Victorious Vettori

One of the more remarkable statistics that came up during this game was that neither side had ever won a World Cup knockout game before, although partial mitigation lies in the fact that this is only the second World Cup to feature quarter-finals, the first being in 1996. Both sides have, of course, been close before: New Zealand were narrowly beaten by England in the 1979 semi-final and South Africa came close in both 1992 and 1999, but that was it. Something, therefore, was going to change.

It is, of course, impossible to write about this match without mentioning the dreaded word ‘choke’. Matthew Syed, in his rather hit and miss book ‘Bounce’, writes well about his experiences in the Olympics when his game completely disintegrated, the consequence, in his view, of being too obsessively prepared and of the end result meaning too much, thus stifling his natural game. By this definition the actions of the opponent are largely irrelevant, since the problems lie exclusively in the head and, therefore, the body of the choker. This was not the case here.

Sporting fan culture now sees any defeat of a favourite as a choke, which is to do the opposition a disservice. South Africa’s batting line-up, with Smith out of form, Duminy struggling against test playing nations and Botha ludicrously high at number seven, was very reliant upon one of Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis or AB De Villiers making a significant contribution but none, for various reasons, did. It is easy to be wise after the event, but the decision to omit Mark Boucher from the squad left the lower middle order short of experience and steel and, although the selection guaranteed the strength of the bowling attack, they were vulnerable to a collapse.

Hashim Amla’s dismissal was freakish, a hard underedge rebounding an extraordinarily long way from Brendon McCullum’s clearly well padded toes to Daniel Vettori at slip, and the out of sorts Smith unsurprisingly fell without having made a significant contribution. The loss of form of the captain hit South Africa hard both in this game and against England since he has often been the rock upon which successful run chases have been built and it left a significant burden on Kallis and De Villiers.

At 108-2 all looked plain sailing and the various online commentaries were basically counting down to South Africa’s inevitable victory, but the ensuing collapse, with one notable exception, containing only one real brain fart, the rest was a consequence of some good bowling and fielding to batsmen who weren’t really up to the job.

Kallis’s dismissal looks crass now, but as he hit the ball everyone assumed that he had regally dispatched another boundary. It was only when Jacob Oram made up a significant amount of ground and used every inch of his height that that view changed. Had Nathan McCullum been fielding where Oram was we would have been praising a glorious shot from Kallis – such are the fine margins of cricket. Duminy’s dismissal was unimpressive but then so is his batting in general – he certainly looks a shadow of the player who burst onto the scene with his test winning hundred in Australia. Even after he had gone South Africa should still have been in control, needing just to keep a cool head as Yuvraj and Suresh Raina had the day before. This was the brain fart moment – an absurd attempt at a single to Martin Guptill, who had fielded brilliantly throughout. Had Faf Du Plessis and AB De Villiers batted together for another ten overs then surely the game would have been won, but now the lopsidedness of the South African batting order was revealed. Botha and Peterson had slogged merrily to win the game against India, but it is asking a lot for tailenders to come to the rescue too often and they simply weren’t up to the task. To put this into some sort of content, none of South Africa’s bottom five average over twenty in ODIs and don’t have a single half century to their name whereas New Zealand’s numbers eight and nine boast sixteen fifties and a hundred.

Even so, the end came quickly, almost in a blur. Du Plessis tried hard but he isn’t from the higher echelons of international batting and it was too much to ask for him to take South Africa home on his own. The selectors, again, need to ask themselves if he was really the best choice that they could have made.  

South Africa’s woe, however, was New Zealand’s joy. After their limp defeat to Australia I wrote a post writing them off as no-hopers but now they find themselves in a semi-final. They are a versatile, superbly captained, lot who will scrap for everything. It seems likely that Sri Lanka will be a step too far, but they have delighted in proving people wrong thus far and will be determined to cause another upset. No praise is too high for their performance in this game. I am also conscious of the fact that I wrote them off in the preview to this game – I am more than happy to eat humble pie (although I should point out that I originally tipped South Africa to go out in the quarter-finals, so all is not quite lost).

Exit Australia

For the neutral cricket lover this was an absorbing game of cricket. In the end the margin of victory looked pretty comfortable, but the game ebbed and flowed and it took a superb partnership between Yuvraj and Suresh Raina to guide India home as the bowlers sat nervously in the pavilion.

Australia batted well, for this was never a 300 plus pitch. Ricky Ponting, in particular, was magnificent. The conditions, as well as the current state of his own game, meant that this was never going to be a devastating hundred like that with which he grabbed the 2003 final by the scruff of the neck, but it was an innings of immense character and determination. He has helped by the weaknesses in the Indian bowling attack, but there plenty of glimpses of the old Ponting and he guided Australia to a very competitive total.

Their strategy of relying on slightly erratic pace bowling was always going to be a gamble, however, and although Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson bowled well early on they struggled to exert the sort of control that they were looking for. Sehwag went fairly early, but Tendulkar batted beautifully until he was rather unsurprisingly undone by a length ball from Shaun Tait that moved away a touch. Tait, not for the first time, was very close to a back foot no ball, but after an umpire review the little master was on his way.

Gambhir and Kohli, who looks a very good player, took things along nicely, but then India went into the self destruct mode that has been a feature of their batting performances in the tournament so far. First Kohli hit a knee high full toss from David Hussey straight to Michael Clarke and then Gambhir, having done his best to run himself out from each of the previous two balls, finally managed it with an attempt at a single that might kindly be described as optimistic. It was certainly too optimistic for Yuvraj’s tastes and Gambhir had to go, muttering as he did so. With the horribly out of form MS Dhoni coming and going quickly India were 187-5 and doing their best to make a hash of things.

Suresh Raina was a slightly surprising pick for the game, but he’s a handy bloke to have coming in at number seven and was quickly into his stride. When he and Yuvraj took eighteen from an over by the hitherto impressive Lee the momentum of the game shifted again, this time for good. Australia knew that they were just one wicket away from a long Indian tail that had collapsed with alarming regularity in the group stages, but they paid for their lack of a top class spinner in helpful conditions and Yuvraj and Raina cruised home as the crowd went berserk.

It will be fascinating to see where Australia go from here, particularly with regard to their captain. In some ways a defeat with a hundred from Ponting was the worst possible outcome, for they are out of the tournament but there is now an obstacle to easing him out of the side which could be a problem as they look to move forward. Having abjectly surrendered the Ashes and gone out of the World Cup before the final for the fist time since 1992 his role as captain looks increasingly untenable, but he is showing no sign of falling on his sword and the Australian selectors are not the most courageous or forward thinking bunch. For all of the quality of his hundred yesterday he has not been worth his place in the side for some time and his captaincy style was developed in a time of dominance and is, therefore, ill suited to leading a middling side. This is all complicated still further by the usual Australian custom of not keeping former captains in the side. In spite of the century, this game should mark the end of Ricky Ponting’s captaincy of Australia and also of his career, but I suspect that it will not. I also suspect that this will prove to be a mistake. He has been a truly great player and a joy to watch, but it is time for Australia to move on.

As for India, they march on to a semi-final against another team of flawed genius in Pakistan. Indian still has some significant issues to resolve: the bowling attack, with the honourable exception of Zaheer Khan, is weak, with Munaf bowling atrociously yesterday and Harbhajan certainly not looking as threatening as was once the case. Their fielding has been pretty poor, although Raina and Kohli certainly improve it, and they must be worried about the form of their captain, not just in this tournament but over the last year or so. Yuvraj has been in the form of his life, winning four Man of the Match awards, but they cannot keep relying on him to bail them out. On a true batting pitch I would expect them to have too much firepower for Pakistan, but if conditions favour the bowlers then they could be in for an uncomfortable time. This World Cup continues to fascinate at every turn.

Michael Yardy

Lurking on my bookshelves is an unusual book by David Frith. Entitled ‘By His Own Hand’ it is an account of cricketing suicides, and it is startling that there is such a rich source of content. There have, of course, been high profile suicides such as Harold Gimblett, Jack Iverson and David Bairstow, but there does seem to be an alarming trend through the history of the game.

The decision of Michael Yardy to return home from the World Cup due to depression is, therefore, to be applauded rather than dismissed, as Geoffrey Boycott did, in a manner that was insensitive even by his own remarkable standards. Depression is a pernicious illness: it is not simply a question of feeling a bit sad but an overwhelming sensation that, unless it is acknowledged and managed, can quickly lead to its sufferer being yet another story for a revised edition of David Frith’s book. Top level cricket can be remarkably bad for the mental health not only of players but also of their families: England’s players have been away from family and home, and the normality and stability that these bring, for a very long time, playing a high pressure game in which there is nowhere for an individual to hide. The surprise is not that a player is suffering from depression but that more of them aren’t.

Attention will now turn to the likely identity of his replacement in the squad, but we should all wish Michael Yardy well, and give him thanks for the contribution that he has made to the side.

A Rout in Mirpur

In my preview I made reference to the fragility of the West Indian batting, but I certainly wasn’t expecting an implosion quite that spectacular.  From the moment that Chris Gayle hammered the ball to a grateful Shahid Afridi at extra cover they batted cluelessly, unsure whether to defend or attack against the spinners and ultimately doing neither successfully. Nothing should detract from the quality of Pakistan’s bowling, but this was truly spineless batting, thrown into perspective by the partnership of forty for the ninth wicket between Chanderpaul and Roach.  

It will be interesting to see where the West Indies go from here. They have some decent young players but their top order is brittle, and will become more so once Shivnarine Chanderpaul finally calls it a day, and they lack leadership. Darren Sammy isn’t doing a bad job as captain but there seems to be a lack of responsibility among senior players and a lack of application from some seriously talented individuals. Kieron Pollard is a case in point: he is blessed with an astonishing natural talent but has become so obsessed with hitting sixes that he seems to have neglected the fundamentals of batsmanship. When he comes off it is spectacular to watch, but his lack of reliability makes him a luxury player rather than a key part of the line-up.

As for Pakistan, anything is possible. The conditions suited them, for there is a suspicion that they would struggle to score enough runs on a good surface, but they have had an impressive World Cup, the aberration against New Zealand aside. For all the billboards of a surprisingly youthful looking Shoaib that are being putting up in Pakistan they look a better, more controlled side without him, in spite of Wahab Riaz’s travails. A semi-final against either India or Australia awaits, which is a truly mouth watering prospect.

Preview: England v Sri Lanka

The last time England and Sri Lanka met in a World Cup quarter-final was in 1996, when an England side devoid of ideas and inspiration, labouring under the appalling management of Ray Illingworth and worn down from a winter of failure in South Africa were humiliated by a vibrant Sri Lankan side intent on re-inventing ODI cricket on their way to a wonderful World Cup triumph. Sanath Jayasuriya went berserk against a bowling attack featuring Peter Martin, Richard Illingworth and Dermot Reeve, and Sri Lanka romped home with almost ten overs to spare. There’s a case for saying that England, beaten finalists in the previous two World Cups, have never recovered.

This World Cup, in spite of the defeats by Ireland and Bangladesh, has been an altogether more positive experience for England and their supporters. The victories over South Africa and West Indies were triumphs for resilience and character, as well as some high quality bowling in the latter stages, while the tie against India was a wonderful game of cricket. Like the little girl with the curl, when they are good they are very good, but when they’re bad they’re awful. Their performances against top sides will give them some encouragement, however, since if the Super 8 phase was still in vogue they would be in pole position with five points.

Sri Lanka, on the other hand, while they have never quite reached the heights of 1996 again, remain a fine side, although this World Cup hasn’t been plain sailing. The defeat to Pakistan was a shock and the rain against Australia denied both sides a well needed work out, while the relatively poor standard of the Group A associate members meant that they’ve had very little successful, meaningful cricket thus far. They have a varied bowling attack but that, too, flatters to deceive at times. Lasith Malinga was deadly against Kenya but that game aside his figures for the tournament are 13-0-89-1. Another much touted destroyer, Ajantha Mendis, has career figures that make interesting reading. In his first couple of years as an international cricketer he bowled in 37 ODI innings, taking 72 wickets at 17.86. In the last year he has bowled in ten ODI innings, two of which have been against India but the other eight against Zimbabwe, New Zealand, West Indies, Kenya and Canada, and has taken 13 wickets at 29.69. England will do well to approach both of these with caution, but not with fear.

There are, however, good reasons to make Sri Lanka favourites. One match aside, Tillakaratne Dilshan hasn’t been the force that he was in the 2009 World Twenty20, but he remains an opener that just about any ODI side would covet, Kumar Sangakkara would stroll into a World XI, and Mahela Jayawardene is a high quality performer, although half of his 200 runs to date came against Canada. Then there is Murali. He is virtually at the end and is no longer the destroyer of old, but he still has a level of control that is enviable and can be relied on to exert pressure on the batsmen. From this point on he is in the position of potentially playing his last game and he will be desperate to go out on a high.

On paper, then, Sri Lanka should be hot favourites, but they have not been tested in the same way that England have and some of their key players have struggled to make an impact. England can take heart from the fact that they won the World Twenty20 semi-final between the two sides and they won the series last time they were in Sri Lanka, albeit with rather different sides. It’s got all the makings of a classic.

The Verdict: Heart and part of head says England, but Sri Lanka should have just too much for a Broad and Pietersen-less England.

Preview: New Zealand v South Africa

On paper this looks a mismatch, South Africa’s collection of heavyweights against a fairly ordinary New Zealand side, but cricket is often more complex than that.

South Africa have surprised with the quality of their spin bowling, especially the revelation that is Robin Peterson, and they have also been more tactically flexible than has been the case in recent times, but some doubts still remain. They have arguably the best balanced bowling attack in the tournament and match winning batsmen in Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis and AB De Villiers, but all of the mental frailties of old were on display in the defeat to England and doubts persist as to their ability to cope with pressure.

These doubts will have been alleviated somewhat by their stirring win over India, particularly in the way that they fought back in each innings, and they may feel that they have got their one flaky performance out of their system, but until they win the World Cup there will be doubts about their ability to deal with the pressure of the knockout environment and of being favourites.

That said, I still fancy them against New Zealand who have fluctuated between the brilliance with which they dispatched Pakistan and the rather insipid defeat to Australia. In Brendon McCullum, Ross Taylor and, to a certain extent, Jesse Ryder they have batsmen who can score quickly, with a decent quota of lower order hitters, and Tim Southee in particular has impressed with the ball. The expected return of Daniel Vettori will improve the attack, but they will be sweating on the fitness of Kyle Mills, who looked to be hitting a rich vein of form when he was injured. For all that, though, this looks the easiest quarter-final to predict.

The Verdict: South Africa to win comfortably.

Preview: Australia v India

Many people might have expected India v Australia to be the final, the hosts and number one test team in the world against the holders and, for the time being at least, number one ODI side in the world. That such a match is taking place at such an early stage in the tournament may seem to be an anomaly but is, instead, a reflection of the shortcomings of the two sides so far.

Neither side have emerged from the group stage unscathed, Australia losing their long standing unbeaten record against Pakistan and India coming unstuck against South Africa and, almost, England. Both sides have shown significant flaws: India have developed a worrying habit of collapsing from strong positions and their bowling lacks depth and penetration, while Australia are over-reliant on erratic pace bowling and have yet to record a hundred. Australia are the better fielding side without touching the heights of the recent past, but India have significantly better spin bowling options.

What, then, will happen? Much depends on the confrontation between the Australian quicks and the Indian top order. Brett Lee has bowled consistently well but Sehwag and Tendulkar will fancy their chances against Tait and Johnson in particular and Ricky Ponting lacks a bowler that he can turn to to restore order if India get off to a flyer. On the other hand, if Australia can get quick wickets then India’s soft underbelly could be exposed rather sooner than they would hope and the innings could implode.

The same could be said of the Australians. The openers have had their moments, mostly against weaker opposition, and Michael Clarke looks in decent nick, but Ponting and White in particular are out of form and the tail doesn’t inspire confidence. If Zaheer Khan can make inroads with the new ball then it could be a difficult evening for the Australian batsmen.

Ultimately, though, it will probably come down to which side can hold their nerve and make fewest mistakes. In the recent past this would almost certainly have been Australia but they have, the one day series against England aside, made a habit of failing to capitalise on winning positions and they are no longer the mental titans of old. If Sehwag and Tendulkar get off to a flying start, or if Yuvraj continues his massively impressive recent form, then Australian heads could drop very quickly. It’s going to be fascinating.

The Verdict: India’s batsmen to be too good for Australia’s attack and set-up a victory.

Preview: Pakistan v West Indies

The beauty of the World Cup so far is that it is impossible to predict the outcome, and this trend continues into the quarter-finals with the enigma’s enigma Pakistan taking on the mercurial talents of the West Indies.

This, of course, was meant to be Bangladesh’s home quarter-final but, in spite of their spirited win against England, the co-hosts’ batting proved altogether too flimsy for them to advance. In what was widely thought of before the tournament as a shoot out for the quarter-finals the West Indies bowlers simply blew them away. The cricket mad local public, then, will have to put up with a fascinating looking match instead.

Pakistan seem determined to live up to their billing in every tournament, their form veering from the sublime to the ridiculous. They were excruciatingly bad against New Zealand but managed to beat the two fancied teams in their group in Sri Lanka and Australia. Their fielding has been hilariously bad at times (Australia must feel rather hard done by that Kamran Akmal accepted three chances against them), their death bowling against New Zealand would have made a club side blush and their batting has, at times, looked rather thin but, sustained by the consistent excellence of Umar Gul and Shahid Afridi, on their day they are a match for anyone. If Misbah, Younis Khan and the ebullient Umar Akmal can make enough runs then they should be too strong.

The West Indies have some unquestionably talented individuals. The enigmatic Chris Gayle si a force of nature when the muse is with him, Kieron Pollard can be devastating and Kemar Roach is a fast bowler from the old school. Add the promising leg spin of Devendra Bishoo and the all round talents of the raw Andre Russell and the captain Darren Sammy to the mix and you have the most promising West Indian side for some years. Their problem has been a rather fragile batting line-up that imploded rather spectacularly in each of their last two group games. With Shiv Chanderpaul apparently finally consigned to the sidelines and Ramnaresh Sarwan continuing to flatter to deceive there is no middle order rock around which the others can play, which significantly reduces their chances.

The Verdict: Both sides have glaring weaknesses, but Pakistan will be too strong.

The End of an Era?

And so it came to past. After twelve years and an astonishing thirty-four matches Australia finally lost a World Cup match.

It was coming, of course. This isn’t a bad Australian side but it isn’t a patch on its predecessors and has a decidedly mortal look. Had the rain not come against Sri Lanka then the run may have ended sooner, for this doesn’t look a side well equipped to thrive in sub-continental conditions. The question is whether they will be able to use the defeat to galvanise them, as their public pronouncements, suggest they will, or if the defeat marks a final end to the aura of invincibility that disappeared from the test side a few months ago.

They are still blessed with talented players, but their batsmen remain century-less in the tournament and, with the notable exception of Brett Lee, the attack has been inconsistent. Jason Krejza is certainly a decent off spinner but they could do with another specialist to support him on turning tracks and the reliance on Tait and Johnson to blow the opposition away looks like a triumph of hope over experience. It will certainly be interesting to see how Sehwag and Tendulkar deal with the barrage of pace in the quarter-final.

The final problem is that of their leader. Ricky Ponting has been out of form for too long now for it simply to be a blip and his days in the side must, surely, be numbered, for all of his public bravado. It is often a mistake to write off a great player, but it can be an even bigger one to persist in the fiction that a player is still worth his place once his sell-by date has been exceeded. Ponting is one of the very best batsmen that I have ever seen but he has reached the point where his continued presence in the side is more of a hindrance than a help, especially after the impressive way that Michael Clarke took the reins in the ODI series against England. Like latter day Matthew Hayden, he unfurls the odd shot that reminds us of his glory days, only to succumb to a shot that, in his pomp, would have whistled to the boundary. It threatens to be a sad end to an illustrious career.

In the meantime, however, we should look back on that thirty-four match run with a sense of wonder. There is no doubt that this World Cup is much the better for not having one outstanding side in it, but there was something awe-inspiring about the Australian side between 1999 and 2007. We may not see their like again for a very long time.

A Fielder Writes...

The game between England and the West Indies had just about everything and was a thrilling game of cricket, but it also featured one incident that could have had a profound impact on the game and was, ultimately, resolved unsatisfactorily.

There is no doubt that, with the laws of the game as they are and with the convention of giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, the third umpire was far more likely to award a six to Andre Russell than to give him out when Jonathan Trott and this is fair enough – all that players ask for is consistency. However, it also called into question two things: firstly the definition of when a ball should be deemed to have crossed the boundary and, secondly, the whole convention around giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The first is something that plenty of commentators, most notably Michael Holding, have been talking about for some time. The current law, that determines that a ball is deemed to have crossed the boundary if a player is in simultaneous contact with the ball and the rope, is out of date since it was created in an era of notably less dynamic fielding. Time is frequently wasted in games determining whether or not a fielder has brushed the rope, time which could be better spent keeping over rates up. It would be much simpler for all, players, umpires and spectators, if the law was changed to relate exclusively to the position of the ball and for a boundary only to be awarded if the ball hits, crosses or breaks the vertical plane of the boundary.

The second issue, that of the benefit of the doubt, has long been a bugbear of mine, although I would acknowledge that the fact that I have spent my cricketing life with ball rather than bat has a bearing on my opinion. For one thing it is not, contrary to popular belief, enshrined in the laws of the game it is, instead, a convention that has arisen over time, with some umpires (I’m looking at you, Dickie Bird) taking it almost to the point of mania. In some cases, however, it is time to re-assess this position.

The Jonathan Trott non-catch, and Nathan McCullum’s ruled out effort today, have shown that there are circumstances in which the use of video muddies the water significantly. There has long been discussion of the foreshortening effects of the camera that create the optical illusion that a ball held just above the ground appears to be resting on the ground, and in Trott’s case there was no clear evidence that he had touched the rope, merely the possibility that he had. Here, then, is a suggestion: in cases like this the benefit of the doubt should be given to the fielder. If there is clear evidence to rule out the catch, such as the ball clearly bouncing or a player clearly touching the boundary then, by all means, give the batsman out, but if the replay is inconclusive make the assumption that the catch is legal. To do otherwise is to reward poor batting and to penalise good fielding, which is an injustice.

No More Nails

You could use many words to describe England - inconsistent, frustrating, inspired, dogged, resilient and knackered are a number that spring to mind – but no-one, surely, could describe them as boring. This was another humdinger of a match, a game with more ups and downs than the most alarming rollercoaster and, once more, England snatched vistory from the jaws of defeat. Given the way that the games have gone would have been perfectly possible for England to be boasting a 100% record and yet, at the same time, it is also perfectly possible for them to have lost every game. Such are the margins in this World Cup.

The game yesterday was further evidence, in case it is necessary, that bowler friendly pitches frequently produce more exciting cricket. Watching captains being torn from their formulaic approach to the fifty over game has been one of the high points of the tournament so far. A lot of sides have opened with a spinner at some point and have frequently used slow bowlers in the PowerPlay overs and we have also seen some more imaginative and attacking fields than is the norm in this form of the game. Andrew Strauss’s decision to deploy a short leg to Ramnaresh Sarwan with only twenty odd runs needed was a moment of inspiration that would have been inconceivable in the recent past. There is evidence that Twenty20 is making teams think more imaginatively about their approach to the game, which can only be a good thing.

Now that we are used to these nail biting finishes, perhaps the biggest surprise was the part played by Luke Wright and James Tredwell, both of whom had been deemed surplus to requirements in the first five games. Wright batted sensibly, which hasn’t always been the case in the past, as England did their best to throw away to throw away a good start with some soft dismissals. Jonathan Trott, who had looked in dazzling form, will be particularly annoyed at the way that he got out having looked good for yet another big score. Tredwell, on the other hand, first helped Wright to stabilize the innings (although the run out that brought about his downfall was farcical) and then held his nerve brilliantly with the ball to dismiss Gayle, who was at his most imperious, Smith and the dangerous Bravo in quick succession before coming back to finish Andre Russell’s startling knock. He was deservedly man of the match.

Where England go from here is anyone’s guess. It’s fairly safe to assume that either South Africa will beat Bangladesh or India will beat West Indies, especially as the matches not involving England have generally followed the script, so they should find themselves int eh quarter finals and after that anything is possible. There are still significant problems in the side: Ajaml Shahzad is out injured, Chris Tremlett looks rusty, Jimmy Anderson looks shot, Paul Collingwood and Michael Yardy look as though they might never play ODI cricket again and Matt Prior doesn’t look like an opening batsman. It seems likely that Chris Woakes will replace Shahzad, which adds some all round strength, but they are going to be reliant on Strauss, Trott, Morgan, Bopara and Swann to turn up if they are to go much further. That said, they are unbeaten against the top four sides in the group and have the grittiness and determination required to do well in knock out cricket. They have become impossible to predict, and the tournament is all the better for it.

As for the West Indies, they may well yet qualify for the quarter-finals. The green shoots of recovery are certainly there: Kemar Roach is a high quality quick bowler, Andre Russell is raw but unquestionably talented, Darren Bravo needs to go on and make big scores but has great potential and in Devendra Bishoo they have a leg spinner who, if properly managed, could become a real force. He had an impressive debut and his domestic figures are exceptional for a young player, so his future could be very bright. If they reach the quarter-finals their opponents will have to take them seriously.

Whither England?

What to make of England? This is not the abject capitulation of recent World Cups since they have shown what they are capable of in their performances against India and South Africa, yet they stand a very real chance of being eliminated at the group stage.

Without wishing to make too many excuses, they look exhausted. Their pre-World Cup schedule will be different in 2015, but that will be too late for a number of these players who have been away from home, playing cricket of great intensity, since October. No wonder they are knackered.

It’s also true to say that they haven’t been blessed with luck. To lose Kevin Pietersen and, particularly, Stuart Broad was a serious blow, even if it did allow Eoin Morgan to belatedly join the party. They also fell victim to a once in a career innings from Kevin O’Brien and the farcical levels of dew in the match against Bangladesh, not that anything should detract from the Bangladeshis’ historic victory. This shouldn’t be used as an excuse, however, since even with Kevin O’Brien’s onslaught they should have had enough runs on the board and enough nous with the ball to get home, and while the dew didn’t help against Bangladesh they also bowled pretty brainlessly both in letting their opponents get off to a flying start and in allowing them to recover, particularly as they had collapsed fairly ignominiously themselves.

It is always easy to be wise after the event, but there must be some questions over the make-up of the squad. Many critics have questioned the inclusion of James Tredwell, but it seems pretty obvious that he is there in case Graeme Swann pull sup injured or ill on the morning of a match. The inclusion of Luke Wright, spirited cricketer though he is, looks to be a mistake, Michael Yardy is appreciably less effective in fifty over cricket than he is in the shortest form and poor Paul Collingwood looks past his sell by date. Much of this is, of course, twenty-twenty hindsight and the selectors shouldn’t receive too much criticism – it isn’t their fault, for example, that Jimmy Anderson has bowled like a drain.

They go into tomorrow’s match needing a win to stay alive in the competition and it may be time for some changes. I would rather see Ravi Bopara at the top of the order than Matt Prior, they shouldn’t be afraid to play two specialist spinners if the conditions suggest that it is a good idea and I would like to see Tremlett come in for Anderson. It will be interesting to see what conclusions the Andys reach.

Whatever happens, though, we shouldn’t be too down on the side. Given the build up they’ve played some decent cricket, they have certainly provided some of the most exciting moments of the tournament so far and they have considerable potential. Even if they are eliminated tomorrow, England’s one day side is still in appreciably better shape than has been the case for some time.

Shattering the Crystal Ball

At the start of the tournament I rather rashly made a set of predictions as to how the World Cup would end up (although I sensibly avoided making any predictions as to how we would get there…) With the group stages almost complete it’s time to review them and see if I would make the same calls now.

I tipped India to win and, in spite of the tie with England and defeat by South Africa, I still think that that’s a reasonable call. They are clearly very reliant on their top order and a couple of bowlers and could get found out on a more bowler friendly track, but the quality of their top order players should make sure that they can set, and chase, imposing totals. That said, they could just as easily bow out in the quarter finals, such is the tightness of the competition.

Sri Lanka were my favoured beaten finalists, but I’m not so sure that that will be the case now. They were surprisingly beaten by Pakistan and, with the game against Australia abandoned due to rain, they haven’t really been tested in any other games. The risk for any side coming out of Group A is that it has been a relatively easy ride and I’m no longer so confident that Sri Lanka will prevail in knock out matches.

The beaten semi-finalists that I named were England and Australia. Much could, and will, be written about the weirdness of England’s tournament, but if they get out of the group then I would back them to do well. What they have shown is an ability to compete with the better sides and this may stand them in good stead in the knock out phases. The only problem is that there is a very real possibility of them failing to make it out of their group. Australia, on the other hand, have had it pretty easy, especially with the abandonment against Sri Lanka, and may be insufficiently hardened by the time they come to play their quarter-final. I remain convinced that their pace attack is an accident waiting to happen, but semi-finals still seems reasonable.

I was rather harsh on South Africa in tipping them to only reach the quarter-finals, but their implosion against England gave some indication of the problems that they face. They showed a lot of character in the win against India, firstly by forcing the spectacular Indian collapse and then by overhauling the target from a difficult position. They will have been pleased with the performance of Robin Peterson in particular and should have a strong say in the final destination of the trophy.

The other quarter-finalists were New Zealand, Bangladesh and Pakistan, with the West Indies tipped not to progress. In fact the West Indies have been a revelation, with Benn, Sammy and Roach all bowling excellently. They may well qualify, but it is hard to see them getting past the quarter-finals. Of the others, New Zealand have played an astonishing mix of turgid and spectacular cricket, Bangladesh were woeful against the West Indies but somehow snatched a famous victory against England and Pakistan are, well, Pakistan. It is hard to see any of them seriously competing at the business end of the tournament.

The beauty of this tournament, though, unlike the processions in 2007 and 2003, is that no-one has any idea who will win it. All sides have their weaknesses and much will depend on who makes the most of the conditions and, quite probably, who gets lucky at the right time. The excellent decision to do away with the turgid Super 8 phase and go straight into the quarter-finals also adds an element of excitement that has been sorely lacking in recent events. Bring it on.

Black Cap Berserkers

I’ve seen some pretty extraordinary things in my time watching cricket, but I have seldom seen anything like the last few overs of New Zealand’s innings against Pakistan. From a meandering first forty-five overs, enlivened early on by Brendon McCullum re-defining cameo and Martin Guptill’s knock, this was absolute carnage. Pakistan bowled dreadfully, it is true, but even so the rate of scoring was spectacular, even with Ross Taylor not facing any of the last over.

New Zealand were at it again in the closing stages of their innings against Canada, James Franklin contributing an astonishing thirty-one from eight balls as they plundered forty from the last two overs. One of the many lessons that we have learned from the World Cup so far is not to take your eyes off the action, even when it seems to be rather sedate.

New Zealand, then, can be happy with how things are progressing, the limp defeat to Australia fading into distant memory, but Pakistan are confounding no-one’s expectations by being a basket case. There is no doubting the talent that they have at their disposal, but while they insist on employing a keeper for whom the word inconsistent is merely the tip of the iceberg and fast bowlers, with the honourable exception of Umar Gul, who barely seem to possess a brain cell between them, then they will always be up and down. However, the comparatively easy path offered by Group A will see them safely through to the knock out stages and then pretty much anything could happen. The likelihood is still an early exit, but, ironically perhaps, I won’t be rushing to the bookies.

Raising the Blood Pressure

There are many words that one could use to describe England’s matches in the World Cup thus far, but boring certainly isn’t one of them. Having been run worryingly close by the Dutch, blown and then retrieved the run chase against India and lost to an astonishing display by the Irish there was surely no way that they could top that against a powerful looking South Africa side, but top it they did.

I must confess that I took advantage of a rare lie-in on Sunday morning, having suffered the travails of my son’s birthday party the day before, and so by the time I surfaced the game looked almost beyond redemption, South Africa being forty odd without loss in reply to England’s inadequate looking 171. Now I realise that, obviously, I was just saving myself for the good bit.

England’s innings was a curious affair. Trott and Bopara both batted well in their contrasting styles but that aside it was a bit of a shambles. Graeme Smith’s decision to open the bowling with Robin Peterson was inspired, for surely not even he could have imagined taking two wickets in the first over, and Imran Tahir knocked over the tail to continue his impressive World Cup. The track certainly wasn’t a road like some of the others that we have seen in the tournament but even so the consensus was that England were fifty or so short of a competitive total.

Hashim Amla batted beautifully (not a word that could ever be used to describe Graeme Smith) and South Africa got off to the kind of solid start that was needed. It wasn’t entirely without alarms, especially with Graeme Swann turning the ball square, but a first wicket partnership of sixty-three was a solid platform from which victory should have been straightforward. Even when Amla played on to Broad and Kallis, who had looked in superb touch, nicked behind, De Villiers and Du Plessis survived reasonably comfortably to 124-3, a position which looked unassailable.

The wicket that turned the game on its head was a strange one, Jimmy Anderson just trimming AB De Villers’ bails, to the extent that the batsman wanted a replay to confirm what had happened. At 124-4 South Africa were still firmly in the box seat, but their best batsman, who had made two hundreds in the tournament so far, had gone. A short period of stability was what South Africa needed, but a short period of chaos is what ensued.

First Du Plessis turned the ball to short leg (and how often can you write those words in describing a one day international?), overbalanced and was run out by smart work from Bell and Prior. Then Duminy, dubiously reprieved for a caught behind on review (a series of events that further exposed the failure to use Hotspot as part of the UDRS for this tournament), had his off stump torn out of the ground by a swinging yorker from Anderson. With Yardy having Peterson caught behind South Africa were suddenly 127-7 and in trouble.

Steyn and van Wyk regrouped sensibly and at 160-7 with plenty of time to spare it looked as though they had done enough to win the game. They had reckoned, however, without England’s quick bowlers. First Bresnan forced van Wyk to play on and then Broad had Steyn leg before and Morkel caught behind in the space of four balls to complete a famous victory.

So, where now for these two sides? Perversely, it may be the making of South Africa. Too often sides who have it easy in the early stages struggle when put under pressure in the knockout stages, but they will have learned a lot about themselves from this game. As for England, the victory has re-ignited their tournament, but the loss of Kevin Pietersen and Stuart Broad for the rest of the tournament is a massive blow. Morgan and Tremlett are both good replacements but there is no doubt that this leaves them weaker. For what it’s worth, I would move Bopara up to open and bring in Morgan at number five, although his form in Australia was less than stellar. As for the bowling, Shahzad or Tremlett will replace Broad and they may also consider replacing Yardy, who has bowled ordinarily, with Tredwell. As for me, I would welcome a comfortable victory over Bangladesh, if only for the sake of my blood pressure.

A Hint of Humble Pie

Last week I was rather rude about both the West Indies and New Zealand, both of whom have been doing their best to make me look stupid ever since. Time may yet prove me right, but for the time being we should celebrate two contrasting renaissances.

New Zealand could have given up after the earthquake in Christchurch and, more prosaically, their dismal performance against Australia, but their comprehensive defeat of Zimbabwe showed a mental strength and professionalism that suggested that they may yet have a say in the tournament’s latter stages. Zimbabwe, after all, are no mugs and to beat them by ten wickets is impressive. Bigger tests await, but they are doing a good job of swatting aside the weaker sides in the group. Their games against Pakistan and Sri Lanka will be interesting.

In Group B, meanwhile, the West Indies, inspired by Kemar Roach, have been turning back the clock. There is something of Malcolm Marshall about Roach’s approach and delivery and he generates impressive speed through the air which, coupled with his penchant for the yorker, makes him quite a handful. Sulieman Benn and Darren Sammy have also bowled well, especially in the rout of Bangladesh, and while the batting still looks vulnerable to good bowling attacks, there is evidence that Chris Gayle has re-discovered his formidable mojo. The remaining games will present bigger tests than the Netherlands and Bangladesh but they should, contrary to my prediction, qualify for the quarter finals and then anything is possible. The next few weeks could be pivotal in the short term development of West Indian cricket.

Evoking the Spirit of Alletson

On May 20 1911 Ted Alletson, playing for Nottinghamshire against Sussex, played one of the most remarkable, and least well known, innings in cricket history. It was so extraordinary that John Arlott even wrote a short book dedicated to it.

The bare bones are these: Alletson, predominantly a bowler, came in with Notts 185-7. He initially played reasonably carefully, reaching 47 in 50 minutes by lunch, by which time Notts had lost a further two wickets and were in the mire. After lunch he went berserk. In the next 40 minutes he scored a mind boggling 142 runs out of a tenth wicket stand of 152. At one point he scored 115 runs in seven overs, including 34 from an over from E T Killick, who was said to be terrified that Alletson might hit one straight back at him, especially given that Alletson had, by this time, smashed the pavilion clock. By the time he was out, caught on the boundary by a fielder who is widely thought to have carried the ball over the rope, he had made 189 in just 90 minutes. It was his only first class hundred.

On March 2 2011, playing for Ireland against England in the World Cup, a world away from the cricketing existence of Alletson and his ilk, Kevin O’Brien, previously regarded as the useful but less talented brother of keeper/batsman Niall, evoked the spirit of Alletson with a quite remarkable innings against England.

Like Alletson, O’Brien’s innings came from a situation where all seemed lost. Before the game no-one had seriously given Ireland much of a chance, even after England’s travails against the Netherlands, and at 111-5 chasing 328 all seemed lost. With the pressure off, however, O’Brien could afford to play entirely naturally and he produced one of the most remarkable innings to have been played in any form of the game.

He reached his 50 in just 30 balls, an impressive effort but still, it seemed, simply an entertaining diversion. He then went into overdrive, taking just another 20 balls to reach his century. Along the way he hit thirteen fours and six sixes, a staggering 88 in boundaries. By the time he was run out he had taken his total to 113 in just 63 balls and Ireland to the brink of a famous victory, which was duly completed with five balls to spare. England looked shell shocked but also knew that they had lost to a truly remarkable innings and that credit had to be given where it was due. O’Brien said afterwards that he had played like he did in the garden, the fact that he had nothing to lose giving him a freedom to express himself in a way that comes along very rarely in the pressurised environment of international sport.

Kevin O’Brien may never end up being much more than a handy performer for Ireland, but whatever happens from hereon in he will always be remembered as the man who played one of the most astonishing innings of his time. Whatever the validity of the comparisons between him and Ted Alletson, it’s fair to say that only one of them had dyed his hair pink for the occasion, mind you.