Well in case a match that can be won happens to be lost, who is to be blamed becomes the toughest question of all. And that was what the West Indies were to face after their close and yet so far from victory against England at Chennai yesterday. A total of 244 on the board put up by the Englishmen should not have been a tough chase for a team that started off well blasting off 58 runs from the first 7 overs at a run-rate of over 8 runs an over. Chris Gayle and Darren Sammy were supposed to make life miserable for the Englishmen which eventually didn't happen.
Chris Gayle blasted 43 runs from just 21 balls scoring over 2 runs every ball he faced while Darren Sammy massacred the English bowling by scoring just less than one and a half runs every ball he faced when he too fell 9 runs short of scoring a well deserved half century. I just couldn't stop cursing the West Indian batsmen who undid the good work which the bowlers did. If one can go through the scorecard, the West Indies team is hardly gifted with decent bowlers though Kemer Roach and Dwayne Smith can boast of some splendid feats occasionally.
At the end, if Chris Gayle and Darren Sammy fell short of a well deserved half century, the West Indies team fell short of a well deserved victory. Compared to the bowlers like Ravi Bopara, Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann, the West Indies' bowlers fall way short though there is Kemer Roach who has had a hat-trick against Holland earlier in the tournament. Similarly, in the batting department, England fall short of a hard hitting batsman of the caliber of Chris Gayle though the tournament's highest individual run scorer has been Andrew Struass when he blasted the Indian bowlers for a 50X1.5.
But, the scorecard suggests otherwise when bowlers do the job for the West Indies team by restricting the English batsmen for a score less than 250 and at the same time getting the opposition all-out. Getting a team that has so far holds the record for the highest team total batting second should come in for some praise until the unexpected happened. England scored 339 batting second in the game against the co-hosts India at Bangalore. West Indies' unsuccessful run-chase started from 58/1 at 6.5 over to 150/6 at the end of the 27th over. This brings 92 runs from 21 overs which is just less than 5 an over but still gettable.
Showing posts with label West Indies vs England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Indies vs England. Show all posts
Friday, 18 March 2011
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
A Virtual Quater Final and so Boring?
The match between the West Indies and England was as good as a quarter final wherein the team which wins would advance to the next round and the team that loses would have to forfeit all hopes of winning the tournament anymore. At the end of the day, it was the west Indies who came out victorious but, not in a manner that most of us would agree. Of course, nothing could be done for the showers that pour down. But, a lot more can still be done for the teams out there to see to that they play 20 overs of cricket uninterrupted by weather. Had it been a one day match, nothing could be done much. At the most, the match could be played fresh the next day.
However, the T20 format of the game is not bound to this condition. A delay of even 3 to 4 hours can still ensure justified cricket, without denying either of the team of its overs or the powerplay. In other words, I don't see the Duckworth-Lewis playing such an important role in the T20 game. One can as well wait for the showers to completely pour down and then start the play afresh. And that too in such a competition that involves all the major cricket playing nations from the world, the Duckworth-Lewis can never satisfy all. Perhaps! Even the West Indies would not have been satisfied despite winning and advancing to the semis.
It was ad to see all the hard work that England put in to put up a decent total of 161 on the board going in vain. The man of the match was not given to either Ravi Bopara who struck a magnificient half century aided with 5 hits to the fence or to Kevin Pietersen who scored 31 runs with a strike rate 164, but was given to Ramnaresh Sarwan first for belonging to the winning team and then for scoring 19 runs at a strike rate of 211. Don't you guys think that it is just foolish to shorten the shortest version of the game of cricket? If the rules for T20 are same as that for ODI, the T20 can rather be called as a reduced version of fifty overs cricket.
Some twenty years back, the one day match used to be played for 60 overs a side, which was then reduced to 55 overs a side. And now the same is played with each team having been prepared to bowl 50 overs. I don't see the T20 format as something special if not for the fact that a team bowls just 20 overs and in some cases, the boundary is shortened. If such is the thiking, there could be four other formats of cricket namely 60-60, 55-55, ODI and the T20. In case the game of T20 is to be enjoyed by the fans all over, I suggest that the ICC drop the Duckworth-Lewis method from this format. When the ICC can come out with a solution in case of matches ending up in a tie, I don't find the reason for ICC to go in for the same D-L method in T20 as well.
However, the T20 format of the game is not bound to this condition. A delay of even 3 to 4 hours can still ensure justified cricket, without denying either of the team of its overs or the powerplay. In other words, I don't see the Duckworth-Lewis playing such an important role in the T20 game. One can as well wait for the showers to completely pour down and then start the play afresh. And that too in such a competition that involves all the major cricket playing nations from the world, the Duckworth-Lewis can never satisfy all. Perhaps! Even the West Indies would not have been satisfied despite winning and advancing to the semis.
It was ad to see all the hard work that England put in to put up a decent total of 161 on the board going in vain. The man of the match was not given to either Ravi Bopara who struck a magnificient half century aided with 5 hits to the fence or to Kevin Pietersen who scored 31 runs with a strike rate 164, but was given to Ramnaresh Sarwan first for belonging to the winning team and then for scoring 19 runs at a strike rate of 211. Don't you guys think that it is just foolish to shorten the shortest version of the game of cricket? If the rules for T20 are same as that for ODI, the T20 can rather be called as a reduced version of fifty overs cricket.
Some twenty years back, the one day match used to be played for 60 overs a side, which was then reduced to 55 overs a side. And now the same is played with each team having been prepared to bowl 50 overs. I don't see the T20 format as something special if not for the fact that a team bowls just 20 overs and in some cases, the boundary is shortened. If such is the thiking, there could be four other formats of cricket namely 60-60, 55-55, ODI and the T20. In case the game of T20 is to be enjoyed by the fans all over, I suggest that the ICC drop the Duckworth-Lewis method from this format. When the ICC can come out with a solution in case of matches ending up in a tie, I don't find the reason for ICC to go in for the same D-L method in T20 as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)