Andy Pakes looks at the emergence of Australia's James Pattinson and compares him to his England-capped brother Darren.
Sam Holloway looks at why test match cricket is not going to become extinct just yet
Manraj Bahra looks at the subtle differences between the forms of cricket and how teams shouldn't look to pick the same players in all forms.
Sports Editor James Tompkinson looks at the continuing problem of corruption within cricket as the cases of three Pakistani cricketers accused of spot fixing comes to an end
In previous years, the tournament has suffered from a format that drains spectacle and intensity in favour of a colossal number of matches. Arguably, this year’s format is even worse.
After the financial disaster of 2007, where the heart of cricket’s economy India were knocked out having played a mere three matches, the ICC has sought to prevent such early elimination for the heavyweights by ensuring every team plays six games in the first round. Whilst this makes it likely that the ICC can generate the maximum amount of money from the tournament, it all but removes the possibility of a minor nation progressing past the group stages, one of the few saving graces of recent world cups.
The format as it is promises a month of one-sided thrashings and dead-rubbers; a promise which has thus to a large extent been delivered. The opening four fixtures saw India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Australia all secure resounding victories against Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya and Zimbabwe respectively. All were over as contests early, and did not produce the excitement that we ought to expect from world cup fixtures.
Two games that did produce such excitement were England’s two fixtures. First on Tuesday they suffered a scare as they saw Netherlands post a score of 292 before redeeming themselves with a successful run chase. Then Sunday saw the tournament’s most exciting game so far, as England and India played out a tie in a match that some have called one of the greatest ODI’s ever.
India appeared to give England no chance after a majestic Sachin Tendulkar hundred helped them score an overwhelming 338. But England kept themselves in the game, thanks largely to a partnership of 170 between Andrew Strauss (whose innings of 158 even outshone Tendulkar’s) and Ian Bell. With these two at the crease and the score at 281-2, somehow England were now hot favourites.
But both were out to consecutive Zaheer Kahn deliveries and suddenly the game was India’s to lose. The middle-order failed to maintain the momentum of the innings and, with 12 balls to go, 29 runs needed and tail-enders Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann at the crease, the game looked over. But once again the situation changed in a flash as both hit sixes to grant England renewed hope. Ajmal Shahzard then came to crease and struck a beautiful six down the ground off his first ball, edging England yet closer. Eventually Swann was left with two to win off the final delivery but only managed a single as the game was thrillingly tied.
This game showed that exciting, competitive games can still occur in the group stages, albeit games with little hinging on them. Pakistan v Sri Lanka too proved an exciting encounter, as the former held off to win by just eleven runs. And on Friday Ireland pushed Bangladesh hard before Shafiul Islam put an end to their chase with four quick wickets, securing a tight 27 run win.
So whilst we can be sure that the eight test-playing nations will progress into the quarter finals, England’s tie against India ensures the hope that the group stages will feature at least some memorable contests.
Great article mate. I completely agree about the way in which the ICC have set this tournament up to ensure that the test playing nations are the most likely to progress. I think it's a shame for the likes of Ireland and the Netherlands, who are both capable of competing with the bigger teams if they play well. Ireland showed it in 2007 when they beat Pakistan and the Netherlands proved it against England earlier this week. For me, watching the smaller nations brings a breath of fresh air to the game, and to be honest, unless we have games like India vs England happening more often then I fear that this World Cup could act as an unwelcomed saturation of what is already an incredibly hectic cricketing calender.
As for England, I still think we are a bowler light, and opting to play people such as Michael Yardy as a kind of half batsman/half bowler doesn't work in the 50 over game. If England had gone for either Tremlett or Bopara against India then they may have just been able to push over the line and win the game.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report