i havent written anything about the cricket world cup so far. partly its because of work- unfortunately i need to rested and punctual, unlike the student days, so i havent been able to catch much of the live action, relying instead on highlights and cricinfo reports. partly because there's been so much negativity surrounding the whole event (the murder investigation, bad organizing etc etc). partly because sachin tendulkar flew in and flew out of the carribean before i got back from coffs harbour. but mainly because of the inexplicable length of the tournament combined with the fact that from the outset, it was a certainty that australia would win (viv richards answered, correctly i must say, "salmonella poisoning" when asked what or who could stop australia).
the previous 4 world cups were exciting affairs, even if there were clear favourites. in 92, the west indies were still the kings of cricket but turned in a woeful performance and missed the semis. new zealand were the form team, storming thru undefeated until they threw their final match against pakistan to keep the aussies out of the semis. that plan backfired as a rampant young pakistan team led by the evergreen imran khan trampled over the kiwis in the semis and an inzamam special demolished england in the final. ironically, the way they were playing, new zealand would probably have beaten australia in the semis had they played properly against pakistan the first time. 96 was the best world cup i've ever seen. south africa were clearly the best odi team leading into the tournament, but were cruelly sent home following a brian lara classic. sri lanka re-shaped the direction of odi cricket with a new paradigm- slog in the early overs with players like jayasuriya and kaluvitharana, consolidate in the middle and slog some more at the end. it seems quite simple now, but it was a revolution back then. no-one was used to seeing teams bring up 100 after 15 or 16 overs. sri lanka clearly deserved to win in 96 for their innovation and tactics. 99 will be remembered as the world cup that south africa threw away. at the time, south africa was the most formidable line-up ever assembled in one-day cricket. but they choked, choked badly. and since then, south african cricket has never been the same. australia, stinging from the surprise sprung on them by sri lanka in 96, embarked immediately on a mission to update their game and "modernize" their tactics. adam gilchrist and mark waugh opened the batting and refined the slogging sri lanka brought to the game. an emphasis was placed on "bowling at the death" and fielding (inspired by the brilliant jonty rhodes; espn used to have these statistics which showed that rhodes saved 15-20 runs every match with his fielding, which when added to his batting average showed how valuable he was). and over two classic encounters against south africa, australia proved that they were the deserving champions- the final was only a formality, a rather quick one too...03 was a world cup that australia dominated from start to finish, but at one stage there was a real hope that india could provide an upset. after being humbled in the first group match against australia, india regrouped and convincingly won all their matches (including that sweet, sweet win over pakistan when sachin played one of the best-ever world cup innings) until the final, when again they were humbled.
07.....well not much to say really. australia never looked like losing- none of their matches were even close. sri lanka and new zealand, the next best teams, proved to be far inferior to australia when they got their chance to play them. and there were lots of other problems with world cup. expensive tickets and the ban of musical instruments ensured that no match attracted a capacity crowd and thus the atmosphere for the entire tournament was rather dull. of course, the quality of cricket didnt greatly contribute either. bob woolmer's murder cast a black shadow over the tournament. india and pakistan's premature exit ensured that every second super 8 match would feature bangladesh or ireland, i mean seriously, what a joke!!! kenya made the super 6 in 03, but they played good cricket and actually earnt their semifinal spot. bangladesh and ireland scored fluke wins over insipid opposition and diluted the quality of the world cup. (i'm not blaming the minnows for a generally woeful tournament, but still, it contributed.....)
i think the saddest thing is that there is not much to look forward to for the next world cup. no exciting young talent, no promise of something greater in four years' time. the younger players in the australian team acquitted themselves well, and the likes of tait, bracken, watson and clarke will form the nucleus of the team for the next world cup. but look elsewhere, and you will find little to be excited about. of all the younger generation of players that took part in the carribean, ross taylor of new zealand looks to have a bit of class. i'm sure he'll be there next time as an accomplished batsman. india and pakistan will unearth plenty of talent over the next four years, but it remains to be seen whether they can be nurtured into world class players before they become superstar celebrities who spend more time posing for ads and doing interviews than training and playing cricket.
anyway, enough of my complaining about cricket.......
No comments:
Post a Comment