Thoughts on the T 20 world cup
On Sunday, 14th Nov, it was like a second Anzac Day this year after Apr 25th, the day for remembering the gallantry and sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand soldiers called the ANZACs in the two World Wars, when two- time World T20 finalists Australia met New Zealand, playing their third successive final at an ICC World Championship event, in Dubai.
Only, this time, the courage and gallantry was with a cricket bat and ball in coloured clothing in a World Cup final, instead of with guns and uniforms in a World War.
And the Black Caps lost yet another World Cup white – ball final, the Aussies proving just too good on the day, too dominant in the run chase, after the Kiwis had put up the highest ever T-20 World Cup final total till date, having been put in to bat.
Two comeback men who had been written off under different circumstances, spearheaded the Aussies rampaging run chase, as they made short work of a stiff target and romped home to a huge 8- wkt victory. David Warner, dropped from his franchise team in the IPL just a couple of months ago, played one of his typically robust, aggressive knocks to emerge as the Player of the Tournament and Player of the Match, Mitchell Marsh, a former U-19 Australian Captain whose international career never really took off due to injury, played an equally brutal, unbeaten knock as he took Australia home with 7 balls to spare.
For both players, the glory would have looked an unlikely, if not impossible dream at the start of this tournament, but on this day, both were simply unstoppable. And the outcome was never in any doubt, once they took charge. After Warner departed, Glenn Maxwell came in to join Marsh and the duo finished off things in style as the hapless Kiwis ran out of ideas in the field.
They were exceptional in the run chase, preferring to take the fight to the opposition right from the word go, exerting pressure on the Kiwi bowlers with their aggressive intent and making them err repeatedly, in line and length. Their game plan was not just to preserve wickets in the initial overs, but to attack and dominate in a way that made the opposition look helpless and at a loss for answers.
Having said that however, the Black Caps have consistently been wonderful ambassadors for the sport in recent times, playing top class cricket across formats and showcasing time and again, the gentlemanliness and Spirit of Cricket that remains the essence of all that is good about this sport, even in these unforgiving, commercial interest driven times.
And for the way they play their cricket and the way they conduct themselves, they reign in the hearts of cricketing fans across the world.
The difference in mindsets of these two teams and in their overall approach to cricket, was starkly brought out by two separate incidents that took place in their respective semi- final games in this tournament.
In the first one which took place during the match between Australia and Pakistan which the Aussies won by five wickets in a tight finish, Australian opener David Warner smashed a huge six against a ‘double bouncer’ from the 41-year- old Pakistan all-rounder Mohammad Hafeez.
In a throwback to the infamous ‘underarm ball’ of the 80s, bowled by Trevor Chappell on the instructions of his skipper, brother Greg, to prevent New Zealand from hitting a six off the last ball of an ODI to win the game, the ball slipped out of Hafeez’s hand and bounced for the first time near his foot and then bounced again a second time before Warner stepped out and hit it over deep mid-wicket for six.
This action was in keeping with the tough, no-holds-barred, winner- takes- it -all Aussie Image. They had an important match to win that was going down to the wire and they didn’t particularly care how they did it so long as it was within the rules of the game.
And they saw nothing wrong with it.
Just a day prior however, in the other semi-final against England, New Zealand opener Darryl Mitchell who anchored their successful run chase with some brilliant power hitting, upheld New Zealand’s image of being the ‘nice guys’ of Cricket.
His partner Jimmy Neesham had hit the ball firmly, a little wide of England bowler Abdul Rashid’s reach, who collided with Mitchell as he tried to get to the ball. Neesham was halfway down the wicket to take the single when Mitchell turned down his call from the non-striker’s end because he felt he had obstructed Rasheed in his attempt to field the ball.
His gesture of turning down what could have been a crucial single in a tight situation, was widely lauded as a heartwarming exhibition of the sporting spirit that has so typified the Kiwis approach to what still essentially remains a gentleman’s game.
In the Final, there was the understated brilliance of a typical Kane Williamson innings to enjoy, with lovely cricketing shots all around the wicket, even in this compressed format of the game. The crucial loss of two set batsmen going great guns, both to Josh Hazelwood in the 17th over, proved to be the turning point that saw a lot of good work undone, with two new batsmen coming to the crease at that point.
It eventually meant that New Zealand finished a minimum of 15 runs short of what they looked capable of at the end of the 16th over, at 144 for 2.
Runs that made a crucial difference in the end.
In retrospect, the dew factor proved to be a big influence on outcomes in this World Cup, a significant disadvantage to the team bowling second. A wet, heavy Cricket ball does not spin or swing and is difficult to grip, which perhaps accounted for some of the strange lengths and lines bowled by the New Zealand bowlers, specially towards late evening in the final.
And from that perspective, there has rarely been a tournament so heavily dependent on the toss in recent memory.
Which brings up questions about the timing and scheduling of these matches to ensure a more level playing field in future. These were obviously dictated by the broadcast companies with an eye to maximising viewership. And as former New Zealand cricketer- turned- commentator Simon Doull pointed out, who knows, if India had not played Pakistan and New Zealand back- to -back first up and instead had the opportunity to ease themselves into the tournament, with a few easier confidence- building games after their first game, would that have made a difference to the semi-final line up?
These are points that need to be looked at, by the powers that be in International Cricket and perhaps it would be in the best interests of the game if such decisions were not dictated by purely commercial considerations in future.
Otherwise, it was a World Cup played in an excellent spirit of camaraderie amongst the teams and it was heartwarming to see players and teams paying friendly visits to each other’s dressing rooms at the end of matches in the true spirit of cricket.
With more and more players from different countries playing as teammates in franchise cricket around the world, it may surely be hoped that this trend will continue in the future as well, bringing nations closer.
Which is what International Sport was originally meant to be all about.
