ICC World T20 - A review

They did it again, only this time, after a gap of several years . Right throught the 80s and early 90s ,if a there was a team that can raise themselves and their level of performance exponentially on the big stage it was Pakistan. Innumerable Champions Trophies, Sharjah Cups etc not to forget big ones like WC 92 attest to that. But over the years, retirement of stalwarts combined with their inherent inconsistency had led to a decline. From consistently challenging the Windies and Australia in the '80s and beating England, India, SL and NZ at will, anywhere, they have slipped to become a middle runger - capable of beating anyone on their day, but their 'days' were few and far between (much like the various Indian teams till the beginning of this decade) and occasionally capable of the ludicrous (losing to Bangladesh in WC '99 and Ireland in '07). But there would be no shortage of theatre.

This time around, they were playing true to form, customary lousy start, backs to the wall, draw favouring them etc. All said and done, after the defeat to SL in the super 8s, they needed to win 4/4 to lift the cup, backs to the wall again. Enter Popeye Razzak.

NZ 2/17 & 5(8)

Ireland 15(9) & 0/18

SF1 - S.Af 12(15) & 0/19

Final SL - 3/20

Granted. Nothing to shout about from rooftops, save the final. But what it did, was to free up the enormous burden on Shahid Afridi and let the team bat him and no 3 in the semis and final. And boy, din't Afridi turn up - match turning/ match winning performances in each of the four occasions. When Ganguly had progressed as an ODI matchwinner, the pressure on Sachin (sole matchwinner in absence of Sidhu and off/on form of Azharuddin) reduced and as a consequence India's overall performance improved steadily. We can see a distant parallel here. With Razzak back in the fold and Imran Nazir to come, and the bowling firepower they already possess, Pakistan's stock in the limited overs versions can be expected to soar. What was difference this time around in the climactic stages, was the absence of histrionics. (Q called it an un-Pakistani win). What the win has done is revive interest in Pakistan cricket and that is necessarily a good development.

Sri Lanka, the romantic's favourite failed only once and that when it mattered most. With WC 2007, they have fallen at the last hurdle in two of the three big occasions. Dilshan replaced Jayasuriya as the talisman player, but weakness in the lower middle order persists. After Ranatunga and Tillekeratne, they had Russel Arnold, who though not a big hitter, could be relied to see them home in tight chases with smart play and excellent running. Chamara Silva and Mubarak do not seem to have it in them. Angelo Mathews is their find of the tournament and seems to be a confidence player. They would do well to give him more opportunities, since he has age on his side to become a real star. Jayasuriya and Murali will not be around for ever. They would have to develop Malinga Bandara and also coax consistency out of Dilhara Fernando when he returns (the good Fernando, that is). For all his ICC rankings, Kulasekara, I think is a journeyman, the thoroughbreds are Malinga and Fernando.

There was some talk about South Africa being title favourites. I was sceptical all along. In SF1, with Pakistan to bat first, it was all uphill for South Africa from there. Q's prediction here was spot on. South Africa have been a consistently strong team, usually in the top 3 in all versions. They achieve such high ratings over a period of time with strong home and away records in bilateral ODI tournaments. They (like NZ) flop and flounder in the crunch in big (multilateral) tournaments. They are good at reading opposition tactics and consistently exploiting them over a period of time (recall Fannie DeVillers getting Sachin out with the slower ball, circa '96), but will not break the mould and dare to try something different, even in the biggest of crunch matches. The T20 SF1 was one such. They are faced with the most versatile bowling unit and chasing 150 and off to a decent start. Would they use Albie Morkel at No 3 or 4 to scatter the bowling and give him a chance to play game breaker. No way! They will play it safe , in the pretext of staying in the hunt and follow the primary school head-master schedule of Gibbs, DeVilliers and Duminy who collectively score 50 runs of 48 balls. Result, Morkel sitting and chafing in the dugout and momentum lost. This is not a case for Albie Morkel as a player and a matchwinner, it is a case for a team in a must win situation, overcoming the fear of failure and making a daring move to win. The end margin - 7 runs. If Morkel had faced half, no a fourth of those 48 deliveries, South Africa would have been in the final. (I made a similar case for using Yusuf Pathan well, earlier). So one can safely say, that till they will continue to be ranked in the top 3, win all home series againt all opposition (till Dhoni takes an Indian team there for a bilateral series ;-)) but still fail in crunch matches in big tournaments.

And what about the Windies. They will continue to entertain and exasperate in turn. But to be fair to them, they ran into SL who came up with their best performance in the entire tournament. Dilshan did not play his scoop perfectly even once, but got to within a hit of his century and after Mathews' bizzare first over, it was game, set and match. But Windies have that most important component for LOIs these days. The genuine, matchwinning, allrounder Dwayne Bravo (not the Ajit Agarkar type). A couple of years ago, Bravo seemed to have only one shot as a batsman - the hoick over midwicket. He has developed an all round game. But Chris Gayle continues to be the main man.

New Zealand did nothing of note, saw their key batsmen get injured, whined after being thrashed and sulked out of the tournament. New Zealand is one of those teams which will always have a minnow or two in all their league games (South Africa being another). They will promptly bash the minnows, get into the next stage and run into versatile opposition like Pak or SL and be shown the door. Eternal Bridesmaid. But somehow they manage to beat India in T20s.

England, like India will be a much talked about and much written about team. In KP and Bopara they have the class and dash for the 50 over and 20 over games. What they lack is the willingness to play Panesar and a high class keeper who can bat well. Their seamers and steady without being spectacular and they are good in the field. Like NZ, they will form the middle rung without ever punching above their weight and unlike NZ they will be true gentlemen. Read - they will not bully the minnows.

Australia - they have received scathing comments and deservedly so for their two performances. What was unnoticed in the melee, is that despite being 3 down for little in the WI match, they posted 170 plus. But for the good Chris Gayle turning up, who knows what would have happened. Similarly, in the next game Dilshan caught them with a punch to the solar-plexus, even before the bowlers had settled and that allowed his captain to manage the chase well. They key to beating Australia in all forms of the game is simple - early and sustained aggression, but not everyone can do this. NZ, Eng and SA certainly cannot. Recall WC 2007 SF2. South Africa talking big about aggression and the match getting over in the first half an hour!Beware a wounded Australia, the next world cup but 10 months away.

And finally what of India. The typical Indian narrow viewed jingoist in me lost interest in the tournament after the teams exit, and hence such a long time for this post. However, in many ways this defeat was a blessing in disguise. For one, it showed Rohit and Raina, there is a long, long way to go, before they can aspire to get into the Test side. Hopefully, this defeat will cause the selectors to introspect about having separate personnel for different versions and not bunch them under "good test player is a good LOI player" mantra. For instance, should the next slot be available in the middle order (temporarily or permanently), it would have to be Badri and Pujara in that order and not Raina and Rohit. Similarly, it will also hopefully stop Ishant being bowled into the ground. If he is a Test match bowler and not found his groove in LOIs, so be it. Steve Harmison retires from ODIs, spends two years thinking about the Ashes, lands up in Brisbane and bowls the first ball at second slip and yet he is England's number one bowler. Just let Ishant be, India's talent pool is wide enough to go well and this tournament is not the be-all end-all of cricket. The seeds sown in the Ganguly-Dravid-Wright era are bearing fruit now in the form of significant overseas Test victories and that is the bigger picture. This is not a case of 'sour-grapes' but an attempt to put things in perspective, seeing the usual media reaction back home.