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.
Monday, 12 March 2007
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.
Glamorgan: Cardiff Ground Development (1)
The decision by the ECB to award a 2009 Ashes Test to Glamorgan was a controversial one. Whatever the rights and wrongs, development is underway to make Cardiff a top Test Match venue by April 2008.
As the weeks and months tick by until the new stadium's completion, I will be bringing regular updates on its progress. Glamorgan take to the road for the first half of 2007, but are planning to play 20/20 matches at Sophia Gardens by the end of June.
The first major international game to be held at the revamped venue will be the England v South Africa ODI in 2008.
The National Cricket Centre and Premier Members' Area is one of the few parts of Sophia Gardens which will remain as it was.Only 2 parts of the ground remain intact, the Premier Members' seating area (above) and the River Taff End seats (out of view on the right).
Glamorgan's ground will resemble a building site for much of 2007Access to the ground is extremely limited at the moment, but I did manage to take a few pics on Saturday 10th March.
The diggers get to work where the old Cardiff Athletic Club pavilion once stood.As the pics demonstrate, all of the outdated and temporary seating has gone, and the foundations are being put in place for state of the art new stands and facilities.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)