Monday, June 21, 2010

Why link this with the past

Well, if the latest article on one of the leading cricket websites are to be believed, the world gossip has now found to have shifted from movies and politics to cricket as well or may be it has happened long back and is seen offlate. Rumors suggest that India's recent win over arch rivals Pakistan was a revenge for the loss they attained in last year's ICC Champions trophy. If in case, that holds true, should that mean that India would have lost that one dayer in the Asia cup, had they won that battle in the champions trophy 2009?

Though georgetownksa has got nothing to do with the current post, I'd like to irritate you guys a bit but not before I get back to my topic which makes news for no reasons, be it good or bad. There is no reason for the win over Pakistan to be linked with India's loss to Pakistan in the champions trophy for, India lost to Australia as well in that same edition and had returned with just a consolation win against the West Indies who were fresh from their 3-0 loss at the hands of Bangladesh which was followed by a 2-0 defeat in the test series.

Pakistan has always been a team to beat for India and so is the case for Pakistan who consider India as the team to beat. This doesn't and shouldn't matter for either teams regardless of whether they had won the last encounter or not. One can take lessons from Australia who thrashed the English team 5-0 in the Ashes 2006 and not yielding to just a 3-0, 3-1 etc like victories. Thanks to the combined efforts of Glenn McGrath and co in the bowling department and Gilchrist and co in the batting department. However, what happened in the later episode is a secondary issue.

India had little reasons to beat Pakistan in the 2003 world cup after India had until then lost to just one opponent (obviously Australia). India had won the matches against England and Zimbabwe before facing Pakistan at Centurion. But, that would have made enter into the super sixes with the need to win all three games in case they needed to make it to the semi finals of the tournament. Coincidentally, India managed to win all three games against Sri Lanka, Kenya and New Zealand in the super sixes of the 2003 world cup. Still, why did India win all three when two wins could have seen them through to the semis? Rubbish isn't it?

No comments: