World Cup Analysis: 1992
The 1992 World Cup was co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand and ran from the 22nd of February to the 25th of March. It included several innovations, the most significant of which was a new format, which saw all nine countries play each other in a single group. The fairness of this format has led many to claim 1992 to be the best World Cup, where every team had an equal chance. The huge variety of venues, with very different pitches, might negate this view somewhat, but apart from Australia and New Zealand enjoying home advantage, the tournament did, at least, pit each country against all the others, with no excuses of tough or easy groups.
Of the 36 matches in the league stage only two were abandoned, though one of them was to have huge significance on the eventual outcome of the tournament. With the semi-finals and final, 39 games were played over the four week time-span, leading to claims that the World Cup just went on and on, lacking enough excitement to sustain the necessary momentum. I do remember feeling at the time that enough was enough and when were the important matches going to start. However, there was a certain enjoyment in the league format, with all its ups and downs, and there were a few good matches.
Colour was literally added to the 1992 World Cup with the use of different coloured clothing for each team, with the players’ names emblazoned on their shirts. Floodlights were also used, necessitating the introduction of the white ball for the first time. A new one was used at each end, much to the bowlers’ delight, leading to some sustained spells of high quality swing and seam bowling.
The pinch-hitter was also born in the 1992 tournament, as new field restrictions were brought in, allowing only two fielders outside the ring for the first 15 overs. Most sides employed at least one opener whose main purpose was to hit the ball over the infield, preferably over the rope. Though this tactic had variable success in 1992, it laid the foundations for Jayasuriya’s incredible opening assaults in the 1996 World Cup, which changed the nature of ODI batting forever.
Battle of the hosts
On the opening day of the tournament New Zealand notched up a comfortable win against Australia, setting a trend for the rest of the preliminary stage, which saw the holders and favourites, Australia, struggle, whilst their co-hosts, New Zealand, marched into the semi-finals, topping the league by 3 points, winning 7 of their 8 matches. The cornerstone of their victory over Australia was a magnificent century from their captain, Martin Crowe. He scored exactly 100 not out, with Ken Rutherford giving him great support in a stand worth 118 runs. New Zealand built on this platform with some excellent lower order hitting and reached 248, setting Australia a formidable target to chase.
In reply, Australia were never able to keep up with the required run rate, despite a wonderful 100 from the doughty David Boon. New Zealand utilised their medium pacers to good effect, strangling the Australians, a tactic they would use throughout the tournament. Even more radical, though, was Crowe’s decision to open the bowling with the slow, looping off-spin of Dipak Patel. This innovative ploy worked remarkably well, and was one of the reasons for New Zealand’s great success in the league stage of the Cup. In the end, Australia were bowled out for 211, with just under two overs of their allotted 50 left. The 37 run win for New Zealand in the battle of the hosts set both teams off on very different paths through the rest of the tournament.
The most significant of abandonments
When England and Pakistan took the field at Adelaide on the 1st of March few would have predicted that these two teams would meet again in the final. England had started the tournament strongly, winning their first two matches, whilst Pakistan had lost to the West Indies and only beaten Zimbabwe. With both teams having five matches left after this one it was hardly win or bust, but in a close league the point that Pakistan got here was vital. Without it they would not have made the semi-finals, let alone the final itself.
On a pitch that promised plenty for the seam bowlers and with perfect conditions for swing England’s captain, Graham Gooch, had no hesitation in putting Pakistan in to bat. The decision was quickly justified as Phil DeFreitas removed Rameez Raja and Inzamam-ul-Haq with just 5 runs on the board. However, despite bowling well, DeFreitas and Gladstone Small, the faster of the England bowlers, were unable to match the efforts of their three swing bowling colleagues, Derek Pringle, Ian Botham and Dermot Reeve. All three were unplayable in these conditions and the Pakistan batsmen could do nothing against them. One of Reeve’s overs encapsulated how much swing was available when he beat the batsman’s outside edge five balls in a row. By the end Pakistan were all out for just 74 off 40.2 overs, with Pringle taking 3 for 8 (off 8.2 overs), Botham 2 for 12 (off 10 overs) and Reeve 1 for 2 (off 5 overs). The win was in the bag it seemed.
Ironically it was the very clouds which had given England’s swing bowlers such favourable conditions that deprived them of victory. After just 8 overs of their reply, when England had scored 24 of the 75 they needed for the loss of only one wicket, the rain came and the match had to be abandoned. It was a bitter blow after such a fine bowling display, but England had two wins and a no result and would not have been too disappointed. It was only much later, when they faced Pakistan again in the final with the World Cup at stake, that they truly rued the rain that fell that day in Adelaide.
The last four finally decided
After what seemed to many the interminably long league stage of the 1992 World Cup the semi-finalists were finally decided on the 18th of March. New Zealand, by far the best team in the preliminary stage of the tournament, topped the league, losing just one of their 8 matches. The loss came on the very last day when Pakistan beat the joint hosts to claim fourth place in the league. England and South Africa, who both showed consistency throughout the league matches, were second and third, respectively, with Australia and West Indies disappointed to miss out on the semi-finals, just a point each behind Pakistan.
Though it took a long time to finish, the closeness of the league suggested it was the fairest way to find the best four teams and few would argue with the semi-final line-up. Pakistan were, perhaps, fortunate to pip Australia and West Indies at the post by virtue of the point gained for the no result against England, but after that match they played some great cricket and had a young and talented team, ably led by the great Imran Khan. They also beat both co-hosts in the league stage and showed they could perform under pressure, an attribute that was to serve them well in the final.
Home no advantage it seems
In the first semi-final Pakistan made light of New Zealand’s expected home advantage, by beating the co-hosts for the second time in three days. It seemed that New Zealand, who had been so brilliant throughout the league stage of the tournament, had peaked too early and were caught by a determined Pakistan team whose momentum had gathered pace at precisely the right moment.
New Zealand won the toss and batted, posting a competitive 262, built around another great innings from their captain, Martin Crowe, who scored 91 not out. Again he was ably assisted by Ken Rutherford, who notched up 50. Everyone else chipped in and New Zealand would have felt confident they could defend such a total.
Pakistan started slowly in reply, with Imran Khan scoring a very patient 44. Javed Miandad upped the momentum with his excellent 57 not out from just 69 balls, but it was the unheralded Inzamam-ul-Haq who played the vital knock. He blazed 60 off 37 deliveries, including 7 fours and a six, to make sure Pakistan kept up with the required run rate. Largely thanks to him they cruised home in the end, losing just six wickets, with an over to spare. It was a great win under pressure and proved that Pakistan had the players to win the tournament.
A farcical end to a great match
The second semi-final, between England and South Africa, was a close and fascinating game, until the weather intervened near the end and a glaring mistake was shown in the rules of the tournament.
South Africa won the toss and put England in, backing themselves to chase any score down. England batted well, scoring 252 off their allocated 45 overs. The foundation for this total was laid by Graeme Hick, who posted an excellent 83 off just 90 balls. No-one else got a score of note, but everyone made a few runs and England would have been satisfied with the total they reached.
Like England, South Africa batted as a team and were making a good fist of their reply when the rain came. At that time they needed 22 runs from 13 deliveries, which was a big ask, but not impossible. When the rain stopped, due to the unthought-through rules, they needed an impossible 21 runs off 1 ball. It was a farce, which did no-one any favours, bar England, and made a nonsense of what had been a very good match. Needless to say South Africa lost and could only shake their heads at the situation they had found themselves in. Much thinking was needed regarding the rules for rain and other delays in future one day matches, and the result was the eventual adoption of the complex Duckworth/Lewis system, which has stood the test of time.
Form tells in the final
Though they had played well in their semi-final against South Africa, England were not in the excellent form that had seen them dominate the early stages of the preliminary league. They had ended with an embarrassing loss to Zimbabwe and few of their players were at their best. Pakistan, however, were firing on all cylinders and had a superb blend of youth and experience, which had seen them rise from near elimination to the final.
Winning the toss, Pakistan chose to bat and promptly lost both their openers to Derek Pringle. Unfortunately, for England this brought the great Imran Khan and Javed Miandad together, who, much as they had in the semi-final against New Zealand, steered Pakistan towards a respectable total. This time they got 72 and 58, respectively, which provided the base for Inzamam-ul-Haq and Wasim Akram to launch some explosive late hitting. The 249 that Pakistan eventually got was a good score, but not one they could be totally confident in defending.
England’s reply started badly, with the top four batsmen falling for just 69 runs. It was up to Neil Fairbrother and Allan Lamb to build a middle order recovery, which they did very well. However, when Fairbrother fell to Aaqib Javed and Lamb and Chris Lewis were bowled by two wonder deliveries from Wasim Akram it was all over. England tried to fight on, but were bowled out 22 runs short with only 4 balls left. It was a triumph for Pakistan’s determination and ability, skilfully tempered by Imran Khan’s leadership. It was later revealed that Imran had told his players to play ‘as if you were a cornered tiger’, which was exactly what they did, being most dangerous when they seemed to be in trouble.
After thoughts
The 1992 World Cup was the last to be played by some of the great players of the late 70s and 80s, including Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Graham Gooch, Allan Border, Allan Lamb and Desmond Haynes. It also saw the early indications of what was to come from Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara and Inzamam-ul-Haq. It was a tournament which embraced innovation, but which proved that everyone playing everyone might be fair, but ultimately took too long and led to too many forgettable matches.
My memory of it is still vivid, though, especially that magic over from Dermot Reeve and those two incredible deliveries from Wasim Akram that seemed to blow England’s chances away. It was somehow fitting that the all-time great player and captain Imran Khan should lift the trophy and never play again. An epic end to an outstanding career.
Showing posts with label Cricket history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cricket history. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 March 2007
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
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
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
Saturday, 24 February 2007
Turning the tide
Rarely has one player so profoundly influenced the fortunes of their country’s cricket team as Arjuna Ranatunga did for Sri Lanka. When he took over as captain in 1988 he inherited a team that had failed to make an impression in either one-day international (ODI) or Test cricket, despite having some very talented players to call upon. Ranatunga knew that he had cricketers with great ability, but that they lacked conviction in that talent and had not performed as a team. His task was to forge a competitive unit from these gifted players and to imbue them with the belief that they could not only compete, but win. By the time he retired as captain Sri Lanka had the reputation of being tough to beat in both ODIs and Test matches and had won the 1996 World Cup. How the fiery left-hander achieved such success in his eleven years in charge is one of recent cricket’s most remarkable stories.
Early promise
Ranatunga played a key role for his country right from the start of his career, making his international debut against England on Valentines Day, 1982, aged just eighteen. There was no massacre, but Sri Lanka did win to level the series and the young Ranatunga scored a vital 42. It was significant that his first game should end in victory and must have given the future captain a desire for more success. Just three days later Ranatunga made his Test debut, along with all ten of his team-mates, in Sri Lanka’s inaugural Test match against England at the P.Saravanamuttu Stadium, Colombo. England won the match by 7 wickets, but the Sri Lankans gave them a scare early on, and Ranatunga scored his country’s first Test fifty, a fluent and assured effort for one so young. It was clear to all those who saw him that day that Arjuna Ranatunga was a player to watch.
Forging a team
The state of Sri Lankan cricket when Ranatunga was appointed captain was grim. A cricketing nation which boasted some very promising players had failed to develop, despite having played in all four World Cups and in Tests for six years. Their dismal record illustrates this perfectly. In 27 Test matches Sri Lanka had managed just 2 wins and 10 draws, losing the other 15. They had fared even worse in ODIs, notching up just 16 wins in 87 games, losing 67, with 4 no results. Something radical was needed and the twenty four year old Ranatunga was not, perhaps, the obvious remedy. However, those who knew him and that, presumably, included the Sri Lankan cricket authorities, were sure that he could turn things around. Perhaps, even his most ardent supporters, though, could not have imagined just how far he would take the team.
Ranatunga’s first task was clear – he had to mould a group of individuals, some of whom had immense talent, into a team and engender that team with a fighting spirit that would keep it strong whatever it had to face. It must have helped that Ranatunga himself was a brave and strong-willed man, who did not back away from a fight and who was willing to go as far as he thought necessary to protect his players. Those who played under his captaincy must have felt confident that he would back them if they needed it and that all they had to worry about was performing on the field. Such leadership is not always easy to gauge, but cricket is a game played so much in the mind, that knowing you are protected must help you to relax and play your best. In this way Ranatunga was able to get the maximum out of his players as individuals and Sri Lanka as a team.
A well-knit team with a competitive edge is often hard to beat in sport, but the captain of a cricket team also needs intelligence, tactical ability, good instincts and the strength of character to follow those instincts, even when they go against perceived wisdom. Ranatunga had all of these and he demonstrated them each time he took the field. Like all good leaders he had some bad days, when his plans went awry or players let him down. But these were the exceptions, and they were heavily outnumbered by the good days. That did not always mean Sri Lanka won, because they were often up against better teams, but it did mean that they competed and made sure that if they were beaten it was not without a fight.
The statistics confirm Sri Lanka’s remarkable improvement under Ranatunga’s captaincy. Of the 61 Test matches he skippered 12 were won, 25 drawn and 22 lost. The turnaround in fortunes was even more marked in ODIs, where 96 of the 215 matches he captained were won, 109 lost and 9 ended with no result. This means that 47% of ODIs were won under his leadership, compared to just 19% before he took over. However, no matter how good these numbers are, they cannot compete with Ranatunga’s crowning achievement as Sri Lankan captain, claiming ODI cricket’s greatest prize.
The ultimate triumph
There could be no more resounding confirmation of just how far Ranatunga had taken Sri Lankan cricket than the winning of the 1996 World Cup. For a nation which had so woefully underperformed in this showcase of one-day cricket it was a dramatic transformation. The talented Sri Lankan players finally gave full expression of their ability under the astute leadership of Ranatunga.
Tactically, Ranatunga and his team were spot on. Like several other nations in the 1996 tournament they employed pinch-hitters at the top of the order to exploit the field restrictions in the first 15 overs. However, in Sanath Jayasuriya they had one of the best exponents of this role, a player who hit the ball so far and so often that he could tear opposition bowling attacks to shreds in just a few overs. By the time the first 15 overs were completed Sri Lanka were often already well on their way to setting a big total or had made significant inroads into the runs they were chasing. There was no better evidence of the destructive nature of Jayasuriya’s batting than the quarter final against England, when he struck 82 from just 44 deliveries, including 13 fours and 3 sixes, making light of Sri Lanka’s chase for victory.
Ranatunga’s role was to motivate his players, as well as make the tough tactical calls. None could have been more difficult than when he won the toss in the final against Australia. Many could not believe his decision to put the Australian’s in, least of all Mark Taylor, the Australian captain, who must have felt that he had won the toss, as he would have batted anyway. Ranatunga went with his instinct, backing his players to restrict their opponents and chase down another total. It was a brave decision, which flew in the face of conventional thinking, as no team had ever won the World Cup final batting second.
After a very good start Australia struggled as the Sri Lankan bowlers put the pressure on. In the end they only managed a below-par 241, defendable, but far less than they would have expected. For once the pinch-hitters failed for Sri Lanka and the match was in the balance. However, Aravinda de Silva, a player possessing sublime batting skill, stepped up and scored a magnificent century. His innings was built over two big partnerships, the first a superb 125 with Asanka Gurusinha, the second a quick fire 97 with Ranatunga. It was fitting that the captain, who had so ably led his players throughout the tournament, should secure the trophy by scoring the winning runs.
Defending his own
Throughout his time as Sri Lankan captain Ranatunga had never shirked from his responsibilities as a leader. This led him through some hostile waters, which he negotiated seemingly without fear. Arguably, his toughest challenges came when he saw his players threatened and knew it was he who had to stand up and defend them.
In the modern era no player has courted more controversy than the great Sri Lankan off-spinner, Muttiah Muralitharan, whose bowling action has been questioned in some quarters from very early in his career. These suspicions have always been particularly strong in Australia, culminating in the only occasions when Muralitharan has actually been no-balled for throwing, or ‘chucking’ as the popular vernacular would have it. Each time Ranatunga was the Sri Lankan captain and was called upon to act in defence of his player. Two of those occasions are worth considering in further detail, as they highlight Ranatunga’s deep concern for his players and the lengths he was willing to go to protect them.
The first incident occurred in 1995 at the high profile Boxing Day Test Match, played against Australia at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The Australian umpire, Darrell Hair, no-balled Muralitharan 7 times for throwing in his first 3 overs. The young bowler was naturally distraught and his captain, Ranatunga, stepped in to defend him, arguing with Hair over his call, before leaving the field to consult with Sri Lankan team management. On his return Ranatunga argued again with Hair, before later switching Muralitharan to the other end, where New Zealand umpire, Steve Dunne, did not no-ball him for throwing. It is worth noting that when Muralitharan’s action was later tested by experts appointed by the International Cricket Council (ICC) no problems were found with it and he was cleared to carry on bowling in the same way he always had.
However, the controversy over Muralitharan’s bowling action did not go away and in 1999, on Sri Lanka’s next tour of Australia, another, even more explosive, incident took place. It happened in a one-day match with England played at the Adelaide Oval, where Australian umpire Ross Emerson no-balled Muralitharan for throwing. This time Ranatunga was so incensed that he decided to protest the decision by taking his players to the edge of the cricket field, just inside the boundary, where he again consulted with Sri Lankan team management. Play was held up for 12 minutes, before resuming. The aftermath saw questions raised over Muralitharan’s action, Emerson’s umpiring and calls for Ranatunga to be banned. In the end the Sri Lankan captain was fined and given a suspended ban, which meant he had to be very careful over his future conduct. Though Ranatunga's actions may have been extreme and were deplored by many, it sent a clear message to his players that their captain was willing to put his own career on the line to protect them.
The legacy
When Ranatunga departed as captain of Sri Lanka he left a team that had a reputation for being tough to beat and that played some very attractive cricket. They were no longer considered underachievers and expectations for the future were high. Results since Ranatunga left suggest that Sri Lanka have continued to improve, maintaining their position as difficult opponents, particularly at home. This applies to both formats of the international game, but particularly to Test cricket, where Sri Lanka have become much stronger. I imagine that the current generation of Sri Lankan players, as well as those of the past, would highlight the major influence Ranatunga had on building the spirit of Sri Lankan cricket, forging a team that could become a force in the international game.
Early promise
Ranatunga played a key role for his country right from the start of his career, making his international debut against England on Valentines Day, 1982, aged just eighteen. There was no massacre, but Sri Lanka did win to level the series and the young Ranatunga scored a vital 42. It was significant that his first game should end in victory and must have given the future captain a desire for more success. Just three days later Ranatunga made his Test debut, along with all ten of his team-mates, in Sri Lanka’s inaugural Test match against England at the P.Saravanamuttu Stadium, Colombo. England won the match by 7 wickets, but the Sri Lankans gave them a scare early on, and Ranatunga scored his country’s first Test fifty, a fluent and assured effort for one so young. It was clear to all those who saw him that day that Arjuna Ranatunga was a player to watch.
Forging a team
The state of Sri Lankan cricket when Ranatunga was appointed captain was grim. A cricketing nation which boasted some very promising players had failed to develop, despite having played in all four World Cups and in Tests for six years. Their dismal record illustrates this perfectly. In 27 Test matches Sri Lanka had managed just 2 wins and 10 draws, losing the other 15. They had fared even worse in ODIs, notching up just 16 wins in 87 games, losing 67, with 4 no results. Something radical was needed and the twenty four year old Ranatunga was not, perhaps, the obvious remedy. However, those who knew him and that, presumably, included the Sri Lankan cricket authorities, were sure that he could turn things around. Perhaps, even his most ardent supporters, though, could not have imagined just how far he would take the team.
Ranatunga’s first task was clear – he had to mould a group of individuals, some of whom had immense talent, into a team and engender that team with a fighting spirit that would keep it strong whatever it had to face. It must have helped that Ranatunga himself was a brave and strong-willed man, who did not back away from a fight and who was willing to go as far as he thought necessary to protect his players. Those who played under his captaincy must have felt confident that he would back them if they needed it and that all they had to worry about was performing on the field. Such leadership is not always easy to gauge, but cricket is a game played so much in the mind, that knowing you are protected must help you to relax and play your best. In this way Ranatunga was able to get the maximum out of his players as individuals and Sri Lanka as a team.
A well-knit team with a competitive edge is often hard to beat in sport, but the captain of a cricket team also needs intelligence, tactical ability, good instincts and the strength of character to follow those instincts, even when they go against perceived wisdom. Ranatunga had all of these and he demonstrated them each time he took the field. Like all good leaders he had some bad days, when his plans went awry or players let him down. But these were the exceptions, and they were heavily outnumbered by the good days. That did not always mean Sri Lanka won, because they were often up against better teams, but it did mean that they competed and made sure that if they were beaten it was not without a fight.
The statistics confirm Sri Lanka’s remarkable improvement under Ranatunga’s captaincy. Of the 61 Test matches he skippered 12 were won, 25 drawn and 22 lost. The turnaround in fortunes was even more marked in ODIs, where 96 of the 215 matches he captained were won, 109 lost and 9 ended with no result. This means that 47% of ODIs were won under his leadership, compared to just 19% before he took over. However, no matter how good these numbers are, they cannot compete with Ranatunga’s crowning achievement as Sri Lankan captain, claiming ODI cricket’s greatest prize.
The ultimate triumph
There could be no more resounding confirmation of just how far Ranatunga had taken Sri Lankan cricket than the winning of the 1996 World Cup. For a nation which had so woefully underperformed in this showcase of one-day cricket it was a dramatic transformation. The talented Sri Lankan players finally gave full expression of their ability under the astute leadership of Ranatunga.
Tactically, Ranatunga and his team were spot on. Like several other nations in the 1996 tournament they employed pinch-hitters at the top of the order to exploit the field restrictions in the first 15 overs. However, in Sanath Jayasuriya they had one of the best exponents of this role, a player who hit the ball so far and so often that he could tear opposition bowling attacks to shreds in just a few overs. By the time the first 15 overs were completed Sri Lanka were often already well on their way to setting a big total or had made significant inroads into the runs they were chasing. There was no better evidence of the destructive nature of Jayasuriya’s batting than the quarter final against England, when he struck 82 from just 44 deliveries, including 13 fours and 3 sixes, making light of Sri Lanka’s chase for victory.
Ranatunga’s role was to motivate his players, as well as make the tough tactical calls. None could have been more difficult than when he won the toss in the final against Australia. Many could not believe his decision to put the Australian’s in, least of all Mark Taylor, the Australian captain, who must have felt that he had won the toss, as he would have batted anyway. Ranatunga went with his instinct, backing his players to restrict their opponents and chase down another total. It was a brave decision, which flew in the face of conventional thinking, as no team had ever won the World Cup final batting second.
After a very good start Australia struggled as the Sri Lankan bowlers put the pressure on. In the end they only managed a below-par 241, defendable, but far less than they would have expected. For once the pinch-hitters failed for Sri Lanka and the match was in the balance. However, Aravinda de Silva, a player possessing sublime batting skill, stepped up and scored a magnificent century. His innings was built over two big partnerships, the first a superb 125 with Asanka Gurusinha, the second a quick fire 97 with Ranatunga. It was fitting that the captain, who had so ably led his players throughout the tournament, should secure the trophy by scoring the winning runs.
Defending his own
Throughout his time as Sri Lankan captain Ranatunga had never shirked from his responsibilities as a leader. This led him through some hostile waters, which he negotiated seemingly without fear. Arguably, his toughest challenges came when he saw his players threatened and knew it was he who had to stand up and defend them.
In the modern era no player has courted more controversy than the great Sri Lankan off-spinner, Muttiah Muralitharan, whose bowling action has been questioned in some quarters from very early in his career. These suspicions have always been particularly strong in Australia, culminating in the only occasions when Muralitharan has actually been no-balled for throwing, or ‘chucking’ as the popular vernacular would have it. Each time Ranatunga was the Sri Lankan captain and was called upon to act in defence of his player. Two of those occasions are worth considering in further detail, as they highlight Ranatunga’s deep concern for his players and the lengths he was willing to go to protect them.
The first incident occurred in 1995 at the high profile Boxing Day Test Match, played against Australia at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The Australian umpire, Darrell Hair, no-balled Muralitharan 7 times for throwing in his first 3 overs. The young bowler was naturally distraught and his captain, Ranatunga, stepped in to defend him, arguing with Hair over his call, before leaving the field to consult with Sri Lankan team management. On his return Ranatunga argued again with Hair, before later switching Muralitharan to the other end, where New Zealand umpire, Steve Dunne, did not no-ball him for throwing. It is worth noting that when Muralitharan’s action was later tested by experts appointed by the International Cricket Council (ICC) no problems were found with it and he was cleared to carry on bowling in the same way he always had.
However, the controversy over Muralitharan’s bowling action did not go away and in 1999, on Sri Lanka’s next tour of Australia, another, even more explosive, incident took place. It happened in a one-day match with England played at the Adelaide Oval, where Australian umpire Ross Emerson no-balled Muralitharan for throwing. This time Ranatunga was so incensed that he decided to protest the decision by taking his players to the edge of the cricket field, just inside the boundary, where he again consulted with Sri Lankan team management. Play was held up for 12 minutes, before resuming. The aftermath saw questions raised over Muralitharan’s action, Emerson’s umpiring and calls for Ranatunga to be banned. In the end the Sri Lankan captain was fined and given a suspended ban, which meant he had to be very careful over his future conduct. Though Ranatunga's actions may have been extreme and were deplored by many, it sent a clear message to his players that their captain was willing to put his own career on the line to protect them.
The legacy
When Ranatunga departed as captain of Sri Lanka he left a team that had a reputation for being tough to beat and that played some very attractive cricket. They were no longer considered underachievers and expectations for the future were high. Results since Ranatunga left suggest that Sri Lanka have continued to improve, maintaining their position as difficult opponents, particularly at home. This applies to both formats of the international game, but particularly to Test cricket, where Sri Lanka have become much stronger. I imagine that the current generation of Sri Lankan players, as well as those of the past, would highlight the major influence Ranatunga had on building the spirit of Sri Lankan cricket, forging a team that could become a force in the international game.
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
Excited of Tunbridge Wells
In the build-up to the World Cup, Third Umpire will be host to a number of preview articles. We shall also feature pieces on past tournaments, beginning here with the 1983 tournament.
From the opening day on the 9th of June to the dramatic final on the 25th June the 1983 World Cup was full of surprises. Much of this was down to the change in format, where the four teams in each of the two groups played each other twice, meaning more matches and more opportunities for upsets and fight backs. Cricket was also spread right across England and into Wales by the use of non-Test match venues for the first time. This excellent innovation gave the tournament a national appeal and led to great attendances at grounds more often used to sparse county crowds.
Unlike recent tournaments, the 1983 World Cup was very compact, with 27 matches being played in just 17 days. This meant several matches on some days and both semi-finals on the same day. I suppose this says a lot about the relative lack of planning for TV at the time, as no modern tournament would have two big games starting at the same time on the same day.
However, it made the 1983 World Cup move at an excellent pace, with the action coming thick and fast. By the time India and the West Indies took the field to contest the final cricket supporters around the world had already been treated to some spectacular action. Little did they know that the last match would provide them with such an amazing final twist.
Opening day shocks
Though England hammered 322 off New Zealand at the Oval, beating them by 106 runs, and Pakistan racked up 338 to defeat Sri Lanka, the opening day of the tournament belonged to Zimbabwe and India.
Playing in their first World Cup, the Zimbabweans, captained by the canny Duncan Fletcher, pulled off an incredible win over the Australians at Trent Bridge. Fletcher marshalled his players with the shrewd planning and tactics he has since employed as England’s coach, defending a seemingly low total of 239. As an individual Fletcher had a stunning game as well, scoring an unbeaten 69 and taking 4 for 42 to help restrict the Australians to 226 in their allotted 60 overs.
Though the Australians gained their revenge in the second match against Zimbabwe and the Zimbabweans lost both matches with the West Indies and with India, Zimbabwe were never over-awed by the occasion. In fact, they started a tradition of upsets in 1983, which they would happily continue through the next few World Cups.
India, who had only managed one win in each of the previous World Cups, in 1975 and 1979, started the 1983 tournament by beating the West Indies, who were the dominant force in both Test and one day international cricket. Having won the first two World Cups, the West Indies started as strong favourites to make it a hat-trick in 1983. India showed they could be beaten by scoring an impressive 262 against the West Indies’ fearsome bowling attack and then defending that total through the efforts of their medium pacers. It was an excellent win, built on a great all-round team performance and served as a warning that India were a more determined side this time round.
A devastating spell
In a team that could boast a bowling line-up of Andy Roberts, Joel Garner, Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding, Winston Davis was never going to be more than a back-up player, selected to give those great fast bowlers a rest. However, against Australia on a typical Headingly pitch Davis bowled one of the great spells in World Cup history. Not caring if he was hit for five an over Davis tore into the Australian batsmen and claimed 7 wickets for 53 runs in 10.3 destructive overs.
His bowling, and the big win that it helped achieve, meant Australia would struggle to make it out of the group stage. When West Indies beat them again later in the tournament and India crushed them in their last match it was all over for Australia, who would have fancied their chances in a group with India and Zimbabwe. Such was the nature of the 1983 World Cup, where surprises were the norm.
An explosive innings
When Kapil Dev strode to the crease at the Nevill Ground, Tunbridge Wells, his team were 17 for 5 against the surprisingly competitive Zimbabweans, who were looking for another big scalp on their first appearance in the World Cup. When he left the crease, unbeaten, he had blasted his team to a healthy total of 266 off their 60 overs. His 138 ball stay yielded 175 runs, including 16 fours and 6 sixes.
It was the kind of innings that even the greats can only dream of and the ultimate testament to a cricketer who knew no fear and thrived on pressure. Not only did he drag his team almost single-handedly to a good total, but Kapil Dev was also the captain, with all the extra responsibility that entailed. Granted the boundaries were short by international standards and Zimbabwe did not have the best bowling attack, but the destructive power and exquisite timing of Kapil Dev’s stroke play was simply amazing. I doubt Tunbridge Wells had ever seen anything like it before and I’m sure they’ve never seen anything like it since. A moment of grand excitement in a quiet English summer.
For the record Zimbabwe fought hard in their innings, being bowled out just 32 runs short of the required target. Their efforts would not be forgotten, but, perhaps, lost in the tornado that visited Kent that day.
The unlikely all-rounder
With the quartet of great all-rounders, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee all playing, the 1983 World Cup threatened to produce some fine all-round performances. Yet, it was the unlikely figure of Abdul Qadir who had, perhaps, the best all-round display in the tournament, when he stood almost alone with both ball and bat against New Zealand at Edgbaston.
Bowling his leg spin with his customary wizardry, Qadir cast a spell over the New Zealanders, giving away less than two runs an over and taking four top order wickets. His astonishing analysis of 12 overs, 4 maidens, 4 wickets for just 21 runs remains one of his finest in a distinguished one-day international career. Then, with Pakistan facing defeat at 131 for 8, Qadir came in to bat and scored an unbeaten 41, running out of partners in his bid to see his team home. It was an extraordinary individual performance from a man normally considered just a bowler.
The hosts disappoint
With the advantage of playing at home, and having lost only one match in the group stage, England were expected to beat India and book their place in a second successive World Cup final. However, India had by now found a winning formula, which they used to great effect against the host nation. Using their medium pacers India strangled England’s batsmen, reducing the scoring rate and forcing mistakes.
With their opponents on the rack Kapil Dev, the Indian captain, brought himself on at the death to further reduce the run rate and finish off the tail. The tactics worked very well and England struggled to an under par 216 all out off their 60 overs. In reply India started slowly, building a good foundation before the middle order saw them home. They only lost 4 wickets in the run chase and surpassed England’s total with 5.2 overs to spare. None of England’s much vaunted bowlers could do anything about it and the hosts could only look on with disappointment as India progressed to their first World Cup final.
A one-sided affair
Pakistan’s talented team, under the astute leadership of Imran Khan, had high hopes as they took the field against the mighty West Indies. Yes they were underdogs, but they had played well in the group stage and had the players to create an upset. The problem was the West Indies were in no mood to let anything bar their way to the final. Apart from a shock loss to India in their first match they had beaten all who had stood in their way.
The top quality pace quartet of Roberts, Garner, Marshall and Holding were on top form and ripped through the Pakistan batting line-up. To Pakistan’s credit they stuck it out for the full 60 overs, refusing to be bowled out, and managed to post a total of 184. Unfortunately, it never looked enough and Pakistan, despite having some great bowlers, could not defend it. They did get Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge, the great opening pair, for just 56 runs, but Viv Richards and Larry Gomes both got fifties to see the West Indies home with 11.2 overs to spare.
Richards 80 not out was destructive, as the master blaster smashed 11 fours and a six in his 96 ball innings. The West Indies had comfortably made it to their third successive World Cup final, where they would meet India, the only team to have beaten them in the tournament so far.
The dramatic finale
Facing up to the might of the West Indies India started by losing the toss. Believing that with their powerful batting line-up they could chase any total, Clive Lloyd, the West Indies captain, put India in to bat. The Indians lost Sunil Gavaskar, their great opener, early, as Roberts bowled with his customary hostility. They recovered, but kept losing wickets at regular intervals, with no batsman managing to go on and make a big score. In the end they limped to 183 all out, only using 54.4 of their allocated 60 overs. It was a bitterly disappointing score and one which they knew would be very difficult to defend, especially against such a strong batting line-up.
The West Indies reply started badly, with Greenidge being bowled for 1 by Balwinder Sandhu. They recovered to post 50 without further loss, but then Haynes was out and the rot set in. India’s medium pacers started to strangle the West Indies, as they had done with England, with Madan Lal leading the attack. He had already accounted for Haynes and when he got Richards and Gomes the writing was on the wall for the West Indies. Lloyd and Bacchus soon followed, in what seemed a procession of West Indian wickets.
But great sides do not give up without a fight and Jeff Dujon, saviour of his team so many times, came to the crease and he and Marshall put on a brave 43, guiding the West Indies ever closer to the winning total. However, Mohinder Amarnath, with his medium pace, got rid of both of them with the score on 124 and the end was near. Kapil Dev trapped Roberts lbw, before Amarnath fittingly got the last wicket of Holding in the same way. The match was over and India had shocked the world by winning the final by 43 runs, claiming the World Cup for the first time. I doubt even the most ardent Indian fan had expected such a comprehensive win over the West Indies and few would have given them a chance at the innings break. It was a wonderful end to a great tournament.
From the opening day on the 9th of June to the dramatic final on the 25th June the 1983 World Cup was full of surprises. Much of this was down to the change in format, where the four teams in each of the two groups played each other twice, meaning more matches and more opportunities for upsets and fight backs. Cricket was also spread right across England and into Wales by the use of non-Test match venues for the first time. This excellent innovation gave the tournament a national appeal and led to great attendances at grounds more often used to sparse county crowds.
Unlike recent tournaments, the 1983 World Cup was very compact, with 27 matches being played in just 17 days. This meant several matches on some days and both semi-finals on the same day. I suppose this says a lot about the relative lack of planning for TV at the time, as no modern tournament would have two big games starting at the same time on the same day.
However, it made the 1983 World Cup move at an excellent pace, with the action coming thick and fast. By the time India and the West Indies took the field to contest the final cricket supporters around the world had already been treated to some spectacular action. Little did they know that the last match would provide them with such an amazing final twist.
Opening day shocks
Though England hammered 322 off New Zealand at the Oval, beating them by 106 runs, and Pakistan racked up 338 to defeat Sri Lanka, the opening day of the tournament belonged to Zimbabwe and India.
Playing in their first World Cup, the Zimbabweans, captained by the canny Duncan Fletcher, pulled off an incredible win over the Australians at Trent Bridge. Fletcher marshalled his players with the shrewd planning and tactics he has since employed as England’s coach, defending a seemingly low total of 239. As an individual Fletcher had a stunning game as well, scoring an unbeaten 69 and taking 4 for 42 to help restrict the Australians to 226 in their allotted 60 overs.
Though the Australians gained their revenge in the second match against Zimbabwe and the Zimbabweans lost both matches with the West Indies and with India, Zimbabwe were never over-awed by the occasion. In fact, they started a tradition of upsets in 1983, which they would happily continue through the next few World Cups.
India, who had only managed one win in each of the previous World Cups, in 1975 and 1979, started the 1983 tournament by beating the West Indies, who were the dominant force in both Test and one day international cricket. Having won the first two World Cups, the West Indies started as strong favourites to make it a hat-trick in 1983. India showed they could be beaten by scoring an impressive 262 against the West Indies’ fearsome bowling attack and then defending that total through the efforts of their medium pacers. It was an excellent win, built on a great all-round team performance and served as a warning that India were a more determined side this time round.
A devastating spell
In a team that could boast a bowling line-up of Andy Roberts, Joel Garner, Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding, Winston Davis was never going to be more than a back-up player, selected to give those great fast bowlers a rest. However, against Australia on a typical Headingly pitch Davis bowled one of the great spells in World Cup history. Not caring if he was hit for five an over Davis tore into the Australian batsmen and claimed 7 wickets for 53 runs in 10.3 destructive overs.
His bowling, and the big win that it helped achieve, meant Australia would struggle to make it out of the group stage. When West Indies beat them again later in the tournament and India crushed them in their last match it was all over for Australia, who would have fancied their chances in a group with India and Zimbabwe. Such was the nature of the 1983 World Cup, where surprises were the norm.
An explosive innings
When Kapil Dev strode to the crease at the Nevill Ground, Tunbridge Wells, his team were 17 for 5 against the surprisingly competitive Zimbabweans, who were looking for another big scalp on their first appearance in the World Cup. When he left the crease, unbeaten, he had blasted his team to a healthy total of 266 off their 60 overs. His 138 ball stay yielded 175 runs, including 16 fours and 6 sixes.
It was the kind of innings that even the greats can only dream of and the ultimate testament to a cricketer who knew no fear and thrived on pressure. Not only did he drag his team almost single-handedly to a good total, but Kapil Dev was also the captain, with all the extra responsibility that entailed. Granted the boundaries were short by international standards and Zimbabwe did not have the best bowling attack, but the destructive power and exquisite timing of Kapil Dev’s stroke play was simply amazing. I doubt Tunbridge Wells had ever seen anything like it before and I’m sure they’ve never seen anything like it since. A moment of grand excitement in a quiet English summer.
For the record Zimbabwe fought hard in their innings, being bowled out just 32 runs short of the required target. Their efforts would not be forgotten, but, perhaps, lost in the tornado that visited Kent that day.
The unlikely all-rounder
With the quartet of great all-rounders, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee all playing, the 1983 World Cup threatened to produce some fine all-round performances. Yet, it was the unlikely figure of Abdul Qadir who had, perhaps, the best all-round display in the tournament, when he stood almost alone with both ball and bat against New Zealand at Edgbaston.
Bowling his leg spin with his customary wizardry, Qadir cast a spell over the New Zealanders, giving away less than two runs an over and taking four top order wickets. His astonishing analysis of 12 overs, 4 maidens, 4 wickets for just 21 runs remains one of his finest in a distinguished one-day international career. Then, with Pakistan facing defeat at 131 for 8, Qadir came in to bat and scored an unbeaten 41, running out of partners in his bid to see his team home. It was an extraordinary individual performance from a man normally considered just a bowler.
The hosts disappoint
With the advantage of playing at home, and having lost only one match in the group stage, England were expected to beat India and book their place in a second successive World Cup final. However, India had by now found a winning formula, which they used to great effect against the host nation. Using their medium pacers India strangled England’s batsmen, reducing the scoring rate and forcing mistakes.
With their opponents on the rack Kapil Dev, the Indian captain, brought himself on at the death to further reduce the run rate and finish off the tail. The tactics worked very well and England struggled to an under par 216 all out off their 60 overs. In reply India started slowly, building a good foundation before the middle order saw them home. They only lost 4 wickets in the run chase and surpassed England’s total with 5.2 overs to spare. None of England’s much vaunted bowlers could do anything about it and the hosts could only look on with disappointment as India progressed to their first World Cup final.
A one-sided affair
Pakistan’s talented team, under the astute leadership of Imran Khan, had high hopes as they took the field against the mighty West Indies. Yes they were underdogs, but they had played well in the group stage and had the players to create an upset. The problem was the West Indies were in no mood to let anything bar their way to the final. Apart from a shock loss to India in their first match they had beaten all who had stood in their way.
The top quality pace quartet of Roberts, Garner, Marshall and Holding were on top form and ripped through the Pakistan batting line-up. To Pakistan’s credit they stuck it out for the full 60 overs, refusing to be bowled out, and managed to post a total of 184. Unfortunately, it never looked enough and Pakistan, despite having some great bowlers, could not defend it. They did get Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge, the great opening pair, for just 56 runs, but Viv Richards and Larry Gomes both got fifties to see the West Indies home with 11.2 overs to spare.
Richards 80 not out was destructive, as the master blaster smashed 11 fours and a six in his 96 ball innings. The West Indies had comfortably made it to their third successive World Cup final, where they would meet India, the only team to have beaten them in the tournament so far.
The dramatic finale
Facing up to the might of the West Indies India started by losing the toss. Believing that with their powerful batting line-up they could chase any total, Clive Lloyd, the West Indies captain, put India in to bat. The Indians lost Sunil Gavaskar, their great opener, early, as Roberts bowled with his customary hostility. They recovered, but kept losing wickets at regular intervals, with no batsman managing to go on and make a big score. In the end they limped to 183 all out, only using 54.4 of their allocated 60 overs. It was a bitterly disappointing score and one which they knew would be very difficult to defend, especially against such a strong batting line-up.
The West Indies reply started badly, with Greenidge being bowled for 1 by Balwinder Sandhu. They recovered to post 50 without further loss, but then Haynes was out and the rot set in. India’s medium pacers started to strangle the West Indies, as they had done with England, with Madan Lal leading the attack. He had already accounted for Haynes and when he got Richards and Gomes the writing was on the wall for the West Indies. Lloyd and Bacchus soon followed, in what seemed a procession of West Indian wickets.
But great sides do not give up without a fight and Jeff Dujon, saviour of his team so many times, came to the crease and he and Marshall put on a brave 43, guiding the West Indies ever closer to the winning total. However, Mohinder Amarnath, with his medium pace, got rid of both of them with the score on 124 and the end was near. Kapil Dev trapped Roberts lbw, before Amarnath fittingly got the last wicket of Holding in the same way. The match was over and India had shocked the world by winning the final by 43 runs, claiming the World Cup for the first time. I doubt even the most ardent Indian fan had expected such a comprehensive win over the West Indies and few would have given them a chance at the innings break. It was a wonderful end to a great tournament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)