I will always put club before country:Gambhir

Well with so much money and fame involved by being an Indian cricketer, anybody would like to become one. If one doe not get my idea clearly, then referring to Parthiv Patel, Sreesanth etc will prove worthy. One can easily guess why Sreesanth is famous for when his bowling has got nothing to do with the news what he makes for. It is not only these two but the entire lot of Indian cricketers who are bagging good money by featuring themselves in ads and playing in the IPL. No doubt that India won the ICC world cup this year by beating Sri Lanka.

But, more than just talent and support from their fans, it was the money that fascinated the Indian players to do something more for themselves keeping in mind the rewards they get in case they manage to do it big. Of course, that is obvious that everything needs an inspiration and with the Indian players enjoying such a kind of inspiration should not be underestimated for, they bought home something which no other team has been able to since the past 28 years. So has been the case some 4 years ago when the same team lifted the world T20 at South Africa.

It was only after he big money started after the team's victory in the world T20 that India started winning games when they won the Commonwealth Bank series in 2007/08 and a bilateral series against Pakistan. Now, Gautam Gambhir has preferred to lean towards his country rather than his club cricket despite his words speaking opposite from the actions what he has taken. A player who has pulled himself out of the tour to West Indies owing to a shoulder injury had no problems playing in the IPL. So was the case with Dhoni who wanted a break from cricket only after the IPL got over last year.

Last year as well after the IPL got over, most of the Indian players called themselves off from the triangular tour involving Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe which India failed to make it to the finals despite Zimbabwe being an easy target. India have to learn lessons from Australia who even after their world cup triumph in 2003 had their full fledged squad that toured the West Indies soon after. The list included all hit names like Glenn McGrath, Damien Martyn, Hayden etc who had every reason to take a break from cricket after playing for so long successfully. Even Sri Lanka fares better in this aspect.

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.

Will John Davidson retire or..?

Well the latest abuzz in the cricket world is that the Canadian all rounder John Davison is set to retire after the world cup which is scheduled on 16^th March that is tomorrow after Canada's match against Australia at Bangalore. What a way to retire for this lad who was born as an Australian and is set to have his last game played against the very same team where he was born. I just can remember the Zimbabwean batsman Neil Johnson who scored an unbeaten 132 against Australia in the super sixes of the 1999 world cup who carried his bat throughout the innings.

Similarly, John Davison's fastest hundred in the 2003 game against the West Indies in the league stages of the tournament couldn't stop his team from losing rather badly despite John Davison making news for all the good reasons and being awarded the man of the match for his 100 that came off just 67 balls. This is more than a luxury for someone from a non-test playing nation though Mathew Hayden bettered the record by 1 ball in the very next edition in 2007 when he scored a 66 ball hundred en route to posting the highest team total in that world cup tournament against a test playing nation.

And today, the record is quite safe in the hands of the Irish batsman O'Brien bettering Hayden's record by 16 balls when he scored a hundred off just 50 balls at a strike rate of 200. Added to that, Ireland ended up on the winning side in that particular match. This proved safe heavens for John Davidson for, now he can boast of a world record for the fastest world cup hundred from a losing side. This is something rare that I've happened to see in My Day to Day Lfe. John also happened to be awarded the man of the match in a game against the Kiwis.

That world cup would be a memorable one for John Davison for Canada tasted a victory against Bangladesh in that world cup compared to this one where they are yet to have one. Canada have lost all their matches and are bound to lose their 6^th tomorrow when they are set to play Australia. That particular match against West Indies saw two records. One being the fastest world cup hundred by John Davison and the fastest world cup fifty by Brian Lara. Today, both records are history. Aged 40, if not now, when else will John Davison retire or will he likely be another Jayasuriya?

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.

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?

James Sutherland does have a point

Well if the chief executive of cricket Australia - James Sutherland is to be believed, Australia can one fine day have three different outfits, one each namely for tests, one day internationals and the T20s. So, if at all there is even a freak possibility, the ICC should be holding two different series' involving the same team which according to James Sutherland has to be Australia. Or else, another possibility can be tests, one dayers and T20 matches can be held parallel with once again Australia being the common team. Is this what James Sutherland means to say according to this?

The statement can also be taken like, Australia at present have an enormous talent which can see them send 45 players simultaneously if at all such a rare situation is bound to happen and still end up being victorious. This can well to some extent in today's cricket be considered to be true as far as Australia are considered. And, this would have been true to a greater extent some three years down the lane when they not only ended up victorious in the finals of the world cup in 2007 but also won 11 games in the tournament though they didn't face the like of India and Pakistan.

There would have hardly been any damn person who would have bet his money against Australia, no matter which team they were facing. Back in 2003, one can recall the way Australia emerged victorious despite their team being deceived from the services of Shane Warne, Shane Watson and Jason Gillespie in the initial stages of the tournament. Jason Gillispie had to head back home after giving his team a good start against India where he picked up 3 wickets to be adjudged the man of the match. His replacement - Andy Bichel came in handy for Australia in the match they most needed.

This was in the match against England where Australia were not only chasing a target of 204 set by England but also a 12^th match that would have seen Australia overtaking the West Indies' tally of 11 consecutive wins in ODIs. In that match, Bichel grabbed 7 wickets giving away 20 runs and in addition, stood along side Michael Beaven in a 83 run partnership which had seen Australia at 135/8 at one stage. Though there were India & Sri Lanka in 2003 and 2007 world cups respectively on the otherhand playing their threatening part, Australia was totally invincible. Had there been another Australian team, it would not be wrong to say that the finals would have been between two Australian teams and not Oz vs Ind or Aus vs SL.

A ray-of hope for sub continent

It was way back in 1996 that a country from the sun continent made it to one of the mega events in cricket, when U.A.E made it to the wills World cup in 1996 and was placed in Group B along with Holland, Pakistan, England, New Zealand and South Africa. Since then, no other nation from the Asian continent has been able to make it to the world cup- be it the ICC Champions Trophy that is held once in 2 years or the world T20 which is also scheduled with the same gap inbetween. Bangladesh-a team also from the sub continent made it to the world cup in 1999, and has since then been a regular part of international cricket.

Bangladesh differs from the other teams, for one-it has been given a test status by the ICC and two for the fact that they have been playing international cricket more regularly unlike the other teams whose presence is felt only in the major events. There have been teams like Hong Kong & UAE who also belong to the Asian continent but have not featured in any of the ICC sponsored events since 1996 after UAE made its appearance as mentioned above. Hong Kong has played two Asia cups in 2004 and 2008. If not, no other Asian teams have even made news otherwise as well.

If the remaining 5 continents are considered, there is the African continent who has seen teams like East Africa who made an appearance in the 1979 Prudential cup and then there was Zimbabwe-who even enjoyed a decade long unsuccessful test run, followed by Kenya who have been playing in the mega tournaments since 1996 and last Namibia who gave a guest appearance in the 2003 world cup played at South Africa. Of course, the Australian continent that consists of only Australia as a country has to be left out of the discussion. The highest contribution is seen from Europe, which has seen countries like Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands and Bermuda.

The fact is also that the countries that have been facing humiliating defeats have been from the European continent. It was Scotland in the 1999 world cup and Holland in the 1996 world that went without a victory in those tournaments. Then, Bermuda in 2007 lost all three games and recorded for the highest team total conceded when India scored 413 runs in the league stage of the same. The American continent has three nations in Canada, West Indies and USA who have featured in the ICC's mega tournaments. Now, after Afghanistan made it to the world T20 due in Caribbean in April this year, it can be considered to be another feather in the Asian continent's cap, taking the total number of countries from the continent to 6.

A Game Worth Looking Back Into

This of course has hardly got something to do with today's cricket. Nor is the match under consideration a recent one. But, a scroll through the earlier matches on cricinfo (after watching the highlightes on TV) provoked me to write a word or two about this match. That was the super six encounter between India and Sri Lanka in the 2003 world cup which India won one-sided. The match extend India's advent in that world cup to the semi finals. After going through the post, one can guess as to what sort of foul play might have been involved in the match.

The match started with Sri Lanka winning the toss and electing to field first that assures that the pitch was a batsmen friendly one and chasing any decent total would not be a problem. Following this, India put up a decent total of 292 on the board with as usual Sachin Tendulkar scoring 97 runs. For the first time in the tournament, India put up a 100+ run partnership with both Sehwag and Tendulkar scoring half centuries. Then comes the Sri Lankan innings where batting was thought of to be an easy job and Sri Lankans were found doing the same in a reckless manner.

5 out of the 11 Sri Lankan players who took to the crease scored ducks, with the highest individual score coming from the bat of Kumara Sangakkara who scored 30 runs from 33 deliveries. Out of the 5 who scored ducks, 4 of them were top batsmen. Videos suggest that each and every catch taken by the Indian fieldsman were similar to the ones that happen during catch practices. Added to this was the fact that Sri Lanka had to win atleast two out of the 3 super six matches and Sri Lanka had already lost their opening match to the Aussies by 96 runs. Sri Lanka should have taken this match against India seriously which never looked to be the case.

The entire Sri Lankan innings gets over by the end of the 23rd over meaning, the innings lasted for less than half of the total number of overs scheduled. The Sri Lankan run rate at the end of the innings is 4.73 which showed that they had no problems batting. The match was no day-night encounter to worry about the due factor that happened throughout the world cup. Javagal Srinath is awarded the man of the match with Sachin Tendulkar being one of the contenders for the same after scoring 97 as mentioned earlier. This suggests that bowling the opposition was a tougher task than scoring runs.

The weakest team viz Namibia has a worst defeat of 182 runs and Sri Lanka come out worse than that. Namibia bats for 42.3 overs as compared to 23 overs played by Sri Lanka. The Indian captain Sourav Ganguly never tosses the ball to spinners. Only three bowlers fro the Indian side were enough to over throw the Lankan batsmen. I wish the readers of this post tell me as what decision one has to come regarding such a match!