Afghanistan
Good:
The very fact that a sporting team from Afghanistan is playing in a
World Cup is a fantastic achievement. Watching them play, and
watching their supporters revel in being there, was something that
should not be forgotten any time soon. Even greater than that,
though, was their first victory. Collapsing to a dismal 7/97 in a
chase of 211, Samiullah Shenwari put the team on his back and, by
sheer force of will, took them within twenty runs of the target.
Hamid Hassan and Shapoor Zadran managed to overcome batting averages
of five to take them home in the last over. If told that Hamid and
Shapoor would be match winners, most would've expected them to be so
with the ball, not the bat. Throughout the tournament the two bowled
admirably, though perhaps without the reward they deserved.
Bad:
If Afghanistan's bowling was admirable, their batting was anything
but. Any team that gets to 3/3 facing Bangladesh is in a spot of bother. Any team averaging 17.17 for each wicket is not going to win too many games. Any team whose high scorer managed 254 runs, and whose next best less than half that, is going to rely almost entirely on their bowling. Samiullah Shenwari was the lone star in a misfiring batting line-up that probably cost them at least one match. Captain Mohammad Nabi's tournament also didn't help, as the team's fortunes were very much reliant on him, and he managed on 90 runs @ 15, and three wickets @ 87.
Ugly: Afghanistan's match against Australia was a great disappointment. The WACA was meant to be the perfect place for the Afghans to show off their skills with the ball, as the ground's bounce and pace would undoubtedly assist them. Unfortunately a combination of an unhelpful pitch, the new regulations, an opponent looking to make up for losing their last match, and their lack of experience turned the match into an absolute drubbing. The worst thing was that they didn't bowl particularly badly. They were simply bullied into submission.
Accuracy
of our preview: Accurate, although the bowling wasn't quite match-winning.
Overall: A good learning experience for a team who should be in many World Cups to come. The fact that they might not be because of the big three is a travesty.
Australia
Good:
Well, they won the World Cup. It's difficult to get much better than
that. That aside, the bowling of Mitchell Starc was something to behold, understandably putting him atop the ODI rankings. The stats are something else: 22 wickets @ 10, with a strike rate of 17.4 and an economy of 3.4. Anyone who tipped that he would top the wickets tally would not have expected such a dominating performance. Glenn Maxwell's tournament could quite possibly define his career. His batting performances took Australia's totals out of reach, while his spin bowling was just useful enough to allows Australia to get away with not playing a spinner. Steve Smith continued his ridiculously good summer, after a slow start, scoring over 50 in every match from the WACA onwards.
Bad: If we say the modern era of ODI cricket began with the 1992 World Cup, then Australia have won four on the seven World Cups to have been played for in that time. Of those four teams, this seems like the weakest by a considerable margin. The squad members who aren't Maxwell, Smith and Starc had, at best, decent tournaments. The depth of the batting order allowed its fragility to become irrelevant, bar the loss to New Zealand. The potential weakness of only having three full time bowlers at any one time was made up for by the brilliance of Starc. As far as teams go, this is not a great one...but it is one that managed to win a World Cup, and do so convincingly.
Ugly: Has the Australian cricket team always been boorish? While the idea of the Australians playing hard but fair is as old as cricket, the ugliness that came to the fore during the early 2000s was back again in full force during the final. Worst of all, it was targeted at New Zealand, a team that has played in a way that all teams should aspire to. It is a good thing the Kiwis chose not to bite back, and is a sign of maturity that the Australians seem to sadly lack. That this behaviour is supported by many of the Australian public, especially vocal former players, is quite sad. The effect this is having on club cricket, especially in juniors, is deplorable.
Accuracy
of our preview: Australia was about as good as we said they would be. Not great, but good enough.
Overall: Individual brilliance overcame the shortcomings of the squad.
Bangladesh
Good: Bangladesh overcame a poor run-up to the tournament to make the knockout stages again. Perhaps now, finally, we can say that they are beginning to fulfil their potential. It's not the first time that has been said, and they've still got a long way to go, but the first generation of academy cricketers are now hitting their prime. What was perhaps most promising was that this campaign was built on a solid batting lineup. Mahmudullah, Mushifiqur, Shakib and Sabbir all had great-to-good tournaments with the bat, something rarely seen from Bangladesh batting line-ups in days gone by. That they managed to chase down a 300+ total with ease suggests that there is also a greater maturity and confidence amongst the team. Soumya Sarkar didn't manage any great heights, but clearly demonstrated batting ability that will keep him in people's minds over the coming years.
Bad: The Deshi's strong middle order was able to make up for upper order brittleness. It's hard to tell whether it's worth moving Mushy and Shakib up the order to prevent an early collapse, because it comes with the risk that they themselves become a part of said collapse. In any case, it's still something that needs to be looked at. Also disappointing was the bowling. While this was hardly a bowlers' tournament, the lack of penetration from the bowling line-up was the difference between them being a genuine threat, and simply making up the numbers. While their spinners may have been more threatening at home, they desperately need this generation of fast bowlers to develop better than they have previously.
Ugly: There weren't really any truly low spots for the team on the field, although the direction the quarter-final went will probably stick in their memories for some time. But the bizarre behaviour of Mustafa Kamal, the ICC president, in questioning the motives of the umpiring during the quarter-final; complaining (probably justifiably) about not being the executive to hand over the World Cup; threatening to expose the ICC's actions; and finally resigning, all of which made for an unprofessional finish to a disappointing tournament.
Accuracy of our preview: Not very. Their batting seemed to have a fairly clear plan, and their bowling relied more on seamers than spinners. They also made it to the knockouts.
Overall: A promising stepping stone that must now be built upon.
England
Good: There was only one player who played well enough to fit here, and that was the maligned Ian Bell. While most believe Bell is a good Test player, the chopping and changing of his position over the years has led him to being placed as just an 'okay' limited overs player. But anyone who scores three fifties in six matches, with an average of 52, has had a decent tournament, and deserves to be applauded for at least providing some kind of stability in an unstable team.
Bad: Captain Eoin Morgan cut a forlorn figure after trudging off for a duck in the must-win match against Bangladesh. His five innings in the tournament went thusly: 0, 17, 46, 27, 0. He also made a duck in the second warm-up match, and the final of the tri-series. Perhaps the Irishman has been given too big a burden to bear, or at least a burden he had not enough time to prepare for. The other 'Mr Reliables' in Anderson and Broad also failed to have any impact on tournament, with Broad's record being particularly terrible. A strike bowler with a strike rate of 71 is not effective in any way.
Ugly: The puzzling switches made at the eleventh hour - after the tri-series but before the World Cup - made a mess of England's chances of doing anything significant. They reeked of a coach and selection panel who doubted themselves, and who doubted their ability to achieve what they had set out to do. The selection of Ballance, the moving of Taylor, the change of roles for Woakes and the non-selection of Tredwell and Bopara were all moves that did not seem right at the time, and seem no better looking back. England, not for the first time at a World Cup, seemed absolutely clueless about how they got into the position they did, and equally clueless about how to get out.
Accuracy of our preview: The bowling was spot on, but the batting was the exact opposite of what it should've been, and the fielding was of a side that was placing itself under pressure.
Overall: The sort of performance that should result in sweeping, positive changes, but probably won't.
New Zealand
Good: It would take almost as long as the World Cup to list all the good things that happened with New Zealand over the past six weeks. Their bowling was superb, their batting blitzed the opposition, their fielding was amazing, and the support the received from their countrymen and neutrals alike was unmatched. They played the game in a way every team should aspire to, and no-one would've begrudged them winning the tournament. But special mention should go to Trent Boult, who transformed from promising but somewhat unfulfilled limited overs bowler into a left arm machine, matching Starc as closely as anyone could hope to. He didn't quite have Starc's pace, but used guile and swing to decieve his opponents.
Bad: It may have been difficult to spot, but two players in the all-round excellent team did not have good tournaments. One was Luke Ronchi, who, when he got the chance to bat, did not get into double digits. A firing Ronchi may well have been the thing to elevate the Kiwis into a great team, but it was not to be. The other player was actually three players - Milne, McClenaghan and Henry. The third seamer simply wasn't able to have the same impact as Boult and Southee, although all three probably had different reasons for that. I suspect Henry would've had a good tournament if he'd been playing from game one, rather than coming in for the last two matches, but he didn't.
Ugly: The final was meant to be the showpiece event, a chance for the two best teams to demonstrate their brilliance. Instead, like most of the World Cup, it turned into an absolute drubbing, beginning with a fourth ball duck to captain Brendan McCullum and going mostly downhill from there. It was a great disappointment, and New Zealand will know that they won't get many chances to achieve a victory so sweet.
Accuracy of our preview: Correct.
Overall: The champions of hearts and minds, but not cold, hard reality.
Scotland
Good: There were little bright lights all over a haze of darkness that seems to hover over all Scottish World Cup efforts. Kyle Coetzer's 156 against Bangladesh would've been a match-winning performance at any other World Cup, and he and Matt Machan in particular demonstrated that Scotland has what it takes. Matthew Cross's skill with the gloves was unmatched and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. The king, though, was Josh Davey, who at one point led the overall wicket tally, and ended up 9th overall. The next best players to play only six matches were James Faulkner, Shapoor Zadran and Tendai Chatara at 20th. Davey isn't in any way fast, bowling in the 120s, but he knows where to put the ball in order to get wickets. His worst performance was 1/38 against Australia, never going wicketless. His performance should be enough to get him back into county cricket.
Bad: There's no looking past the fact that Scotland has still not won a World Cup match. Scotland put themselves in a winning position more than once, yet could not close out a match. There's no doubt that their lack of experience has worked against them, but to let Afghanistan win after having the 7/97 was simply not good enough, no matter how good Samiullah is. Both their batting and their bowling seemed fragile as well, relying on a select few to do well. While it's okay to expect Machan and Davey to perform, if they want to win regularly there needs to be all-round quality performances. Their batting and their bowling always seemed at least one short, and that may very well have been the difference between winning and losing.
Ugly: Majid Haq had hypnotised us with his bowling when we first saw him bowl. The slowness with which he sends the ball down the pitch is something you're never going to see from the Test playing nations, and adds a bit more colour to what was otherwise a dull event. Unfortunately, Haq made a poor decision regarding colour of a different kind, suggesting via Twitter that his dropping for Michael Leask was based on colour. This tweet disappeared quickly, but Haq did as well, sent home before the last match, as Scotland made clear on their team sheet.
Accuracy of our preview: Not too bad at all. Davey was well and truly the surprise packet of the World Cup, and their batsman have a lot to learn.
Overall: A valuable experience, but in danger of being another false start if the big three have their way.
Sri Lanka
Good: Kumar Sangakkara is something special. While the batting in total did quite well, it was only able to do so due to Sanga's mastery of the willow. Four consecutive centuries, a feat not achieved at a World Cup before and may well not be achieved for many years to come, and yet he seemed to do it with ease. As, indeed, all his run scoring seems to be. It was a wonderful finale to his ODI career, and cricket will be poorer for not having him on the field for much longer. Joining him on the good performers list were the openers, Thirimanne and Dilshan. The two are at opposite ends of their careers, and have had the doubts that come with their respective ages, but those doubts disappeared with the weight of runs they scored.
Bad: It was a good thing their top order fired, because their middle order and bowling was as poor as the top order was good. Mathews had an okay tournament, but nothing like he's capable of. Malinga took his time to get going, and was firing in yorkers by the end, but he lacked support. Herath's injury disguised the fact he hadn't done too well to date. Overall, the middle and lower order failed when they were needed, on the rare occasions that the top order had done likewise, while the bowling simply didn't have the kind of impact the team would need to threaten the best. The next generation of bowlers will need to be far more impressive for Sri Lanka to continue as a great limited overs team.
Ugly: You would think the selectors would not even contemplate changing up the top order, given the strength of their performances during the group stages. But as is so often the case at SLC, they decided that they needed to bring in a new opener for their quarter final - someone who had played one match in the tournament, and hadn't done especially well. Poor old Kusal Perera was on a hiding to nothing, and the loss of his wicket for three set the standard for Sri Lanka in that match, losing by nine wickets.
Accuracy of our preview: Not even close, except for the result.
Overall: The last hurrah of the old, with four years now for the new brigade to cement themselves as being the right replacements.
No comments:
Post a Comment