If New Zealand can make it to the finals of a world cup for the first time in its 29 year old history, why should that not make the New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori happy atleast in his dreams. The reason why the world dream is mentioned here is because, like the Kiwis, even the Aussies would be touring India for a full fledged series before New Zealand make it there. Of course, that might not have anything to do with New Zealand trying to make hay is this sunshine. But, it is needed to be mentioned that preparations for the same need much more planning than this.
I can show you that Australia neither prior to the 2003 world cup at South Africa nor the 2007 world cup at West Indies had ever toured the same but at the end not only did Australia win the world cup but also did they do the same without losing even a single game en route. New Zealand had beaten Australia 3-0 in the three match one day series in the Chappel - Hadlee series just a month before the world cup in 2007. But, in the big stage, New Zealand failed miserably by losing the super eights game to Australia by a margin of 233 runs.
New Zealand were partly responsible in throwing off Australia from their number 1 spot in world cricket when they did the above mentioned feat. Not only did New Zealand beat Australia but they also had two successful run chases of 337 and 347 respectively in the 2nd and the 3rd one day internationals. Perhaps, that was the only instance where two score above 330 were chased successfully by any team. Even today, these two scores stand in the 2nd and the 3rd place when it comes to the most successful run chases in one day internationals. At the same time, the 233 run loss was the 2nd worst defeat in the 2007 world cup after Bermuda's 257 run loss to India.
Daniel Vettori's words no doubt is of much concern for, a practice at a venue which in six month's time would host the biggest events of cricket will surely add to one's fortune and a fortune for New Zealand would be that they might make it to the finals of the world cup for the first time and break the jinx. Luckily, they are bound to play Bangladesh in Bangladesh and India in India. And, one more thing that would be rejoiced would be that New Zealand would be playing a full fledged series against India and in India after 7 years, when New Zealand last toured India in late 2003 for a two test series.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Crap this allrounder!!!
Well exactly 9 months back a star fast bowler in Shane Bond retires from test cricket owing to the same reason as the current "under discussion" player Andrew Flintoff. Shane Bond had announced his retirement from test cricket owing to a back injury which he assumes makes it difficult to play the longest version of the game. Now, with Andrew Flintoff following suit, it looks as though records can hardly be bettered by the present batch of youngsters. This was all the more expected from Flintoff when he bid adieu from test cricket after the Ashes last year owing to a knee injury.
And, almost one year later from that announcement, Andrew Flintoff is now seen calling it a day from all formats of the game. This is indeed a huge blow to the cricketing world who rarely see all rounders like Andrew Flintoff make it to the international arena. Andrew Flintoff is an all rounder one of his kind with South Africa's Jacques Kallis being the only other to parallel him. However, when both their careers are compared, Kallis stands apart with more than 6 years of international cricket to his credit. The point here is not to compare anyone with Flintoff.
Instead, Flintoff needs to be cursed for not being able to give his fullest to the game which has given him fans outside England as well. Citing his achievements in international cricket would be just another boring set of words. But, I personally condemn his retirement at this age which now reads just above 32 years. Andrew Flintoff could have gone on to play for another world cup scheduled in another 6 months from now onwards. On one side of the cricketing world, there is some Sachin Tendulkar who started his international career more than a decade before Flintoff and is bound to continue even after Flintoff has retired.
Someone like Sanath Jayasuriya is all set to take the crease for the sixth time in world cup while Flintoff has just two of them to his credit. Flintoff was not even available for the third edition of the Indian Premier League earlier this year for the same reasons. Flintoff is the only bowler whi can bowl decent fast balls and also hit the ball hard with the willow. It is very rare for the cricketing world to find fast bowlers like Shane Bond and all rounders like Andrew Flintoff. But, with their limited service to the game, their entry is of hardly and cheers whatsoever.
And, almost one year later from that announcement, Andrew Flintoff is now seen calling it a day from all formats of the game. This is indeed a huge blow to the cricketing world who rarely see all rounders like Andrew Flintoff make it to the international arena. Andrew Flintoff is an all rounder one of his kind with South Africa's Jacques Kallis being the only other to parallel him. However, when both their careers are compared, Kallis stands apart with more than 6 years of international cricket to his credit. The point here is not to compare anyone with Flintoff.
Instead, Flintoff needs to be cursed for not being able to give his fullest to the game which has given him fans outside England as well. Citing his achievements in international cricket would be just another boring set of words. But, I personally condemn his retirement at this age which now reads just above 32 years. Andrew Flintoff could have gone on to play for another world cup scheduled in another 6 months from now onwards. On one side of the cricketing world, there is some Sachin Tendulkar who started his international career more than a decade before Flintoff and is bound to continue even after Flintoff has retired.
Someone like Sanath Jayasuriya is all set to take the crease for the sixth time in world cup while Flintoff has just two of them to his credit. Flintoff was not even available for the third edition of the Indian Premier League earlier this year for the same reasons. Flintoff is the only bowler whi can bowl decent fast balls and also hit the ball hard with the willow. It is very rare for the cricketing world to find fast bowlers like Shane Bond and all rounders like Andrew Flintoff. But, with their limited service to the game, their entry is of hardly and cheers whatsoever.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Not a bad move
Well finally, some decent decisions are found to be taken by the ICC regarding the mega event namely the world cup that is due to start the coming year. Whatever, the news or the decision, whatever you may call as comes into picture only on or after the 2015 world cup once again thought to be held in Australia and New Zealand. Coming to the matter, the ICC is on a decision to reduce the number of teams for the mega event from the existing 16 to 10, which obviously means showing the gates to the non test playing nations.
However, the list might not include Zimbabwe and Kenya or Ireland for, their performance in international cricket is comparatively satisfactory. Zimbabwe has a history of playing test cricket while Ireland and Kenya have shown to be no less than a test playing nation like Bangladesh or West Indies. Other teams that can be thought of to be shown the gates would be Bermuda, Scotland, Holland, Namibia to name a few though not that important. But, should this decision be criticized by anyone let alone the associate countries? With their role being limited in the event, how do the nations ask for a change not to take place?
If anyone would ask me, I would suggest that the presence of such teams can only ruin the excitement of the world cup nonetheless making way for unwanted politics in the mega event. Since the 1999 world cup, major teams have made it to the next level of the tournament though not deserving to be there. In the 1999 world cup, Zimbabwe made it to the super sixes at the cost of England. India lose their match to Zimbabwe by underestimating them and then South Africa lose to Zimbabwe not before confirming their place in the super sixes. As a result, India had to end their world cup campaign in the super sixes itself.
So was the case in the 2003 world cup when Sri Lanka made much of New Zealand forfeiting their group stage match to Kenya by intentionally losing (may be) to Kenya so that New Zealand faces a tough task ahead. In the 2007 world cup, though there was no room for any such politics, underestimation was at its peak with India and Pakistan paying the price for the same in their league stage match against Bangladesh and Ireland respectively. In the super eights of the same, South Africa paid the price by losing to Bangladesh by 67 runs. Are such teams required who can spoil the reputation of the tournament?
Another thing to be noticed is that due to the presence of the minnows, players can make a killing by reserving all their fortunes against these teams. One can remember that the highest team total till date in a world cup - 413 was scored by India against Bermuda in the 2007 edition. In that edition, India didn't even get past the league stage of the tournament. Glenn McGrath's 7/15 happened to be against Namibia in 2003 which cast a bad image on him despite being known for his accuracy. In that version, Sourav Ganguly scored three hundreds all of which came against non test playing nations.
This was equaled to the one scored by Mark Waugh in 1996 where he did the same against India, Kenya and New Zealand. Does the comparison justifies itself?
However, the list might not include Zimbabwe and Kenya or Ireland for, their performance in international cricket is comparatively satisfactory. Zimbabwe has a history of playing test cricket while Ireland and Kenya have shown to be no less than a test playing nation like Bangladesh or West Indies. Other teams that can be thought of to be shown the gates would be Bermuda, Scotland, Holland, Namibia to name a few though not that important. But, should this decision be criticized by anyone let alone the associate countries? With their role being limited in the event, how do the nations ask for a change not to take place?
If anyone would ask me, I would suggest that the presence of such teams can only ruin the excitement of the world cup nonetheless making way for unwanted politics in the mega event. Since the 1999 world cup, major teams have made it to the next level of the tournament though not deserving to be there. In the 1999 world cup, Zimbabwe made it to the super sixes at the cost of England. India lose their match to Zimbabwe by underestimating them and then South Africa lose to Zimbabwe not before confirming their place in the super sixes. As a result, India had to end their world cup campaign in the super sixes itself.
So was the case in the 2003 world cup when Sri Lanka made much of New Zealand forfeiting their group stage match to Kenya by intentionally losing (may be) to Kenya so that New Zealand faces a tough task ahead. In the 2007 world cup, though there was no room for any such politics, underestimation was at its peak with India and Pakistan paying the price for the same in their league stage match against Bangladesh and Ireland respectively. In the super eights of the same, South Africa paid the price by losing to Bangladesh by 67 runs. Are such teams required who can spoil the reputation of the tournament?
Another thing to be noticed is that due to the presence of the minnows, players can make a killing by reserving all their fortunes against these teams. One can remember that the highest team total till date in a world cup - 413 was scored by India against Bermuda in the 2007 edition. In that edition, India didn't even get past the league stage of the tournament. Glenn McGrath's 7/15 happened to be against Namibia in 2003 which cast a bad image on him despite being known for his accuracy. In that version, Sourav Ganguly scored three hundreds all of which came against non test playing nations.
This was equaled to the one scored by Mark Waugh in 1996 where he did the same against India, Kenya and New Zealand. Does the comparison justifies itself?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Deserves to be slammed!
Slamming comes by default when the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) lets go even freak chances of not getting into the record books for the wrong reasons when the same was found to exclude the name of Ramnaresh Sarwan from the list of contracted players. The WICB may have a number of reasons to justify its act but, people have the right to decide whether to believe the same or not. Likewise, the problem is not only regarding Ramnaresh Sarwan but fellow players like Jerome Taylor and Denesh Ramdin have also been made to follow suit no matter what. Did the WICB do all these just to come into light or what?
Needless to be said, there are two ways wherein one can come into light, one for the right reasons and the other (once again needless to be said) for the wrong ones. All doors have been closed for the West Indies decade back which can see them make into the news for the right reasons with the retirement of fellow players like Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop. This got only worse with the likes of Carlo Hooper and Brian Lara following suit after 4 and 8 years respectively. So, the only way the WICB can make news is by getting into some crazy act.
And the WICB have done just that. Drop important players like Sarwan, Jerome Taylor and Denesh Ramdin which can surely draw in a lot of attention from all over the West Indies if not from the world. Until now, players have been denied a place in the squad only owing to their lack of performance or form. But, if the decisions of the WICB are considered, it looks as though the WICB wants to be as creative as it can. As a follower of the game of cricket, I don't see anything right in denying contract to someone like Ramnaresh Sarwan who can of not anything else reduce the margin of defeat.
Hardly does a struggling team like the West Indies get a dynamic and an enthusiastic wicket keeper in Denesh Ramdin, only to be denied contract by the WICB, the reason once against which is best known to the governing body in the West Indies. If the other side of the coin is considered, there are hardly any major cricket tournaments involving the West Indies that are due to come in the near future which at the same time also means that the West Indies need to pay the least possible price for their act. And, by the time the big stage occurs, the aforementioned players might be returned their contract.
Needless to be said, there are two ways wherein one can come into light, one for the right reasons and the other (once again needless to be said) for the wrong ones. All doors have been closed for the West Indies decade back which can see them make into the news for the right reasons with the retirement of fellow players like Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop. This got only worse with the likes of Carlo Hooper and Brian Lara following suit after 4 and 8 years respectively. So, the only way the WICB can make news is by getting into some crazy act.
And the WICB have done just that. Drop important players like Sarwan, Jerome Taylor and Denesh Ramdin which can surely draw in a lot of attention from all over the West Indies if not from the world. Until now, players have been denied a place in the squad only owing to their lack of performance or form. But, if the decisions of the WICB are considered, it looks as though the WICB wants to be as creative as it can. As a follower of the game of cricket, I don't see anything right in denying contract to someone like Ramnaresh Sarwan who can of not anything else reduce the margin of defeat.
Hardly does a struggling team like the West Indies get a dynamic and an enthusiastic wicket keeper in Denesh Ramdin, only to be denied contract by the WICB, the reason once against which is best known to the governing body in the West Indies. If the other side of the coin is considered, there are hardly any major cricket tournaments involving the West Indies that are due to come in the near future which at the same time also means that the West Indies need to pay the least possible price for their act. And, by the time the big stage occurs, the aforementioned players might be returned their contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)