After the 1992 World Cup, I had read an article by Rajdeep Sardesai where he imagined what the 2092 World Cup might look like. It included a final between the USA and UAE played at some exotic South American location, if memory serves me right. Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like it is going to happen. The reason being that cricket administrators, journalists, and other what not's seem to believe that the way to "spread the game" in non-cricket playing nations is not some TLC - wherein you build the system at the grassroots and carefully monitor the progress of the team until they are ready to face the big boys. Instead, they think the correct approach is to let the Associate nations play in a World Cup despite being absolutely outclassed by regular cricket-playing nations and then ignored for 4 years until it's time to play the next World Cup. It's like asking an amateur wrestler to build their bones (or in this case, break them) by fighting against the heavyweight champion so they can "learn". Somehow, it doesn't quite sound right. Although it isn't as bad as getting your bones broken (except for Sultan Zarawani who had his skull rearranged by an Allan Donald bouncer), consistently getting trashed must have some kind of an effect. Possibly even on Canada.
Questions have been asked over and over about the format of this World Cup. What a lot of people don't quite know is that this was never intended to be a World Cup. It was always supposed to be a knockout tournament following on the heels of the 2000 ICC knockout that New Zealand won (which proves that it really was open). There was a debate in the ivory towers in Dubai about what the tournament must be named. They decided not to call it the knockout because that was supposed to be a secret. One of the names considered was "Who can win 3 in a row?" but it was quickly withdrawn when a few people confused it with a B-grade reality show and the ICC got applications from a group of circus jugglers, some boy bands and a troupe of bhangra dancers. It was thus decided that the best way to keep this secret was to call it the World Cup. To make it appear like the World Cup. To even play a bunch of games like any other World Cup. Except that they sneakily got in a format that had a quarter-final in it.
And now, considering that everyone who anyone expected to be here is here, it's now time for the tournament to start in earnest. At this point, it really is a question of who can win 3 in a row. Let's try and review and analyse the matchups:
QF1: West Indies v Pakistan: Everyone is obsessing about the possibility of an India-Pakistan game when both teams are still a match away. Pakistan have to fell the West Indies, which admittedly is a relatively easier task than the one facing India - beat Australia. Makes you think back to 1987 when nothing was in the way of an epic finale (except for Australia and England, of course). What happened? Both host nations were ousted only for an England-Australia final at the Eden gardens which Australia went on to win for their first ever World Cup title. West Indies have been beaten and bruised so far in this cup, but the point is that they are still in it. Both teams will know that it will take one inspired innings by Gayle and probably a good lively burst from the rapid Roach. Pakistan have been well, Pakistan. Afridi has been at his fiesty best as a bowler and a brainless chump with the bat and the same team that have beaten Australia to end their 34-match winning streak almost suffered embarrassment at the hands of Canada! They will be the first to admit that their batsmen have been solid at best, and Kamran Akmal has provided comedians all over the cricket-playing world with at least a year of material. All said, the West Indies suffer from a real lack of belief and it is hard to see Pakistan not being in the semi-finals.
QF2: India v Australia: Tim Nielsen, who probably has won a lifetime contract as Australian coach (along with Ricky Ponting as captain) has already started the verbal jousting by claiming that all the pressure is on India and billing this contest as a mini-final. He's not totally wrong, of course. Except that it's a quarter-final and whichever team they end up facing will be happy that these teams will be mentally and emotionally drained by the time this match is through. India's top order have done exceptionally well, of course, and Sachin Tendulkar needs no reminder as to how important this match is. However, the middle-order has suffered a nervous breakdown in the tournament so far the minute the words power and play have been uttered in the same sentence. This is just as likely to be a battle between the Australian pace unit and the Indian top order, as between the Indian spinners and the Aussie middle-order (Ponting v Harbhajan, anyone?). The winners of that battle might well decide this contest, but it's just too close to pick a winner here.
QF3: England v Sri Lanka: One reason that Sri Lanka would be relieved with the Indian win over WI the other night is that they get to play at home. And we all know how good they are in Sri Lanka. They might be a bit wary of England though since England are not the same England who Jayasuriya and Kalu obliterated in the last QF the two played against each other in 1996. England have shown distinct Pakistani traits in the first part of this World Cup by winning and losing (and tie-ing) when everyone least expected to. Their main falling though has been Anderson's absolute lack of form. Also, after the match against India, their batsmen (apart from Trott) have not been getting a lot of runs and it was only because the West Indies showed their mastery of the Collapse that England have actually gotten this far. Although Sri Lanka have been accused of being overly dependent on their top-order (and fairly so), they are in pretty good form and England don't seem to possess the kind of bowlers to trouble them. Also, it's hard to see the England batsmen put one past M&M, which makes picking this one rather easy: Sri Lanka all the way.
QF4: South Africa v New Zealand: I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this: easy win for South Africa. Not only do South Africa look like a well-oiled machine, New Zealand have looked seriously out of their depth. But for some awful bowling at the death and Kamran Akmal proving why he is the butt of all jokes these days, despite Ijaz and Salman both being at-large in Pakistan, NZ might have not been able to put together a single win over a test-playing nation in the tournament so far. They were blown away by Australia and Sri Lanka and despite having McCullum and Taylor in the team, they just don't seem to have the necessary consistency to pose a serious threat. Also, South Africa seemingly have most bases covered except for possibly a power-hitter in the lower middle order, in the Klusener mould. It still seems likely that this one will be the kind of one-sided affair which might make people wonder whether the knockouts have even started.
But we know that they have. You read it here. May the real World Cup begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment