Fixing?

Match fixing is everywhere, it seems. In the aftermath of the World Cup semi-final between India and Pakistan there were plenty of people quick to cry foul over the number of dropped catches, particularly of Sachin Tendulkar, in the India innings. Hashan Tillakaratne’s allegations about match fixing in Sri Lankan cricket and the aftermath of last summer’s spot fixing scandal suggest that the game is mired in corruption.

There seems little doubt that there are incidents where certain outcomes are fixed to the benefit of gamblers due to a combination of greed and coercion. The evidence against Amir, Asif and Butt was damning and the details of Tillakaratne’s allegations will be fascinating, but that doesn’t mean that every surprising action or every moment of incompetence is automatically corrupt.

Those seeking to gain a financial advantage from foxing aspects of cricket matches are looking for a guaranteed return that is not subject to outside interference, which is why deliberate no balls, especially when they are as blatant as that which Amir delivered at Lord’s, are such an attractive proposition. It is worth bearing in mind that Hansie Cronje was rewarded at Centurion in 2000 not for determining the result but for ensuring that there was one after three days of heavy rain. It didn’t matter to those who stood to gain whether it was England or South Africa who won since that was beyond their control.

This brings us back to the dropped catches in the World Cup semi-final. Those crying foul have not been able to provide a credible reason for those dropped catches being of any great use to a corrupt gambler. It seems unthinkable, for example, that the catches were dropped in order to help Sachin Tendulkar to make a half century since there are so many other imponderables that could hamper the bet, such as him dragging a wide delivery onto his stumps or being out leg before (as so nearly happened). It seems far more likely that the catches were dropped due to the pressure of the occasion and poor basic technique, an area in which Pakistan have considerable previous.

There is little doubt that there is still considerable corruption in the game, but we don’t help ourselves by seeing it at every turn. It is only a short step from having a healthy level of skepticism to being a conspiracy theory nutjob, after all.

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.