Back in December I gave my thoughts on the future of West Indies cricket, during their embarrassing tour of Australia. It wasn't a positive outlook, particularly for the notion of the 'West Indies' continuing as one team.
For much of the cricketing world, their first ever success in the Under-19s World Cup is a much needed sign of something blooming in the West Indies, a sign that maybe, just maybe, things were looking up for cricket in the region. Well, I don't mean to be a downer (even if I did, Tony Cozier got there first), but this seems unlikely.
I said in December that 'the biggest problem facing the Windies is not talent.' This is evidently true, else they would not have won this World Cup. Talent has not ever, and will never, be a problem for the islands of the Caribbean. To be honest, I doubt talent is really, truly much of a problem in any country at all. Cricket is the kind of sport that really only needs a small amount of gems to create something magnificent.
As such, this win is not a sign of a turn-around in the administration or coaching of cricket across the islands. If anything, it can be attributed to the right circumstances coming at the right time. If we hold, as I do, that disunity is the fundamental problem with the West Indies, then clearly the solution is to unite them again. So, can you think of anything that happened during the U19 WC that could have united this team?
I can.
Their win over Zimbabwe.
It is unfair on mankading to call the end of that game a mankad, but whatever it actually was, it brought the ire of the majority of the cricket community on their young heads. The language of some of said ire was actually just as poor as the incident itself, and it seems to me that few things can unite a group as much as unfair criticism (perceived or real) being heaped upon them. Keep in mind, prior to this the team had been far from impressive, with just a loss to England and an untidy win over the out-of-their-depth Fiji to their name. Prior to that they had been whitewashed by the Bangladesh U19s in a pre-tournament series. Not exactly the form of a world champion.
But after the win over their poorer full member cousins (as amazing as it is that there can be teams poorer than them), the team just seemed to click. Everything started working, and nothing could stop them. They were, like the Windies teams of old, united.
But this doesn't really mean much in the long run. It's the most short-term solution you can imagine: a one-off event for a tournament most of them will never play in again, though hopefully many will end up playing in the full version in the years to come.
It does nothing to address the fundamental issues facing the senior players, a group they will soon join. It does nothing to address the fundamental issue of total disunity at the (inter)national level. If some of these players get thrown into the national squad straight away, the likely result would be another generation of players thrown away to a war that can't be won.
It's not as though the disputes between players and board have gone away. They're right there, looming over the World T20, just waiting for another chance to interfere in the playing of international cricket.
So all the best to the winning Windies, I hope they savour the victory. But I suspect many of these young men will end up playing international cricket in colours other than maroon.
(As an aside, these are the nations that these players divided into:
Antigua and Barbuda: Alzarri Joseph
Barbados: Chemar Holder, Shamar Springer
Grenada: Ryan John, Emmanuel Stewart
Guyana: Shimron Hetmeyer, Tevan Imlach, Keemo Paul
Jamaica: Shahid Crooks, Michael Frew, Odean Smith
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Obed McCoy, Gidron Pope
Sint Maarten: Keacy Carty
Trinidad and Tobago: Jyd Goolie, Kirsten Kallicharan)
Showing posts with label west indies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label west indies. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 February 2016
Saturday, 12 December 2015
The future of West Indies cricket
There will be a lot of
speculation over the coming day over the future of the West Indies.
Some of this will be legitimate, pointing out long-standing
difficulties that the joint cricket team has had over the past two
decades. Others will be more short-sighted, and will probably
disappear should the West Indies vaguely improve over the next two
Tests.
It is clear that the
Windies will not win this series. It is also clear that they will
struggle to win. The biggest alarm bell about their performance in
Hobart is that wasn't unexpected. Given the past five years of
movement from the team, which has only consisted of going from bad to
worse, for this once great group of nations to go from losing to a
Cricket Australia XI, full of rookie players, by an innings, to
losing to the Australian Test team by an innings feels almost like an
improvement in and of itself – not because of their own
performance, but because of the leap in quality of opposition.
This very much appears
to be the worst team to tour Australia since Zimbabwe came in 2003,
and we all know how far they've gone since then.
The biggest problem
facing the West Indies is not talent. There is just as much potential
within the peoples of the Caribbean now as it was during their heyday
thirty years ago. The problem is disunity. Remember, the Windies are
a group of nations. These are
all independent, proud countries with their own different histories.
They first came together for cricket in order to give the touring
Commonwealth nations some competition, and no-one ever really thought
to disband them.
By
the time World Series Cricket came around, they were becoming unified
not by their relationship to each other, but to that of the other
nations they were up against. The West Indies cricket team was a way
of getting back at the old colonial powers. It was a way for these
nations to prove themselves. This was stated numerous times as being
one the key factors in their unification and subsequent dominance of
world cricket.
So,
what happened? Well, they did it. They proved themselves on the world
stage, bashed around the colonial powers and dominated cricket for
years. Like all successful kingdoms and powers, they got lazy. They
didn't prepare themselves for the years ahead, and seemed to presume
that their dominance would just carry on.
Part
of the problem, to be fair, was that much of their dominance was
built on top of things outside of their control. The county
championship was undoubtedly the biggest factor in getting their
players to move beyond 'potential' and into greatness. As the
strength of county cricket fell away during the 1990s, and the amount
of West Indians entering county cricket dropped, the Caribbean
domestic league was unable to take its place. Domestic cricket is not
cheap to organise for the WICB, as it involves flying players to
whole other countries. This, along with the region's lack of wealth,
did not leave much room creating a strong domestic competition,
creating a vicious cycle as the their intentional performances began
to fall away, and as old greats retired. By the 2000s, the beginning
of the end had come. Only in the last five years, though, has this
become abundantly clear.
Today,
the WICB is totally disunited, with poor domestic structures (in
every way imaginable), players who aren't interested in playing for a
team that isn't their own nation, players who aren't willing to give
up T20 wealth for the sake of a collective group of nations, and
international structures that give them no assistance other than
keeping them treading water above the Associates (many of whom could
beat them on a good day).
Soon,
the West Indies will be no more. This seems inevitable. The question
is simply whether it will happen by action, or by default. The former
involves their performances collapsing to such a point that the ICC
will have no choice but to prevent them from playing Test cricket, as
they did with Zimbabwe, which will almost inevitably spill over into
the breaking apart of the WICB. The latter will happen if cricket
becomes an Olympic sport. There can be no West Indies team in the
Olympics. Each nation within the WICB will be forced to compete on
their own – if they can qualify at all. Should the international
results continue to head south, it would not be that surprising if
the collective boards decide to make this a permanent state of
affairs.
The
question then is what happens to these teams within the ICC. How
strong would they be? Would they only be on Associate level?
It
is difficult to imagine any of the individual nations within the
Windward or Leeward Islands being able to put together a team that
would satisfy the current ICC requirements for a full member nation,
so the question is essentially being asked of four nations: Jamaica,
Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana. Here's how these teams may
look at full strength if they were going to play tomorrow.
Barbados
Kraigg
Braithwaite
Dwayne
Smith
Jonathon
Carter
Shane
Dowrich
Carlos
Braithwaite
Shai
Hope+
Jason
Holder
Ashley
Nurse
Kemar
Roach
Sulieman
Benn
Fidel
Edwards
Guyana
Rajendra
Chandrika
Assad
Fudadin
Leon
Johnson
Shivnarine
Chanderpaul
Vishaul
Singh
Narsingh
Deonarine
Chris
Barnwell
Anthony
Bramble+
Steven
Jacobs
Veersammy
Permaul
Devendra
Bishoo
Jamaica
Chris
Gayle
Kirk
Edwards
Jermaine
Blackwood
Marlon
Samuels
Andre
Russell
Carlton
Baugh
Chadwick
Walton+
David
Bernard
Jerome
Taylor
Nikita
Miller
Sheldon
Cottrell
Trinidad
and Tobago
Kyle
Hope
Lendl
Simmons
Darren
Bravo
Jason
Mohammed
Dwayne
Bravo
Yannick
Ottley
Denesh
Ramdin+
Rayad
Emrit
Imran
Khan
Ravi
Rampaul
Shannon
Gabriel
Each
of these teams has its own strengths and weaknesses. Jamaica is
essentially a Test team, with a relatively strong batting line-up,
though the bowling is unimpressive. Barbados is at the opposite end
of the spectrum, with good bowlers along with more all-rounders,
though the weakness of their batting leaves them looking more like a
top Associate nation. Trinidad and Tobago is full of experience, both
at international and domestic level, but lacks top order batting and
significant fast bowling, making them seem like a truly pieced
together Associate team. But that is nothing compared to Guyana,
whose pace bowling options are essentially non-existent, with their
three frontline bowlers being spinners (albeit with the variety of
off, leg and left arm orthodox spin).
These
teams are at least capable. The question is whether playing for their
own nation will spur them on to greater things, playing with more
pride and showing more on the field than they have in their careers
so far. Furthermore, will this properly spur on the next generation,
knowing that they will play for their own countries? If so, then this
is something worth doing. Let us hope the cricket boards of these
nations are prepared for the inevitable.
Thursday, 9 April 2015
World Cup review - Group B
To everyone's surprise, the World Cup
has now actually finished. This means we can now finally examine how it
went for each of the competing teams, including those that most have
probably forgotten about already. Also included is a review of our preview.
Group A is here.
India
Good: To call India's performance a surprise would be an understatement. Despite being the reigning champions, they'd spent the whole summer being bashed from pillar to post by Australia and even England, and there was no real reason to believe this would change. Instead they went undefeated until their semi-final against Australia. That their batting was strong was not a surprise, but that their bowling should turn around from incapable to irresistible was quite the shock. The pace attack of Yadav, Shami and Sharma had enough points of difference to be an effective partnership, while spinners Ashwin and Jadeja kept the run rate down and the pressure on during the middle overs.
Bad: It's surprisingly hard to find a weak spot in a team that didn't win the World Cup, but if it was anywhere it was in the middle order. Bear in mind that this was a middle order that wasn't often needed, due to the strength of the top three, but even then they seemed a bit unsure of themselves. Rahane made one score over fifty, Raina was all or nothing, Dhoni did not have the same impact as he did a few years ago and Jadeja did absolutely nothing with the bat. It was perhaps this weakness that saw them unable to chase down the Australian total in the semi-final, guided by a less-than-100% Dhoni, who took too long to get started in the chase proper, and had no-one to help him.
Ugly: India's occasional move towards constant sledging reared its head again occasionally, but far worse was not the Indian team, but the representative of the BCCI, out on the world stage telling everyone how inclusive the tournament was, and how great the numbers were. I am, of course, talking about N Srinivasan, leader of the big three. Few have been such a disservice to cricket in both India and the world.
Accuracy of our preview: Not even close.
Overall: A professional performance from a well-prepared team.
Ireland
Good: Once again, Ireland proved that it deserves to be playing cricket at the highest level regularly, defeating two full member nations by scoring over 300. The strength of their batting was evident in that only one of their top seven did not play in the 2011 World Cup, and their experience shone through against opponents of similar ability (UAE and Zimbabwe). That one new player, Andy Balbirnie, also had a great tournament, building to a crescendo with his 97 against Zimbabwe. His inexperience did show in his innings against India and Pakistan, but he is undoubtedly a great talent for the future. With the ball, Alex Cusack performed admirably, battling against a body that would prefer not to be playing.
Bad: While Ireland's batting was mostly on song, their bowling was not. Comfortably the most expensive bowling line-up in the tournament, Ireland's failure to hold their opposition back placed an enormous amount of pressure on their batting to perform, which cost them dearly against Pakistan, and in the end caused their net run-rate to collapse. Paul Stirling's tournament wasn't the greatest, despite a 92 to start against the West Indies. While he is often hit and miss, the rate of misses leans too high for someone opening the batting. Gary Wilson also struggled with the bat, and it seems difficult to justify his selection in the one day team when another keeper is in the team. While Wilson is probably Ireland's next captain, he isn't the captain right now, so his spot should be up for grabs.
Ugly: The degree to which Ireland's bowling suffered needs to be emphasised here. In particular, the selection of all-rounders instead of bowlers to lead the pace attack was absolutely absurd when there were two young, promising pace bowlers in the squad (Craig Young and Peter Chase). Scotland's Josh Davey had demonstrated his effectiveness, purely from knowing where to put the ball, so it's hard to believe Young especially wouldn't have had a similar tournament. Instead, most of the pace bowling was done by all-rounders, who seemed more comfortable containing than taking wickets. This was not a World Cup in which to be a containing bowler, because it was more or less impossible. Kevin O'Brien indifferent form with the bat was undoubtedly due, at least in part, to his form with the ball, forced into playing a role he is clearly not entirely comfortable with or best suited to doing. A new coach should bring renewed opportunities for the pace duo, but they have been robbed of World Cup experience.
Accuracy of our preview: Not great. The batting was far greater, not lesser, than the bowling.
Overall: A tournament demonstrating their ability that the ICC will do its best to ignore.
Pakistan
Good: The depth of Pakistan's bowling almost defies belief. With no Umar Gul, Junaid Khan, Saeed Ajmal or Mohammad Hafeez, it was expected Pakistan's bowling, combined with their already struggling batting, would see them drop out with barely a whimper. Instead they changed their bowling plans and told their replacements bowlers to go for it. Irfan, Wahab, Sohail and Rahat provided a non-stop pace threat that consistently threatened and often succeeded in limiting their opponents through a mixture of pace and swing. With the bat, Misbah was up to his usual high standard, while Sarfraz Ahmed did well once he was given a chance.
Bad: It's not too surprising that Misbah thought 250 was a defendable total given the batting line-up Pakistan had to work with. It is as though they are playing in a different era to all the other teams. Their batting is slow, inconsistent and lacking in the kind of match-winning performance that a team needs if it expects to win. Nasir Jamshed's tournament was particularly poor, scoring five runs across three innings, setting the tone for the rest of the innings. Pakistan will need to totally rework their approach to limited overs cricket if they want to win. Their fielding, as always, was not up to scratch, which seems to be indictment on the facilities they have domestically.
Ugly: While their batting throughout the tournament was poor, nothing summed up their paucity of runs more than when they dropped to 4/1 against the West Indies. Yes, that is four wickets for one run. Against a team that was comprehensively dismantled by Ireland in their previous match. That they managed to recover to give Australia a fright in the quarter-final is a credit to their bowling, not their batting.
Accuracy of our preview: No. Their bowling depth is far deeper than predicted.
Overall: Incredible bowling depth only able to take a team so far.
South Africa
Good: It was fairly clear before the tournament began that South Africa's fortunes would rest in the hands of a few individuals. In the end, that was exactly what happened. It the performance of four players that kept them going: AB de Villiers and Faf du Plessis with the bat; Morne Morkel and Imran Tahir with the ball. De Villiers is in the form of his life, so to see him crunching 482 runs at an average of 96.4 seems almost ordinary. This is someone with an incredible eye, a great technique and an aggressive mindset. This is someone who will face the same ball four times in a row, and hit the ball to the boundary in four different areas of the ground. Watch him while you can. Du Plessis is never going to hear the same kinds of complements, and he seemed to sneak under the radar almost entirely, but his performance consistently came at the right time, especially with his foundation innings in the semi-final. He provided the perfect counter-weight to de Villiers. Morkel needed to perform well, and did, averaging just over two wickets a match. He never had more than three, and he never went wicketless. This speaks to his consistency, and he was able to keep his economy down while the ball went up, near the batsman's head. Tahir's tournament was the total opposite, as you would expect from a leg-spinner. He only had only two wickets less than Morkel, but went between five and zero wickets in a match. Rarely, though, was he overly expensive, with his great variations proving a handful for even the most adept batsmen.
Bad: When four individuals do well in a squad of fifteen, it suggests something about how the others played. While most of the rest of the South African squad had a good game, they didn't have a good tournament, with that one good game being surrounded by average-to-terrible performances. The consistent ineffectiveness of the team, seeming to never totally function as a unit, was ultimately what let them down. South Africa was only slightly more reliant on individuals than Australia, but that slight difference was enough.
Ugly: While many of the South African squad had bad tournaments, Quinton de Kock's was downright ugly. A 78* against Sri Lanka in their quarter-final was surrounded by score of 7, 7, 12, 1, 0, 26 and 14. There was no way South Africa was going to get off to a good start with an opener performing like that. Equally ugly were the rumours surrounding Vernon Philander's inclusion over Kyle Abbott in the semi-final. The two had played about half of the tournament each, with Abbott veering far closer to being a match-winner than Philander had. Yet it was Philander that was picked, and the reason suggested seems to come back to that old issue - 'quota'. Regardless of whether this is actually true, it was an odd selection that may have lost the match.
Accuracy of our preview: Yes. Their greatest weakness was their fifth bowler, although their batting was more 'wow' at AB than the whole team.
Overall: Close, but no cigar - again. A final still eludes a team that should have won a World Cup by now.
United Arab Emirates
Good: Of all the nations at the World Cup, the UAE were the ones least expected to do well. While they didn't win a match, they made a number of teams nervous, mainly thanks to their somewhat unexpected batting prowess. While it was always clear that batting was their strong suit, they managed to put together some very good totals. Leading the charge here was Shaiman Anwar, whose bludgeoning batting brought them so close to victory against Zimbabwe and Ireland. While he didn't play every match, Manjula Guruge was impressive with the ball, swinging the new ball and leaving batsmen in two minds.
Bad: Unfortunately, the UAE lacked depth. Their batting was prone to falling away quickly, and their batting was mostly unthreatening, attempting to contain out of necessity, rather than taking wickets. None of their players managed wickets in double digits, and they did not bowl any of their opponents out. What didn't help the situation was their fielding, which was club cricket standard. Not surprising, given that they are the only fully amateur team at the World Cup, and most are in the UAE for work, who partly employ them to play for local cricket teams.
Ugly: The drubbings they received from some of the full members were pretty ugly, regardless of how expected they were. The match against India at the WACA was the lowlight, as the Emirates were more or less a procession of wickets. Individually, you had to feel for Krishna Karate Chandran, an all-rounder batting at three and providing handy medium pace. The stats say it all: five matches, 38 runs @ 7.6 (with a high score of 34), one wicket @ 177.
Accuracy of our preview: More pessimistic than reality.
Overall: The Emiriatis can be a good team, if they get the chance. At the very least, they did deserve to be at the World Cup.
West Indies
Good: When Jason Holder was made captain late last year, it was to much confusion. While no-one doubted the 23 year old's potential for leadership, the reality was that he was still 23. To charge him with captaining a disparate and dispirited national team at such a young age seemed like creating a lamb for the slaughter. After his first series in charge, these seemed to be true. The team was obliterated 4-1, carted for 400 more than once. After the defeat to Ireland in the first World Cup match, it seemed reaffirmed. But Holder responded by being making statement after statement with ball and bat, taking charge of his team and never looking overwhelmed. Without him, there is no way the Windies would've made the quarter finals. Of the players in the Windies team, the one who seemed to respond to his captain the best was Jerome Taylor, who was occasionally expensive, but always seemed a threat.
Bad: In some ways it is surprising that the Windies made it to the quarters at all, as their players were so inconsistent. Despite being the highest run scorers for their team, Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels did not have good tournaments. The two looked disinterested (at least, more so than normal), and in Gayle's case, also injured. They were far from alone, as many of their batsmen fired only once throughout the tournament. The West Indies relied on having a variety of options with bat and ball, perhaps reflecting a knowledge that they could only rely on each player to fire occasionally. Darren Sammy's performance with the ball was also rather poor, although, again, there did seem to be some kind of injury. Still, one wicket in seven matches is not a good performance, especially when going at six an over.
Ugly: No one really knows why Dwayne Smith is opening the batting for the West Indies in ODIs. His batting average of 18.57 from 105 ODIs gives a fairly good indication of how likely he is to do well with the bat, and he somehow managed to do even worse than that during the tournament. The only reason he should be in the team is as an all-rounder, but he only bowled seven overs, all of which came in the last two games the West Indies played. That he should be in the World Cup squad at all speaks volumes about the lack of depth the West Indies now have.
Accuracy of our preview: Simultaneously true and false. Without the strength of their captain, it would only be true.
Overall: Going backwards at a rate of knots, with talent being overwhelmed by difficulties. A select few who can be bothered are the ones keeping the team together.
Zimbabwe
Good: Brendan Taylor and Sean Williams put on a batting masterclass more than once, forming a remarkably effective middle order partnership to take their team. They managed four 50 run partnerships, including one partnership of 149 which arguably should've won the game against Ireland. Both are similar players, stronger against spin than pace, used in the right place in the batting order and, most crucially, vulnerable to the lure of county cricket. Competent white players trying to make a living in Zimbabwe have been regularly moving north for a decade now, and Taylor is the latest to do this. This was an excellent individual swansong for him, but it is a shame that it had to be a swansong at all. Zimbabwe's bowlers were also excellent in the first ten overs, able to prevent their opponents from getting to a strong start. The best thing, though, was that the players were playing positively, showing the effect a competent coach like Dav Whatmore can have on a team.
Bad: Unfortunately, Zimbabwe's bowlers were unable to continue their work in the remaining forty overs. Only one bowler, Tendai Chatara, managed double figures of wickets, and that at an average of 34. They bowled none of their opponents out, and only two bowlers had a strike-rate below 60. Their batsmen, too, struggled to have an impact other than Taylor and Williams, with only three 50s being made from the rest of the squad.
Ugly: The dearth of bowling made itself most clear in the West Indies match against them. Only two wickets were taken by their bowlers - one off the first ball, and one off the last. In between, the West Indies scored 372 runs, with Chris Gayle making his first ODI double century. Zimbabwe seemed to not know what to do, with their bowlers simply unable to do anything to stop the onslaught.
Accuracy of our preview: Batting stronger than predicted, but the truth of their vigour being renewed was clear.
Overall: Going around in circles. Development seems to be stunted by off-field dramas, and still a long way to go.
Group A is here.
India
Good: To call India's performance a surprise would be an understatement. Despite being the reigning champions, they'd spent the whole summer being bashed from pillar to post by Australia and even England, and there was no real reason to believe this would change. Instead they went undefeated until their semi-final against Australia. That their batting was strong was not a surprise, but that their bowling should turn around from incapable to irresistible was quite the shock. The pace attack of Yadav, Shami and Sharma had enough points of difference to be an effective partnership, while spinners Ashwin and Jadeja kept the run rate down and the pressure on during the middle overs.
Bad: It's surprisingly hard to find a weak spot in a team that didn't win the World Cup, but if it was anywhere it was in the middle order. Bear in mind that this was a middle order that wasn't often needed, due to the strength of the top three, but even then they seemed a bit unsure of themselves. Rahane made one score over fifty, Raina was all or nothing, Dhoni did not have the same impact as he did a few years ago and Jadeja did absolutely nothing with the bat. It was perhaps this weakness that saw them unable to chase down the Australian total in the semi-final, guided by a less-than-100% Dhoni, who took too long to get started in the chase proper, and had no-one to help him.
Ugly: India's occasional move towards constant sledging reared its head again occasionally, but far worse was not the Indian team, but the representative of the BCCI, out on the world stage telling everyone how inclusive the tournament was, and how great the numbers were. I am, of course, talking about N Srinivasan, leader of the big three. Few have been such a disservice to cricket in both India and the world.
Accuracy of our preview: Not even close.
Overall: A professional performance from a well-prepared team.
Ireland
Good: Once again, Ireland proved that it deserves to be playing cricket at the highest level regularly, defeating two full member nations by scoring over 300. The strength of their batting was evident in that only one of their top seven did not play in the 2011 World Cup, and their experience shone through against opponents of similar ability (UAE and Zimbabwe). That one new player, Andy Balbirnie, also had a great tournament, building to a crescendo with his 97 against Zimbabwe. His inexperience did show in his innings against India and Pakistan, but he is undoubtedly a great talent for the future. With the ball, Alex Cusack performed admirably, battling against a body that would prefer not to be playing.
Bad: While Ireland's batting was mostly on song, their bowling was not. Comfortably the most expensive bowling line-up in the tournament, Ireland's failure to hold their opposition back placed an enormous amount of pressure on their batting to perform, which cost them dearly against Pakistan, and in the end caused their net run-rate to collapse. Paul Stirling's tournament wasn't the greatest, despite a 92 to start against the West Indies. While he is often hit and miss, the rate of misses leans too high for someone opening the batting. Gary Wilson also struggled with the bat, and it seems difficult to justify his selection in the one day team when another keeper is in the team. While Wilson is probably Ireland's next captain, he isn't the captain right now, so his spot should be up for grabs.
Ugly: The degree to which Ireland's bowling suffered needs to be emphasised here. In particular, the selection of all-rounders instead of bowlers to lead the pace attack was absolutely absurd when there were two young, promising pace bowlers in the squad (Craig Young and Peter Chase). Scotland's Josh Davey had demonstrated his effectiveness, purely from knowing where to put the ball, so it's hard to believe Young especially wouldn't have had a similar tournament. Instead, most of the pace bowling was done by all-rounders, who seemed more comfortable containing than taking wickets. This was not a World Cup in which to be a containing bowler, because it was more or less impossible. Kevin O'Brien indifferent form with the bat was undoubtedly due, at least in part, to his form with the ball, forced into playing a role he is clearly not entirely comfortable with or best suited to doing. A new coach should bring renewed opportunities for the pace duo, but they have been robbed of World Cup experience.
Accuracy of our preview: Not great. The batting was far greater, not lesser, than the bowling.
Overall: A tournament demonstrating their ability that the ICC will do its best to ignore.
Pakistan
Good: The depth of Pakistan's bowling almost defies belief. With no Umar Gul, Junaid Khan, Saeed Ajmal or Mohammad Hafeez, it was expected Pakistan's bowling, combined with their already struggling batting, would see them drop out with barely a whimper. Instead they changed their bowling plans and told their replacements bowlers to go for it. Irfan, Wahab, Sohail and Rahat provided a non-stop pace threat that consistently threatened and often succeeded in limiting their opponents through a mixture of pace and swing. With the bat, Misbah was up to his usual high standard, while Sarfraz Ahmed did well once he was given a chance.
Bad: It's not too surprising that Misbah thought 250 was a defendable total given the batting line-up Pakistan had to work with. It is as though they are playing in a different era to all the other teams. Their batting is slow, inconsistent and lacking in the kind of match-winning performance that a team needs if it expects to win. Nasir Jamshed's tournament was particularly poor, scoring five runs across three innings, setting the tone for the rest of the innings. Pakistan will need to totally rework their approach to limited overs cricket if they want to win. Their fielding, as always, was not up to scratch, which seems to be indictment on the facilities they have domestically.
Ugly: While their batting throughout the tournament was poor, nothing summed up their paucity of runs more than when they dropped to 4/1 against the West Indies. Yes, that is four wickets for one run. Against a team that was comprehensively dismantled by Ireland in their previous match. That they managed to recover to give Australia a fright in the quarter-final is a credit to their bowling, not their batting.
Accuracy of our preview: No. Their bowling depth is far deeper than predicted.
Overall: Incredible bowling depth only able to take a team so far.
South Africa
Good: It was fairly clear before the tournament began that South Africa's fortunes would rest in the hands of a few individuals. In the end, that was exactly what happened. It the performance of four players that kept them going: AB de Villiers and Faf du Plessis with the bat; Morne Morkel and Imran Tahir with the ball. De Villiers is in the form of his life, so to see him crunching 482 runs at an average of 96.4 seems almost ordinary. This is someone with an incredible eye, a great technique and an aggressive mindset. This is someone who will face the same ball four times in a row, and hit the ball to the boundary in four different areas of the ground. Watch him while you can. Du Plessis is never going to hear the same kinds of complements, and he seemed to sneak under the radar almost entirely, but his performance consistently came at the right time, especially with his foundation innings in the semi-final. He provided the perfect counter-weight to de Villiers. Morkel needed to perform well, and did, averaging just over two wickets a match. He never had more than three, and he never went wicketless. This speaks to his consistency, and he was able to keep his economy down while the ball went up, near the batsman's head. Tahir's tournament was the total opposite, as you would expect from a leg-spinner. He only had only two wickets less than Morkel, but went between five and zero wickets in a match. Rarely, though, was he overly expensive, with his great variations proving a handful for even the most adept batsmen.
Bad: When four individuals do well in a squad of fifteen, it suggests something about how the others played. While most of the rest of the South African squad had a good game, they didn't have a good tournament, with that one good game being surrounded by average-to-terrible performances. The consistent ineffectiveness of the team, seeming to never totally function as a unit, was ultimately what let them down. South Africa was only slightly more reliant on individuals than Australia, but that slight difference was enough.
Ugly: While many of the South African squad had bad tournaments, Quinton de Kock's was downright ugly. A 78* against Sri Lanka in their quarter-final was surrounded by score of 7, 7, 12, 1, 0, 26 and 14. There was no way South Africa was going to get off to a good start with an opener performing like that. Equally ugly were the rumours surrounding Vernon Philander's inclusion over Kyle Abbott in the semi-final. The two had played about half of the tournament each, with Abbott veering far closer to being a match-winner than Philander had. Yet it was Philander that was picked, and the reason suggested seems to come back to that old issue - 'quota'. Regardless of whether this is actually true, it was an odd selection that may have lost the match.
Accuracy of our preview: Yes. Their greatest weakness was their fifth bowler, although their batting was more 'wow' at AB than the whole team.
Overall: Close, but no cigar - again. A final still eludes a team that should have won a World Cup by now.
United Arab Emirates
Good: Of all the nations at the World Cup, the UAE were the ones least expected to do well. While they didn't win a match, they made a number of teams nervous, mainly thanks to their somewhat unexpected batting prowess. While it was always clear that batting was their strong suit, they managed to put together some very good totals. Leading the charge here was Shaiman Anwar, whose bludgeoning batting brought them so close to victory against Zimbabwe and Ireland. While he didn't play every match, Manjula Guruge was impressive with the ball, swinging the new ball and leaving batsmen in two minds.
Bad: Unfortunately, the UAE lacked depth. Their batting was prone to falling away quickly, and their batting was mostly unthreatening, attempting to contain out of necessity, rather than taking wickets. None of their players managed wickets in double digits, and they did not bowl any of their opponents out. What didn't help the situation was their fielding, which was club cricket standard. Not surprising, given that they are the only fully amateur team at the World Cup, and most are in the UAE for work, who partly employ them to play for local cricket teams.
Ugly: The drubbings they received from some of the full members were pretty ugly, regardless of how expected they were. The match against India at the WACA was the lowlight, as the Emirates were more or less a procession of wickets. Individually, you had to feel for Krishna Karate Chandran, an all-rounder batting at three and providing handy medium pace. The stats say it all: five matches, 38 runs @ 7.6 (with a high score of 34), one wicket @ 177.
Accuracy of our preview: More pessimistic than reality.
Overall: The Emiriatis can be a good team, if they get the chance. At the very least, they did deserve to be at the World Cup.
West Indies
Good: When Jason Holder was made captain late last year, it was to much confusion. While no-one doubted the 23 year old's potential for leadership, the reality was that he was still 23. To charge him with captaining a disparate and dispirited national team at such a young age seemed like creating a lamb for the slaughter. After his first series in charge, these seemed to be true. The team was obliterated 4-1, carted for 400 more than once. After the defeat to Ireland in the first World Cup match, it seemed reaffirmed. But Holder responded by being making statement after statement with ball and bat, taking charge of his team and never looking overwhelmed. Without him, there is no way the Windies would've made the quarter finals. Of the players in the Windies team, the one who seemed to respond to his captain the best was Jerome Taylor, who was occasionally expensive, but always seemed a threat.
Bad: In some ways it is surprising that the Windies made it to the quarters at all, as their players were so inconsistent. Despite being the highest run scorers for their team, Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels did not have good tournaments. The two looked disinterested (at least, more so than normal), and in Gayle's case, also injured. They were far from alone, as many of their batsmen fired only once throughout the tournament. The West Indies relied on having a variety of options with bat and ball, perhaps reflecting a knowledge that they could only rely on each player to fire occasionally. Darren Sammy's performance with the ball was also rather poor, although, again, there did seem to be some kind of injury. Still, one wicket in seven matches is not a good performance, especially when going at six an over.
Ugly: No one really knows why Dwayne Smith is opening the batting for the West Indies in ODIs. His batting average of 18.57 from 105 ODIs gives a fairly good indication of how likely he is to do well with the bat, and he somehow managed to do even worse than that during the tournament. The only reason he should be in the team is as an all-rounder, but he only bowled seven overs, all of which came in the last two games the West Indies played. That he should be in the World Cup squad at all speaks volumes about the lack of depth the West Indies now have.
Accuracy of our preview: Simultaneously true and false. Without the strength of their captain, it would only be true.
Overall: Going backwards at a rate of knots, with talent being overwhelmed by difficulties. A select few who can be bothered are the ones keeping the team together.
Zimbabwe
Good: Brendan Taylor and Sean Williams put on a batting masterclass more than once, forming a remarkably effective middle order partnership to take their team. They managed four 50 run partnerships, including one partnership of 149 which arguably should've won the game against Ireland. Both are similar players, stronger against spin than pace, used in the right place in the batting order and, most crucially, vulnerable to the lure of county cricket. Competent white players trying to make a living in Zimbabwe have been regularly moving north for a decade now, and Taylor is the latest to do this. This was an excellent individual swansong for him, but it is a shame that it had to be a swansong at all. Zimbabwe's bowlers were also excellent in the first ten overs, able to prevent their opponents from getting to a strong start. The best thing, though, was that the players were playing positively, showing the effect a competent coach like Dav Whatmore can have on a team.
Bad: Unfortunately, Zimbabwe's bowlers were unable to continue their work in the remaining forty overs. Only one bowler, Tendai Chatara, managed double figures of wickets, and that at an average of 34. They bowled none of their opponents out, and only two bowlers had a strike-rate below 60. Their batsmen, too, struggled to have an impact other than Taylor and Williams, with only three 50s being made from the rest of the squad.
Ugly: The dearth of bowling made itself most clear in the West Indies match against them. Only two wickets were taken by their bowlers - one off the first ball, and one off the last. In between, the West Indies scored 372 runs, with Chris Gayle making his first ODI double century. Zimbabwe seemed to not know what to do, with their bowlers simply unable to do anything to stop the onslaught.
Accuracy of our preview: Batting stronger than predicted, but the truth of their vigour being renewed was clear.
Overall: Going around in circles. Development seems to be stunted by off-field dramas, and still a long way to go.
Monday, 16 February 2015
Author stunned by headlines following Irish victory
Actually, that isn't true.
The headlines following Ireland's not-shocking win over the West Indies in Nelson aren't even remotely surprising. But the win wasn't either, which means headlines that mention how the result is 'shocking' and 'stunning' and 'an upset' are wrong, and also quite unfair to an Irish team that deserves much more than it gets.
Among those using these sorts of words in their headlines are the BBC, Guardian, Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent, Wall Street Journal, TVNZ, along with numerous others. The Daily Mail did have an analysis which pointed out that this was not, in actual fact, a surprise, and The Telegraph did likewise.
So why does Irish captain William Porterfield agree that his team's win was not an upset? It comes down (on his end) to the fact that Ireland is actually a pretty good team. There is also the issue of the West Indies, but that is for another time. For now, let us focus on Irish cricket.
When Ireland won their first World Cup match in 2007, that was a genuine upset. They fell agonisingly short against Zimbabwe, but Pakistan was meant to be better than them, and Ireland were meant to be just one of those easybeat teams the ICC had invited along. Instead a team full of amateurs took full advantage of a green tinged pitch and an opposition prone to brain explosions to produce a memorable win.
When Ireland beat another full member nation at the 2011 World Cup, it took a mammoth effort from one man. Kevin O'Brien scored a remarkable century to carry his team to their target of 328. By this time Ireland was not just another group of amateurs. Cricket Ireland had brought in central contracts, and Ireland had been regularly winning the Intercontinental Cup for years. But England, their arch rival, were undoubtedly favourites, especially after putting up such a large total. The idea of Ireland winning wasn't as foreign as it was in '07, but it was hardly expected.
This time around, it's different. Ireland is even more experienced than it was in 2011. The core of the team, particularly the batting, is still mostly the same, and they're had four years to gain experience (not that the full member nations have been much help there). The central contracts have expanded. Cricket Ireland has set up what is essentially a first class system. Phil Simmons is still in charge. Possibly most important of all, many of players in the squad are playing county cricket. In the long run that may be an issue, as Ireland tries to balance its own system with the lure of the county system, but right now it means that Ireland has a wealth of experience and talent to draw on. As it stands, the only players without county experience are Cusack, Mooney, Sorensen and Thompson. Sorensen replaced Middlesex's Tim Murtagh, and of the remaining three only Mooney is a regular first XI player.
This is without two other notable Irishmen who have been lured across the sea - absentee Boyd Rankin, and English captain Eoin Morgan. So, then, the Irish squad is brimming with experienced, talented players, playing for the best Associate nation going around. They are playing against an opposition who are disinterested, not at full strength, full of internal squabbling and being led by a 23 year old captain, who was only appointed a couple of months ago. What, exactly, about this scenario screams 'stunning upset'?
It seems the biggest battle Ireland faces is their perception amongst the casual cricketing public. There are (apparently) many who still think that the nation is question has no interest in cricket, and isn't even aware of there being a cricket world cup. But why is it necessary for the headline writers to pander to this supposed audience? Surely said audience will be just as surprised by a headline like 'Ireland cruise to four wicket victory over West Indies'. Perhaps it suggests something about how much attention the journalists in question are paying to Ireland that they think it is a shock.
Thankfully, there are those who know what they are talking about.
As Sambit Bal put it: "I am afraid Michael Holding will have to wait for the first upset of the World Cup. West Indies aren't likely to pull this off."
The headlines following Ireland's not-shocking win over the West Indies in Nelson aren't even remotely surprising. But the win wasn't either, which means headlines that mention how the result is 'shocking' and 'stunning' and 'an upset' are wrong, and also quite unfair to an Irish team that deserves much more than it gets.
Among those using these sorts of words in their headlines are the BBC, Guardian, Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent, Wall Street Journal, TVNZ, along with numerous others. The Daily Mail did have an analysis which pointed out that this was not, in actual fact, a surprise, and The Telegraph did likewise.
So why does Irish captain William Porterfield agree that his team's win was not an upset? It comes down (on his end) to the fact that Ireland is actually a pretty good team. There is also the issue of the West Indies, but that is for another time. For now, let us focus on Irish cricket.
When Ireland won their first World Cup match in 2007, that was a genuine upset. They fell agonisingly short against Zimbabwe, but Pakistan was meant to be better than them, and Ireland were meant to be just one of those easybeat teams the ICC had invited along. Instead a team full of amateurs took full advantage of a green tinged pitch and an opposition prone to brain explosions to produce a memorable win.
When Ireland beat another full member nation at the 2011 World Cup, it took a mammoth effort from one man. Kevin O'Brien scored a remarkable century to carry his team to their target of 328. By this time Ireland was not just another group of amateurs. Cricket Ireland had brought in central contracts, and Ireland had been regularly winning the Intercontinental Cup for years. But England, their arch rival, were undoubtedly favourites, especially after putting up such a large total. The idea of Ireland winning wasn't as foreign as it was in '07, but it was hardly expected.
This time around, it's different. Ireland is even more experienced than it was in 2011. The core of the team, particularly the batting, is still mostly the same, and they're had four years to gain experience (not that the full member nations have been much help there). The central contracts have expanded. Cricket Ireland has set up what is essentially a first class system. Phil Simmons is still in charge. Possibly most important of all, many of players in the squad are playing county cricket. In the long run that may be an issue, as Ireland tries to balance its own system with the lure of the county system, but right now it means that Ireland has a wealth of experience and talent to draw on. As it stands, the only players without county experience are Cusack, Mooney, Sorensen and Thompson. Sorensen replaced Middlesex's Tim Murtagh, and of the remaining three only Mooney is a regular first XI player.
This is without two other notable Irishmen who have been lured across the sea - absentee Boyd Rankin, and English captain Eoin Morgan. So, then, the Irish squad is brimming with experienced, talented players, playing for the best Associate nation going around. They are playing against an opposition who are disinterested, not at full strength, full of internal squabbling and being led by a 23 year old captain, who was only appointed a couple of months ago. What, exactly, about this scenario screams 'stunning upset'?
It seems the biggest battle Ireland faces is their perception amongst the casual cricketing public. There are (apparently) many who still think that the nation is question has no interest in cricket, and isn't even aware of there being a cricket world cup. But why is it necessary for the headline writers to pander to this supposed audience? Surely said audience will be just as surprised by a headline like 'Ireland cruise to four wicket victory over West Indies'. Perhaps it suggests something about how much attention the journalists in question are paying to Ireland that they think it is a shock.
Thankfully, there are those who know what they are talking about.
As Sambit Bal put it: "I am afraid Michael Holding will have to wait for the first upset of the World Cup. West Indies aren't likely to pull this off."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)