My 2012 ICC World Twenty20 XI

By Adrian Meredith

Chris Gayle would be part of any World Twenty20 XI

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 11, 2012: A lot has been written about the 2012 ICC World Twenty20 XI and former cricketers like Alec Stewart has also come up with his selection of the best players of the tournament. Time is now to check out my 2012 ICC World Twenty20 XI.

 

Shane Watson (Australia) won the player of the tournament award after getting 4 man of the match awards in the first 4 matches, before failing in the last 2. He ended up with 249 runs at an average of 49.80 and strike rate of 150.00, the most runs of anyone in the tournament. On top of that, he ended up with 11 wickets at an average of 16.00 and an economy of 7.33, second only to Ajantha Mendis for most wickets. Australia won all 4 matches that he was man of the match in - by a long way. They lost the last 2 matches, in which he failed. This says everything that you need to know about him, really. Nobody else won more than 2 man of the match awards.

Chris Gayle (West Indies) didn't do quite as well as Watson but was such a big prospect that he slots in due to his presence. He finished with 222 runs at 44.40 and a strike rate of 150.00, 4th on the run scoring list. He also took 3 wickets at an average of 26.33 and an economy 7.64, though he wasn't really known for his bowling. He was man of the match in the semi final and also won West Indies their Super 8 match against England. But it was his presence that made all the difference, as highlighted by the fear he brought to Australia in the semi final, just by being not out, even though he hadn't faced many balls, and that, even though he was out cheaply against Sri Lanka, he was still a major part of why West Indies won the final.

Brendon McCullum (New Zealand) (wicket keeper) really only had one good innings, but what an innings it was! 123 off 58 balls, the highest ever score in T20 internationals, and on top of that it was a match that let New Zealand into the Super 8 stage of the tournament, as, without his effort, Bangladesh probably would have won the match and qualified in their place. New Zealand nearly made it to the semi finals, were it not for their Super Over loss to West Indies in their final match. He only finished with 212 runs in total, at an average of 42.40 and a strike rate of 159.39, adding only 89 runs in the other 4 matches combined. He only took 1 catch from the 5 matches, a pretty poor return, but having finished 5th on the run scoring list for the tournament, he was good enough as a batsman alone.

Virat Kohli (India) can do no wrong and is in the best form of anyone in the entire world, in all 3 formats, over the last year. Sure so he didn't top the run scoring list, but he was still pretty high up there with 185 runs at an average of 46.25 and a strike rate of 122.51, which included a match winning 78 not out against Pakistan that all but qualified India for the semi final - if not for some lame captaincy decisions in their final Super 8 match, when the team failed to take risks. Having Kohli in the team is a must. Luke Wright may have scored more runs - and at a higher strike rate - but his 99 against Afghanistan doesn't count for much, and, other than that and a 76 against New Zealand (who themselves only won 1 game), he barely scored a run - while Kohli in comparison scored runs when it mattered.

Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka) (captain) was consistent the whole way through, scoring 243 runs at an average of 40.50 and a strike rate of 116.26, to finish 2nd on the list of most runs scored. The strike rate was a little disappointed but he was important in saving matches for Sri Lanka, such as his match winning 65 not out against West Indies in the Super 8 stage. He scored over 30 in his last 5 matches in a row, though he did start off slowly in the first 2 matches. He was a really good captain too, surely the best captain in the entire tournament. I am sorry but Darren Sammy's decision to use Marlon Samuels to bowl the final over against New Zealand in their crucial final Super 8 match, and then in the Super Over, while they did win, were surely seriously stupid mistakes. Jayawardene made no such mistakes. He may have stepped down as captain after their loss in the final but really he did nothing wrong.

Marlon Samuels (West Indies) was the man of the match in the final, when he took West Indies from 4 runs per over after 11 overs to post a total of 137, which turned out to be match winning. He did pretty darn well in the semi final as well. Indeed, his 230 runs at an average of 38.33 and a strike rate of 132.94 was the 3rd highest in the tournament. He scored 50 in their first up loss to Australia, 50 in their Super 8 loss to Sri Lanka, and a match winning 78 against Sri Lanka in the final. He bowled a bit too but his bowling was decidedly ordinary, though West Indies did win the match when he bowled the final over - and the Super Over - against New Zealand - that qualified them for the semi final stage.

Ross Taylor (New Zealand) scored 147 runs at an average of 49.00 and a strike rate of 145.54, to hold things together for New Zealand for all but the first match, when Brendon McCullum scored his amazing 123. Taylor got 14 not out, 26, 23, 22 and 62 not out against West Indies, that all but won them the game. He scored quickly and was a real danger man, the one who could win it from anywhere and the one that they had to get out to have a chance of victory.

Mitchell Starc (Australia) took 10 wickets at an average of 16.40 and an economy of 6.83, to be 3rd on the wicket taking list, just behind fellow Australian Shane Watson. Starc was considered a fringe player just before the tournament, as the likes of Justin Patterson and Mitchell Johnson had been preferred but he showed just what advantage being coached by Wasim Akram is. He was the best fast bowler in the tournament, in conditions that suited spinners, not pacers.

Lakshmipathy Balaji (India) may have only played in 4 games, but he still managed 9 wickets at an average of 9.77 and an economy of 7.33 to be 4th on the wicket taking tally, and the 2nd highest of the fast bowlers. He had the lowest average and the most wickets per match. His tournament was highlighted by 3/22 against Pakistan and 3/37 against South Africa, both in the Super 8 stage. If only he had played against Australia perhaps India would have won and qualified for the semi finals.

Sunil Narine (West Indies) took 9 wickets at an average of 15.44 and an economy of 5.63, the lowest economy of anyone with more than 6 wickets. He started poorly but in the final 3 matches he took 3/20 in the crucial match against New Zealand to be the standout player, 2/17 in the semi final against Australia and 3/9 in the final against Sri Lanka. West Indies won all 3 of those matches, and only won one other match when he didn't do amazingly well. He was someone that struck fear into oppositions and had an outstanding tournament.

Ajantha Mendis (Sri Lanka) topped the wicket taking tally with 15 wickets at an average of 9.80 and an economy of 6.12, 4 wickets more than the next highest wicket taker, Shane Watson. Mendis even missed a match. One big criticism is that against New Zealand he did poorly (1/48) and against England was even worse (0/40) but in amongst that he had the best return in T20 international history (6/8 against Zimbabwe) and also took 4/12 against West Indies in the final, which all but won them the match. 2/12 against West Indies in the Super 8 stage was crucial too, while 2/27 against Pakistan was pretty decent too. As the story goes, he is unplayable if you aren't used to him but once you are he becomes easy to bat against. Nonetheless, some oppositions just can't handle him so he is very useful to have in the team.

12th man: Saeed Ajmal (Pakistan) wasn't far away but I felt that 3 specialist spin bowlers probably wasn't a good idea and I'd rather have a specialist batsman at number 7. Ajmal did reasonably well but was a bit behind Narine in the final analysis and Ajantha Mendis, while unpredictable, at his peak was simply the best. With Shane Watson bowling so well, I didn't feel the need to have 5 specialist bowlers, especially also given that Gayle and Samuels can bowl if needed, to give 7 bowling options (or 8 if you count Kohli); however, if we did need to have 5 specialist bowlers, or if we wanted 3 specialist spin bowlers, I would have had Saeed Ajmal as my 5th, and therefore Ajmal would be 12th man.

Read More

What Made West Indies Beat Sri Lanka in ICC World Twenty20 Final?

By Adrian Meredith

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 9, 2012: As at the end of the Super Eight stage of the ICC World Twenty20 2012, we all thought that it was close to inevitable that the final would be Sri Lanka vs Australia.

 

They were the two in-form teams, the two most consistent teams, the two teams that had beaten all before them. But while Sri Lanka made it to the final, Australia didn't, and indeed Australia didn't even get close.

While India were busy complaining about how unfair it was that they could miss the semi finals in spite of winning four of their five games, implying that it should have been them, not West Indies, who only won two and had a no result, there West Indies were, showing that a team that had got to the semi final in the weakest position of the four, could really decimate the strongest looking team in Australia.

It wasn't that Australia played particularly badly - West Indies just had perfect tactics and perfect execution. That 205 would have beaten any team in the world! The only question was whether they could repeat it and if they did, would Sri Lanka be able to combat it, or was it, like Brendon McCullum's mercurial 123 against Bangladesh, a one off.

Sri Lanka had chosen to go with mystery ahead of well known by going with Dananjala ahead of Rangana Herath but were otherwise unchanged, while West Indies had no changes of all.

Scarily, West Indies batted first. The wicket of Johnson Charles in the first over should have made Sri Lanka happy; but they were still nervous about the Gayle factor. Even though the first over was a maiden, and it took them until the third over to get the first runs off the bat, still they knew that West Indies could launch. While Gayle is usually good against spinners, the mystery of Ajantha Mendis undid him and when he was out West Indies should have fallen apart. Except that they didn't.

Sri Lanka should have been happy at their containing effort. West Indies were going at all of 4 runs per over for half of the innings - thoroughly inadequate when in most matches the par score is about 160 - at 8 runs per over. But the problem is that with eight wickets in hand and some huge big hitters to come, they knew that West Indies were capable.

Lasith Malinga, the highest wicket taker in domestic T20 history, was belted all around. But they persisted with him. Perhaps Kulasekera, whose three overs went for 21 overs, should have got a fourth. Perhaps Dananjala, whose three overs went for just 16, including a wicket, should have had another one. Perhaps Dilshan or Perera should have bowled. But you can hardly blame Jayawardene for persisting with Malinga. Sure he went for 54 off his four overs and was easily the most expensive bowler; but how can you take him off? He is their trump card.

When West Indies decided to launch, it almost seemed pre-planned. Marlon Samuels and Dwayne Bravo were the first to do it, and it had that same feeling to the game against Australia - like they could do anything - like any ball, even the best ball by the best bowler - could be smashed away for the maximum. Mis-hits went for six, good balls went for six. It didn't seem to matter what Sri Lanka did, they just smacked 6s galore.

Luckily for Sri Lanka they only had 10 overs of mayhem to contend with, instead of the full 20. Luckily they took a few wickets in the process too. Unfortunately, even number seven Darren Sammy smacked it to all parts. Unfortunately, even number eight Denesh Ramdin can bat.

137 seemed like a competitive total. West Indies would have to bowl very well to win it but they had all of the momentum. Marlon Samuels had finished with 78 off 56 balls, with six 6s and three 4s, an innings that some compared with VVS Laxman's 281 in that test match against Australia in 2001, the unwinnable one that they won, rated as the best test innings of all time. This was perhaps the best T20 innings! In a final, in a situation where West Indies were being decimated, from an impossible position!

When Sri Lanka came out to bat they still knew that 150 was a par score on this group and 137 was inadequate. West Indies, in effect, only has two good bowlers in Narine and Badree. Beyond that, they have a fast bowler who isn't all that good in Ravi Rampaul and then a whole bunch of all rounders, like Sammy, Powell, Gayle, Samuels and Russell. All that they had to do was to see off the 8 overs from Narine and Badree and punish the others for 12 overs.

But Sri Lanka lost Dilshan early and then let the runs dry up too much while Jayawardene and Sangakkara were batting. They were in a winning position while they were there, right up until the 10th over when Sangakkara was out; but as soon as he was gone, the match went from Sri Lanka winning to West Indies winning.

Sangakkara fell, then Mathews, then Jayawardene, then Jeevan Mendis, Perera and Thiraminne, as they went from 1/48 off 9.2 overs to 7/69 off 14.3 overs. The run rate required went from 90 off 10.4 overs (a bit over 8 per over) to 69 off 5.3 (over 13 per over). Shamefully, 2 of the wickets were run outs, while the others were to every bowler that West Indies used. No bowler was bowling up a storm - it was just bad batting. Just pressure. Just the fear, that in their heads they were thinking - how the hell did they get 137 when they were going at barely 2 runs per over early, and only 4 runs per over for the first 10?

But then, in an Umar Gul-like effort, Kulasekera suddenly smashed the ball to all places as he scored 24 off a single over. But then, just as there looked to be some hope, as they required just 44 off the last 4, straight after scoring that huge over, he was out. And then the others fell in a heap after him. Sri Lanka didn't even last their full 20 overs and were all out with almost 2 overs to spare, losing by 36 runs.

For West Indian fans, or anyone supporting them, this was the most miraculous comeback. It brings comparisons to India's amazing comeback in that test in 2001 against Australia. In that match, Australia had enforced the follow on but then in the 2nd innings VVS Laxman scored 281 as they not only passed the follow on target but set an almost impossible target, and then Australia went for the total, going for what would have been a world record 17th win in a row, and in going for the win they lost the match.

Was this the T20 equivalent of that match? And was Marlon Samuels's innings the equivalent of VVS Laxman's 281 in that match?

It was certainly a thrilling final though. And I think it is fair to say that in their last 2 matches West Indies looked like the best team in the world by an absolute mile. If they can keep that up, or even reference that in other matches that they play, then they could well be a force to reckon with in the years to come.

But to do that they will need to have a more complete test team. Why not try out their T20 stars in the longer format? See if they can handle the big time. And they definitely need to bring Ramnaresh Sarwan back.

Read More

Alec Stewart picks ICC World Twenty20 2012 Eleven

By Alec Stewart

LONDON, England (TheSportsNEXT) October 9, 2012: Former England Test captain and BBC Test match expert Alec Stewart has announced his ICC World Twenty20 2012 eleven after West Indies outplayed Sri Lanka in the final played at R Premadasa Stadium.

 

In an article published in BBC, Alec Stewart said, “I was very pleased to see the West Indies return to the big time by winning the World Twenty20 on Sunday”.

Apart from their Champions Trophy success in 2004, they haven't had much to cheer about in the last 15 years or so having previously been one of the dominant forces in world cricket.

But the Twenty20 form of the game seems to have brought a bit of the calypso back into their cricket and they have entertained us all with brilliant ball-striking and exuberant celebrations.

I have been very impressed by the way captain Darren Sammy and coach Ottis Gibson have pulled off the notoriously difficult task of getting individuals from different islands to gel as a team, work hard and fight for a common cause.

The Windies were deserving winners of what turned out to be a very good tournament. Once the Super Eights got going, we had some fantastic cricket and some outstanding individual performances.

It's never easy to pick a team of the tournament, but I've based my selections purely on what I've seen over the last three weeks where players whose games are most suited to Sri Lankan conditions have often been the most successful. I don't expect you all to agree with my choices, so please use the comments section to weigh in with opinions and team selections of your own.

1) Chris Gayle (West Indies) - Runs: 222, Strike Rate: 150

Quite simply the best Twenty20 player in the world. With his brute force and 3lb bat he can destroy all types of bowling, but he has also shown that he can play in a very responsible manner too. His 75 not out in the semi-final victory over Australia was a perfect example. When starved of the strike, he still backed himself to post a match-winning total. He can also bowl a few handy overs of spin.

2) Shane Watson (Australia) - Runs: 249, SR: 150, Wickets: 11, Economy rate: 7.33

He was quite rightly voted player of the tournament after finishing as the highest run-scorer and second highest wicket-taker. As well as being a top-class opening batsman, he has the ability and variety to bowl at any stage of an innings. Watson was a key part of an Australia side that exceeded my pre-tournament expectations by reaching the semi-finals.

3) Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka, captain) - Runs: 243, SR: 116

The Sri Lanka skipper is a very cool customer who doesn't feel pressure and performs when it matters. He grew up on Sri Lankan surfaces and whether he's playing an attacking or supporting role he is always in total control of his shot selection. He is fantastic to watch and proves that orthodox cricket shots can be just as effective as innovation and big-hitting if you have as much talent as he has.

4) Marlon Samuels (West Indies) - Runs: 230, SR: 133, Wickets: 3, ER: 9

Samuels is another genuine all-rounder who has lit up the international game with his displays this year. In the World Twenty20 he produced his best cricket when the Windies needed him to and was an easy pick for his man-of-the match display in the final, when he single-handedly hauled his team up to a competitive total.

5) Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka, wk) - Runs: 170, SR: 127

I thought long and hard about the choice of wicketkeeper, with Brendon McCullum of New Zealand just missing out despite posting the highest score of the tournament. Sangakkara is used to the conditions, handles all types of pitches well and, from a keeping point of view, picks mystery spin very well. He is used to standing up to the stumps and is another genuine all-rounder in this form of the game.

6) Virat Kohli (India) - Runs: 185, SR: 123

The India batsman just gets the nod ahead of England's Eoin Morgan as the middle-order finisher. He's brilliant under pressure and was a remarkably consistent performer in an inconsistent India side. He is fast becoming a superstar in all forms of the game and is bound to have a big role to play this winter against England.

7) Yuvraj Singh (India) - Runs: 66, SR: 108, Wickets: 8, ER: 5.92

Another highly effective performer with bat and ball who showed flashes of his batting brilliance on his return to the game after a successful fight against cancer. He makes my team as much for his attacking left-arm spin bowling as for his ability with the bat in hand. I also considered Dwayne Bravo and Luke Wright, but Yuvraj's ability to take vital wickets - in evidence in India's one-run win over South Africa - got him the nod.

8) Sunil Narine (Windies) - Wickets: 9, ER: 5.63

He may have looked ordinary in England this summer, but he comes into his own on surfaces that spin and was one of the main reasons why the Windies were successful in Sri Lanka. I like mystery, I like wicket-takers and I like people who play with flair in this form of the game, so he fits the bill. He took the crucial wickets of Jayawadene and Nuwan Kulasekara on his way to figures of 3-9 in the final - showcasing that priceless ability to get good batsmen out when they are well set.

9) Mitchell Starc (Australia): Wickets: 10, ER: 6.83

I like the variety of a left-armer in this form of the game and the statistics show they are among the most successful bowlers. Starc bowled exceptionally both with the new ball and at the end of the innings, and with his 10 wickets he helped his side reach the semi-finals. The fact he gives the attack a different weapon by bowling left-arm just got him the nod ahead of Steve Finn and Ravi Rampaul.

10) Ajantha Mendis (Sri Lanka): Wickets 15, ER: 6.12

The Sri Lankan mystery spinner posed problems against all batsmen and took wickets at an unbelievable strike-rate of 9.6. He started the tournament with 6-8 against Zimbabwe and finished it with 4-12 in the final. Like Narine, he can struggle when the ball doesn't go off the straight, but in helpful conditions he is as good as it gets.

11) Lasith Malinga (Sri Lanka) - Wickets 8, ER: 8.44

He is the bowling equivalent of Chris Gayle and, although neither produced the goods in the final, their match-winning abilities make them automatic picks in any World T20 XI. Malinga has a knack of knowing the right ball to bowl to each batsman at any time and his five-wicket haul against England was one of the best bowling performances of the tournament. Like Gayle, it is worth the admission fee just to watch him do his thing.

Original Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/19867279

Read More

Hafeez thinks he is bigger captain than Wasim, alleges Razzaq

By Ubaid Awan

LAHORE, Pakistan (TheSportsNEXT) October 6, 2012: Pakistan’s veteran all-rounder Abdul Razzaq has opened a Pandora Box of allegations against skipper Mohammad Hafeez.

 

Talking to reporters here after returning home following a defeat to the hands of Sri Lanka in Semi-Final of the ICC World Twenty20 2012 on Thursday, Abdul Razzaq showed his resentment on Mohammad Hafeez’s decision to make him sit out of the all-important match of the tournament.

Abdul Razzaq stated, "It was not the team management's decision to drop me for the semi-final. Many experts, including Wasim Akram and even some of the players were saying that the winning combination should not be changed. The decision was taken only by Mohammad Hafeez."

Abdul Razzaq alleged that Mohammad Hafeez told him lies about reasons behind dropping him.

Razzaq said that he was very disappointed after Hafeez decided to drop him out of the playing eleven against Sri Lanka.

Mohammad Hafeez opted for Sohail Tanvir over Abdul Razzaq on a pitch which had assistance for the spinners rather than the fast bowlers.

“Even Wasim Akram insisted that I should be picked for the match against Sri Lanka, but Hafeez decided against it,” Razzaq said, adding that Mohammad Hafeez thinks of himself as being a better captain than Wasim Akram.

When reporters asked Mohammad Hafeez about reasons for dropping Abdul Razzaq for the all-important match, the skipper said, "It was the team management's decision."

Abdul Razzaq, who had played crucial role in Pakistan’s triumph in the 2009 ICC World Twenty20, said, "I am fully fit and I hope Chairman PCB will give me more chances in future. I wasn't even selected for the first four matches of the tournament."

He stated, "I was confident. I wanted to play the semi-final. The Sri Lankans feared that Pakistan will play Shahid Afridi and Razzaq."

Read More

WT20 Final Preview: Sri Lanka vs West Indies

By Adrian Meredith

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 6, 2012: Hosts Sri Lanka and West Indies are all set to fight for the ICC World Twenty20 2012 title tomorrow and it is pretty easy to get a preview here, by looking at the previous matches in the tournament that involved them.

Sri Lanka:

Beat Zimbabwe by 82 runs (4/182 to 100)

Lost to South Africa by 32 runs (5/46 to 4/78) - 7 over match

Beat New Zealand in Super Over (13 to 7)

Beat West Indies by 9 wickets/28 balls (1/130 to 5/129)

Beat England by 19 runs (6/169 to 9/150)

Beat Pakistan by 16 runs (4/139 to 7/123)

West Indies:

Lost to Australia by 17 runs D/L method (8/191 to 1/100 off 9.1)

No Result vs Ireland (Ireland scored 6/129 off 19)

Beat England by 15 runs (5/179 to 4/164)

Lost to Sri Lanka by 9 wickets/28 balls (5/129 to 1/130)

Beat New Zealand in Super Over (20 in 5 balls to 19)

Beat Australia by 74 runs (4/205 to 131)

The better team in the tournament is clearly Sri Lanka (5 wins, 1 loss), as compared to West Indies (3 wins, 2 losses, 1 no result). Both teams won a Super Over, both against New Zealand, while when they played each other Sri Lanka won easily.

All of this does point to a big Sri Lankan victory - except for the tiny matter that West Indies just beat a dominant Australian side by a mammoth 74 runs, scoring the highest score in the tournament so far of 205. If West Indies play that well against Sri Lanka, they will probably win. The question is whether they can repeat it twice in a row.

Australia's main problem in that match was that they tried lots of spinners but none of them were real world class spinners, and Chris Gayle ripped them apart. Sri Lanka, in comparison, have some real world class spinners, with the likes of Ajantha Mendis, Rangana Herath and Jeevan Mendis. The problem is that even the best spinners are going to be decimated by Chris Gayle - it was the pacers that had Gayle in trouble - though they failed to take his wicket. Gayle simply hid from them, giving the strike to others until the spinners came on. But do Sri Lanka have enough quality pacers? They have Lasith Malinga, who is certainly good enough - but who do they have beyond that? Ordinarily, they wouldn't have much at all but in Sri Lankan conditions the likes of Kulasekera are doing well. Angelo Mathews could do well but so far he hasn't done so well. Thisara Perera has been good at times gone by, but not in this tournament.

So if West Indies play as well as they did against Australia, do Sri Lanka have any chance?

The best chance would seem to lay in Lasith Malinga getting Gayle out quickly. But if Gayle hides from the strike, like he did against Australia, then that may not be enough. West Indies had near perfect tactics against Australia. Sri Lanka will simply have to work out something better. The fact that West Indies hadn't shown that brilliance all tournament long makes it all the more difficult to combat as, other than the semi final, they have nothing to go on, and in the semi final all that they saw was a team that had been favourites for the whole tournament until that match be decimated.

West Indies have done reasonably well with their bowling but Sri Lanka won't find them quite as tough to face as Australia did. Sunil Narine may be a good spinner but Sri Lanka won't be quite as worried about him as Australia were - not that that was why they lost. Samuel Badree is still somewhat of a mystery, yet has an amazing domestic record, and he could be a problem too. But beyond those two West Indies don't have a lot of firepower in the bowling stakes and Sri Lanka would fancy their chances.

The other question, of course, is whether it was a one off. If their effort against Australia was a one off, and West Indies play like they did for the whole rest of the tournament besides that match, then Sri Lanka should win easily. And, perhaps, with Shane Watson failing, Australia were easy beats. Perhaps it wasn't so much that West Indies did well but that Australia did badly.

The thing is that, ultimately, it does get that simple. If West Indies get 205 against Sri Lanka, keeping Gayle off strike and scoring 6s at will, then they will probably win. But if Sri Lanka can thwart it, or they otherwise fail to do that, then Sri Lanka should win. Simple as that.

Dilshan, Jayawardene and Sangakkara are still in form but now Jeevan Mendis, Angelo Mathews, Thisara Perera are all doing well with batting, while it isn't just Malinga that is bowling well - also Kulasekera is. And let's not forget that West Indies aren't known to have figured out Ajantha Mendis quite yet - and he could be a huge weapon. There is no guarantee that even Chris Gayle will know how to handle Ajantha Mendis.

Sri Lanka should win. But if lightning strikes twice, there is a chance that West Indies could. And because of that it is hard to know who is going to win. Will we get a repeat of the other night or will Sri Lanka win? And if we do get a repeat, will Sri Lanka have learned how to combat it?

Read More

Pakistan team to win semi-final: Zaka Ashraf

By AM Khan

LAHORE, Pakistan (TheSportsNEXT) October 4, 2012: Chairman Pakistan Cricket Broad (PCB) Chaudhry Zaka Ashraf expressed his hope on Wednesday that the national cricket team would win semi-final against Sri Lanka because players are united and have performed very well throughout the ICC World Twenty20 2012.

Zaka Ashraf told local media here that Mohammad Hafeez was leading the team in good fashion as skipper and the team was fully capable to perform well.

The team would win World Twenty20 title because it has developed into a good combination, Zaka maintained.

To a query regarding Shahid Afridi’s future, he said: “Afridi is an outstanding all-rounder and has the ability to change the situation of match. I hope Afridi will perform as he was key player in past.”

"We have appointed a fielding coach and now team is showing good result in fielding,” he added.

He said that team would keep playing with the same spirit and perform well to bring more laurels for the country.

Captain Hafeez said that team would succeed in semi-final. “We will fulfill the hopes of the nation.”

Read More

ICCWT20: First Semi-Final Preview: Bowling Comparison

By Hamad Hussain

KARACHI, Pakistan (TheSportsNEXT) October 4, 2012: The first semi final of the ICC World Twenty20 2012 will be played between 2009 world champions Pakistan and the then finalists Sri Lanka in Colombo on Thursday (today) and it would be cracker of a game as both teams have some of the finest bowling talent in their ranks.

Sri Lanka might have a little edge on fast bowling department with Nuwan Kulasekara, Lasith Malinga, Thisara Perera, and Angelo Mathews all are in very good bowling form and are enjoying good record against Pakistan; especially Thisara Perera, who was the star performer during Pakistan’s tour to Sri Lanka earlier this year.

On the other hand, Pakistan are struggling in their fast bowling department as their premier bowler Umar Gul is facing the worst time of his international career and has shown no control whatsoever on his deliveries.

In absence of quality fast bowlers, Pakistan will have to heavily rely on their spin bowlers who bowled 18 overs in their last Super Eights contest against Australia.

The big worry for Pakistan, apart from their vulnerable batting, is the form of their star bowler Shahid Khan Afridi, who has been off-color since last two months and is yet to justify his place in the squad. He is due for his big performance as he had won Pakistan the matches on his own in the past and his record against Sri Lanka is also very impressive. The stage is set for Boom Boom Afridi to fire today as all cricket lovers and fans of Lala are expecting BIG EFFORT from him in this crucial match.

Despite of an in-form pace bowling attack, Sri Lanka still have something to worry about as their spinners have not come up with huge performances consistently. Their premier spinner Ajantha Mendis who, after taking six wickets against minnows Zimbabwe, hardly made an impact in the Super Eights matches. He was thrashed by Samit Patel of England in their last Super Eights match.

The encouraging sign for Sri Lanka is the impressive performances of their back-up spinners Jeewan Mendis and young Akila Dananjaya as both took five and four wickets in the tournament, respectively.

The cricket lovers will be watching a very evenly-contested semi-final today as Sri Lanka will look to take revenge of their defeat in the 2009 final to the hands of Pakistan while on the other hand Pakistan will want to improve their WT20 record by qualifying for the final this year after their horrible defeat in 2010 T20 World Cup semi-final against Australia.

Read More

India WT20 debacle’s conspiracy theory

By Adrian Meredith

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 4, 2012: In case you weren't aware, Indian cricket, from the players, administrators, sports journalists and fans, are all convinced that other teams conspired to get them knocked out of the ICC World T20 semi-final stage.

Their evidence is that they were one of only four teams with four wins from five games - along with Sri Lanka, Australia and Pakistan - and therefore should have been the 4th team to qualify - ahead of West Indies who only managed two wins and a no result. They argue that the other three teams in their group - Australia, Pakistan and South Africa - all conspired, along with the people who made the rules on how the Super Eights groups were divided - to make sure that India wouldn't qualify. They paid particular attention to Australia, claiming that Australia didn't want to face them in the semi-finals.

Except that Australia wouldn't have had to face them.

Had India qualified - by virtue of Australia beating Pakistan - India would have had to play Sri Lanka in the semi-finals, not Australia. Australia would still be facing West Indies. It would then have been a question of whether Australia and India won their respective semi-final matches. If they had, then they would have faced off.

But why would Australia be worried? After all, they had already played against each other in this World T20, in the first Super Eights match, which Australia won quite convincingly. Why would Australia be worried about a team that they beat easily less than a week ago? I would think that Australia would be more nervous about facing Sri Lanka, who are at home and in great form.

The reality is that there was no fix.

Australia knew that to guarantee that they qualified they could either beat Pakistan or lose narrowly. If they batted first, then a narrow loss could be losing with five overs to spare; but the exact amount of overs wouldn't be known until their innings was over. As such, to make it simpler, and to put it all in their own hands, they batted second, to chase. They knew that they could afford to lose by anything up to 37 runs. In other words, however much Pakistan got, their first target would be to get 37 runs less than that. Do that, and no matter how much India beat South Africa by, they would still qualify.

Of course, Australia may still have qualified if they'd lost by 50 runs; but then they'd qualify in second spot and if India beat South Africa by enough India would qualify in their place. They didn't want to take that chance.

Australia's first aim was to qualify for the semi-finals. After Pakistan scored 149, their first aim was to get 112, 37 runs less than that.

The aim was to get that total around the 15th over, ideally, with 3 or 4 wickets down. They weren't going to go for the win until they got that target. If they got the 112 in the 20th over, that would be good enough too, but they didn't want to make it that tight.

Once Australia got past the target, their aim was to then go for it, knowing that the match no longer mattered for them, now hoping to stuff up their opponents, Pakistan, and to keep the winning momentum going by winning the match.

As it turned out, Australia lost early wickets. Sure, they could have taken huge risks to go for 10 or 12 runs per over, and sure they might have won the game. But if they tried to do that, they could have got all out for 70 or 80, and been knocked out of the entire competition.

Instead, as everyone saw, Australia paced themselves, preserving wickets then slowly lifting the run rate, aiming to get past the 112 run target by about the 17th over. But Pakistan bowled so well that even that didn't happen, and instead Australia only just got there in the 20th over! And with only three wickets in hand! It was tough going!

Pakistan, of course, were aiming for the win first, because a loss would make it hard for them to qualify, then to win by as much as possible, and a win by 37 runs was their target too. But Pakistan didn't care that much that Australia got past the 112 run target, just so long as it wasn't much beyond it.

As it turned out, both Pakistan and Australia had a target in mind that would mean that they both qualified. And, with both teams aiming for the same score, they did it.

Of course, that didn't knock India out. It only knocked South Africa out.

South Africa could have just given up and not bothered; but they had been stuffed over by other sides when they were in India's position, and they had a sense of revenge on their minds. South Africa's aim was purely to try to stop India from qualifying. Why? Because they could, and because it would feel like a victory! An actual victory would be their secondary aim.

India have nobody to blame but themselves though.

Remember that India were huge favourites to win against Australia, and had they won that match, they wouldn't have been in this position.

India knew that, batting first, they had to win by 31 runs. They could only hope to defend 140; but preferably they'd want to be defending 160, and hence they would want a total of at least 170, but ideally 200+.

To do that, India would have to take risks. They'd have to go for all of their shots. They'd have to send their big hitters up the order. They'd have to risk getting out cheaply and losing the match badly. Basically what West Indies did in their game against New Zealand. That's what India should have done.

Instead, India played like they believed the conspiracy, believing that the world was against them. They didn't take overly big risks, just playing a moderate, average innings.

When they bowled, they were effectively defending a mere 121, and to defend that they would need to take huge risks. But again they refused.

India have nobody to blame but themselves.

If India were in the same position as South Africa, where their only aim would be to stuff up the other team, they'd try to do it too.

If India were in the same position as Australia, where they just had to lose narrowly, they'd do that too.

It had nothing to do with Australia not wanting to face India. It was wholly about trying to qualify for the semi finals.

If you saw the way that Michael Hussey punched his fists in the air when Australia passed the 112 mark, you'd know that Australia were aiming to qualify for the semi finals. If it was just to stuff India up, he'd have punched his fists after they lost the game narrowly.

Please, Indian conspiracy theorists, get over it.

While there is merit in questioning the idea of deciding on the Super Eights groups before the tournament has started (I agree that it was poor planning that we ended up with four undefeated teams in one group and four teams that had all lost in the other), suggesting it is a conspiracy against India is silly.

New Zealand, for their part, failed to qualify after two ties that they lost in the Super Over - if there was no Super Over, they might have qualified for the semi finals.

And Bangladesh can be pretty upset too that Brendon McCullum's only good innings all tournament was against them and without it they would have qualified.

Let alone South Africa, who were unbeaten at the group stage but didn't carry any points forward, in spite of easily beating Sri Lanka, who are now top of their Super Eights group.

India can be upset, but don't feel like the world is against you and only you. It is a competitive sport. The world is against everyone!

Read More