This could be the day for a big shock. First up, Bangladesh take on similar subcontinental opposition in India and will fancy their chances of an upset. India are not the most consistant ODI side in the world and Bangladesh do have some promising youngsters spread throughout their ranks, who when they fire, are capable of matching the best. The pitch may prove to be a key factor and Bangladesh will be hoping that it is slow and low rather than quick and bouncy. They have the spinners to exploit such a pitch in Rafique and Abdur Razzaq, whilst Mashrafe Mortaza often carries the pace attack on his own, though Syed Rasel is a talent. India, minus the injured Sreesanth, are said to be the side which plays spin the best though, so it should be a fascinating encounter.
The other match may not prove to be quite so close, but given the moment, St Patrick's day and the injuries to some key Pakistani players, there could well be the biggest shock of the tournament on the cards. One thing is certain though, with Younis Khan, Mohammad Youssef and Inzy lining up for Pakistan, Ireland will need more than one big innings from Jeremy Bray to succeed on this occasion. The likes of Eion Morgan, Andre Botha and Niall O'Brien will all need to fire as well and be well backed up by the likes of Trent Johnston late on.
Johnston meanwhile will know that Ireland's best chance lies in winning the toss and bowling first on a moist and slightly green surface and will be counting on the bounce of Boyd Rankin to upset the Pakistani batsmen. Although the bowling was Pakistan's stronger suit against the West Indies, it does look slightly weak, with no Aktar, Asif, Razzaq, or Afridi. Umar Gul though is a very threatening prospect and Naved is an expert at exploiting any movement from a responsive pitch, as he has often shown in country cricket, but he may not retain his place. It will be impossible for Ireland if they lose the toss, but if they win it, all results will be possible and the luck of the Irish may well come into play again.
Bangladesh vs India:
Prediction: India may have just too much for Bangladesh this time around, but it will not be easy. The batting looks strong and capable of dealing with Bangladesh's spin threat, whilst the bowling, though minus Sreesanth, should still contain enough variety to deal with Bangladesh's exuberant young guns, if the runs are on the board.
Players to Watch: Mashrafe Mortaza and Rahul Dravid.
Ireland vs Pakistan:
Prediction: Again, I am going to favour the team who wins the toss on this pitch. If it is Pakistan I really can see no chance for Ireland as Gul and co may well prove to be too much to handle first up. Win the toss though and Ireland are in with a shout.
Players to Watch: Eion Morgan and Younis Khan.
Showing posts with label World Cup 2007 build-up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Cup 2007 build-up. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 March 2007
Thursday, 15 March 2007
Previews: England vs New Zealand and South Africa vs Netherlands
After Ireland's fantastic result on Thursday the World Cup has really come to life and we head into Friday's round of matches bubbling with excitement. Arguably the biggest game of the tournament to date takes place in the afternoon, when England meet New Zealand in St. Lucia. England have had the best of recent encounters between the two sides, narrowly beating New Zealand to a place in the final of the recent CB series in Australia and the Kiwi's, buoyed by their recent 3-0 Chappell-Hadlee series victory over Australia, will be keen for some revenge.
It would seem to be a case of who will and who will not play tomorrow, with fitness doubts surrounding Vaughan, Anderson, McMillan, Gillespie, McCullum, Fulton and Oram. However, most are expected to play and whoever takes to the field we are guaranteed a splendid spectacle, between two flambouyant sides, captained by possibly the two best captains in World Cricket.
To the other match and one can see no other result than a victory for South Africa, one can only hope that it is a closer run thing than todays' mismatch between Bermuda and Sri Lanka, in which the minnows were defeated by the second largest margin in World Cup history. The match will though provide an interesting glance of how close Ryan ten Doeschate is to a South African call up.
England vs New Zealand:
Prediction: The patriot in me says England, the realist playing by the odds, New Zealand. It really is tough to call. With Pietersen coming into a recently successful side though, I must say England, by a whisker.
Players to Watch: It is tempting to mention the big guns, but I'm plumping for the battle between Panesar and Vettori, which could be key to deciding the outcome of the match on a slow track.
South Africa vs Netherlands:
Prediction: South Africa with ease eventually, though there may be the odd failure.
Players to Watch: Jaques Kallis rarely misses a chance to enhance his average and Ryan ten Doeschate will be looking to impress.
It would seem to be a case of who will and who will not play tomorrow, with fitness doubts surrounding Vaughan, Anderson, McMillan, Gillespie, McCullum, Fulton and Oram. However, most are expected to play and whoever takes to the field we are guaranteed a splendid spectacle, between two flambouyant sides, captained by possibly the two best captains in World Cricket.
To the other match and one can see no other result than a victory for South Africa, one can only hope that it is a closer run thing than todays' mismatch between Bermuda and Sri Lanka, in which the minnows were defeated by the second largest margin in World Cup history. The match will though provide an interesting glance of how close Ryan ten Doeschate is to a South African call up.
England vs New Zealand:
Prediction: The patriot in me says England, the realist playing by the odds, New Zealand. It really is tough to call. With Pietersen coming into a recently successful side though, I must say England, by a whisker.
Players to Watch: It is tempting to mention the big guns, but I'm plumping for the battle between Panesar and Vettori, which could be key to deciding the outcome of the match on a slow track.
South Africa vs Netherlands:
Prediction: South Africa with ease eventually, though there may be the odd failure.
Players to Watch: Jaques Kallis rarely misses a chance to enhance his average and Ryan ten Doeschate will be looking to impress.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Previews: Sri Lanka vs Bermuda; Ireland vs Zimbabwe
An interesting round of matches here. Sri Lanka will undoubtedly brush Bermuda away with consumate ease, but it will be worthwhile watching the performance of twenty stone police man Dwayne Leverock. His left arm spin was particuarly impressive against England and he has the potential to become one of the faces of the tournament, even though he is unlikely to feature beyond the group stages.
To the second match and there is a feeling building that Ireland have a sniff in this encounter. Ireland's impressive performance against South Africa and demolition of Canada, in their earlier warm up matches, has done enough to suggest that a mini upset may well be on the cards. However, Zimbabwe's fresh batch of youngsters will be looking to impress, given the negative publicity surrounding Zimbabwean cricket and whether or not this group of players merit their places in the squad, given the continued absence of the best Zimbabwean cricketers. The prize for the winner is a real chance at reaching the Super Eight Stage of the tournament, given Pakistan's injury woes and the sometimes inconsistant form of the West Indies.
Sri Lanka vs Bermuda:
Prediction: Sri Lanka to brush Bermuda aside, but only after Leverock has entertained the crowd with his "jiggling, jogging" celebration.
Players to Watch: Kumar Sangakkara and Dwayne Leverock.
Ireland vs Zimbabwe:
Prediction: With a tint of green on the wicket, the team who wins the toss and bowls should win. I'm going for the first shock of the competition and counting on the luck of the Irish to pull Ireland through in a tightly contested match.
Players to Watch: Trent Johnston and Sean Williams.
To the second match and there is a feeling building that Ireland have a sniff in this encounter. Ireland's impressive performance against South Africa and demolition of Canada, in their earlier warm up matches, has done enough to suggest that a mini upset may well be on the cards. However, Zimbabwe's fresh batch of youngsters will be looking to impress, given the negative publicity surrounding Zimbabwean cricket and whether or not this group of players merit their places in the squad, given the continued absence of the best Zimbabwean cricketers. The prize for the winner is a real chance at reaching the Super Eight Stage of the tournament, given Pakistan's injury woes and the sometimes inconsistant form of the West Indies.
Sri Lanka vs Bermuda:
Prediction: Sri Lanka to brush Bermuda aside, but only after Leverock has entertained the crowd with his "jiggling, jogging" celebration.
Players to Watch: Kumar Sangakkara and Dwayne Leverock.
Ireland vs Zimbabwe:
Prediction: With a tint of green on the wicket, the team who wins the toss and bowls should win. I'm going for the first shock of the competition and counting on the luck of the Irish to pull Ireland through in a tightly contested match.
Players to Watch: Trent Johnston and Sean Williams.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Previews: Australia vs Scotland; Kenya vs Canada
Australia vs Scotland:
Prediction: Australia to cruise home.
Players to Watch: Ricky Ponting of course and Ryan Watson.
Players to Watch: The two captains and war horses, Steve Tikolo and John Davison.
Prediction: Australia to cruise home.
Players to Watch: Ricky Ponting of course and Ryan Watson.
Kenya vs Canada:
Prediction: Kenya by a fairly comfortable margin. They are the side capable of a shock in this group.Players to Watch: The two captains and war horses, Steve Tikolo and John Davison.
The Young Pretenders
With the World XI complete we now have an excellent idea of who exactly will be the main danger men at the World Cup. We now look at the up-and-coming youngsters in World cricket who are looking to make their mark in the Caribbean.
Mitchell Johnson (Australia)
At 25, Johnson is perhaps not quite so young, but he is fresh to international cricket after finally overcoming years of injury problems. Possibly the most hyped Australian bowler of the last decade, his fast left arm bowling style is in contrast to that of team mate Nathan Bracken, who is more of a swing bowler. Johnson of course accounted for Kevin Pietersen at the recent ICC Champions Trophy with a splendid one two set-up and he has also taken the prized wickets of Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. Yet to play a Test match, 2007 is surely his breakthrough year. With an ODI average of 27.88 and strike rate of 31.38 at an economy of 5.33, he is a very promising package indeed.
Shahriar Nafees (Bangladesh)
A left handed opening batsman who debuted at the tender age of 19, he has quickly established himself as an international class player. Now 21, he is a typically aggressive batsman who is renowned for his audacious sweep shots. Averaging 33.50 in Test matches and 40.40 in ODI’s, he has a very bright future ahead of him, as he displayed in making his maiden Test match century against none other than Australia. Yet to score a century in ODI’s against one of the big boys, he will be looking to do precisely that in the Caribbean.
Liam Plunkett (England)
A surprise call up for the post-Ashes winter tours of Pakistan and India after injury to Chris Tremlett, Plunkett has gone from strength to strength, especially since the latest Ashes series. He is a typical Duncan Fletcher player, capable of fifties with the bat, good work in the field and of course, match winning spells of seam and swing bowling, at lively medium-fast pace. His 3-43 against Australia in the deciding second final of the recent CB series may just earn him a starting birth ahead of Jon Lewis. His Test batting average is nothing special at a mere 8.62, but his ODI average of 23.45 is indicative of a player who can bat. A Test bowling average of 37.56 and strike rate of 62.75 is proof that Plunkett is still learning, but in ODIs his performances have improved markedly and he is better than his average of 35.82, at a strike rate of 36.89, with a declining economy rate of 5.82 suggest. He has the potential to match Irfan Pathan’s best performances.
Shanthakumaran Sreesanth (India)
At just 24, he seems to have established himself as India’s best pace bowler. A very aggressive “in your face” type of bowler, he enjoys bowling controlled outswing at a good fast-medium pace. His Test match bowling average of 25.97 and strike rate of 46.18 provide early evidence of his class. Though he can be expensive at times, with an ODI economy rate of 5.75, he is also a wicket taker and will be key to India’s challenge in the West Indies. He is still developing as an ODI bowler, but an average of 36.11 and strike rate of 37.62 is still nothing to ashamed of. Also capable of the odd heave ho with the bat.
Ross Taylor (New Zealand)
At 23 Taylor looks to have established himself in the Kiwi middle order for a long time to come. An athletic fielder and handy off spinner, this aggressive young right handed middle order batsman is highly reminiscent of Kevin Pietersen, with his preference for leg side shots, which can be his downfall when the ball strikes his pads. However, his timing is such that this is a rare event and he is a powerful batsman who adds impetus to New Zealand’s top order, with lusty blows over deep mid-wicket a favourite. Averaging 39.93 in ODIs, including fantastic hundreds against the Aussies and Sri Lankans, a Test call will surely follow later in the year.
AB de Villiers (South Africa)
A real team player, A.B. seems to have been around for ages. Still only just turned 23, he has yet to settle down into a regular batting position. He currently opens in the ODI side, though he has also batted throughout the rest of the order in both ODI and Test match cricket. A wicket keeper batsman, he unsurprisingly makes a superb outfielder with his customary acrobatics. Whilst not yet spectacular, his batting averages of 35.14 in Tests and 34.00 in ODI’s are indicative of a man still searching for the position which he can make his own. Watch out for his aggressive style of batting, which in conjunction with Graeme Smiths', can be a real pleasure to behold.
Lasith Malinga (Sri Lanka)
One of the “variety” bowlers within the varied Sri Lankan attack, his round-arm action can be extremely difficult for opposing batsmen to pick up, especially when the ball is spearing into their toes at 95mph. An exceptionally fast and aggressive bowler, a large number of his victims are bowled, because of his unique bowling style. He holds an ODI average of 26.97 and strike rate of 33.82, at a surprisingly low economy rate of 4.78 for a strike bowler. It is in Test cricket where his figures truly are remarkable for a 23 year old though. Possessing an average of 31.57, he has an outstanding strike rate of just 49.45. Quip “Malinga the slinger” at your peril.
Jerome Taylor (West Indies)
The spearhead of the West Indian attack at just 22, this genuinely fast bowler has a very bright future ahead of him. Though it took him two years to recover from being pushed into the Test team far too early, at just 18 years of age, he is now a much stronger character. His Test figures are recovering, with an average of 33.19 and strike rate of 57.61. He has though excelled in ODI’s, with a bowling average of 26.72 and strike rate of 32.83 at an economy of 4.88 and he already has an ODI hat-trick to his name against Australia in the recent ICC Champions Trophy. Possesses a deadly Yorker, which Darren Gough would be proud of.
Chris Pallett
Mitchell Johnson (Australia)
At 25, Johnson is perhaps not quite so young, but he is fresh to international cricket after finally overcoming years of injury problems. Possibly the most hyped Australian bowler of the last decade, his fast left arm bowling style is in contrast to that of team mate Nathan Bracken, who is more of a swing bowler. Johnson of course accounted for Kevin Pietersen at the recent ICC Champions Trophy with a splendid one two set-up and he has also taken the prized wickets of Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. Yet to play a Test match, 2007 is surely his breakthrough year. With an ODI average of 27.88 and strike rate of 31.38 at an economy of 5.33, he is a very promising package indeed.
Shahriar Nafees (Bangladesh)
A left handed opening batsman who debuted at the tender age of 19, he has quickly established himself as an international class player. Now 21, he is a typically aggressive batsman who is renowned for his audacious sweep shots. Averaging 33.50 in Test matches and 40.40 in ODI’s, he has a very bright future ahead of him, as he displayed in making his maiden Test match century against none other than Australia. Yet to score a century in ODI’s against one of the big boys, he will be looking to do precisely that in the Caribbean.
Liam Plunkett (England)
A surprise call up for the post-Ashes winter tours of Pakistan and India after injury to Chris Tremlett, Plunkett has gone from strength to strength, especially since the latest Ashes series. He is a typical Duncan Fletcher player, capable of fifties with the bat, good work in the field and of course, match winning spells of seam and swing bowling, at lively medium-fast pace. His 3-43 against Australia in the deciding second final of the recent CB series may just earn him a starting birth ahead of Jon Lewis. His Test batting average is nothing special at a mere 8.62, but his ODI average of 23.45 is indicative of a player who can bat. A Test bowling average of 37.56 and strike rate of 62.75 is proof that Plunkett is still learning, but in ODIs his performances have improved markedly and he is better than his average of 35.82, at a strike rate of 36.89, with a declining economy rate of 5.82 suggest. He has the potential to match Irfan Pathan’s best performances.
Shanthakumaran Sreesanth (India)
At just 24, he seems to have established himself as India’s best pace bowler. A very aggressive “in your face” type of bowler, he enjoys bowling controlled outswing at a good fast-medium pace. His Test match bowling average of 25.97 and strike rate of 46.18 provide early evidence of his class. Though he can be expensive at times, with an ODI economy rate of 5.75, he is also a wicket taker and will be key to India’s challenge in the West Indies. He is still developing as an ODI bowler, but an average of 36.11 and strike rate of 37.62 is still nothing to ashamed of. Also capable of the odd heave ho with the bat.
Ross Taylor (New Zealand)
At 23 Taylor looks to have established himself in the Kiwi middle order for a long time to come. An athletic fielder and handy off spinner, this aggressive young right handed middle order batsman is highly reminiscent of Kevin Pietersen, with his preference for leg side shots, which can be his downfall when the ball strikes his pads. However, his timing is such that this is a rare event and he is a powerful batsman who adds impetus to New Zealand’s top order, with lusty blows over deep mid-wicket a favourite. Averaging 39.93 in ODIs, including fantastic hundreds against the Aussies and Sri Lankans, a Test call will surely follow later in the year.
AB de Villiers (South Africa)
A real team player, A.B. seems to have been around for ages. Still only just turned 23, he has yet to settle down into a regular batting position. He currently opens in the ODI side, though he has also batted throughout the rest of the order in both ODI and Test match cricket. A wicket keeper batsman, he unsurprisingly makes a superb outfielder with his customary acrobatics. Whilst not yet spectacular, his batting averages of 35.14 in Tests and 34.00 in ODI’s are indicative of a man still searching for the position which he can make his own. Watch out for his aggressive style of batting, which in conjunction with Graeme Smiths', can be a real pleasure to behold.
Lasith Malinga (Sri Lanka)
One of the “variety” bowlers within the varied Sri Lankan attack, his round-arm action can be extremely difficult for opposing batsmen to pick up, especially when the ball is spearing into their toes at 95mph. An exceptionally fast and aggressive bowler, a large number of his victims are bowled, because of his unique bowling style. He holds an ODI average of 26.97 and strike rate of 33.82, at a surprisingly low economy rate of 4.78 for a strike bowler. It is in Test cricket where his figures truly are remarkable for a 23 year old though. Possessing an average of 31.57, he has an outstanding strike rate of just 49.45. Quip “Malinga the slinger” at your peril.
Jerome Taylor (West Indies)
The spearhead of the West Indian attack at just 22, this genuinely fast bowler has a very bright future ahead of him. Though it took him two years to recover from being pushed into the Test team far too early, at just 18 years of age, he is now a much stronger character. His Test figures are recovering, with an average of 33.19 and strike rate of 57.61. He has though excelled in ODI’s, with a bowling average of 26.72 and strike rate of 32.83 at an economy of 4.88 and he already has an ODI hat-trick to his name against Australia in the recent ICC Champions Trophy. Possesses a deadly Yorker, which Darren Gough would be proud of.
Chris Pallett
West Indies vs Pakistan Preview
Both teams come into this match with varying levels of confidence. Pakistan will be buoyed by their success over World leaders South Africa in the final warm up match, whilst the West Indies suffered a huge blow to their confidence with a humiliating collapse against India in their last warm up game.
Counteracting this though is of course the fact that the West Indies will be opening this eagerly anticipated tournament in front of their own fans on their own soil, a proud moment for any nation. Pakistan meanwhile are still all to aware that the recent losses of Shoaib Aktar, Mohammad Asif and Abdul Razzaq could destroy their World Cup challenge.
With many predicting the pitches to be slow and low though, Pakistan's Danish Kaneria will be looking for the chance to firmly establish himself as Shane Warne's successor on the World stage. With Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi and Mohammad Hafeez in the side though it remains to be seen whether he will be given that opportunity. Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels will be looking to match the Pakistani spinners in what could be a relatively low scoring affair.
This game appears to be almost too close to call. The West Indies have the upper hand in previous World Cup meetings between the two sides, winning five and losing just two. However, Pakistan will remember fondly their last meetings with the West Indies in the Caribbean, when they whitewashed them with a 3-0 series win in 2005.
Prediction: West Indies to get off to the start this tournament needs them to, with a narrow victory over their sub-continental opposition, in a reasonably low scoring encounter.
Players to Watch: Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Mohammad Youssef.
What do you think?
Counteracting this though is of course the fact that the West Indies will be opening this eagerly anticipated tournament in front of their own fans on their own soil, a proud moment for any nation. Pakistan meanwhile are still all to aware that the recent losses of Shoaib Aktar, Mohammad Asif and Abdul Razzaq could destroy their World Cup challenge.
With many predicting the pitches to be slow and low though, Pakistan's Danish Kaneria will be looking for the chance to firmly establish himself as Shane Warne's successor on the World stage. With Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi and Mohammad Hafeez in the side though it remains to be seen whether he will be given that opportunity. Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels will be looking to match the Pakistani spinners in what could be a relatively low scoring affair.
This game appears to be almost too close to call. The West Indies have the upper hand in previous World Cup meetings between the two sides, winning five and losing just two. However, Pakistan will remember fondly their last meetings with the West Indies in the Caribbean, when they whitewashed them with a 3-0 series win in 2005.
Prediction: West Indies to get off to the start this tournament needs them to, with a narrow victory over their sub-continental opposition, in a reasonably low scoring encounter.
Players to Watch: Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Mohammad Youssef.
What do you think?
Monday, 12 March 2007
World 11
In the build up to the World Cup, we picked our ODI World 11. This is the final side:
(Click on a player's name to read the piece written on them in compiling the side)
Chris Gayle
Sanath Jayasuriya
Ricky Ponting (captain)
Kumar Sangakkara (wicket-keeper)
Kevin Pietersen
Michael Hussey
Yuvrag Singh
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Shane Bond
Muttiah Muralitharan
All players unavailable for the tournament were not considered.
Update: Only four members of the side made our World Cup Dream Team.
Many of you asked why Adam Gilchrist was not selected: the reason is he has averaged just 25 in his last 20 ODIs. Sangakkara, meanwhile, was the leading ODI run-scorer in 2006.
The contrasting pair of Shaun Pollock and Shane Bond would open the bowling; Pollock would normally bowl with the new ball, while Bond would bowl around five overs, and would return for two bursts in the middle of the innings.
Andrew Flintoff would be used as first change, while spinners Murriah Muralitharan and Chis Gayle would bowl their overs between overs 20 and 50, with Sanath Jayasuriya bowling a few overs of spin if the pitch was particularly conducive to it. Flintoff, Gayle and Muralitharan would bowl the last 10 overs between them.
Feel free leave your comments on the final side. Are the selection panel in need of P45s?
(Click on a player's name to read the piece written on them in compiling the side)
Chris Gayle
Sanath Jayasuriya
Ricky Ponting (captain)
Kumar Sangakkara (wicket-keeper)
Kevin Pietersen
Michael Hussey
Yuvrag Singh
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Shane Bond
Muttiah Muralitharan
All players unavailable for the tournament were not considered.
Update: Only four members of the side made our World Cup Dream Team.
Many of you asked why Adam Gilchrist was not selected: the reason is he has averaged just 25 in his last 20 ODIs. Sangakkara, meanwhile, was the leading ODI run-scorer in 2006.
The contrasting pair of Shaun Pollock and Shane Bond would open the bowling; Pollock would normally bowl with the new ball, while Bond would bowl around five overs, and would return for two bursts in the middle of the innings.
Andrew Flintoff would be used as first change, while spinners Murriah Muralitharan and Chis Gayle would bowl their overs between overs 20 and 50, with Sanath Jayasuriya bowling a few overs of spin if the pitch was particularly conducive to it. Flintoff, Gayle and Muralitharan would bowl the last 10 overs between them.
Feel free leave your comments on the final side. Are the selection panel in need of P45s?
In praise of the World Cup format
Clearly, it has become increasingly fashionable to criticise the ICC. There are, of course, plenty of reasons to be unhappy with cricket’s governing body. But the widespread discontent with the structuring of this World Cup is surely unjustified.
The chief cause for complaint for many, including Martin Crowe at the 2006 Colin Cowdrey Lecture, seems to be that the tournament will drag on too long; it lasts more than six weeks. And the fact that there are 16 nations competing, which means that half of them are there just to take part, has been met with outcry. The ICC, it seems, is shamelessly damaging the game’s dignity in their desperation to make cricket a global game, which is an impossibility.
Yet, although there will be 16 countries taking part, an increase of two from the last World Cup, the number of games between the elite – that is, all the Test nations apart from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – and the smaller cricketing countries has dropped from 24 to 16.
The ICC has a duty to make the World Cup a stage for more than the mere superpowers of the game. The football World Cup, for example, has been expanded to 32 teams recently. Although the diluted quality that used to be the hallmark of the tournament right from the off has diminished rather, the vast majority of football fans are happy with the change. The chance to see otherwise nondescript players and teams taking on the world’s best is intriguing; with the worst sides playing a mere three games, there is little chance for fans to become bored watching relative minnows playing.
And therein lies the problem with the 2003 cricket World Cup. In 2003, sides such as Holland, Namibia and Bangladesh played six games, which was patently far too many. If sides play three games they are more likely to produce competent performances; if they are forced to play six, the novelty wears off and their enthusiasm and confidence will inevitably suffer as they are thrashed routinely, which makes for a terrible spectacle for fans.
There seems no doubt that the 1992 World Cup featured something close to the ideal format. Eight Test-playing sides and one minnow each played each other in a round robin competition, and the top four teams then progressed into semi-finals. Indeed, Crowe said that “Of all the World Cups I played in or watched over 27 years, the best structure by far was the 1992 World Cup.”
The truth is that it is simply not plausible that the ICC will ever even consider such a ‘closed door’ structure. Instead, they have retained the key principle that made the ’92 format such a success – everyone playing everyone – and updated it to include the minnows it understandably aims to spread the game too. Simultaneously, they have accepted the logic of a reserve day, thus going a considerable length to ensure cricketing justice is done.
The general quality of cricket in the four groups of four will probably not be the best; certainly, even die-hard cricket fans may not have the stomach for Bermuda’s games. But it is imperative the minnows are allowed some chance against the best and it would be churlish to argue with the likes of Kenya getting three prestigious games every four years.
At the last World Cup, it was relatively hard for sides to progress to the Super Six round. But any sense of tension created by close games between sides vying for progression was ruined amidst all the minnow bashing and run rate preoccupation.
In the West Indies, however, the standard of cricket from the start of the Super Eight stage should be tremendous. In short, the ICC has taken the consummate World Cup format and dragged it into the 21st century. For this it deserves enormous credit.
The chief cause for complaint for many, including Martin Crowe at the 2006 Colin Cowdrey Lecture, seems to be that the tournament will drag on too long; it lasts more than six weeks. And the fact that there are 16 nations competing, which means that half of them are there just to take part, has been met with outcry. The ICC, it seems, is shamelessly damaging the game’s dignity in their desperation to make cricket a global game, which is an impossibility.
Yet, although there will be 16 countries taking part, an increase of two from the last World Cup, the number of games between the elite – that is, all the Test nations apart from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – and the smaller cricketing countries has dropped from 24 to 16.
The ICC has a duty to make the World Cup a stage for more than the mere superpowers of the game. The football World Cup, for example, has been expanded to 32 teams recently. Although the diluted quality that used to be the hallmark of the tournament right from the off has diminished rather, the vast majority of football fans are happy with the change. The chance to see otherwise nondescript players and teams taking on the world’s best is intriguing; with the worst sides playing a mere three games, there is little chance for fans to become bored watching relative minnows playing.
And therein lies the problem with the 2003 cricket World Cup. In 2003, sides such as Holland, Namibia and Bangladesh played six games, which was patently far too many. If sides play three games they are more likely to produce competent performances; if they are forced to play six, the novelty wears off and their enthusiasm and confidence will inevitably suffer as they are thrashed routinely, which makes for a terrible spectacle for fans.
There seems no doubt that the 1992 World Cup featured something close to the ideal format. Eight Test-playing sides and one minnow each played each other in a round robin competition, and the top four teams then progressed into semi-finals. Indeed, Crowe said that “Of all the World Cups I played in or watched over 27 years, the best structure by far was the 1992 World Cup.”
The truth is that it is simply not plausible that the ICC will ever even consider such a ‘closed door’ structure. Instead, they have retained the key principle that made the ’92 format such a success – everyone playing everyone – and updated it to include the minnows it understandably aims to spread the game too. Simultaneously, they have accepted the logic of a reserve day, thus going a considerable length to ensure cricketing justice is done.
The general quality of cricket in the four groups of four will probably not be the best; certainly, even die-hard cricket fans may not have the stomach for Bermuda’s games. But it is imperative the minnows are allowed some chance against the best and it would be churlish to argue with the likes of Kenya getting three prestigious games every four years.
At the last World Cup, it was relatively hard for sides to progress to the Super Six round. But any sense of tension created by close games between sides vying for progression was ruined amidst all the minnow bashing and run rate preoccupation.
In the West Indies, however, the standard of cricket from the start of the Super Eight stage should be tremendous. In short, the ICC has taken the consummate World Cup format and dragged it into the 21st century. For this it deserves enormous credit.
Sunday, 11 March 2007
Muttiah Muralitharan
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We conclude with our number eleven, Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan.
How does one adequately describe the greatest off-spinner ever to play the game? A player who can rip through any batting line-up on any surface and who always manages to smile, despite the many accusations that have dogged his career.
With his amazing control and the ability to extract turn on any pitch, Muralitharan is a formidable opponent for even the greatest of batsmen. Add to this his experience and boundless enthusiasm and you have the ultimate spin bowler. Even if the pitches in the West Indies were the fast bowler's paradises of old he would emerge as one of the top players in the forthcoming World Cup, but given the slow, turning nature of current caribbean wickets he may well be unplayable.
A veteran of 287 ODIs, in which has amassed an unthinkable tally of 432 wickets at the incredible average of 23.07, Murali is already one of the all-time greats. If his Sri Lankan team-mates can continue their current excellent form it might just be they who claim their second World Cup. It would be fitting for the Kandy magician to hold aloft the World Cup, as he has done so much to entertain and delight cricket fans over the years and, one hopes, will continue to do so for many more.
How does one adequately describe the greatest off-spinner ever to play the game? A player who can rip through any batting line-up on any surface and who always manages to smile, despite the many accusations that have dogged his career.
With his amazing control and the ability to extract turn on any pitch, Muralitharan is a formidable opponent for even the greatest of batsmen. Add to this his experience and boundless enthusiasm and you have the ultimate spin bowler. Even if the pitches in the West Indies were the fast bowler's paradises of old he would emerge as one of the top players in the forthcoming World Cup, but given the slow, turning nature of current caribbean wickets he may well be unplayable.
A veteran of 287 ODIs, in which has amassed an unthinkable tally of 432 wickets at the incredible average of 23.07, Murali is already one of the all-time greats. If his Sri Lankan team-mates can continue their current excellent form it might just be they who claim their second World Cup. It would be fitting for the Kandy magician to hold aloft the World Cup, as he has done so much to entertain and delight cricket fans over the years and, one hopes, will continue to do so for many more.
Saturday, 10 March 2007
Cornered tigers
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.
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.
Shane Bond
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number ten, New Zealand's Shane Bond.
Like all the best fast bowlers in cricket's rich history, Shane Bond possesses the deadly combination of terrifying pace and great control. His inswinging yorker is one of the best deliveries in the game, asking serious questions of even the most technically gifted batsmen currently playing.
His average in ODIs is an astonishing 19.66, coupled with an alarming strike rate of just 27.03 - a wicket every five and a half overs. For a strike bowler, whose main purpose is to take wickets, he also has a fine economy rate of 4.36. In other words, Bond is the ultimate attacking fast bowler, a potential match-winner on any surface.
His only achilles heel is injury, to which he succumbs all too often. It is sad to note that in a career spanning over five years he has only played 59 ODIs. If he manages to keep fit for the whole of the forthcoming World Cup he could be one of the major stars and be a key factor in New Zealand progressing further than they ever have before.
Like all the best fast bowlers in cricket's rich history, Shane Bond possesses the deadly combination of terrifying pace and great control. His inswinging yorker is one of the best deliveries in the game, asking serious questions of even the most technically gifted batsmen currently playing.
His average in ODIs is an astonishing 19.66, coupled with an alarming strike rate of just 27.03 - a wicket every five and a half overs. For a strike bowler, whose main purpose is to take wickets, he also has a fine economy rate of 4.36. In other words, Bond is the ultimate attacking fast bowler, a potential match-winner on any surface.
His only achilles heel is injury, to which he succumbs all too often. It is sad to note that in a career spanning over five years he has only played 59 ODIs. If he manages to keep fit for the whole of the forthcoming World Cup he could be one of the major stars and be a key factor in New Zealand progressing further than they ever have before.
Drugs Could Steal The Headlines
As the World Cup becomes ever nearer, the amount of drug usage in sport, and in cricket, seems to be rising, not falling. Just a few months ago, we saw the fall of two great fast bowlers (Mohammed Asif and Shoaib Akhtar) due to drug abuse, only for their bans to somehow be over-ruled.
I ask myself: "How can those two cheats get away with that? How could the PCB bail them out like that - overturn the sentence?" And it is cases like this that is harming the sport. How can that be detterent to younger players, ones for the future, not to take drugs? If all they will do it be sentenced and then have their sentences over turned.
I am using Asif and Akhtar as an example because their case is very recent and is a major talking point. Heres another strange twist and turn: they will not be playing in the world cup. Due to injury so Pakistan say, but who could rule out the possibility that they have been pulled out over the possibility of them failing another drugs test? To me it all seems a set up.
I used the title 'Drugs Could Well Steal The Headlines' at the World Cup, because I can seriously see that becoming reality. I can just see the headline in the papers - "Mr X wins the World Cup for country X, but is under investingation for drug use". Think how much negative press that would give cricket in general. This is why we need rules that say; You can't overule bans, any offence is two years - no arguing. Because if one player gets made an example of, the rest might think first.
We've seen Warne, Asif, Shoiab and many others use drugs and been banned for World Cups before, lets hope that this time, the next generation of young international cricketers aren't lured in.
I ask myself: "How can those two cheats get away with that? How could the PCB bail them out like that - overturn the sentence?" And it is cases like this that is harming the sport. How can that be detterent to younger players, ones for the future, not to take drugs? If all they will do it be sentenced and then have their sentences over turned.
I am using Asif and Akhtar as an example because their case is very recent and is a major talking point. Heres another strange twist and turn: they will not be playing in the world cup. Due to injury so Pakistan say, but who could rule out the possibility that they have been pulled out over the possibility of them failing another drugs test? To me it all seems a set up.
I used the title 'Drugs Could Well Steal The Headlines' at the World Cup, because I can seriously see that becoming reality. I can just see the headline in the papers - "Mr X wins the World Cup for country X, but is under investingation for drug use". Think how much negative press that would give cricket in general. This is why we need rules that say; You can't overule bans, any offence is two years - no arguing. Because if one player gets made an example of, the rest might think first.
We've seen Warne, Asif, Shoiab and many others use drugs and been banned for World Cups before, lets hope that this time, the next generation of young international cricketers aren't lured in.
Friday, 9 March 2007
Shaun Pollock
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number nine, South Africa's Shaun Pollock.
It is amazing to think that Shaun Pollock has been operating at the top level of international cricket for over a decade now. In that time he has consistently been one of the best bowlers in both Tests and one-dayers. His current ODI form is outstanding, averaging 17.63 with the ball in the last year or so and 29.50 with the bat. He has been one of the key reasons for South Africa's wonderful recent run, culminating in them claiming the number one spot from Australia.
What makes Pollock such a great bowling allrounder is his incredible control of line and length, which gets him plenty of wickets as well as an astonishingly miserly economy rate - just 3.71 runs per over in 274 ODIs. He is a superb bowler with the new ball, extracting a great deal of seam movement on almost any surface. Add to this his accuracy and you have an almost perfect bowling machine.
Though he has been criticised for not making the most of his batting talent, Pollock has still managed to maintain a healthy average over the years and has made some telling contributions to South Africa's cause. His aggressive, fast-scoring style makes him an ideal number eight or nine, destroying the opposition's tiring attacks in the later overs.
His intelligence ensures that he is an astute judge of any match situation and he will be crucial to South Africa's chances in the forthcoming World Cup.
It is amazing to think that Shaun Pollock has been operating at the top level of international cricket for over a decade now. In that time he has consistently been one of the best bowlers in both Tests and one-dayers. His current ODI form is outstanding, averaging 17.63 with the ball in the last year or so and 29.50 with the bat. He has been one of the key reasons for South Africa's wonderful recent run, culminating in them claiming the number one spot from Australia.
What makes Pollock such a great bowling allrounder is his incredible control of line and length, which gets him plenty of wickets as well as an astonishingly miserly economy rate - just 3.71 runs per over in 274 ODIs. He is a superb bowler with the new ball, extracting a great deal of seam movement on almost any surface. Add to this his accuracy and you have an almost perfect bowling machine.
Though he has been criticised for not making the most of his batting talent, Pollock has still managed to maintain a healthy average over the years and has made some telling contributions to South Africa's cause. His aggressive, fast-scoring style makes him an ideal number eight or nine, destroying the opposition's tiring attacks in the later overs.
His intelligence ensures that he is an astute judge of any match situation and he will be crucial to South Africa's chances in the forthcoming World Cup.
Thursday, 8 March 2007
World Cup 2007 – Who are the main Contenders?
Those of you who have followed my series of articles on the teams in the tournament (five days and counting!) will not be surprised with who I think the main three contenders are. In this run through I will exclusively reveal who the winners of the competition will be (thus allowing the other teams to have the six weeks off!)
New Zealand
With wonderful comic timing, just as I reveal the Kiwis to be one of the main contenders for the title, they go and lose to Bangladesh in a warm up match. However, that result could be of greater worry to India, who have to get past Bangladesh in their group. New Zealand will take much more comfort out of their recent series of matches with Australia, in which no total was too big to chase down.
They are a team without stars. Stephen Fleming vies with Michael Vaughan for the title of most astute captain in world cricket, but has the crucial advantage over his rival of being fit and in some sort of form. Despite the loss of Nathan Astle, players like Peter Fulton and Ross Taylor are capable of scoring quickly and setting up a platform for Jacob Oram or Scott Styris to reap havoc in the last few overs.
Their pace attack is all the better for the return to fitness of Shane Bond, who’s average of under 20 per wicket with an economy rate of less than 4.5 must make him the leading pace bowler in One Day cricket. With Oram, Styris and the controlling Daniel Vettori also in the squad, new Zealand’s is almost a team without weakness.
Perennial semi-finalists, their consistency should allow them reach that stage again. However, without the star player to take them one stage further, that may again be the end of the road.
South Africa
Similar to New Zealand in that they are another team without stars but also without major weaknesses. Over the past few years they have been the only team to really challenge the Australians at the top of the world rankings and come to the World Cup as the number 1 ranked team, following a comprehensive series win over Pakistan and Australia’s spectacular collapse.
In Graeme Smith, they have a fast scoring opener and fast improving captain. The rest of the batting line up combines the solidity of Jacques Kallis and Ashwell Prince with the free-scoring of Herschelle Gibbs and the explosive Justin Kemp, who will enjoy the short boundaries in the Caribbean. The only concern may be who opens with Smith. In the frame are the fast scoring Loots Bosman or the rather more solid AB deVilliers, who will be one of the best fielders on show in the tournament if he gets the nod.
The South Africans are also long on all-rounders, with Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock and Andrew hall forming a formidable lower order. Boucher is also probably the best wicket-keeping wicket-keeper on show, not that most teams seem to be bothered about that any more.
Their pace attack is solid, if a little one-dimensional. However, in Pollock and Makhaya Ntini they have two of the top 3 ranked bowlers in One Day cricket, and in Andrew Hall and Andre Nel, two very useful death bowlers. The fifth bowler may be a problem though, and Kallis and Smith may end up bowling a number of overs.
Like New Zealand, they consistent enough to reach the semi-finals and they do have the quality to go all the way. Also , following their strange exits from the last two tournaments (Allan Donald forgetting to run on the last ball of the semi-final in 1999 and the Duckworth-Lewis mix up last time round), they may feel that they are due this time round. I, however, think they will come up just short, behind…..
Sri Lanka
Almost the antithesis of New Zealand and South Africa, Sri Lanka is a team made up of huge stars and bit players. A top four which only Australia could reasonably match and two of the all time great bowlers are then added to by a players who, while capable of having their day in the sun, would struggle to get into most other teams.
Captained by Mahela Jayawardene, Sri Lanka are led from the front by Sanath Jayasuriya, who has scored his 11500 runs at an incredible strike rate of over 90 per 100 balls. Sri Lanka have found a useful foil in Upal Tharanga, who came of age in England last year and then scored heavily in the Champions Trophy. These are then followed to the crease by Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkarra. Although Aravinda de Silva sees the Sri Lankan middle order as being a problem, numerous teams have seen over the past few months that the middle order don’t get much of a look in.
The bowling takes a similar vein, with Chaminda Vaas and Muttiah Muralitharan being able to bring 20 overs of tight bowling. However, unlike the batting, there is a need for 30 overs from elsewhere and with the bizarre action of Lasith Malinga continuing to pick up wickets and the off-spin of Jayasuriya also likely to be very effective, a lot will depend on the 5th or 6th bowlers in the team, likely to be Dilhara Fernando or Farveez Maharoof.
Sri Lanka have too much individual talent not to make the semi-finals, and too many match winners for any of the teams that they will meet in the knock-out stages. They are therefore my choice for the overall winners of the tournament.
New Zealand
With wonderful comic timing, just as I reveal the Kiwis to be one of the main contenders for the title, they go and lose to Bangladesh in a warm up match. However, that result could be of greater worry to India, who have to get past Bangladesh in their group. New Zealand will take much more comfort out of their recent series of matches with Australia, in which no total was too big to chase down.
They are a team without stars. Stephen Fleming vies with Michael Vaughan for the title of most astute captain in world cricket, but has the crucial advantage over his rival of being fit and in some sort of form. Despite the loss of Nathan Astle, players like Peter Fulton and Ross Taylor are capable of scoring quickly and setting up a platform for Jacob Oram or Scott Styris to reap havoc in the last few overs.
Their pace attack is all the better for the return to fitness of Shane Bond, who’s average of under 20 per wicket with an economy rate of less than 4.5 must make him the leading pace bowler in One Day cricket. With Oram, Styris and the controlling Daniel Vettori also in the squad, new Zealand’s is almost a team without weakness.
Perennial semi-finalists, their consistency should allow them reach that stage again. However, without the star player to take them one stage further, that may again be the end of the road.
South Africa
Similar to New Zealand in that they are another team without stars but also without major weaknesses. Over the past few years they have been the only team to really challenge the Australians at the top of the world rankings and come to the World Cup as the number 1 ranked team, following a comprehensive series win over Pakistan and Australia’s spectacular collapse.
In Graeme Smith, they have a fast scoring opener and fast improving captain. The rest of the batting line up combines the solidity of Jacques Kallis and Ashwell Prince with the free-scoring of Herschelle Gibbs and the explosive Justin Kemp, who will enjoy the short boundaries in the Caribbean. The only concern may be who opens with Smith. In the frame are the fast scoring Loots Bosman or the rather more solid AB deVilliers, who will be one of the best fielders on show in the tournament if he gets the nod.
The South Africans are also long on all-rounders, with Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock and Andrew hall forming a formidable lower order. Boucher is also probably the best wicket-keeping wicket-keeper on show, not that most teams seem to be bothered about that any more.
Their pace attack is solid, if a little one-dimensional. However, in Pollock and Makhaya Ntini they have two of the top 3 ranked bowlers in One Day cricket, and in Andrew Hall and Andre Nel, two very useful death bowlers. The fifth bowler may be a problem though, and Kallis and Smith may end up bowling a number of overs.
Like New Zealand, they consistent enough to reach the semi-finals and they do have the quality to go all the way. Also , following their strange exits from the last two tournaments (Allan Donald forgetting to run on the last ball of the semi-final in 1999 and the Duckworth-Lewis mix up last time round), they may feel that they are due this time round. I, however, think they will come up just short, behind…..
Sri Lanka
Almost the antithesis of New Zealand and South Africa, Sri Lanka is a team made up of huge stars and bit players. A top four which only Australia could reasonably match and two of the all time great bowlers are then added to by a players who, while capable of having their day in the sun, would struggle to get into most other teams.
Captained by Mahela Jayawardene, Sri Lanka are led from the front by Sanath Jayasuriya, who has scored his 11500 runs at an incredible strike rate of over 90 per 100 balls. Sri Lanka have found a useful foil in Upal Tharanga, who came of age in England last year and then scored heavily in the Champions Trophy. These are then followed to the crease by Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkarra. Although Aravinda de Silva sees the Sri Lankan middle order as being a problem, numerous teams have seen over the past few months that the middle order don’t get much of a look in.
The bowling takes a similar vein, with Chaminda Vaas and Muttiah Muralitharan being able to bring 20 overs of tight bowling. However, unlike the batting, there is a need for 30 overs from elsewhere and with the bizarre action of Lasith Malinga continuing to pick up wickets and the off-spin of Jayasuriya also likely to be very effective, a lot will depend on the 5th or 6th bowlers in the team, likely to be Dilhara Fernando or Farveez Maharoof.
Sri Lanka have too much individual talent not to make the semi-finals, and too many match winners for any of the teams that they will meet in the knock-out stages. They are therefore my choice for the overall winners of the tournament.
Andrew Flintoff
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number eight, England's talismanic allrounder, Andrew Flintoff.
At his best Flintoff is almost peerless amongst current one-day cricketers. He has the ability to influence the result of a match with both bat and ball and to lift the performance of his team.
Though he is a genuine allrounder he is more consistent with the ball than the bat. His aggression and accuracy enable him to both regularly take wickets and maintain a miserly economy rate. He is best employed as a first change bowler, containing the opposition in the second and third powerplays, and as a death bowler, where his control of line and length make him so hard to score off. He is also the first choice when wickets are needed, intimidating the batsmen with his pace and aggression.
In his pomp, Flintoff is a delightfully destructive batsman, launching huge sixes to all parts and crunching drives and pulls into the advertising hoardings. Sadly, the injuries that have plagued him recently seem to have dented his batting much more than his bowling, though he did make a few decent scores in the CB series. If he finds form with both bat and ball then the 2007 World Cup could mark the highpoint of an already wonderful career.
At his best Flintoff is almost peerless amongst current one-day cricketers. He has the ability to influence the result of a match with both bat and ball and to lift the performance of his team.
Though he is a genuine allrounder he is more consistent with the ball than the bat. His aggression and accuracy enable him to both regularly take wickets and maintain a miserly economy rate. He is best employed as a first change bowler, containing the opposition in the second and third powerplays, and as a death bowler, where his control of line and length make him so hard to score off. He is also the first choice when wickets are needed, intimidating the batsmen with his pace and aggression.
In his pomp, Flintoff is a delightfully destructive batsman, launching huge sixes to all parts and crunching drives and pulls into the advertising hoardings. Sadly, the injuries that have plagued him recently seem to have dented his batting much more than his bowling, though he did make a few decent scores in the CB series. If he finds form with both bat and ball then the 2007 World Cup could mark the highpoint of an already wonderful career.
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Yuvraj Singh
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number seven, India's Yuvraj Singh.
One of cricket's most stylish and naturally talented batsmen, Yuvraj Singh made an immediate impact on the International scene in his debut innings, aged just 18, when he blasted 84 to help India beat the mighty Australians. Though he has had some ups and downs over the years he has been in great one-day form since the beginning of 2006, averaging 54.14. In that time he has struck two centuries and six fifties, amassing nearly 1000 runs.
His clean hitting and impressive strike rate of 85.98 make Yuvraj one of the most difficult batsmen to contain once he is going. He also has the ability to temper his innings to the match situation, aggressively pushing up the run rate or seeing his side home. Add to this his wonderful fielding and canny left-arm spin and you have one of the most dangerous one-day players in world cricket.
One of cricket's most stylish and naturally talented batsmen, Yuvraj Singh made an immediate impact on the International scene in his debut innings, aged just 18, when he blasted 84 to help India beat the mighty Australians. Though he has had some ups and downs over the years he has been in great one-day form since the beginning of 2006, averaging 54.14. In that time he has struck two centuries and six fifties, amassing nearly 1000 runs.
His clean hitting and impressive strike rate of 85.98 make Yuvraj one of the most difficult batsmen to contain once he is going. He also has the ability to temper his innings to the match situation, aggressively pushing up the run rate or seeing his side home. Add to this his wonderful fielding and canny left-arm spin and you have one of the most dangerous one-day players in world cricket.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Mike Hussey
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number six, Australia's Mr Cricket.
Mike Hussey was 30 by the time he was a regular in the Australian side but, ever since, he has been amassing runs at such a rate that it has been near impossible not to mention the word ‘Bradmanesque’. After 16 Tests, he is averaging 80 with the bat; in 61 ODIs, he is averaging 67 – no one who has played so many games has averaged within even 10 of Hussey.
Hussey is one of many high-class ‘finishers’ in the Australian side – Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds being the others – but he is patently the best. Despite generally being seen as an accumulator rather than an aggressor, Hussey has a phenomenal strike rate of 91, testament to his ability to clear the boundary during the latter stages of innings, especially on the leg-side.
Hussey has the most phlegmatic of temperaments and is extraordinarily adaptable. When his brief is to rebuild rather than attack, he is able to score off virtually every ball, such is his array of shots, ability to pick the gaps and lightning fast running between the wickets. No side has yet been able to uncover any semblance of a weakness.
Mike Hussey was 30 by the time he was a regular in the Australian side but, ever since, he has been amassing runs at such a rate that it has been near impossible not to mention the word ‘Bradmanesque’. After 16 Tests, he is averaging 80 with the bat; in 61 ODIs, he is averaging 67 – no one who has played so many games has averaged within even 10 of Hussey.
Hussey is one of many high-class ‘finishers’ in the Australian side – Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds being the others – but he is patently the best. Despite generally being seen as an accumulator rather than an aggressor, Hussey has a phenomenal strike rate of 91, testament to his ability to clear the boundary during the latter stages of innings, especially on the leg-side.
Hussey has the most phlegmatic of temperaments and is extraordinarily adaptable. When his brief is to rebuild rather than attack, he is able to score off virtually every ball, such is his array of shots, ability to pick the gaps and lightning fast running between the wickets. No side has yet been able to uncover any semblance of a weakness.
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
So what did that tell us then?
It’s always dangerous to read too much into a meaningless warm up game, but I’m not going to let that stop me. What does England’s 241 run win over Bermuda tell us about what is going to happen over the next few weeks?
Selection
Michael Vaughan and Ed Joyce is clearly the opening pair of preference, and it looks increasingly like Andrew Strauss is the spare man in the batting line-up. This is a remarkable downturn in fortunes for Strauss, who England were looking to take on Marcus Trescothick’s mantle as the senior man at the top of the innings.
Vaughan looks like he is going to take the responsibility to have a go in the first few overs in the Mal Loye style, allowing Joyce and then Ian Bell to play themselves in around him. It has to be remembered that Vaughan is a naturally aggressive batsman and this approach may allow him to protect his many injuries as the chance for a longer innings is reduced. He’s clearly not 100% fit, but seems to be being sensibly eased back into the matches.
With Jamie Dalrymple now assured his place at 7, England have a pretty long batting line up and three genuine all-rounders. However, it does seem ironic that Chris Read was dropped because he couldn’t be trusted to bat at 7, and Paul Nixon will end up batting at 8.
Jon Lewis and James Anderson are the opening bowling pair of preference, with Liam Plunkett and then Saj Mahmood as cover. Therefore, I would expect England’s first choice line up to be
Vaughan
Joyce
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Nixon
Lewis
Panesar
Anderson
The Pitches
If this is representative, and the Ireland – South Africa game was similar, then they are as slow as was promised. Therefore, the predictions of regular 400+ scores may be wide of the mark and scores of 220 may be closer to the norm. Dwayne Leverock was Bermuda’s best bowler taking the pace off the ball. England's most important bowlers may end up being Collingwood, Dalrymple and Panesar with Anderson or Lewis making way for Bopara.
The Minnows
Clearly Bermuda will be disappointed with their performance, which was not helped by an injury to Irvine Romaine, their captain and one of their leading batsmen. However, it must be remembered that Bermuda are one of the weaker minnows, and Ireland’s performance against South Africa gives more hope that there will be a few scares for the big boys.
Selection
Michael Vaughan and Ed Joyce is clearly the opening pair of preference, and it looks increasingly like Andrew Strauss is the spare man in the batting line-up. This is a remarkable downturn in fortunes for Strauss, who England were looking to take on Marcus Trescothick’s mantle as the senior man at the top of the innings.
Vaughan looks like he is going to take the responsibility to have a go in the first few overs in the Mal Loye style, allowing Joyce and then Ian Bell to play themselves in around him. It has to be remembered that Vaughan is a naturally aggressive batsman and this approach may allow him to protect his many injuries as the chance for a longer innings is reduced. He’s clearly not 100% fit, but seems to be being sensibly eased back into the matches.
With Jamie Dalrymple now assured his place at 7, England have a pretty long batting line up and three genuine all-rounders. However, it does seem ironic that Chris Read was dropped because he couldn’t be trusted to bat at 7, and Paul Nixon will end up batting at 8.
Jon Lewis and James Anderson are the opening bowling pair of preference, with Liam Plunkett and then Saj Mahmood as cover. Therefore, I would expect England’s first choice line up to be
Vaughan
Joyce
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Nixon
Lewis
Panesar
Anderson
The Pitches
If this is representative, and the Ireland – South Africa game was similar, then they are as slow as was promised. Therefore, the predictions of regular 400+ scores may be wide of the mark and scores of 220 may be closer to the norm. Dwayne Leverock was Bermuda’s best bowler taking the pace off the ball. England's most important bowlers may end up being Collingwood, Dalrymple and Panesar with Anderson or Lewis making way for Bopara.
The Minnows
Clearly Bermuda will be disappointed with their performance, which was not helped by an injury to Irvine Romaine, their captain and one of their leading batsmen. However, it must be remembered that Bermuda are one of the weaker minnows, and Ireland’s performance against South Africa gives more hope that there will be a few scares for the big boys.
Monday, 5 March 2007
Kevin Pietersen
As the World Cup approaches, Third Umpire will be selecting a ODI World 11, with one player featuring every day. We continue with our number five, England's Kevin Pietersen.
While Andrew Flintoff’s all-round qualities are exceptional, it is surely Kevin Pietersen who holds the key to England’s World Cup hopes. Over 42 ODIs, Pietersen has averaged 56 – only Michael Hussey averages more over such a long period – at nearly a run a ball.
In South Africa two years ago, Pietersen faced the wrath of a nation as he returned to the country he had turned his back on. But he responded extraordinarily, scoring three hundreds, including the fastest ever by an Englishman. Thereafter, his ability to handle pressure or his technique has never been in doubt. Pietersen’s style is idiosyncratic, characterised by phenomenal power and an ability to flick almost any ball to the leg side, but he has thrived against all opponents, including Australia.
His self-belief, as epitomised by an impetuous reverse-hit for six off Muttiah Muralitharan, seemingly has no limits. Only he and Flintoff amongst Englishmen have the ability to pulverise attacks; Pietersen, who does this far more consistently and paces run chases to perfection, is crucial to their hopes. And, after they won the CB Series without him, expect his displays of team spirit to be extra vociferous.
While Andrew Flintoff’s all-round qualities are exceptional, it is surely Kevin Pietersen who holds the key to England’s World Cup hopes. Over 42 ODIs, Pietersen has averaged 56 – only Michael Hussey averages more over such a long period – at nearly a run a ball.
In South Africa two years ago, Pietersen faced the wrath of a nation as he returned to the country he had turned his back on. But he responded extraordinarily, scoring three hundreds, including the fastest ever by an Englishman. Thereafter, his ability to handle pressure or his technique has never been in doubt. Pietersen’s style is idiosyncratic, characterised by phenomenal power and an ability to flick almost any ball to the leg side, but he has thrived against all opponents, including Australia.
His self-belief, as epitomised by an impetuous reverse-hit for six off Muttiah Muralitharan, seemingly has no limits. Only he and Flintoff amongst Englishmen have the ability to pulverise attacks; Pietersen, who does this far more consistently and paces run chases to perfection, is crucial to their hopes. And, after they won the CB Series without him, expect his displays of team spirit to be extra vociferous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)