Seven weeks of delight and despair
Barbados - Well the World Cup is finally over and I'm on my way home.
Just like my final exams at university many moons ago, there is a sense of relief at reaching the end.
Don't get me wrong, I have had a fabulous time in these wonderful islands with their wonderful people, and I'd like to think I'm better for the experience. Certainly I am nowhere near as impatient as I used to be...
Off the field there have been moments of hilarity thanks to the local airlines, newspapers, television and customer service.
I also got to meet my childhood heroes Sir Viv Richards () and Michael Holding, and I even had a drink with the prime minister of Antigua!
But seven weeks is too long and I did not witness what I came for: a Caribbean carnival of cricket. Ridiculously stringent rules, applied by overbearing security personnel, and unaffordable ticket prices killed any chance of that happening.
It all started well in Jamaica with a stunning opening ceremony and the Irish fans, who created a fantastic atmosphere at their games.
But the death of hit a lot of us hard.
Then In Antigua we had the problem of an empty stadium devoid of character - a real contrast with the old Recreation Ground.
Most of the matches there and in Grenada were awfully one-sided but that was not the fault of Australia. They were head and shoulders above every other team in this tournament and worthy winners.
However, I strongly believe something has to be done to the format of this competition so we have a greater concentration of quality.
The one-day game itself needs looking at - the middle 30 overs have become almost a chore to watch - to maintain interest with the ever growing popularity of Twenty20 cricket.
The Super 8s stage was painfully long and most of us knew what the semi-final line-up would be as soon as India and Pakistan were eliminated in the first phase.
And then we had the final. You can't take anything away from the Aussies, and innings was just sensational.
But it was lunacy to try to play a 38 overs per side game and then play on when rain was coming down hard. The debacle at the end was sad.
Many believe it was the ending this appallingly organised tournament deserved but, as a cricket lover, it hurt to see the sport ridiculed.
Hopefully we will see more evenly contested matches in fuller stadia in the subcontinent in 2011.
For now, it's back to life in west London. I've heard there has been glorious weather in the UK so I hope the sun is still shining when I return!
Apologise to Sri Lanka as it is the done thing. Malcolm Speed and Jeff Crowe should understand a game like cricket can be played in bad light espeacially a world cup competition. They handed over the world cup and winnings on a golden platter to Australia. Had it been England South Africa or New Zealand who played the final they would have definitely postponed the match.
Complain about this postA truly awful world cup and once again cricket left hanging it's head in shame. I found it shameful and disgraceful that ICC president Percy Sonn presented the winners trophy to Australia when one of crickets greates heros Sir Garfeils Sobers was standing next to him
How about actually having people who know cricket running the show instead of fat ageing lawyers sitting on their behinds in Dubai of all places. It's obvious why they wanted the world cup to run for 7 weeks so they could live it up in the carrribean in 5 star hotels swaning around the islands. They should have taken a leaf out of the truly brilliant Stanford 20/20 Tournament a few months ago where the cricket was exicting and the atmosphere in the ground like a carnival
Complain about this postLalith: you mean in the same way that they postponed the Bangladesh v Australia match when it was clearly in Bangladesh's favour to play the shortened game?
Whoops, looks like all your credibility went out the window there.
Sri Lanka had already handed Australia the world cup when their bowlers failed to have any impact at all. Australia were heading for 400+ score, the rain only saved SL the humiliation.
Complain about this postWelcome back to London Paresh! I was out there too and had a great time. Would echo your comments on the lack of atmosphere, we were making a lot of noise but somehow it felt weird being the loudest people in the stadiums when we expected to be drowned out by the locals...
I met Michael Holding too, real nice guy, and I went home thinking the one man I wanted to meet was Sir Viv but I guess he must have been based in Antigua...
Overall, there was still a great time to be had for any cricket lover, but I bet in time to come when people mention the 2007 CWC, the first thing they will think of is the absurdity of the way the final was conducted.
Complain about this postI'm not sure if a complete game would have produced a different result - Australia would have been the most likely team to win in that case as well - as a spectator, one did expect a complete contest. However, there was nothing wrong with the decision to play for it was very much within the playing conditions.
Sri Lanka put up a good show right through the cup and unfortunately for them, Australia proved a very strong contestant.
Complain about this postIt is possible to have both length and excitement in the Cricket World Cup - what i find strange is that, given that almost all ODI are played in series, CWC has only one off ODIs
Here's my idea, that i hope adds up to both a fairer world cup, more exciting, fewer dead rubbers and still loads of games.
Round one should actually stay much the same as it is, although there is simply no justification for one game a day. 24 matces over four groups ranks our teams 1-4
Now here's where it changes - instead of "super" anything
We have Round Two - sudden death
2nd and third in each group go though to a one off ODI for places in the Quarterfinals (with the winners of each group) - thus the pakistans and indias who mess up rd 1 get a shot at redemption, and the better minnows (from 9-12) get one more big shot at a big gun. Meanwhile Australia etc get a day off, reward for winning the group
Plus I would automatically qualify these teams 1-12 for the next WC, and only teams 13-16 would then qualify - a real incentive
We then have round two - QF - best of three
round one winners face round two winners over three odi - (maximum 12 games, miinimum 8) (i.e. 4 2-1s or 2-0s) each mini QF is a genuine test of strength
Round three semi finals - best of three
Like Round two, and again every match means something (max 6, min 4 matches, ie 2 2-1s or 2-0s)
Round Four - final - best of five
An ODI series between the top two to see who's the daddy - max five games, min 3 3-2, 3-1, or 3-0)
I think my world cup is fairer and more likely to have fewer dead rubbers, gives minoows something genuine to aim at while avoiding multiple thumpings (say if ireland came second in their group, and then fluked a win over england in Round two - the worst that could happen is two thumpings by Australia in the QF - not endless losses)
The number of matches is slightly variable, but certainly not impossible to plan for - as it is we have 52 matches and the winner will play 11 - under my system we have 45 - 53 matches and the winne must play between 10 and 15 - (although 11-12 is the likeliest.)
whatya think?
Complain about this postI'm a Sri Lankan fan and have allot of respect for Adam Gilchrist not only because he scored 149 runs, I consider him to be a good sport. During the 2003 semi-final against Sri Lanka he walked off the pitch despite the umpire giving him "not out" -- he's a classy human.
It鈥檚 true; the Aussies were on a roll and were on top, however, the Sri Lankan innings were tragically interrupted by events beyond the batsmen's control. Jayasuriya and Sangakkara were on a flyer; then came the rain, they lost focus chasing on D/L, then Jayawardene at one point didn't know what he was chasing after the overs were reduced. Not to mention the fact that the skipper fell to a bad lbw decision. There's no shame in loosing to Australia, but it was too sad to watch them fall in such horrific conditions -- I wanted to watch my heroes bat. All I saw was cricket descend into a pall of gloom and with the darkness it looked like something out of a movie. The emotion was so strong I woke up the next day with a pain in my throat gland -- I think I pulled something from the pressure built from anger and disappointment.
Complain about this postI fear all our ideas on a new format for 2011 will fall on deaf ears because the ICC care more about quantity than quality.
Why else did they change from quarter finals in 1996 to Super 6s in 1999-2003 & now Super 8s in 2007? More games do not necessarily make for more excitement. Mark my words, the same mistakes will be made 4 years from now unless drastic changes are made within the ICC.
Complain about this postAt 03:09 PM on 30 Apr 2007, David wrote
In response to David,
Do you think Sri Lanka had a fair play? The conditions were complete opposite. Going in and out of the filed clearly effect player concentration not to mention playing in pouring rain, darkness and bad decisions. All i am saying is, i just wanted to see a fair play. Aussies are a great team no one is questioning that here. But the truth is we would never know what would've happended if this final was played like every other WC final...fairly!!
Complain about this postSaraJ:
I do understand what you are saying, however this is not the first time that rain has stopped play, nor is it the first time that light has been an issue. Both teams knew that D/L system would come into play if the game was restricted in length. It certainly isn't the first time that a bad decision has been made either.
It wasn't the 'fantasy' final which most people were hoping for - including us Australians - however with the exception of the final 3 overs which should not have occured it was still a vaild game.
England won the CB trophy in Sydney under similar circumstances and in the 2005 ashes there were plenty of bad decisions and the rain had a very strong influence on the eventual outcome yet I didn't see any complaints on these forums about this.
Sri Lanka were disadvantaged, but in general, the team batting second is always at a slight disadvantage - that's cricket.
There is too much bitterness on these boards that an 'old enemy' won the world cup again. Had the situation been reversed we would be seeing none of these types of comments.
Complain about this postThe reason people are complaining is because its the pinnacle of World Cricket. Being a Sri - Lankan i am willing to concede that the best team won the World Cup but the distasteful way that it was played out was ludicrous, you demand better from an organisation such as the ICC.
All in all their were some parts of the game that i loved (gillys 149, Sanga and jayas fighting back) but overall it was very disappointing way to end what should have been a marvellous game of cricket.
Complain about this postDavid,
Yeah, its true what u r trying to say in your comments - that the Aussies are the best team in the world. Yep, no doubt about it and its not a suprise that they won it.
But u can not make predictions for a 100 Overs by looking at a rain shortened game. As u would have seen Aussies fell some what apart in their last 10 or so over after the depature of Gilly. So called big hitters were not able to produce the heroics by power hitting. Most of the runs came behind the wicket (Still they count in Cricket, which I dont complain).
So I think Aussies were ahead in term of their LUCK. No doubts of their talents. So I feel that you are over rating your fellow contrymen whom most people think invisible.
But I believe that the Lions are the most feared team for the Kangaroos, even Ponting revealed that they won all their matches comprehensively.
More than Mcgrath's wickets - Malinga delighted us with his marvelluos spells. I think he kept us thrilled in every game he played. Even in the Final most of the Aussies couldn't take him on. (Unfotunately most edges flew to the boundary).
So as a Sri Lankan, I feel that we've won a WORLD CUP.
Complain about this postSo David, what matters is not winning the cup.
How you played it !!!!!!!!!!
Rerangers:
I agree that Sri Lanka are a good side, and I agree that they were the 2nd best team in the competition.
I am still quite confident that given the start Australia had, if the game went for 100 overs, then they most likely would have won comfortably. I am happy to disagree with you on that however.
Complain about this postTHE MIDDLE 30 OVERS
Concerning reinvigoration of the sagging middle overs in the one-day game I have a very simple suggestion and I'd be interested to know what its faults are (if any). I asked a few amateur players and they couldn't immediately see any. The idea is :
A maiden over strikes the batsman out.
This leaf from baseball's book would turn every over into a contest within a contest as more and more tension would build up and then be released as it progressed. The rule would evidently encourage attacking batsmanship, but also accurate bowling since no bowler is going to pass up (by conceding wide) a chance to get a batsman out.
Possible Objections:
1) You might argue that innings would all be telescoped by many strikeouts. However statistically there are on average only 3-4 maidens per 50 over innings, and this average would certainly fall under such a rule, simply because there would then be an incentive for it to do so.
2) Strikers might be tempted under this rule to sacrifice their opposite numbers by attempting to score unwisely. This could be solved with an additional rule that in the case of runouts the striker is always given out until the first run has been scored in a given over.
Complain about this postIt is a very sad and disturbing trend that we complain and make excuses for our own failings when we do not get what we want in life. We have truly forgotten the meaning of being a good sportsman and having the decency to recognise and congratulate those who are successful.
Is it not time to return to the true values of the game of cricket. We have forgotten that cricket is merely a game to be played and enjoyed. Historically the greatest gift that cricket has provided to us is respect for the game itself and for one another who play.
Let us all now move on from the World Cup and look forward to the Test Series between England and West Indies. Both sides are entering new eras and rebuilding for the future. We can only hope that it is played in the true spirit of the game of cricket.
Complain about this postI know this is now ancient history but I get fed up with brain-dead Aussies intimating that England鈥檚 Ashes 2005 victory was a close call that could have gone either way.
I guess this must be selective memory on their part as I presume that, unlike us England fans, they didn鈥檛 rush out and buy the DVD box set.
However, as a regular viewer of England鈥檚 last great triumph, I would like to point out the following facts about that series.
鈥 First test: Oz won comfortably
鈥 Second test: England won by 2 runs (having outplayed Oz in all but the final session)
鈥 Third test: drawn but with Oz only having 1 wicket to spare. Saved by time lost to rain on the Saturday - not hampered by it as 鈥淒avid鈥 is implying.
鈥 Fourth test: England won by 3 wickets having outplayed Oz in all but the final tension-riddled session again. In this match rain held up England鈥檚 progress in the first innings and resulted in loss of wickets for them, not Oz as 鈥淒avid鈥 is implying.
鈥 Fifth test: Drawn but with England in a commanding position from which they may well have won the test had time not been lost to rain.
Yes, there were some bad decisions but, as Aussies are quick to point out, that is all swings and roundabouts. Plenty went their way on the latest Ashes tour and in the World Cup (Hayden & Gilchrist, stone dead LBW in their first overs against England for example).
I am prepared to admit that, had the 2 run victory gone the other way, Australia would have buried England but, for the 3 days prior to that and thereafter, the series only went one way. If it were not for the rain it could well have been 4-1 to England.
Australia rules the cricketing world at the moment. Please stop trying to take away what little is left for the rest of us.
Complain about this postPlaying out a Farce
The stadium was full last Saturday when Ricky Ponting won the toss at 9.50 am instead of 9.30 am [time zone -04.00 hrs UTC] and decided to bat, but the match could start only at 12.15, a delay of 175 minutes, after more rain. This is a country where the Sun naturally sets early in dry season and to play 38+38 overs at the rate of 4 minutes per over even needs 5 hours without any break under cloudy weather. Was it an intelligent decision to proceed?
God disposed here what man had proposed, exposing the absence of floodlights, having spent $135 million, to the spectators all over the world when the match faced rain and darkness at 5.10 pm. At the 17th over where SL was at 106-1 it started to rain, but the umpires wanted them to stay on to finish 20 overs under Duckworth-Lewis. Though the defending champions posted an aggressive 281 for 4 from 38 overs, until this stage, there was no let up in Sri Lankan side but it had progressed cautiously and equally. From now on the ground reality went against Lanka.
The rains came with light drizzles and the lights faded when Sri Lanka was 148-3 on the 24th over. At this point Sri Lanka needed to have 169 on the board as per the Duckworth-Lewis calculation, so in effect they were chasing two totals at the moment - and that completely ruined their plan to gradually accelerate through the innings. With only one run scored in the next over, it started pouring heavy. Australia took as much time as they could to dry the ball and slowly placing small handfuls of sawdust on the footmarks.
When Silva tried to run for a single for Tait鈥檚 first ball, he slipped on the soggy pitch and umpires stopped the play. It became dark and even if the rain cleared it was not going to be easy to bat out there. The pitch was soaking and the ball was not coming on to the bat and they had two new batsmen at the crease. No doubt it was a grim situation as Lanka was not even near the D-L par score. The play resumed as the rain ceased but it was dark and batting was hard. The main scoreboard had gone blank and Sri Lanka has no idea what they were chasing or what they needed to score.
The Observer [London], in a hard hitting comment said, 鈥榤aybe it was inevitable that this ill-fated, ill-conceived tournament should end so absurdly with a Duckworth/Lewis victory to Australia. Sri Lanka, defiant to the last, gave chase but accepted the umpires' second offer of the light with three overs remaining and their target now unattainable.
Then, after the Aussies had commenced celebrations, amid great confusion, those final three overs were bowled after all. Amid boos and catcalls and another Australian huddle of celebration barely visible from the sidelines, the curtain fell upon a World Cup that lurched between tragedy and farce for seven weeks. Here was confirmation that we live in an age where regulation far outstrips common sense. It was a farcical conclusion to the tournament. Earlier, after one shower, play resumed in semi-darkness and no one in the ground knew whether or how the target had been reduced. What a shamble.
As dusk set in, there was yet another delay while the figures were sorted out. Eventually the umpires had to offer the batsmen the light, but they had to stay on since they were behind the rate. Then the second offer was accepted. And then, to our utter astonishment, they returned for Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke to propel the ball at a pace that was barely visible. In the end Australia retained the World Cup by a margin of 53 runs that no one could understand.
No doubt Australia deserved their victory. But if ever a match was a metaphor for the ills of the modern game and this tournament, this was it. Common sense requires that in a final to decide the world champions every opportunity should be given to deliver a match with cricketing integrity. It should be able to run its 50-over course even if it takes two or three days to get there. But, of course, cricketing integrity appears to be the last thing on the minds of those who run World Cups.
A manageable product for TV and the sponsors is far more important. So it is that after 50 matches and seven weeks of competition Australia hold the trophy thanks to the calculations of the estimable Mr. Duckworth and Mr. Lewis. Congratulations to them. Meanwhile, ICC-CWC 2007 Inc has bucket loads of egg upon its face. How dare the organisers try to spin a success story this week?
Have you ever heard of a tie-break in the final set of a Wimbledon final or shortened it just because of the rain? The rain has intervened on a number of occasions, but the match has been either delayed or carried over and played over two days. When the World Cup was accused of being too long, the answer was, it provided provision for possible rain interrupted matches. The idea behind fixing the final on a Saturday, the match every single fan was yearning to see with 50 overs amid many yawning matches, was to shift it to Sunday in case of emergency. Why did not they do?
If the administrators try to keep television broadcasters and sponsors happy by maintaining a time limit on matches, cutting the leg according to the shoes, they would destroy the essence of the sport and ultimately drive the viewers and spectators away.No people no King. Further it was a disgrace and insult to both nations, the fans who travelled all the way paying good money to be in the crowd at Kensington Oval and also the millions in many countries, who stayed up all night through the rain delays to witness.
With the ongoing English Premier Football League on the very 28th Saturday, where Manchester United and Everton clashed, fans paid tribute before kickoff with sustained applause in memory of former Everton player and England 1966 World Cup winner Alan Bal, who was found dead at his home after a suspected heart attack on the night of the 24th. The same way, on the finals, the ICC could have paid homage to the late Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer who died in mysterious circumstance in Barbados for cricket. But the ICC is more for money than homage.
Besides, the Aussies had the right to carry Juliet through the main door as they were several classes above every one they faced in the tournament. Why did they opt to do it through the window?
Complain about this postHow legal was Gilchrist's hidden ball? 碌
Two days after Adam Gilchrist's slaughter of the lambs in the World Cup final, cricket's fans and fanatics are still coming to terms with the onslaught that fetched 149 off just 103 balls and took the truncated game away from the Lankans even before they began their reply.
But, how legal was the wicket keeper's innings?
And, as a direct corollary, therefore, how authentic was Australia's'Cup triumph'? Bloggers especially churmuri.com have raised this pertinent question.
By Gilchrist's own admission, he had 'something' in his left glove all through his knock. In fact, upon reaching the century, Gilchrist first doffed his bat towards his teammates in the pavilion, acknowledged the applause of the spectators, and then kept repeatedly pointing to his left batting glove with his right hand.
'I had a little message, to wave to someone at home in Australia about something in my glove,' he is quoted as saying at the post-match media conference.
The intended recipient of that little message was his batting coach and former Western Australia player Bob Meuleman, also a noted squash player. Turns out that upon Meuleman's advice, Gilchrist had been carrying a squash ball in his left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.
'His (Meuleman's) last words to me before I left the indoor training centre where I train with him in Perth were, 'Well, if you are going to use it (squash ball), make sure when you score a hundred in the final you show me and prove to me you got it in there'. I had stayed true to that.'
That's as clear a confirmation that Gilchrist had the squash ball in his left glove to help him with his grip during his stupendous knock. But that's also where questions over the legality of Gilchrist's innings, or the seeming lack of it, come in.
Can a batsman carry an object - in this case, a squash ball not connected with cricket - to help him on the field? Did he secure the prior permission of the umpires? Was the fielding side captain aware of the use of the squash ball? Did Mahela Jayawardene approve its use?
And, above all, and in a manner of speaking, did Gilchrist's'hidden ball' give him an unfair advantage in knocking the daylights out of the Lankan bowlers?
These are hypothetical questions, of course, but cricket - a sport governed by mighty laws not lowly rules - is always full of ifs and buts that leaves cricket haters plain mystified but keeps cricket lovers breathlessly debating the whys and wherefores till kingdom come.
A quick recap of cricketing laws shows that Gilchrist's squash ball was, therefore, neither a piece of protective equipment, nor clothing item and was most certainly not visible to either side or the umpires.
The law specifically prohibits a player from using equipment other than that permitted. And nowhere in cricket's 42 laws is there a mention of a squash ball as a permitted item.
If Dennis Lilee's aluminium bat and Ricky Ponting's graphite-coated bat could be deemed illegal, if Hansie Cronje's earpiece experiment was not OK, if Scott Styris had to remove all the bandage from his right hand before he could bowl in the super eight match, can Adam Gilchrist's'hidden ball' pass muster?
No law can, of course, take the sheen away from Gilchrist's knock. Batting with a normal grip against the world's best bowlers is tough enough, batting with a squash ball in one of your gloves is worse. To score 149 scintillating runs is, well, incredible.
Still, two questions arise: If using a squash ball isn't ok as per the laws of the game, is his innings legal and does it count? And if it doesn't count, can Australia claim to have won it fairly?
Complain about this postIn response to Paul writings above, I think 4-1 may be a little rich. But I do agree with his sentiments. We can take nothing away from the English for their 2005 Ashes performances. Anytime you have four lads bowling reverse swing in excess of 90 miles an hour you are going to test any team in the world. As painful as the result was for an Australian, it was riveting stuff, I don't think I missed many sessions (unfortunately they don't sell the DVDs here in the US). But I have not seen bowling like that since Younis/Akam in the early 90s, and you had four of them doing it.
I also think the 2005 result was very good for cricket generally. It certainly made Ponting's men hungry, and I think they have gone out to prove a point over the last 18 months. I am REALLY looking forward to the 2009 Ashes, to see firstly if those guys can match their bowling performance from last time and secondly whether our lads have a plan for reverse swing.
To my Sri lankan friends on this blog. Remember the 1996 final. Taylor's boys were spanked by de Silva. That Sri lankan team revolutionised the one day game. As a result Australia had to adapt, they spilt into a test and one day outfit, and thankfully Tubby never play another ODI. I think the Sri lankan side today is infinitely better than the one of the last decade.
Maybe the summer series in Australia will give them a platform to close the gap. Look to the future.
Cheers.
J.
Complain about this postIn response to John Eades
I think the idea of making a batsman out for a a maiden over would surely make for an extremely short game. Consider a new batsman coming to the crease against a bowler who is on fire having jus taken 2 wickets on a pitch with uneven bounce. How will he play himself in.
I guess your idea could add some life to the game in theory. I would love to hear what others think.
Complain about this postThe world cup was toooo long and had too many pointless matches.
The scenarios should be as follows;
1. 2 groups of 5, round robin, divided according to seeding.
2. Top 2 from each group play the semi-finals.
3. The final.
4. The end.
Straight forward, none of these super 6 or 8's...back to good old competitive cricket. Having to play the top sides from start to finish.
Anyone agree???
Complain about this postI agree that many of the games were one-sided, and the ticket prices were too high to encourage many of the locals to attend.
One or two of the games that I heard were very exciting.
The death of Bob Woolmer should put into perspective any whinging on the part of many of the commentators (many of whom have views that I often agree with) on the 91热爆 who were complaining about the length of the tournament.
It was too long, but I wouldn't mind being paid to watch cricket for two months.
Finally, if you do something about the middle 30 overs because they 'have almost become a chore to watch', why not remove them? Then, you can have EVERY single non-test game a 20-20 slog!
All forms of the game should be encouraged. 20-20 may attract many younger players who would not be interested in the longer forms of the game, to begin with, perhaps.
However, any good one-day 50 over match or a good test match is likely to be every bit as exciting and will demonstrate the same quality or entertainment over a longer period of time.
Ask any English fan if the 2005 Ashes games were boring.
It is not that the 50-over games are too long. It is the sloppy attitude, low level of skill, or poor preparation of some of the teams which has contributed to much of the one-sidedness.
Well done to Bangladesh and Ireland for seeing off supposedly 'better' teams.
Complain about this postHi Paresh,
Trust you've settled back into London life okay with the test on.
Just wanted to thank you for your advice re: Cuba. We had a ball but were able to look at it through more of a reasoned perspective with your tips.
The cigar factory and Revolution Museum were highlights as was three days spent in some sublime local hospitality down in Trinidad.
Hopefully we'll see you at a match at Lord's later in the summer.
Cheers,
Complain about this postAndrew & Lynley.