to his mental fortitude. Dravid’s finely-crafted masterpieces are a common thread linking the seminal Indian victories of the 2000s: from Headingley, to Rawalpindi and Kandy via Kingston, Perth and, of course, Adelaide in 2003, when he scored 305 runs for once out.

Jacques Kallis (100 Tests, 8552 runs at 58.97; 202 wickets @ 31.70)
Hailed by Kevin Pietersen as “the greatest cricketer ever”, Kallis’s averages for the decade - 58 with the bat, and 31 with the ball – are extraordinary, especially when considering he played 100 Tests in the 2000s. His batting is perhaps more science than art, but his steady and unobtrusive accumulation has led many a captain to despair. And, as Kallis has proved in recent times, he does have another gear. He is also the consummate fourth seamer; when occasions have allowed, as in his 6/54 at Headingley in 2003, his swing has proved devastating.

Adam Gilchrist (91 Tests, 5130 runs @ 46.63, wicket-keeper)
Gilchrist’s demoralising assaults from number seven will, for many, be the standout memory of Test cricket in the 2000s. Whether he arrived at the crease at 100/5 or 300/5, his approach was the same: audacious, clean hitting that would seize the game’s initiative, most stunningly with a 57-ball century against England in 2006. As Gideon Haigh wrote, “Gilchrist seemed to invent a new cricket variant in which, while everyone else carried on as usual, he thrashed about him with apparent impunity.”

Andrew Flintoff (74 Tests, 3695 runs @ 32.69; 220 wickets @ 32.38)
No one could conceivably claim Andrew Flintoff was a superior cricketer to Shaun Pollock. So why is he in this side over Pollock? With McGrath and Kallis parsimony personified, Flintoff can finally be unleashed as an impact bowler in short spells – like his series changing over at Edgbaston in 2005 - rather than forced into the containing role. When at his peak, Flintoff performed outstandingly in all three disciplines in the Caribbean, South Africa and India – and, of course, his 2005 Ashes performance was one of the finest all-round series enjoyed by any cricketer this decade. He was not only vital for what he himself achieved on the pitch, but the galvanising affect his deeds had on others.

Shane Warne (65 Tests, 357 wickets @ 25.17, captain)
Warne v Muralitharan has been the subject of so many pub debates over the years. And, while Murali’s statistics in the 2000s are marginally superior, he admitted that Warne “had a better cricketing brain than me.” Through sheer force of personality, the Australian could change the course of games on even the least helpful of surfaces. And, so often the symbol of the all-conquering Australian machine, his Herculean efforts in defeat in the 2005 Ashes – 40 wickets and 249 runs in five Tests – provided indisputable proof of his enduring greatness. Widely regarded as possessing the best cricketing nous of anyone who never captained his country in a Test, Warne will have the honour of leading this side out.

Dale Steyn (33 Tests, 170 wickets @ 23.70)
In an era when express pace seemed to be dying a sad death, Steyn has emerged to revive it. Bowling at speeds in excess of 90mph, he has created carnage with his devilish late swing with new and old ball alike. His yorker and bouncer alike have the capacity to destroy, and he was crucial in South Africa’s success against Australia in 2008/09, claiming 34 scalps in six Tests, including ten wickets in the famous MCG win. A more subtle and canny bowler than many of express pace, Steyn was also exceptional in India.

Glenn McGrath (66 Tests, 297 wickets @ 20.53)
It all seemed so simple, didn’t it? Plod up to the wicket, bowling with nip but some way short of express pace, hit a good line and length and perhaps extract a little movement. The most remarkable of unremarkable bowlers, McGrath could be relied upon to raise his game against the opposition’s star, and shared some memorable duels with Messrs Tendulkar and Lara. When there was a little in the pitch, as when he took 8/24 against Pakistan at Perth, McGrath was simply without peer.

With apologies to Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Shaun Pollock, Dan Vettori and Muttiah Muralitharan.

All statistics are based on Tests played from 1st January 2000 to 25th December 2009.

Who will join Bradman?

The battle for a middle-order spot is exceptionally fierce, with the likes of Tendulkar, Chappell, Compton, Border, Waugh and Walcott not having reached the final 28-man shortlist. Essentially, the question is effectively which two middle-order players will join Don Bradman (at three) and Garfield Sobers (probably at six) who are fundamentally must-picks; their places in the pantheon was illustrated by them receiving 100 and 90 of the 100 votes for Wisden’s Five Cricketers of The Century. No one else received more than 30 votes.

George Headley was often referred to as the ‘Black Bradman’, having played in the same era as The Don, but, crucially, in a much weaker side. He scored 10 Tests in just 22 Tests for his country; during this time, there were just five other 100s scored by Caribbean players. Renowned for playing the ball extremely late, technical excellence and astonishing on-side play, Headley’s pre-war statistics mark him out as perhaps the second best batsman in the game: 9,532 runs in first-class cricket with an average of 72.21; and an average of 67 from his first 19 Test matches. Though he played relatively few Tests, because of the era he played in, these figures were sustained over a decade, proof of his enduring excellence. Out of desperation as much as anything, critics often point to his average of 37 in Australia as evidence of his limitations; but, after failing in his first four innings, Headley, aged just 21, scored two hundreds in the last three Tests and over 1000 runs on tour in all.

Two other modern West Indian batting giants made the shortlist. Viv Richards was as terrifying for the opposition as their plethora of brilliant fast bowlers; with his swagger, arrogance and contempt for ‘playing every ball on its merits’ he could drive bowlers to despair. The Antiguan scored 24 Test hundreds, the most memorable perhaps a superlative 291 at The Oval in 1976, and came to embody the Windies’ relentless dominance of the world game with his sheer power. However, it is worth noting that, out of five nations, he only averaged over 50 against England.

Brian Lara, more or less, followed Richards in the side, which gradually became weaker. Like Headley, he should gain credit for bearing an extra burden, though his average of 53, with 34 hundreds, more than speaks for itself. An enigma until the end, Lara thrilled millions with his flashing blade and ability to take on the world’s best bowlers; yet he also had a Bradmanesque ability to amass gargantuan scores, as his 375, 400* and 501* (the latter for Warwickshire) illustrate. Two series, above all, stand as testament to his greatness: the ‘98/99 one against Australia, when Lara scored three hundreds, including Wisden's second greatest Test innings of all time (see below), 153*, to secure a one-wicket win chasing over 300; and, in ‘01/02, when he scored 688 runs at 114 in Murali’s backyard. Oddly, though, he averaged only 35 against India, though 14 of his 17 Tests against them were at home.

Ricky Ponting was a slightly controversial selection on the shortlist but his 33 hundreds and, especially, an average of 72 in his last 58 Tests, made him impossible to ignore. At only 32, Ponting could yet become an automatic selection in a side such as this; but, his meagre average of 12 in eight Tests in India means there is a slight question mark over his ability against top-class spin in testing conditions. Nonetheless, no one can doubt his relentless scoring of runs, his qualities all round the wicket and his single-minded determination. An innings of 156 at Old Trafford in 2005, made against top-class fast-bowling when Australia were entirely dependent on him, perhaps stands as his finest.

Graeme Pollock, owing to South Africa’s ban from Test cricket, only played 23 Tests, but still accomplished enough to be a true great of the game. Moreover, his average of 61 is even more impressive when it is considered that his Test career ended when, barely in his 27th year, he was not yet in his prime. Elegant, classical and seemingly unstoppable, Pollock was considered by Bradman to be the best left-hander in cricketing history – above even Sobers – and scored seven Test tons, including a phenomenal 274 against Australia; but, alas, he only played in two more Tests.

Wally Hammond is the sole Englishman in the list. In 77 Tests until 1940, Hammond averaged 61, with 22 hundreds. Of course, he had an excellent technique; but he also had the rare ability to adapt his game it to different conditions. On his first tour to Australia, in 1928/29, for instance, Hammond decided he would be best served scoring primarily in the ‘V’; and was stunningly vindicated with 905 runs at 113. He also had a temperament well-suited to scoring long innings, as his astonishing haul of 36 first-class doublehundreds, six in Tests, is testament to. Hammond was a tremendously powerful player, to supplement his other qualities, a brilliant fielder and an under-rated bowler. The only slight caveat is an average of 35 against the West Indies.

Additional information
The Wisden 100 greatest innings of all time
Regarding the point of playing in weaker sides, it is interesting to note that, as a percentage of team runs, the leading batsmen are Don Bradman (23%), George Headley (21%) and Brian Lara (20%)

Sobers will be analysed amongst the other all-rounders on the shortlist.

Who do you think should join Bradman in the middle-order for the Greatest Test XI of the last century? Leave a comment below.

Preview: The end of an era

An emotional tie today pits Duncan Fletcher against Brian Lara. It would be hard to wish defeat on either of them. There really isn't much else to say, it is all about Lara and how Fletcher can motivate England. There will be some youngsters on view, but all eyes will be on the one legend on the field. It will be a timely reminder to England that none of their players are near reaching that level yet.

Prediction: West Indies win I'm afraid.

Players to watch: Brian Charles Lara and Michael Vaughan.

Preview: West Indies vs Bangladesh

At first this may appear as a nothing game, what with South Africa's brutal dismissal of England and with them, semi-final hopes of the remaining nations. However, a lot is at stake here today. West Indian circket is at an all time low and Brian Lara will want to bow out of One Day Internationals on some semblance of a high in front of home support. Where the Windies go from here is up for debate, but what is not is that Lara has been a fine player, if not captain and deserves a raptuous and victorious send off in these final two matches.

Standing in the way are of course Bangladesh who themselves have a point to prove. Having lost to Ireland they are now in danger of bowing out on a low. They will want to reassert themselves as a top nation and compete with a team who are not ranked that much higher than them at present. It will still be hard for both sets of fans to get excited about what is now a dead rubber though.

Prediction: West Indies to lift some gloom.

Players to watch: Chris Gayle and Saqibul Hasan.

Preview: West Indies vs South Africa

With Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka fairly certain of qualification for the semi-finals, only one spot is left up for grabs. It will be a fight til the death between South Africa, England, the West Indies and even Bangladesh. The first crunch match sees the West Indies look to reinvigorate their campaign against a dumbfounded South African side who lost to Bangladesh last week. The West Indies have won both of their last two World Cup encounters with South Africa and also the last two games in the Champions Trophy.

West Indies will need stella perfromances from their best batsman, especially Chris Gayle, who has so far failed to get the Windies off to characteristicly fast starts. Daren Powell will meanwhile need support with the ball and South Africa will be hoping that the offspin of Gayle and Marlon Samuels and legspin of Ramnaresh Sarwan will not prove to be as perilous as that of Bangladesh's triumvate spin attack. With the pitch at Grenada likely to favour bowling first though, it could be a seamers game, which will suit both sides, South Africa more so.

Herschelle Gibbs will miss the game with the injury which restricted him to batting at seven in the previous match. Loots Bosman is likely to open with Graeme Smith, while AB de Villiers, so far unsuccessful, should drop into a more comfortable position in the middle order. Andre Nel should maintain his place, having been one of the few positives against Bangladesh, while Andrew Hall, mysteriously absent against Bangladesh, should also return at the expense of either the disappointing Justin Kemp or Charle Langevelt.

Prediction: Whoever wins the toss and bowls should win. The tournament and of course England need the Windies to enact the Great Escape. Can South Africa react? Past history says no.

Players to watch: Brian Lara and Shaun Pollock.

What have we learnt so far?!

We now review the sides who have made it through to the Super Eight stage of the World Cup and what we can learn from the performances so far.

Australia

Strengths:

Phenomenal batting line-up: Matthew Hayden has been reborn as a One Day International opener and along with the destructive Adam Gilchrist forms the most explosive opening partnership in world cricket. The best player in the world comes in next in the shape of Ricky Ponting, followed by an ever improving Michael Clarke at four. Andrew Symonds of course needs no introducing as one of the most dangerous hitters in the game. Then comes the dependable Michael Hussey, who will not remain runless for long and the powerful Shane Watson. This batting line up is the best in limited overs cricket and can win matches alone.
Awesome fielding: Symonds, Clarke, Ponting and Watson form the best inner ring in world cricket.

Weaknesses:

Bowling: Yes there is a visible weakness. Glenn McGrath can be taken apart by classy opposition and Shaun Tait and Watson can often prove expensive. Brad Hogg is an experienced campaigner, but he is not up there with the best spinners in world cricket. Currently, only Nathan Bracken is a reliable performer with the ball. They miss Brett Lee.

Star so far: Matthew Hayden.

Sri Lanka

Strengths:

One to four: In Upul Tharanga and Sanath Jayasuriya Sri Lanka have another of the world’s more explosive opening pairings and followed by Mahela Jayawardene at three and the world’s best wicket keeper batsman at four, Kumar Sangakkara, they offer a first rate top order.
Bowling variety: Chaminda Vaas is one of the best with a new white ball and everybody knows what the world’s best spinner can do. In Muttiah Muralitharan Sri Lanka have a bowler who can win matches single handedly. Lasith Malinga is brilliant at the death and possesses a deadly in-swinging yorker. Meanwhile, Sanath Jayasuriya’s slow left arm spin and Tillakaratne Dilshan’s offspin complete a well varied attack.
Fielding: Exceptional, likely the best going. Almost every player contributes in the field, even the 37 year old Jayasuriya!

Weaknesses:

Lower order batting power: For all the class of the top four, if you get them early, there is not much to come in terms of a blistering batsman down the order. Although Chamara Silva at five is capable of rapid scoring, as he proved recently against New Zealand, he, Dilshan and Russell Arnold can not be described as power players and they can struggle to take advantage of the last overs if one of the top four is not still around.
New ball partner and fifth bowler: For all of Vaas’ quality there is no obvious partner for him in the Sri Lankan side when he is bowling with the new ball. Furthermore, the fifth bowler can prove to be a problem for Sri Lanka with both Farveez Maharoof and Dilhara Fernando not quite up to standard. Prehaps Malinga Bandara’s leg spin could yet come in handy.

Star so far: Muttiah Muralitharan.

South Africa:

Strengths:

Batting depth: South Africa usually bat a long way down, with Shaun Pollock and Andrew Hall nestling at eight and nine respectively. Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers are deadly when they fire and with explosive players such as Herschelle Gibbs, Mark Boucher and Justin Kemp dotted between the rocks, Jaques Kallis and Ashwell Prince, they are capable of posting imposing totals.
Pace attack: Makaya Ntini, Pollock, Andrew Hall, Kallis and Charle Langevelt form a lethal pace attack for South Africa and that is without the aggressive Andre Nel. Given a helpful wicket, they will exploit it.

Weaknesses:

Opening combination: AB de Villiers has yet to really settle as an opener and this can lead to problems.
Missing Spinner: South Africa often go into games with no front line spinner, instead relying on Graeme Smith’s part time offies if they hit trouble. When they do play a spinner problems arise, firstly it weakens there batting line up as in the game against Sri Lanka and secondly the spinner in question, Robin Peterson, is not one of the game’s finest.

Star so far: Graeme Smith.

New Zealand

Strengths:

Batting depth: Another side that bats a long way down. With centuries to both of their names, Daniel Vettori and James Franklin can not be taken lightly and the sheer number of great allrounders in this Kiwi side allow them to bat to the bottom if they desire.
Bowling options: The pace of Shane Bond, the experience of Daniel Vettori, the left arm of James Franklin, the death ability of Mark Gillespie, the canniness of Jeetan Patel, the bounce of Jacob Oram and the accuracy of Scott Styris make this Kiwi side a very dangerous proposition when it comes to trying to score runs quickly against them.
Tactical nous: Stephen Fleming is the most intelligent captain in the world and his field placings demonstrate that.

Weaknesses:

Injuries: Having already lost Darryl Tuffey, Kyle Mills and Lou Vincent to injury, the Kiwis can not afford to suffer any more misfortune. There are though constant fitness worries over Oram and Bond and as the tournament progresses they may start to struggle.
An opening bowler and an opening batsman light perhaps: Running on from the injury problems, New Zealand do not seem to have a settled opening partnership with either bat or ball and if often shows.

Star so far: Scott Styris.

England

Strengths:

Middle order: With a line up from four to six of Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and Andrew Flintoff, England have a middle order which most teams would die for. They need to come in with time to play with and runs on the board though.
Captaincy: A fit Michael Vaughan is second only to Fleming as a captain and he is as successful a captain as England have ever had in ODI’s.
Impetuous youth: England have a lot of young players and they are hungry for success, just listen to Ravi Bopara.

Weaknesses:

Top order batting: Much has been made of England’s woes at the top and rightfully so. Suffering from the reverse problem that Sri Lanka do, England have no power players up front. For all the skills that Michael Vaughan, Ed Joyce and Ian Bell have, exploiting the powerplays is not really one of them. Platform’s are good, but only if one of those top three players goes on until the end. They rarely do. It is crying out for Pietersen to move up to three.
Bowling depth: James Anderson, Monty Panesar and Andrew Flintoff are brilliant bowlers and wicket takers. Without back up though, opposition players can afford to see them off. England are undecided on who to bowl with them and both Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood have been expensive, whilst Collingwood is not always suited to the conditions. Jamie Dalrymple was tried and failed abysmally, whilst Bopara is still very raw, though a talent. A settled bowling line up that can take wickets throughout the innings is a must and England must find it soon.

Star so far: James Anderson.

West Indies

Strengths:

Individual brilliance: In Brian Lara, Chris Gayle, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Dwayne Bravo and Shivnarine Chanderpaul the Windies have the individual class to knock over the best of sides.
Home soil and support: Should the Windies get on a roll, the support will drop in behind them. They have to get rolling first though.

Weaknesses:

Too many weak links: For the all the individual brilliance, the West Indies are not a brilliant team. Marlon Samuels batting at four is an obvious sign of the deterioration in West Indian cricketing brilliance. Why Lara bats so low at five is a mystery, but it simply encourages collapses. Dwayne Smith appears to be a very limited batsman, despite his excellent fielding and doubts remain over the abilities of Dinesh Ramdin and Lendl Simmons. In the bowling department, a spinner is obviously lacking and the pace men are just too inconsistent and nothing like the stars of yesteryear.
Reliance on bits and pieces: The Windies rely on using the bowling of the likes of Gayle, Smith and Samuels to regularly get them through their fifty overs. There just simply is not enough of a threat there to disturb the best international opposition. They must play the promising Jerome Taylor, but do not ultimately have the pace attack to compensate for their lack of spin options, unlike South Africa.

Star so far: Brian Lara.

Bangladesh

Strengths:

Youthful exuberance and spin options.

Weaknesses:

Inexperience and over-zealousness with the bat.

Star so far: Mashrafe Mortaza.

Ireland

Strengths:

Passion and ability to exploit bowler’s wickets.

Weaknesses:

Lack of quality batting depth.

Star so far: Jeremy Bray.


Chris Pallett

Preview: West Indies vs New Zealand

It's all happening with regards to this fixture. West Indies play for the third consecutive day, following the requirement of their reserve day against Australia and New Zealand are realing after an injury crisis. Brian Lara has played down the significance of playing over three days and he is right to. They have still played the same amount of cricket, it has just been less concentrated. The defeat against Australia will have been rather demoralising though and this game could decide the West Indies' future in this tournament. Should they lose, they may be leaving themselves with too much to do against sides like Sri Lanka and South Africa. They must improve their bowling performance and they do miss a top class front line spinner.

New Zealand meanwhile are going into the match with a much changed batting line-up. Peter Fulton has been promoted to opener following star fielder Lou Vincent's injury and Hamish Marshall is likely to come into the side at three for the recovering Ross Taylor. The bowling is uneffected, with Shane Bond, James Franklin, Daniel Vettori, Jacob Oram, Scott Styris and possibly Jeetan Patel, the main candidates. A lot will likely depend on the start for New Zealand. Fulton and Stephen Fleming are not known for their blistering strike rates and with Marshall not having played much cricket of late, a slow start could lead to mistakes and an increasing reliance on the middle order. This match should be keenly contested. A lot is riding on it, especially for the home side.

Prediction: Hard to call, New Zealand's injuries have opened the door for the Windies and they need the win more at this stage. Therefore, I'm going for the West Indies, by a narrow margin.

Players to watch: Ramnaresh Sarwan and Jacob Oram.

Zimbabwe Rules

World Cup Analysis: 2003
The abiding memory of the 2003 World Cup, sadly, is of a tournament short of quality but far too long on quantity: 54 games spread over 43 days were, undeniably, too many. None of this affected Australia, however, who responded to Shane Warne’s failed drugs test by marching imperiously on. They won each of their 11 games. Such riches could only have been dreamed of by hosts South Africa; widely expected to prove the biggest threat to Australia’s crown, they performed tentatively and were incapable of even progressing to the Super Six stage.

A classic opening game
Possessing a strong squad high on experience, many South Africans believed their side could match the rugby union team of 1995, who managed to win the World Cup on home soil. It all started so well for the hosts; skipper Shaun Pollock reduced the West Indies to 7-2 in the opening game; after 15 overs, they had crawled to 30-2 and a perfect start looked assured.

But Brian Lara, playing his first international match for five months, had other ideas. He tore into the home bowling in characteristically ruthless style, amassing a delightful 116 from 134 balls to make South Africa rue Jacques Kallis’s drop at second slip off the great batsman’s first ball. Ricardo Powell and Ramnaresh Sarwan mixed finesse with sheer strength to amass 110 runs from the last 10 overs.

Lance Klusener evoked memories of 1999, utilising his trademark gargantuan bat. But it wasn’t quite enough. He was caught just inside the boundary in the final over; South Africa were edged out by three runs and paid the ultimate price for the slow over rate which restricted their reply to 49 overs.

Who needs Shane Warne?
Against Pakistan a day later, circumstances conspired to make Australia’s task of getting off to a winning start as difficult as possible. Star batsmen Darren Lehmann and Michael Bevan were absent for differing reasons; and, on the morning of the game, Shane Warne was sensationally sent home after it emerged he tested positive for two banned diurectics during the recent VB Series in Australia; he was subsequently banned for a year. Australia were reduced to 146-5; but Andrew Symonds, a borderline selection for the squad, proceeded to hit a phenomenally powerful 143*. Australia somehow managed to top 300, and ultimately won by 82 runs.

Politics and sport don’t mix
After heated debates that had spun many months, it was finally announced, on February 11th, just two days before the fixture was scheduled to take place, that England would not fulfill their fixture in Zimbabwe. A few days earlier, the players announced that they did not want to play there “on moral, political and contractual” grounds. A letter from a group calling themselves the Sons and Daughters of Zimbabwe put the issue into the spotlight; it was announced they threatened to return the side home “in wooden coffins”; but the ICC dismissed the letter as a hoax.

A day earlier, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga had heroically protested against the tyrannical regime of Robert Mugabe – and the ICC’s desire that sport and politics shouldn’t mix – by each wearing black armbands as they took the field against Namibia. Simultaneously, a statement was released in which the reasoning behind the armbands was made public; they “mourned the death of democracy in our beloved Zimbabwe.”

Human rights protestors hailed the two incidents for bringing the egregious situation into the public domain. Yet, in cricketing terms, the sad result of England’s forfeiture was that their vibrant side, so impressive against both Pakistan and Australia, failed to reach the Super Six; meanwhile, Zimbabwe, benefiting from the ‘win’ against England and rain against Pakistan, unjustly progressed to the next stage. Highlighting their inadequacies, they were soundly thumped by Kenya.

In the build-up to the tournament, the ICC had denied there was any threat of violence in Zimbabwe during the games. But it has since been reported that 80 peaceful protestors at games in Bulawayo were kept in inhumane conditions for up to six days.

With depressing predictability, the ICC rejected the cases for England’s game against Zimbabwe to be played elsewhere, as well as the New Zealand board’s case for moving their game with Kenya away from Nairobi on security grounds. But the New Zealand board put England to shame with their refusal to allow their players to be dragged into the controversy.

So much for home glory
A week after the West Indian debacle, Hershelle Gibbs’ wonderful 143 powered the hosts past 300; and New Zealand, who had lost to Sri Lanka, looked to be heading out. But such thinking did not allow for Stephen Fleming’s majestic cutting and pulling. In a match decided on the Duckworth Lewis method, Fleming’s superlative 134* secured a nine-wicket win for the Kiwis. His dismissive handling of Allan Donald, whose 5.5 overs went for 52, will live long in the memory.

New Zealand, then, were not down and out after all. Batting deep and possessing a string of powerful allrounders, they suddenly appeared viable candidates for tournament glory, especially if strike bowler Shane Bond could remain fit and firing. West Indies were edged out of a Super Six place after narrow losses to the Kiwis and Sri Lanka In the latter game, Ramnaresh Sarwan dramatically re-entered proceedings after going to hospital following a bang on the head; he ended 47* but, crucially, his side lost by six runs and were out, despite beginning the campaign with such promise. However, they could count themselves the unluckiest of the non-qualifiers; they would have progressed had they beaten Bangladesh in a match that ended as a no result, highlighting the unfairness of the lack of a reserve day, or if the Kiwis had beaten Kenya.

Pool B was thrown alive by Kenya’s highly unexpected victory over Sri Lanka; they kept their nerve against Canada and the atrocious Bangladesh and, because of their four points over New Zealand, entered the Super Six stage with 10 out of a possible 12 points.

New Zealand met Canada in the final round of games, on the same day South Africa met Sri Lanka; it was a straight fight between the two Southern hemisphere sides for a Sup Six berth. The Kiwis only problem was the fearless hitting of John Davison; but they completed a routine victory with 27 overs to spare.

The hosts were having problems yet again. Aravinda de Silva, who made 73, aided Marvan Atappatu’s unusually aggressive 124. South Africa needed 269 to stay in the competition. Gibbs continued his fine form to make 73, but the hosts were soon pegged back to 149-5, in grave danger of exiting the tournament in ignominious fashion.

However, the pugnacious Mark Boucher brought South Africa back into contention. With rain looming, it began to look inevitable the game would be decided on the Duckworth Lewis method. With two balls remaining of the 45th over, they were six runs behind the par score, and were well aware of the matter. Boucher did the seemingly impossible and hit Muttiah Muralitharan for six; thinking he had done all he needed, he made no effort to secure a single off the next ball. But, of course, he had only done enough to tie, and South Africa, incredibly, were out of their own tournament. Lance Klusener, at the other end, could doubtless empathise with Boucher upon hearing the news.

Bevan, Bichel, and a pair of miracles
England’s first two games against genuine opposition highlighted the flaws of day-night cricket in South Africa. Against Pakistan, Paul Collingwood’s dexterous 66* took England close to 250, and James Anderson’s 4-29 – including Inzaman and Yousuf Youhana in consecutive balls – secured a rout. But India got a similar score against England. Ashish Nehra’s sensational 6-23 ensured an emphatic victory.

Against Australia in their final game of the group stages, England grittily edged past 200 on a tricky surface. Andy Caddick’s four wickets with the new ball, aided by watertight bowling from Craig White, Andrew Flintoff and Ashley Giles, reduced Australia to 135-8; England, surely, would beat the old enemy for the first time in the 2000s.

Andy Bichel, who had already taken an extraordinary 7-20, joined Michael Bevan with 70 needed at around a run a ball. Yet the duo quietly went about accumulating; 14 were needed from the last two overs to secure a famous win. At this point, Nasser Hussain turned not to Caddick (9-2-35-4) but to the inexperienced Anderson (8-0-54-0.) Two big Bichel hits later, and it was clear his “hunch” had backfired. The next day, England learned the price of the failure was World Cup elimination. They had now lost 14 consecutive ODIs to Australia.

Nine days later, at the very same ground, the pair were united again, with Australia in an even bigger crisis – 84-7 against New Zealand. Shane Bond’s fast, dipping yorkers proved far, far too good for Australia’s batsman. But, halfway through the innings, he had bowled out with figures of 6-23. The more aggressive Bichel complemented Bevan’s calculating, unobtrusive style in a fearless rescue operation. They both made half centuries; and, on a wearing pitch, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee shared eight wickets as Australia ultimately cruised home by 96 runs.

Kenyan fantasies
The one surprise team of the tournament was Kenya, whose exuberant brand of cricket lasted 40 out of 43 days. Led by canny skipper Steve Tikolo, the side, with the exception of explosive Kennedy Otieno, batted with common sense, aiming merely for a score in the region of 220. They fielded with great enthusiasm, and, unlike many other minnows, refrained from bowling too many wides and no-balls. Collins Obuya, a young legspinner, took 5-24 against Sri Lanka to seal the victory that defined their tournament; a 39-year-old, Aasif Karim, mystified the Aussies on his was to recording 8.2-6-3-7. Relatively facile victories over Zimbabwe and Bangladesh took to three their number of shocks (though it was harsh on Kenya to call them such). Although they would probably not have progressed beyond the group stage without New Zealand forfeiting their game there, Kenya’s effervescent style was to the benefit of the tournament.

Canada’s John Davison, whose clean hitting earned the World Cup’s fastest ever century (against the West Indies) and a 30-ball 50 against New Zealand, also lit up the tournament. But the groups of seven proved tediously long-winded. Minnows did not benefit from the routine thrashings. The lack of a reserve day was also criminal.

A fitting finale
In purely cricketing terms, Australia’s depth of resources, sternness under pressure and sheer brilliance defined the tournament. They came up against an improving India in the final. They had been mauled by the Aussies in the group stages, but won every game since then, including Pakistan.

However, Sourav Ganguly chose to insert Australia in the final, perhaps a sign of Indian nerves and, thereafter, there was only one winner. The powerful batting of Adam Gilchrist and Matt Hayden took Australia clear of 100 after 15 overs; thereafter, Ricky Ponting played one of the greatest one-day innings of all time; he hit an awe-inspiring eight sixes while seemingly cruising to 140*. Damien Martyn was totally overshadowed, but made a classy 88* as the pair amassed 234 to destroy Indian spirits.

Sachin Tendulkar had played a regal innings of 98 in India’s win over Pakistan. But Glenn McGrath dismissed the Man of the Tournament in the first over. Virender Sehwag’s defiant 82 briefly kept Indian hopes going but, really, it was all over.

The side of Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn, Symonds, Beven, Bichel, McGrath and the effervescent Brett Lee, whose devastating pace yielded 22 wickets, won all 11 games, and were considerably better – more skilful and more athletic - than any other side.

The tournament dragged on too long and, though undeniably eventful, much of the drama occurred off the field. The heroic stand taken by Olonga and Flower will live long in the memory; sadly, so too will the wholly unsatisfactory controversy over England’s game in Zimbabwe. The ICC rightly took much criticism for penalising both England and New Zealand (whose refused to play in Kenya); in doing so, they altered the balance of the Cup and helped two weak sides reach the tournament’s latter stages.

This was a tournament that crossed the line between making money and forgetting about its fans. In financial terms – $US194million was made, easily a record – the eighth World Cup was an overriding success. But supporters themselves ended the 2003 World Cup feeling ambivalent about it all.

The participants
Group A:

Australia - Awesome; deserved winners.
England - Zimbabwe cost them, but should have beaten Australia.
Pakistan - Never caught fire.
India - Too good for everyone bar Australia.
Zimbabwe - Poor and lucky.
Namibia - Gave England a little scare.
Netherlands - Thrashed Nambia; worried India.

Group B:
South Africa - One of their greatest cricketing embarrassments.
Sri Lanka - Excellent start, but then declined.
West Indies - Unlucky noy to progress.
New Zealand - Rallied then folded, crucially, against India.
Kenya - Vivacious throughout.
Bangladesh - Shambolic - beaten by Kenya and Canada.
Canada - John Davison's hitting will live long in the memory.

Selected tournament averages

Batting
A Symonds (A) 326 runs @ 163.00
HH Gibbs (SA) 384 @ 96.00
DR Martyn (A) 323 @ 64.60
R Dravid (I) 318 @ 63.60
SR Tendulkar (I) 673 @ 61.18
SC Ganguly (I) 465 @ 58.12

BowlingAJ Bichel (A) 16 wkts @ 12.31
VC Drakes (WI) 16 @ 13.00
WPUJC Vaas (SL) 13 @ 14.39
GD McGrath (A) 21 @ 14.76
B Lee (A) 22 @ 17.90
SE Bond (NZ) 17 @ 17.94

World Cup 2007 Who are the Possibles

Just 12 days to go now and following my look at the minnows for the forthcoming tournament, in this article, I will focus on three teams who I believe will come up short in the Super 8 stage.

Pakistan
Pakistan played in England last summer, losing comprehensively the test series, even before the debacle at The Oval and drawing the One Day series. To put this performance into context, the Sri Lankans had earlier in the summer put England to the sword in the most one sided series of matches that you are ever likely to see. Now England have improved beyond all recognition since those matches, whereas Pakistan seem to be going backwards and were recently walloped in South Africa.

The Pakistani task has now been made even harder by the loss to injury of probably their three most critical bowlers, Razzaq, Akhtar and Asif. (Whether Akhtar and Asif should be available anyway due to their failed drugs test is now a moot point). This makes the form of Rana Naved critical to any chance of success, while hoping that the back up seamers, Umar Gul and Mohammed Sami, can fill in the gaps. The spin option of Kaneria is interesting as he hasn’t played a ODI for over a year.

On the plus side, Pakistan has the best middle order in world cricket in Younus Khan, Mohammed Yousuf and Inzimam, and destructive lower middle order batsmen in Shahid Afridi and Kamran Akmal. The presence of Afridi means that any target is attainable. However, relying on Afridi to fire is not going to get the Pakistani team into the semi-finals. They will win matches, but are not consistent enough to progress.

India
Similar to their great rivals Pakistan in that all of their strength is in their batting. Even with Virender Sehwag in terrible form, any line up that includes Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dhoni is going to score plenty of runs. However, their seam attack looks weak and their best line of attack may be to play both Kumble and Harbhajan, making use of the slow pitches in the Caribbean, with Tendulkar and Ganguly also seeing some work as bowlers as well as batsmen.

India toured the West Indies in 2006, losing the ODI series 4-1 (although they did gain revenge in the test series), but gained revenge at home more recently, where they also defeated a weakened Sri Lankan team.

Like Pakistan, there are too many weaknesses and too many other good teams for India to progress to the semi-final stages, and with Bangladesh in their group (with Sri Lanka and Bermuda), it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they may not even make the Super 8 stage.

West Indies
The host country has never won the World Cup, and despite the fabulous support that the team will receive, it’s not going to happen this time either. Having said that, in Chris Gayle, the hosts have an imposing all rounder, capable of scoring large and quickly at the top of the innings. His off-spin is also much more dangerous than it looks and is remarkably economical.

Captained by Brian Charles Lara (as the Sky promo keeps telling us), there is little for the other countries to fear with the rest of the squad. Sarwan and Chanderpaul have never looked the same players at ODI as they are in test matches, and with the exception of Jerome Taylor, the bowling has little variety, with the pace men that the Weat Indies has been traditionally associated becoming a thing of the past. However, they have two wild cards in Kieron Pollard and Lendl Simmons and the throwing in of such inexperienced youngsters must be seen as desperation.

Lara thinks that the West Indies should get to the semis and take it from there. While I admire his confidence as much as I admire his batting, it is misplaced.