Au Revoir Sri Lanka

This semi final turned out to be the last game of the greatest batsman that ever emerged from the emerald island of Sri Lanka. In his early days he was known for hitting towering sixes and wouldn’t even spare the likes of Imran Khan. His batting really came of age in the mid 1990s after spending some time in English county cricket. The results of this experience were soon seen in the world cup of 1996 when kept on piling man-of-the-match awards. The finest moment in his career was the final of the world cup 1996, in the lively city of Lahore, when he scored a brilliant century. His absence will be felt by the Sri Lankan team for many years to come.

First semi final was played in the ground of St. George’s Park in the coastal city of Port Elizabeth nick named “The windy city”, for its constant unpredictable Atlantic breezes. Traditionally St. George’s pitch has nothing for the pacers and is considered a paradise for the batsmen and spinners. The highest total, 335, on this ground was posted by Pakistan last year December, which they defended. Living up to its fame for a batting track almost two years ago Aussies posted 326 that South African successfully chased batting second. In view of this history it was always an easy decision to bat first on this pitch and score around 270.

Umpiring duties were handed to David Shepherd and Rudi Koertzen, who was standing in his 100th one dayers. Over the years I have developed my disliking for David and I think he will be better off in a suburban London pub drinking chilled Irish beer, Guinness; there can’t be a better drink on the face of this planet than Guinness. He has very poor reflexes and can’t read the line and length of the ball. He is infamous for missing over stepped no-ball calls. I get freaked up when people claim that Dave and Venkat are two of the elite umpires in the world cricket, I have very low opinion about both of them. I think there ought to be a rating criterion for the umpires too and they must go through some mandatory training sessions where there abilities are checked, graded and are sharpened.

Sri Lankan team selection in my opinion was indicative of the lack of confidence they carried with them to the super six after losing to the “minnows” Kenya. In a one-day side I cannot remember a side playing with eight regular batsmen. That only tells me that in their minds Lankans had already lost the game. Mahlea Jayawardene has not amassed more than 20 runs in the whole world cup and he has found himself in the playing eleven of almost all the games, that only indicate that the Lankans lack depth in their batting.

I think with a better team selection they could have contained Aussies within 200 runs, although I believe that in that case Lankans might have fallen under 100 themselves.

Chamenda Vaas as always was very impressive and was nearly unplayable by two of the most attractive left-handed openers. He was moving the ball both ways and was causing all sort of troubles for batsmen; I hope Zaheer Khan and Nehra were watching this game. On the other hand Gunaratne, who clearly lack any talent, was as unimpressive as he has always been. It was clear that Lankans were playing a bowler short.

Adam Gilchrist hit an absolute beauty on the 2nd ball of the first over by Gunaratne in the mid-off for a rolling four. However on the next ball Gilchrist flicked a short-pitched delivery that almost went twenty rows into the crowd, and was on his way to butcher Lankan bowlers.

After bowling two very expensive overs Jaysuriya changed Gunratne and brought in vintaged Arvinda De Silva and on his second ball Gilchrsit tried to sweep the ball, it hit his pads and ball went in the air that was easily taken by the wicket keeper Kumar Sangarkara. Umpire Rudi, to much of the Lankan’s dismay, gave him not out. Then came, in my opinion, one of the most memorable moments of the on-going world cup. Seeing that umpire was un-moved Gilchrist started to walk towards the pavilion. Such moments are not very common and are discouraged by captains and coaches. Gilchrist has shown that there still are players who have the courage to walk out if an umpire does not give him out.

The dismissal of Ricky Ponting is what a young budding fast bowler trying to master the art of disguising a surprising slow ball needs to learn lesson from. Chamenda Vaas has been bowling quick rising in-swingers (for the left-handers), that whole day Aussies had problems playing, but to Ponting Vaas bowled a slower-ball by rolling his fingers over the ball and Ricky expecting a quick away swinger tried to play through the covers, but committed himself little too early and gave a difficult catch to Jaysuriya, that he took.

Aussies were 71/3 in 13th over when, Pakistan’s nemesis, Andrew Symonds walked in to bat. He went not out and played a gem that can only be compared with his own innings of 143 against Pakistan. His stroke plays had an authority and majestic look of a very impressive batsman. He was lucky that Kumar Sangarkara missed an easy stumping chance when his individual score was in 30s.

The most controversial moment came in the 37th over when Jaysuriya produced a beautiful ball that did not turn at all and Michael Beven tried to simply just defend it, and it was one of those edges that can’t be even seen in the TV replays, but umpire opted to give him out. I don’t know why benefit of the doubt wasn’t given to the batsman, and guess what David Shepherd was the umpire.

Aussies made 212 runs; which was an easy total on a pitch that had no support for the quickies and that when Aussies lacked any quality spinner, but Aussies are not world champs for nothing. Aussies’ bowlers had a clear plan and bowled as per their plan and kept on producing wicket taking balls.

Lankans, playing with the eight regular batsmen, looked pathetic in their response to the score of 212. Sri Lanka need to find some good batsmen in their side, as it does not look like the talent they were carrying has any potential to be long-term solution to their growing batting concerns.

The game was decided based on rain affected DW/L system and Australia won the game by 48 runs reserving their place in the final against the winner of Kenya/India game.

I think in the world cricket, at this time, the only team that can beat Aussies in the final is India. It is first time in my memory that I can say comfortably that Indian bowling has the ability to win games.

Following Tendulkar’s career with almost as much of a passion as any of his country men do, I know Tendulkar must have watched the game in his hotel room and must have planned his strokes against Mc Grath and Brett Lee. He must have been also reviewing the way Jason Gillespie out foxed him in their league game. It is amazing to see how much planning Tendilya goes through. India must take advantage of the depleted Australian side and the fact that they are not playing their top cricket.

New Zealand’s cricket chief has criticized the format of the 2003 World Cup after his team failed to reach the semi-finals. The world cup format was finalized almost one and half years ago, and was made public through a plethora of web sites. I read the playing-conditions of the world-cup almost a year ago. I have been following news about the world cup for almost one year now, and I can’t even think of a single news report (or an article) about any one criticizing the world cup format before the world cup, I can not understand why all of a sudden this format is seen as faulty?

It’s the plain case of inability to come in grips with the reality that your team is out of the world cup. Ever since the exit of Pakistan, Windies, South African and English team officials of these countries have been making un-necessary noise about world cup format, and quite understandably too after all it is their raison d’etre.

I remember that in 1999’s world cup when this format of super six was introduce the idea was that teams must be given credit for the victories against the teams in the super six, which is a very sensible thing, as oppose to making it to the super six after beating sun-light out of the “minnows”. I don’t think this is such a bad format but yes like any thing in the world it can also be improved, but it would be a sick thing to adopt a system that only encourages big teams to square up for the big games.

At last I would like to talk about the sub standard umpiring in the world cup. In this world cup for the first time umpires were allowed to consult third umpires to get assistance for the lbw decisions, to make sure if the ball touched the bat or not? I only saw once an umpire consulting third umpire to get assistance in the lbw decision. However at many occasions a batsman’s ill fate could have been avoided if the umpire consulted the third umpire.

It is about time that an affected team is allowed to challenge an umpire’s decision. I am sure absurdities inherently attached such a suggestions can be worked out, like to avoid getting every decision being challenged number of challenges can be limited. We must understand that cricket has become the second most popular game in the world (First one is soccer) and is played by a variety of people from different cultural background. Stakes are much more higher than ever before and it is no longer a game that people would love to say about “come on this is not cricket”. In the background of such a global popularity of cricket it is important that technological decision making apparatus are used as frequent as possible.