A final worth watching

Well as an Indian, I should be glad to see my team country lift the ICC cricket world cup for the 2^nd time. At last, India have won another world cup and that too after the color dress was introduced in one day cricket. Pakistan and Sri Lanka had previously won their world cups in 1992 and 1996 wearing color dress and India was deprived of such prestige which happened to be true yesterday after their 6 wicket win over Sri Lanka at Mumbai. As a result, India became the 1^st nation to win a world cup on home soil.

But, my post here is regarding the finals of world cups which have been one sided since the past three editions when Aussies were totally unbeatable. The case was partly similar in 1996 as well when the third Sri Lankan wicket of Ashanka Gurusinha fell when they were closing in on the target of 241 set by Australia. Australia was totally outplayed. This time, both the teams should consistency and finally since there can be just one winner, Sri Lanka had to be satisfied with the runners-up tag. A total of 274 was a decent one to both chase or defend unlike in previous 3 WC finals.

I can still recall the way Shane Warne demolished the Pakistani batting line up consisting of Saeed Anwar and co in the finals of the 1999 world cup where Pakistan were dismissed for 132-the lowest total in the finals of a world cup. Even Scotland and Bangladesh were able to score 181 and 178 respectively in their matches against Australia. The entire match lasted for just 59 overs meaning just about half an hour after one innings would have got over. Had this been known before hand, may be the finals might have been held soon after the 2^nd semi-finals would have got over.

Then comes the 2003 finals where after Australia had piled up a mammoth 359 losing just 2 wickets not before inflicting a 100+ run partnership, the only question that was awaited was "by how many runs would Australia win?" and "how long would the Indian innings last?". So was the case in 2007 . Sri Lanka should be lucky that the match didn't last 50 overs which would have otherwise seen a target in excess of 359 that was imposed against India in 2003. Still, the fastest hundred in the world cup final happened to be broken and so was the highest individual score in the world cup final.Don't forget to check out the Army Blog.

India-Sri Lanka in world cups..A review

With India set to play Sri Lanka in the final of the world cup, a look at the history between the two teams especially in world cup tournaments would be worth I suppose. If things are seen in the world cup tournaments that include the ICC champions trophy and the T20 world cups, Sri Lanka have been at the delivering end with India losing the plot on almost all occasions. The latest one being in the world T20 held at West Indies where Sri Lanka beat India to move to the semi-finals in West Indies. Of course, India had lost all games in that tournament.

A win against Sri Lanka for India would have been just a consolation after their loss to Australia and West Indies. Before that, India failed to get past the round robin stage of the last world cup after they lost to Sri Lanka and of course Bangladesh before that. Prior to the 2007 world cup, India had won a bilateral series against Sri Lanka at home 2-1 but could not repeat the same a month later. India have beaten Sri Lanka in world cups 2003 and 1999. This time it was India's turn to enjoy with them being responsible for Sri Lanka to go without a win against a major opposition in 1999.

In the 2003 world cup, it was after their win against Sri Lanka that India reached the semi-finals. But, India managed to win all three games in the super sixes which would not have made any difference. However, India's win over Sri Lanka in 1999 and 2003 didn't prove anything worth for India and Sri Lanka managed to reach the semis in 2003 despite being thrashed by India as mentioned. But, India's loss to Sri Lanka in 1996 and 2007 kept India totally out of the tournament. India's world cup campaign in 2007 lasted barely 2 weeks after they first lost to Bangladesh before losing to Sri Lanka.

India's win over Sri Lanka have just aided India's advancement to the next round or has been just another win. But, whenever India has lost to Sri Lanka, the match has made headlines. Previously India-Sri Lanka match in 1979 made headlines for India losing to a Sri Lankan team which was until then not been granted test status. India and Sri Lanka were set to play the finals of the ICC champions trophy 2002 which was abandoned with just one innings possible when rain interrupted the game twice. Since then, India has never played Sri Lanka in an ICC champions trophy. But, things need not be the same this time for both teams.

Well its time to check out some forex trading stuff before the finals.

No choker, only inefficient tag

I don't think the chokers tag is well suited for South Africa since the 2003 world cup when they were hardly the team that anybody would have wanted to beat. I can still remember the then South African captain-Shaun Pollock being given an over short in their 1^st game against West Indies which was solely South Africa's fault for maintaining a slow over rate bowling first. And then there was the match against New Zealand where though South Africa managed a satisfactory 307 provided by Herschelle Gibbs, Stephen Fleming's men also had equal zest in them to fight it out on the field.

New Zealand were given a revised target of 229 runs from 39 overs which was still over run a ball. All odds supported New Zealand despite South Africa having scored a 300+ total for, the Kiwis lost just one wicket en route to their successful run chase. The last was the game against Sri Lanka where a wrong signal from the stands ended the match in a draw and with it the South African dream not only in the world cup but also to reach the super sixes. Sri Lanka did their part of the game best by not relying on their wins against West Indies and New Zealand alone.

Atapattu did a fab job scoring 124* from 118 balls showing equal fight rather than just being a team that would cash out from the bad luck that the Proteas are believed to be cursed with. So was the case in 2007 when South Africans were far from being the favorites. With a miserable loss to Australia twice that included a complete surrender to Glenn McGrath in the semi-finals and New Zealand along with a clueless loss to Bangladesh, it was lack of the presence of India and Pakistan that saw South Africa in the semi-finals. I just cannot tell you My view on anything and everything under the sun.

The South Africans were favorites to win the cup only in the 1996 and 1999 editions where they had beaten all opponents in the league stages until they lost the plot in the knock out games against West Indies and Australia. This time, the South Africans have to consider themselves lucky to have ended up as the top team beating India and West Indies. A loss against England chasing 173 cannot be justified and neither can the loss yesterday against the Kiwis with the likes of Smith, deVilliars and Kallis. South Africa are gifted with the most promising squad even better than Sri Lanka and India. But, lack of commitment needs a heavy payment.

Sri Lanka in 1999

Well that was the world cup where the defending champions Sri Lanka had evoked a lot of interest and expectations among the fans and among the board as well after they had not only won the championship in 1996 but also had done so without losing a single match en route to the final triumph. Sri Lanka was the second nation to do so after the mighty West Indies led by Clive Lloyd in the 1975 and 1979 editions. Sri Lanka was led by Arjuna Ranatunga who was the captain in 1996 world cup as well needless to be said.

In the 1999 world cup all that the Sri Lankans were able to extract from the more or less world cup winning squad was a win against Zimbabwe and Kenya, the least that any test playing nation can be expected to do. Worst come, in the match against Kenya at Southhampton, though Sri Lanka managed a win in that inconsequential match after losing to England, South Africa and England, the man of the match was awarded to Maurice Odumbe of Kenya for scoring 82 runs from 95 balls. In the game against Zimbabwe, Sri lanka lost 6 wickets en route to their successful chase of 198.

Luckily, the man of the match was awarded to a Sri Lankan batsman Marvan Atapattu for reasons not so important here. Going back, in the 1^st game the Sri Lankans faced against England, Sri Lankans were the favorites not only against England but also against any opposition but for RSA. Sri Lankans were bowled out for 204 and the English batsmen chased down the target in 46.5 overs losing just 2 wickets en route. In the next game against South Africa, though not rated as favorites, Sri Lanka would have had it share of betters after RSA was bowled out for 199 with Klusner remaining unbeaten on 52.

But, forget about winning, the Sri Lankans should have thanked their Gods for not having them all out for a score less than 100. A margin of 89 runs chasing 199 on board is just unforgivable. Then comes the game against India where once again, Sri Lanka were termed as favorites but once again thumbs down. Sri Lanka started off on a positive note after scalping the wickets of Sachin Tendulkar and Sadagoppan Ramesh not before handing themselves to the hands of Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly. The two contributed together 328 runs with extras apart. Sri Lankans slogan might have been "Welcome to My World"

Sri Lanka were left with no choice but to end up on a winning note in their inconsequential match against Kenya with a lot of compromise.

Holding the spirits high

Well I had stated in one of my recent posts regarding the world cup being unofficially declared with the initial games being played between weaker teams and strong ones that does not evoke much interest among viewers. But, at the same time, one has to appreciate the ICC for coming out with such a plan that would keep the spirits of the game high with hardly any room for a fowl play like it has happened in the past. One can imagine Pakistan losing the last game to Bangladesh in the 1999 world cup after they had won matches against New Zealand, Australia and West Indies.

That loss to Pakistan hardly made any difference to the world cup with no team carrying any points forward to the super six stages. But, one match that really mattered was the one between South Africa and Zimbabwe which South Africa intentionally lost in an attempt to eliminate England which was much deserving than Zimbabwe. It is agreed that there is no scientific reason for my statement but, one can imagine the reason with India losing to Zimbabwe in the mast minute by 4 runs. That was also the reason why India failed to reach the semis of the 1999 world cup.

So was the case in the 2003 world cup with Sri Lanka losing to Kenya for reasons assumed that Kenya had gained 4 points from a walkover game against the Kiwis after the latter turned down to tour the country and Kenya had wins against Bangladesh and Canada. This deprived West Indies and South Africa from reaching the super sixes and New Zealand from reaching the semis. A match gifted from Zimbabwe to Kenya saw Kenya reach the semis as well which was unfair. This led to the ICC come out with a different in 2007 with teams divided into 4 groups, with 4 teams in each group.

As a result, any such tricks by teams would mean the end of the team doing it. But, that was a failure with India and Pakistan crashing out from the tournament after they lost to Bangladesh and Ireland respectively owing to overconfidence. But, the current format gives teams a 2^nd chance so that the top four would reach the quarter finals. Once again, any team that tries to act smart will have to pay the price by being the victim itself before making life miserable for any other team. An optimum chance here lies in the fact that even if a team wins against weak oppositions, a place is guaranteed in the quarter finals.

So, with the first 10 days reserved for weaker teams, the best idea for fans who'd have come here to see the world cup would be to visit Tourist Places in India.

About Lance Klusner

Well a funny news has broken in the midst of all the ones covering the spot fixing controversies surrounding mainly the players from Pakistan that the former South African all rounder Lance Klusner has said "no" to the role of a Bangladesh coach. Very rarely does one come across the South African player who once upon a time gave it everything he could to the South African side way back in the 1999 world cup in England. Anyways, putting the past firmly behind, the current news which deals his rejection to the offer to be the Bangladesh coach should be a good move by Klusner.

Lance Klusner was offered the job which was done by a Sri Lanka in Champaka Ramanayake, the name which is being heard for the first time by most cricket followers. Champaka Ramanayake was forced to quit as the Bangladeshi coach owing to illness. It would have been an injustice and an insult to Lance Klusner, had he agreed to coach the Bangladeshi team for, that is the team which is placed in the bottom of the points table in all three formats of the game. And then, the BCB had approached Klusner not before approaching England's Andy Caddick, India's Venkatesh Prasad and West Indian Colin Croft.

Colin Croft was denied the job due to the fact that he was not experienced as a coach though the entire world has seen him as a fast bowler of the devastating West Indian team of the early 80s. He was the strike bowler of the then West Indies team that included the likes of Joel Garner, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Malcom Marshall. With such a bowler not being given the job to coach the team that as mentioned falls in the bottom of the ICC points table, having Klusner do the job should be out of the BCB's way.

Lance Klusner should have been approached first before Caddick and Croft if anyone would ask me. I had my InMailBox saying a dozen things about his denial but, the right thing to do was to see another option for Klusner with the ICL closing the gates permanently not only for Klusner but for itself some two years back. Klusner was not included in the South African squad for mare than 6 years in tests and ODIs despite being the front runner in the 1999 world cup. Klusner is the only player till date to have been awarded the man of the series in a world cup despite his team not being able to make it to the finals of the same.