Outside The Line

Catching Our Breath, In Bullet Form

There is little point in recapping India's win yesterday, since anyone reading this will most probably have already seen it for themselves. (The Cricket Watcher's Journal has a pretty comprehensive round-up of news and reactions from the final, in case anyone missed anything). Here, though, are some random thoughts/observations I made during the match: 

• Something that must be noted about Misbah-ul-Haq's little paddle to Sreesanth to end the match: it probably wouldn't have even happened had the game not been played in Johannesburg. The previous delivery was a straight pull for six that I'm pretty certain would have been caught inside the boundary in any other ground in the world.
  
  
• It's a little funny how, out of the entire clan of immensely gifted cricketers who have dominated Indian cricket for more than a decade, the only two who ended up victorious in an international tournament were the two biggest underachievers of the lot -- Virender Sehwag and Ajit Agarkar.
  
  
• I wonder what that final would have been like had Pakistan's best bowler not been injured. Mohammad Asif was clearly below his best yesterday, and it was obvious that there was some little niggle causing him discomfort. Would India have even gotten to 150 if Asif, Gul, and Afridi were all firing? I doubt it. (Incidentally, did Asif's injury have anything to do with his pre-tournament altercation with Shoaib Akhtar? What an interesting sub-plot it would be, if that's the case.)

• So my pre-World Cup predictions ended up, not surprisingly, being completely wrong: I initially had both India and Pakistan going out early. However, I wasn't as far off as it would seem. My reasoning was mostly correct -- I said I didn't expect teams with bad fielding to get very far. And they didn't, really. Except India and Pakistan were actually great fielding teams, all tournament long. (That's right, kids... it's a brave new world we live in.)

• My buddy George has a simple, yet brilliant suggestion for any cricket played in the future: keep the stumps as loose in the ground as they were throughout the World Cup. Seeing them fly off the  and almost decapitate the keeper every time someone was bowled had to one of the coolest enduring images of the past two weeks.
  
  

It Almost Feels Like An Understatement

So, is there a chance that, all in all, we have just experienced the best international tournament in the history of sport? Think about it. I will, and I'll get back to you.

A Tiebreaker System That His Nan And Her Mates Couldn't Win

India are floundering in the middle of their innings at the moment, and will be lucky if they reach 150. (Then again, their last encounter ended up with both the teams on 141... though that was in Durban, not the high altitude, short-boundaried Wanderers stadium they are playing in now.)

And speaking of that first round match just ten days ago, here's J-Paul's take on what we should do about that idiotic tiebreaking scenario we have at the moment. I think his idea is perfect, but I'm a lot more skeptical than he is on the frequency of its usefulness. To me, it almost seems like coming up with a brilliant, exciting new way to get the ball back into play in a game of basketball after it gets stuck between the rim and backboard. But its brilliance is undisputed:

"After the India V Pakistan twenty20 group game that ended with a tie and a ridiculous bowl-out, I decided to get to work and do what I do best: Imagine that I was the omnipotent head of world cricket  with no agenda except a thirst for quality cricket, and get to fixing things. I decided to create my own tiebreaker method. The cartoon-like simplicity of the bowl-out seemed to have been created by five year olds, in about 5 seconds (seriously, some people need to be fired). It's never a good idea to base a tiebreaker on a 'game' that, frankly, my Nan and her Bridge buddies would be competitive at, on the world stage.

The new and improved breaker that I have invented is called a 'hit out'. It encompasses most of the aspects that make up cricket. Its only drawback is that the brilliance of it will be seen only in the games that end in a tie. But man, those one or two times a year that it would happen... I get willow just thinking about it. Hold on to your hats people, and read this:

• First we have a toss. The winner gets to choose to bat first or bowl first (of course bowling first is a massive advantage in the 'hit out', but I'm sure that many a shitty captain will still opt for the 'old adage').

• Team A chooses a batter, and team B chooses a bowler, but neither of them know who the corresponding player will be, before they choose. This will rule out any advantage from a team that would otherwise be able to choose second, and match up a batter/bowler to exploit individual player weaknesses.

• Team B takes the field, and the Team A batter heads out, with a non-striker, who will be the batter in the next round (should they run 1, 3, 5 or the striker is caught and they cross),if need be. Team B sets a field, then bowls one ball. If it is a no-ball or a wide, another ball must be bowled, and the penalty is added on to the score.

• The bowler and batter selection happens again, with the roles reversed. Note: Once you have bowled, you can't bowl again, and once you have batted, you can't bat again (but you still field).

• With the roles being reversed, Team A is now fielding. The Team B batter now tries to beat the Team A score. If he scores more, they win, and if he scores less, they lose. If he scores the same amount of runs, the second round begins.

• Round 2, if necessary, begins with team B batting first. This is to avoid the unfair advantage of a Team being able to bat second every round. Team A then try and beat the score.

• The rounds continue until you have a winner. Each round the team batting first is alternated. If it goes past 11 rounds (not gonna happen) it goes back to the first round again.

• Getting out is of no consequence, except for the fact that you won't get any runs (unless the batter is run out, going for the second, third, or fourth run). So players will be getting run out most of the time. The fielders will usually have to run the batters out to finish the play."
  
  

A Glitch In The Matrix

Not a good time to experience technical difficulties, I guess. Maybe that serves me right, and all of us who griped and bitched about the other World Cup's excessive length... this time, instead, we get a competitive, storybook tournament that just whooshes by in a whirl. I mean, an India v. Pakistan final? You're kidding me, right? And that after a full fortnight of tight, lively games, one of which just happened to be a farcical tie-and-bowl-out between the very same two teams that are playing in the final? That sounds so spectacularly like some crooked bookie's wildest morphine wet dream that I'll discount any sinister motives; it's just too good to be true.

If anyone out there still had any doubts that Twenty20 was destined to sweep through and change the entire cricket landscape in mere months, the events of the last couple of weeks should surely convince them otherwise (well, it should eventually -- I'm sure there will be some denial in many at first). 50-over cricket is a thing of the past, and if the traditionalists want to salvage anything, I suggest they focus on the Test game. It's not untouchable.

Wrong-Footed Henchmen, Aging Youth, and 'Pulling A Diddy'

As I watched them dominate Australia earlier today, I suddenly realised how much the Pakistan team has changed in the past few months, and how much I need to catch up on regarding their new look, new attitude, etc. Some random observations:

• I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Pakistan did a very nice job in the field. (No, don’t laugh, I’m being serious.) They really have helped their cause immensely with some good hustle and a selfless effort from their fielders. (Stop it, really. It’s not a joke.) They have saved their batsmen at least 20 runs through their efforts containing the Australian batsmen. (Yes, I did mean Pakistan. For real! You’re not gonna believe me, are you? Fine.)
  
  
• Sohail Tanvir is a very interesting bowler – it’s nice to see some more idiosyncratic players rising onto the scene. At times during his spell he was variating his pace better than anyone in world not named ‘Daniel Vettori.’ I wonder if it’s just his unorthodox, wrong-footed action (described by my buddy George as, “a fast-medium Paul Adams”) that had the Australian batsman so confused, or if there’s something else lurking behind that deceptively gentle run-up and that cavernous, henchman-to-an-early-Bond-villain visage.

• When did Younis Khan change his name to Younus Khan? And why wasn’t I informed of this? After the Youhana/Yousuf switch a couple of years ago, these are the things I need to be made aware of… Oh and by the way, Ponting better not be serious about dropping the –y from his first name. I didn't accept the 're-monikerisation' from Puffy at the time, and I will certainly not accept it from you now, R-I-C-K-Y.

• Andrew Symonds is throwing the ball. Yes, that’s right -- he’s a chucker. No one will ever mention it, of course, since he is Australian. (I suppose he also seems like a nice enough guy. And besides, who wants to ban a wobbly part-timer from bowling, really?)
  
  
• Memo to Slater, Chapell, and co.: ‘Inexperience at the international level’ ≠ ‘Youth’. Misbah-ul-Haq has been around for quite a while now; do your research. His name always pops up in discussions during periods of renovation and reconstruction for Pakistani cricket, when the selectors feel they need to re-arrange their shop front and apply a few surface coats for the public. Give it two years or so, and he'll be right back to captaining that 'A' squad with little hope for the future.

• Here's a guarantee: Pakistan will never get anywhere in world cricket as long as their worst three batters also happen to be their first three batters. Choose one of those top three and go with him -- cut the other two a cheque, thank them for their services, and send Youn?s Khan up the order to open with the winner.
  

 

If Only He Sucked A Little More

If someone can explain to me why Imran Nazir (a player just good enough to really suck at an international level) is in Pakistan's World Cup squad and Abdul Razzaq isn't, I'd be more than grateful.

Too Busy Posing, Y?

Yuvraj Singh got out for 1 today against New Zealand, after being dismissed for 4 against Pakistan two days ago. Does he not realise that he could be making a serious case for the captaincy, in all formats -- and a steady place in the side -- by really shining in this tournament? He could be showing the fans, and the selectors, a glimpse of a bright new future for India; an exuberant, athletic, young India, missing none of the raw talent of some its predecessors. He should be trying to fill the current leadership vacuum, while at same time finally starting to define his place in his country's cricketing history.

I know that the Indian selectors tend to be quite conservative with their choices, but I think they should take a leaf from the Australian playbook on this one. In 2004, they had a number of options available when naming Steve Waugh's successor, but they went with Ricky Ponting because they saw a certain ineffable quality in him; a hint that they were dealing with a real winner here, someone who was capable of rising to the challenge and excelling under the responsibility. Which Ponting has done, at least with the bat (he's lucky that his limited tactical acumen does not hinder the Australian juggernaut too much -- as Chris Cairns once said, "even my mother could lead this Australian side"). Maybe Yuvraj could become India's Ponting. I'd say it's worth a gamble.

I'd be happy as long as they don't give the position, as Anand Vasu suggests they might, to Tendulkar, Laxman, or especially Ganguly. (If you want a perfect case study of how the captaincy can break a man, look no further than Sourav's last six months at the helm in 2005. He was aging faster than Lindsay Lohan at that point, with deep furrows of worry constantly etched on his once-boyish face -- after he was dropped, he looked a deeply wounded man, physically and psychically, and I have to admit I gave him no chance of ever making it back into contention.) They should allow the Golden Generation to bow out in style, without any added pressures, to make sure that India's transition into the new decade is smooth and seamless... and to maybe provide the fans with a lasting memory of the undeniable greatness of that batting lineup.

Wars Have Been Started For Less

I haven't been able to see the slo-mo replays yet, but my friend George points out that during India's crucial last ball run-out yesterday, Sreesanth's foot knocks the stumps a split-second before he takes off the bails. I suppose both teams were already through at that point, so it probably won't make a great deal of difference. Unless Pakistan miss out on the semifinals by exactly one point, of course...

[Update: It seems that points are not carried forward to the Super Eights stage, so I guess the run-out will not be that big a deal.]

Playing Time Like A Skipping Record

It's the 10th over, and Australia are well on their way to beating England and squeaking through to the next round of the World Cup. Alas, a good chance missed. I wasn't able to watch their innings, so I don't know whether the English team realise what a great opportunity they wasted. Had they beaten the mighty Australia and knocked them out of the tournament, we would have seen heads spinning, careers ending, and blame being hurled like monkey feces across the entire Australian cricket habitat. It would've been a brilliant glimpse into reality in a post-McGrath world (because isn't that what it is all about, after all?).

Now we won't get to see it. At least not yet. Australia are now set to make it at least to the semifinals, which even if they lose, they can just shrug off as "the luck on the day" in a shits-and-giggles little rehearsal-run of a tournament. Getting eliminated in the first round, on the other hand, represents a greater symbolic blow. That's why teams are often forced to blow it all up and start afresh after getting knocked out of the first round of a tournament -- it's not that they want to or even think it's very wise, it's just that they need to. Simply to show that they're doing something. (Remember when Pakistan decided to drop Inzamam after the 2003 World Cup?)

But that's what could've been... a sight of another world. Maybe better, who knows? It's hard to say. Instead, we're now probably destined to watch Matthew Hayden's tanker chest parading around the crease for another two years or so. Whoop-dee-fuck'n-doo... 

I'll Save The Crow For After The Entrees, p. II

Well there go my prognosticating skills... my pick for World Cup runners-up, the West Indies, are the first team eliminated from the tournament. I suppose even in a game where bowlers are treated like dirty jizz rags, it still helps to have at least one real bowler in your squad.

I Think I'm Starting To Love This Twenty20 Thing

I woke up at 2:30 in the afternoon today. I guess that's what tends to happen if you stay up until 7:30 AM watching the most satisfying cricket match in recent memory. I'll just let King Cricket take it from here:

What’s this in our underwear? It’s urine. It’s gallons and gallons of urine produced during uncontrollable laughter at how Australia lost to Zimbabwe in the Twenty20 World Cup.

[Incidentally, I was surfing through their archives, and I must give the King Cricket guys some props. How can you not love a site that includes an entire section devoted to delightful ad hominem attacks on that hulking mound of proto-human leathery mass, commonly referred to as 'Matthew Hayden.']

 

I'll Save The Crow For After The Entrees

This was me, two days ago:

New Zealand are dangerous, as always, but apart from Bond and Vettori, their bowling really is quite dreadful (any bets on Mark Gillespie's economy rate for the tournament? Can he break the dozen? I can't wait to see).

So what does Gillespie go and do the next day? Post the best bowling figures in Twenty20 history.

No Need For A Sit-In (Or A Scuff-Up)

Last year, after South Africa’s record-setting 435-run chase against Australia, I sent my buddy J-Paul an email:

Much like Henry David Thoreau refusing to pay taxes and the Baltimore Four pouring blood on conscription records during the Vietnam War, I think you and I should engage in an act of civil disobedience. To help humanity. Here's what I'm thinking: we should travel to all cricket-playing nations, sneak into their stadiums at night and scuff every one-day pitch on about a fullish length. That way, we won't have to endure too many more farces like the one in Jo’burg yesterday.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing Australia get their asses handed to them without mercy -- and for Gibbsy to do the bulk of that ass-handing -- but this shit is getting out of control. Stadiums are too small to contain all the pituitary freaks playing the game nowadays, and unless someone starts doing something about it, the next generation of bowlers are all going to be wobbly Nathan Astle-types whose only goal will be to go at less than 8-an-over and not bowl any wides.

At the time, I thought that after finally breaking the 400+ cherry, we’d be seeing mammoth totals like those on a regular basis. Luckily, it seems it’s just something to do with the altitude in Johannesburg -- yesterday’s Twenty20 game at The Wanderers again proved record-shattering.

(I know that the lower air density makes the ball travel further, by reducing drag and lift in the air, but I’d love to know by how much. How much of an advantage does the batter get 1,700 metres above sea level? Surely that quotient can be calculated, right? It’s just scary to think that I actually studied two-and-a-half years of university-level physics and I have no idea what it could be.)

 

As Useless As The Petraeus Report, Only Honestly So

So we are less than two hours away from the start of the first game of the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup (which I unfortunately will not be watching, since it will air at 4:00 AM, New Zealand time). Since this is supposed to be a cricket blog and all, I suppose I'd be remiss if I didn't offer a few pre-tournament predictions.

Here's the problem, though: how do you make predictions for a game that was only invented a few of years ago, half of whose participants have only played it competitively once or twice before? It will all be conjecture anyway, so I suppose I'll just do what every 'expert' in the field seems to be doing at the moment and simply declare Australia the favourites, then include a couple of other possible 'contenders' from the field, and pull the justifications for those selections straight out of my ass.

Instead of making a case for a particular team, I'll work backwards and try to eliminate as many teams as possible from the list of contenders. Who can we eliminate? For one, teams that have yet to set up a domestic Twenty20 championship... so Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and all other groupie nations: buh-bye. Second -- and I'm pretty sure this is a good reason, even though I couldn't for the life of me explain why -- any team with a poor history of fielding and/or running between wickets is out. So here's looking at you, India and Pakistan! Good luck with that ICL thing.

As much as it pains me, I'll also have to give the Sri Lankans a pass this time. They are missing Muralitharan, they have once again been placed in the 'Group of Death,' and even their best player admits that they have no idea what they're doing yet and will have to make it up as they go. Maybe next time, boys.

So that leaves four possible contenders, apart from the Aussies: England, South Africa, the West Indies, and New Zealand. The West Indies are the weakest of the lot on paper; but the shorter the format, the better they look, and there is just something about having Chris Gayle as a leader that seems to galvanise that team. Decent odds on them, too. As Hansie Cronje (via Billy Birmingham) might say, "Eef ah wer' a behttin' man..." I'd put some money on the Windies.

England have the best domestic infrastructure in place, the most experience in the format, and are carrying a certain amount of form with them. At the same time, they are still England, and will probably need Flintoff and Pietersen to carry them through every step of the way if they wish to have any chance. (Plus, I once made a vow never to expect anything from any team whose bowling spearhead is either James Anderson or Ajit Agarkar.)

New Zealand are dangerous, as always, but apart from Bond and Vettori, their bowling really is quite dreadful (any bets on Mark Gillespie's economy rate for the tournament? Can he break the dozen? I can't wait to see). I also feel they're going to miss Fleming's captaincy. 

And then there's South Africa. On paper, they look great -- they're playing at home, they have lots of attacking all-round weapons, their fielding is sharp, and they beat Australia comprehensively in a warm-up match. Which is only gonna make their inevitable choke so much more painful for them. (I'm sorry, but unless they prove us all wrong for once, they will always be a bunch of weak-minded losers in my mind. Nothing personal... I've  just been here before.)

So my ultimate predictions are:

• South Africa dominate the group stages, looking very good along the way, but eventually get out for 85 to Australia in the semi-final.

• The West Indies and England will tough it out in other semi, with Marlon Samuels hitting the winning runs off a Jimmy Anderson half-volley.

• Samuels will then cause two crucial run-outs in the Final (I'm guessing it will be those of Chris Gayle and Shiv Chanderpaul, for good measure), leaving it all up to Dwayne Bravo to win it for the West Indies. Which he won't, because Brett Lee will bowl him with the last ball of the innings, off an unsighted no-ball.

We are dealing with Australia, after all.

277 off 72 in T-20

Why isn't this man on a plane to South Africa to join the Sri Lankan Twenty20 World Cup squad at this very moment?