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

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: ICC official admits to poor pitch for Pakistan-Sri Lanka Semi-Final

By Fathima Zanaida

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (TheSportsNEXT) October 6, 2012: Amid growing criticism on quality of the pitch used for the all-important Semi-Final match of the ICC World Twenty20 2012 between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, an official of the International Cricket Council has admitted to the poor quality of the pitch.

 

Sri Lanka struggled hard to score 139 runs on a pitch which had uneven bounce, double paced nature, which made shot-making the hardest job in the world. Pakistan were reduced to 123 runs thus falling 16 runs short of the target, thereafter a huge uproar has been started in the Pakistani media questioning the basic purpose of that pitch especially in a Twenty20 match.

The Twenty20 cricket came into being with a purpose to serve the audience with a huge dose of boundaries and sixes and the last night’s match between Australia and West Indies was a prime example of Twenty20 brand that we all are used to.

However, there is something fishy as far as pitch-selection for Pakistan cricket team’s matches in the ICC World Cup matches. Right from the ICC World Cup 2003 played in West Indies, Pakistan were made to play Ireland on a pitch that helped seam-bowlers more than any other pitch in the competition. During the 2007 ICC Champions Trophy, Pakistan had to play their matches against South Africa and New Zealand on seamers-friendly tracks. During the ICC World Cup 2011, Pakistan-India match was played on a pitch which lacked quality of an international match. And now the semi-final match had the worst pitch of the tournament to decide one of the top three important matches.

ICC Chief Executive Officer, Dave Richardson, came on the scene on Saturday admitting the pitch used for Pakistan-Sri Lanka semi-final match was below standard and wasn’t “Ideal” for Twenty20 cricket.

Although he mentioned all the pros and cons in preparation of the pitches, but failed to answer why it’s Pakistani matches which find such pitches.

Dave Richardson, while talking to reporters in Colombo on the eve of ICC World Twenty20 final, said, "Ideally, we need to ensure that a pitch doesn't change its condition from one innings to next one. Yes, the pitch used in the first semifinal wasn't an ideal wicket for T20 format, as there was too much assistance to spinners”.

Read More

Pakistani, Indian senior cricketers face quit calls

By Abhishek Manroa

NEW DELHI, India (TheSportsNEXT) October 6, 2012: Pakistani and Indian skippers are under tremendous pressure to step down from their position after their respective team’s exit from the ongoing ICC World Twenty20 2012.

 

Indian cricket team crashed out of the ICC World Twenty20 2012 at Super Eights stage while its arch-rival Pakistan was knocked out by hosts Sri Lanka in the first Semi-Final by 16 runs the other night.

While India’s performance was not up to the expectations of the local fans, Pakistan did manage to finish among the four best Twenty20 teams in world cricket but despite of a great show, former cricketers and local media has really gone after Mohammad Hafeez and his men.

The center of criticism in both Pakistan and India are the senior cricketers where Indian media has lamented Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Gautam Gambhir. Across the Line-of-Control (LoC), Pakistani media has took apart senior cricketers like Shahid Khan Afridi, Shoaib Malik, Imran Nazir, Kamran Akmal, Sohail Tanvir, and Yasir Arafat.

The main argument behind the stern criticism is the pace of the shortest format of the game which is best-suited for younger cricketers as players like Suresh Raina, Virat Kohli, and Ravichandran Ashwin have impressed the Indian fans while Pakistani fans feel upbeat about Raza Hasan, Asad Shafiq, Nasir Jamshed, and Umar Akmal.

Former Pakistan Test fast bowler, Sikandar Bakht told TheNation on Friday, “There is a lesson in every defeat. For Pakistan, there are genuine concerns about the performance of their five to six senior players. They have remained inconsistent in the mega event”.

Sikandar Bakht showed no hesitation in naming these cricketers as he was of the view that skipper Mohammad Hafeez, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Malik, Kamran Akmal, Abdul Razzaq and Imran Nazir had failed to impress in the ICC flagship-event therefore Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) should make a decision about future of these players and replace them with new blood.

Aaqib Javed, another former pacer, who now does coaching for United Arab Emirates, had identical thoughts about the senior Pakistani cricketers. He said there were several young players who could take on the baton from the senior generation of cricketers and get going.

Former Test captain Aamir Sohail showed great disliking for opening batsman Imran Nazir and questioned the rationale behind his selection for such a huge event. "His inclusion in the team spoiled the team's composition. He tries to hit every ball and does not know to take singles”.

Basit Ali, the match-fixing whistleblower, was of the belief that it was worrying to watch Pakistan failing to chase an easy target of 140 runs. Demanding the PCB to do away with foreign coach Dav Whatmore, Basit Ali said, "We don't need foreign coaches in the presence of Javed Miandad and other Pakistani cricket legends”.

On the other hand, Indian cricket team is facing even harder response from the former cricketers as well as a hostile media as they have witnessed a visible decline from their last year’s triumph in the ICC World Cup 2011.

After failing to qualify for the semi-finals of the ICC World Twenty20 for the third consecutive time after winning the inaugural event in South Africa, former cricketers are demanding MS Dhoni and his men to decide on their future to leave way for the younger generation who has improved leaps and bounds at the Indian Premier League (IPL).

Former Pakistan cricket captain, Wasim Akram, who is coaching the IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders, put the whole blame of defeat on Mahendra Singh Dhoni mentioning his flawed selection policy.

Wasim Akram was quoted as saying for ESPNStar.com. "I am puzzled with the way the Indian team management has picked playing XIs. For example, I feel a wicket-taking bowler like Harbhajan Singh was missed against the ragged South Africans on Tuesday night.

Talking about Zaheer Khan, Wasim Akram stated, "I have said before that Zaheer has to choose the format of cricket he wants to play. I can't see him running in hard every ball and bamboozling batsmen with pace and movement. India must find replacements and very soon at that. India need fresh legs and stronger shoulders because they will be playing a series of matches at home from November”.

Wasim Akram was quick enough to name replacements for Zaheer Khan. "Where is Umesh Yadav? And Varun Aaron seems to be a forgotten name. With the new selection committee in place, both Umesh and Varun should be groomed to power India's pace battery. I hear Varun is injured. I think the BCCI needs to get after him and pull him out of his problems. At least Umesh should have been in the T20 squad," he added.

Amid all the criticism and calls for captain’s resignation, there were some positives for both Pakistan and India as Virat Kohli once again exhibited his true colors at the biggest stage for India while Pakistan discovered Nasir Jamshed as a proper batsman in their top-order. As far as bowling is concerned, Pakistan were more fortunate as they found Raza Hasan as a true replacement for Abdur Rehman but Indian bowling woes sustain as their skipper feels no confidence in the experienced Harbhajan Singh and he mostly put him on the bench rather than using his skills against the top opposition in the tournament.

Yuvraj Singh, who recently rejoined the Team India after beating cancer, was another factor to relish for the Indian cricket fans as he was among the top wicket takers for the Men in Blue with eight wickets. Yuvi was the second leading wicket taker for India as Lakshmipathy Balaji took nine wickets despite of going for too many runs.

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: Blunders and Controversies hitting Pakistan, Sri Lanka skippers

By Hamad Hussain

KARACHI, Pakistan (TheSportsNEXT) October 4, 2012: As former World T20 champions Pakistan and title favorites Sri Lanka will fight for the place in the final of ICC World T20 2012 today, I want to bring my readers’ attention towards the controversies hitting captains of the two teams during their Super Eights matches.

The much-awaited match of the ICC World T20 2012 was played between arch-rivals Pakistan and India on Sunday September 30, 2012. The match which had created the hype and caught attention of billions of people proved nothing more than a drop-scene as India outclassed Pakistan in a one-sided encounter. Every cricket follower is well aware that Indian cricket team always prefers to chase totals as batting is their prime strength. But on that day, when billions of people were watching the two bitter neighbors clash in Sri Lanka, Pakistani skipper Mohammad Hafeez made a blunder of decision when he won the toss and decided to bat first which ultimately laid the foundation of Pakistan defeat.

The strange decision of Pakistani skipper shocked not only millions of Pakistani cricket lovers but also his teammates as well as the team management in Colombo as it was decided in the team meeting that Pakistan will bowl first after winning the toss to reduce Indian chances of victory.

So far, Mohammad Hafeez is yet to justify his decision of batting first against India as cricket lovers are still trying to understand the logic behind Hafeez’s strange decision.

On the other hand, Sri Lankan cricket team were entered in controversy in their last Super Eights match against England when they sent Kumar Sangakkara for the toss despite of the fact that both captain Mahela Jayawardene and vice captain Angelo Mathews were playing in the match but Sri Lankan team management decided to give captaincy to Kumar Sangakkara in the important match.

It raised eyebrows of many cricket followers as this may be sign of some revolt or dispute within the Sri Lankan team as Mahela got back the captaincy this year after he resigned from the post in 2009. Sri Lanka had Kumar Sangakkara as skipper after Mahela but defeat in final of ICC 2011 World Cup against India prompted him to leave the job. Dilshan was named skipper but Sri Lankan cricket team had a horrible time under him, so Mahela was reinstated as skipper of Sri Lanka but latest twist in the captaincy game against England has certainly something fishing.

The Sri Lankan team management has give stupid reason of over-rate penalty to skipper as they feel that if Sri Lankan skipper will be fined for slow over-rate, then Mahela or Mathews may have to be left out from the semi-final as both were penalized for slow over-rate in last one year. As per ICC rules, if skipper is penalized twice in a year for slow over-rate, then he will have to serve one-match suspension from match referee.

The question that arises here is that what Sri Lanka will do if they reach in the final of the tournament and their skipper will get penalized for slow over-rate?

The stupid decision may have something to do with the conflicts in the team which Sri Lankan team management is trying to hide.

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

Shane Watson glitters at ICC Twenty20 Rankings

By Nadene Smith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 3, 2012: Australian star all-rounder Shane Watson has achieved the highest pinnacle of his Twenty20 International career as the stylish opening batsman and pacey fast bowler has surged in all categories at the Reliance ICC Twenty20 Rankings, updated on Wednesday.

Shane Watson has enjoyed the ICC World Twenty20 2012 the most as he is the top scoring batsman, top wicket-taking bowlers, winner of four Man of the Match awards out of five matches besides hitting most number of fours and sixes.

Prior to Australia’s last Super Eights match against Pakistan, Shane Watson had already scored 255 runs, taken 10 wickets, hit 15 sixes and 22 fours, besides enjoying the best batting average of 84 and best bowling average of 16.35 while he also boasted the best strike rate in the tournament of 169 runs per 100 balls. He has also bowled two maiden overs in the Twenty20 tournament as well.

As per the latest Reliance ICC Rankings for Twenty20 Internationals, Shane Watson has jumped by one place to second in the list of top batsmen, surged by a place to sixth in the list of top bowlers, while he kept hold of his top position in the list of best all-rounders in the shortest format of The Gentlemen’s Game.

Cricketers from the Australian continent have been the star performers in the ICC World Twenty20 2012 and an integral part of the “Unlucky” New Zealand, Brendon McCullum registered his name in the history books with the luscious century against Bangladesh in the first round of the tournament. Brendon McCullum, by dint of that match-winning hundred, is still the best batsman in the ICC T20 Rankings for Batsmen. Former West Indian skipper Chris Gayle was replaced by Shane Watson in the second place thus pushing the best hitter in T20 cricket down to third. Sri Lankan skipper Mahela Jaywardene is fourth, Suresh Raina of India is fifth, Australia dashing opening batsman David Warner is at sixth, Tillakaratne Dilshan of Sri Lanka and Eoin Morgan of England are jointly placed at seventh, Kumar Sangakkara of Sri Lanka is at ninth, while New Zealand opening batsman Martin Guptill completes the top 10 batsmen in Twenty20 Internationals in the ICC Rankings.

Surprisingly enough, none of the Pakistani batsmen, who have great reputation as Twenty20 specialists, are in the top 10 list. However, Pakistani bowlers are easily found in the Reliance ICC T20 Rankings for Bowlers with the world’s best T20 bowler being Saeed Ajmal despite of getting snubbed by the International Cricket Council in the LG ICC Awards. Graeme Swann of England is second while Ajantha Mendis of Sri Lanka is the third best bowler in the list. The top bowlers are followed by Nathan McCullum of New Zealand at fourth, Johan Botha of South Africa at fifth, Shane Watson of Australia at sixth, Shahid Afridi of Pakistan at seventh, Mohammad Hafeez of Pakistan at eighth, Nuwan Kulasekara of Sri Lanka at ninth, while Abdur Razzak of Bangladesh is ranked as the 10^th best bowler in the ICC T20 Rankings.

Interestingly, Shane Watson of Australia is the best fast bowler in the ICC T20 Rankings for Bowlers as eight out of the top 10 T20 bowlers are finger and wrist spinners.

As far as the best all-rounders in Twenty20 cricket are concerned, the ICC T20 Rankings for All-Rounders has Shane Watson of Australia as the very best in the business. Mohammad Hafeez and Shahid Afridi of Pakistan are second and third in the list, respectively. Former Bangladesh skipper Shakib Al Hasan was the only performer for the team in the ICC World Twenty20 which helped him improving his rank to fourth from fifth which is now captured by Chris Gayle.

Read More

2012 ICC World Twenty20 Super Eights Review

By ‎Adrian Meredith

VICTORIA, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) October 3, 2012: Ah, the permutations! To put it simply, all 8 teams had a chance of making the semi finals and all 8 had a chance of missing out. There you go. For the top two in each group, winning would guarantee a spot, while for the bottom 2 a loss would mean that they couldn't make it; but for the middle two a win might not be enough and a loss may be enough. Gah! Anyway, enough of that, let's focus on the matches.

-->

17th Match, Group 1: England vs New Zealand pitted two teams who were both 1 win and 2 losses for the tournament, both 0 wins and 1 loss in the weak group in the Super 8. England were favourites, virtue of being reigning champions and until recently ranked 1st in the world; but their performances of late have been a lot weaker. Batting first, New Zealand got off to a slow and shaky start, losing both openers early, as well as number 3 Brendon McCullum, whose amazing 123 against Bangladesh seems to be a one off - poor Bangladesh probably should have qualified if not for that innings! Indeed, New Zealand were in trouble right through, and English bowler Steve Finn opened up debate after kicking the stumps over while bowling, the ball was hit for 4 by James Franklin and then it was called a dead ball - not a no ball - cancelling the run. The majority seem to think that it should be a no ball, as it is effectively cheating, by overly distracting the batsman. Steve Finn is basically the only one doing it regularly so he is, in effect, cheating. Finn finished with 3/16 off his 4 overs, having kicked over the stumps several times, and New Zealand finished with a mere 6/148, far from enough to be competitive. England started cautiously before Vettori came on in the 4th over - an odd time as spinners usually either open the bowling or wait until after the 6 over power play - but it worked to dismiss out of form wicket keeper batsman Craig Kieswetter. But from there it was easy as Luke Wright went on a rampage, scoring 75 off 43, including 5 6s and 5 4s. Wright was out with 7 runs required in 10 balls; but they needed just 3 more balls as England completed an easy victory.

18th Match, Group 1: Sri Lanka vs West Indies had the two teams that had won their first Super 6 matches facing off, with Sri Lanka marginal favourites, largely because of home ground advantage. West Indies batted first but after a typically cautious start, Gayle was out before he went on with it, out for a mere 2 off 9 balls while Johnson Charles was out the other before for 12 off 21 balls. Ajantha Mendis, fresh from getting belted all around by New Zealand, having previously got 6/8, now was suddenly back in form, getting 2 for 12. Marlon Samuels and Dwayne Bravo tried to spark a recovery but it was all too little too late as West Indies finished with a pathetic 129. Sri Lanka made short work of it with Mahela Jayawardene scoring 65 not out off 49 balls as Sri Lanka lost just 1 wicket in reaching the target with almost 5 overs to spare. Ajantha Mendis could have got the man of the match award for his 2 for 12 but Jayawardene got it.

19th Match, Group 2: Australia vs South Africa had Australia with 1 win while South Africa had 0, but South Africa were still probably favourites. Xavier Doherty, playing his first match this tournament, opened the bowling and had Richard Levi out clean bowled in the first over, to send the momentum going Australia's way. Doherty ended up with 3/20 off his 4 overs, also getting Kallis and J P Duminy! But right when it all looked over for South Africa, their middle order brought them back into it, through Behardien and especially Robin Peterson. Shane Watson almost overshadowed Doherty's performance by taking 2 for 29 himself, as they were the only two Australian bowlers that took wickets. Australia started slowly when batting, with David Warner clean bowled in the 4th over with just 10 runs on the board. But after a fair amount of watching Michael Hussey and Shane Watson launched, with Watson finished with 70 off 47 balls, the highest score in the entire game. Cameron White got a bash at the end when it no longer mattered as Australia cruised home with 2 and a half overs to spare, having only lost 2 wickets.

20th Match, Group 2: India vs Pakistan pitted famous rivals, with India having won the past 8 World Cup matches (including both ODI and T20 versions), going back to 1992. Both teams seemed to know it as it seemed a foregone conclusion that India would win from the very start. Nobody scored more than 28 and Pakistan finished all out for just 128. Wickets were shared around, and India showed that they do best when going in with 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers, as Yuvraj Singh took 2 wickets and even Virat Kohli managed to take 1 wicket - and bowl 3 overs. Gautam Gambhir was out caught and bowled in the first over but from there it became very easy for India as Virat Kohli continued on with his amazing form, scoring 78 not out off 61 balls as India won with 3 full overs to spare, having only lost 2 wickets.

21st Match, Group 1: New Zealand vs West Indies should have been simple for West Indies and this time Chris Gayle didn't block so much, smashing 3 4s and 2 6s out of 30 runs off just 14 balls, before he was dismissed. Johnson Charles, his new opener, failed this time, managing only 8 off 9. Bowler Andre Russell was promoted right up to number 3 for some reason, scored 6 runs, and was out. And it looked like an overly risky time to experiment. West Indies were going at around 8 or 9 runs per over early, on target to lift it up to 200+; but the problem was that they just kept losing wickets. In the end, their run rate lowered all the way down to 7.12 and then they were out before the end of the 20th over, all out for just 139. The thing is that this wasn't so much good bowling from New Zealand but more bad tactics from West Indies, with the riskiest element of it the promotion of Andre Russell. Thankfully for West Indies, New Zealand weren't playing particularly well and struggled to cope with what was an ordinary run rate. Brendon McCullum failed again, scoring just 22 off 18, and it was all left to Ross Taylor. We soon learned that the calculations meant that whoever lost in this match was definitely out of the competition, due to New Zealand having a higher run rate than West Indies. And West Indies were looking a very good chance of losing. Thankfully for them, they had 2 wonderful spinners in Samuel Badree and Sunil Narine, with Narine especially running through the New Zealand batting. Sunil Narine had figures of 3 for 20 and was definitely a match winner. But then, with 14 required off the last over, and the top 4 bowlers all bowled out, West Indies had a choice of using either Keiron Pollard, who had bowled 2 poor overs, or Chris Gayle who had bowled 1 really bad over, or they could have used the specialist bowler Andre Russell who oddly hadn't bowled at all. But instead of all of that they used Marlon Samuels! It was an incredible move! It very, very, nearly failed, but tight fielding managed to secure the tie - New Zealand's second in their 3 Super 8 matches. This time around it was New Zealand going through for the suicidal 2nd run off the last ball and getting run out. Phew! Now, with New Zealand batting first in the Super Over everyone expected star bowler Sunil Narine to bowl; but instead it was Marlon Samuels! He was smashed all around for 17 runs! It looked for all the world like New Zealand were going to win! Chris Gayle came out to bat, with Marlon Samuels opening with him and first ball from Tim Southee it was a no ball and was smashed over the boundary for a 6! From there, West Indies managed to get the job done fairly easily, with a ball to spare, the 5th ball just going over the fielder's head for 6. Phew! But tactically this was a terrible effort. West Indies, on talent, should have won this easily. Their captain Darren Sammy will have to do a much better effort in the semi finals.

22nd Match, Group 1: Sri Lanka vs England had a fairly simple equation for Sri Lanka - win and they were through - or lose but not by much. For England it was even simpler - any kind of victory would be enough, as their run rate was better than West Indies. Sri Lanka batted first and were consistent right the way through, a real team effort, all 8 batsmen getting to double figures, but nobody getting more than 42, all scoring at a run a ball but nobody going berserk, on the way to 6 for 169. Stuart Broad managed 3 for 32 and Graeme Swann took 2 for 26 but the runs looked to be simply too many. When England came out to bat, they were just nudging it around before Lasith Malinga came in for the 3rd over and immediately took 3 wickets in 4 balls - his 3rd, 5th and 6th. And then, incredibly, he didn't bowl the next over! No hat-trick ball, let's let England get a partnership going! Sri Lanka dominated this match so comfortably that it was scary. It was like they didn't even have to lift a gear. New bowler Akila Dananjaya took 2 wickets but when Malinga returned, he took 2 more wickets, but no hat-trick, finally finishing with 5 for 31. In between all of that, Samit Patel managed a useless 67 off 48, that never looked likely to drag the total into manageable proportions, while Graeme Swann had a bit of fun in scoring 34 off 20, as the only two scorers of over 12. But all that their efforts did was to make the margin look close. In the end, the margin of 19 runs heavily flattered England - in reality England were flogged. This result also meant that Sri Lanka qualified along with West Indies - England would have needed to get the runs within 7 overs to knock Sri Lanka out.

23rd Match, Group 2: Australia vs Pakistan had, until a couple of days ago, the two undefeated teams, except that India had spoiled the party by beating Pakistan. Australia decided to bat 2nd, so that they would know exactly what they needed to qualify for the semi finals. While they'd like to win, they knew that they only needed to lose narrowly to qualify, and by batting 2nd they knew just how close they had to get. Pakistan didn't bat overly well early until Nasir Jamshed and Kamran Akmal brought them back into the match. But a score of 149 looked inadequate. It looked like Australia would reel the target in easily. But first they were looking at what they needed to qualify for the semi finals - 112. Their aim was to get that 112 first, make sure of that, then, if they get that early enough, then go for the win. Pakistan opened with 2 spin bowlers, and the combination of Mohammad Hafeez and Raza Hasan were really troubling Australia's champion opening partnership - the best openers in World T20 cricket, in Shane Watson and David Warner. They were going at around 3 or 4 runs per over, far too low when they needed 7.5 for the win, and low even for the 5.6 they needed to qualify. Then Watson was surprised in the 4th over to be out LBW, before he even got going, to Raza Hasan. The very next over, Mohammad Hafeez had David Warner out LBW. That may sound suspicious, but both were out plumb - no umpiring errors here! From there, Australia fought back through Michael Hussey and captain George Bailey, both trying to preserve wickets and lift the run rate, a hard ask indeed, as Pakistan switched to 2 more spinners in the world's best T20 bowler Saeed Ajmal and the 2nd best Shahid Afridi. Bailey was finally out LBW as well, this time for 15. Cameron White tried to break the shackles but after smashing one monster 6 he was out on the boundary going for a second. Glenn Maxwell, supposedly the big hitter yet striking at just over 100, looked all at sea and was out cheaply and then came Matthew Wade, the last of the recognised batsmen, with 5 down for 65. Australia needed 47 runs off 39 balls just to qualify for the semis - let alone the 85 off 39 balls that they needed to win - and this with just 5 wickets in hand! Just qualifying was going to be tough! But Wade blocked while Hussey picked his balls and smashed it around in a truly amazing innings of 54 off 47 balls. It was a match winning innings, in a sense, as all of Australia were so happy when Hussey hit the winning runs, uh, the runs to qualify Australia for the semi finals, as they passed 112. It was hard work, very hard, but they had done it. Pakistan didn't care and the crowd didn't care, but Hussey sure did. By that stage Wade and Cummins were out and it was just Hussey and Mitchell Starc together, just 3 wickets in hand, with 5 balls to go to get the last 38 runs to win the match. 38 off 5 is a bit much, and instead they added just 5 more. Australia had qualified and, barring a miracle, so too had Pakistan. For me, Michael Hussey was the man of the match but since Pakistan won, Raza Hasan got the man of the match award for his 2 for 14 off the full 4 overs.

24th Match, Group 2: India vs South Africa now had only one more place up for grabs - India had to win by at least 31 runs or with 24 balls remaining to qualify - otherwise Pakistan would. South Africa were no chance to qualify. South Africa's aim was to thwart India, either through victory or through losing by less than that, and making sure that India wouldn't qualify. Finally they would get to play spoilsport, as so many other teams had played to them in tournaments past. India wanted to bowl first so that they would know how many overs they would need to chase down the target but instead South Africa won the toss and, just to upset India, they bowled first. Indian commentators were complaining that Australia, Pakistan and maybe even South Africa too had all conspired to make sure that they couldn't make the semi finals - the ridiculous story going was that Australia were afraid to face India! Yet Australia's opponents were going to be West Indies and why would they be afraid of India who they just beat easily a few days earlier? Australia had simply looked after themselves by making sure that they qualified; it just so happened that they were unable to go for the win. India looked like they thought that the result was a foregone conclusion. Batting first they should have adopted the kind of approach that West Indies tried against New Zealand - taking huge risks to try to get 200+. Instead, they plodded around and nobody really launched, plodding along to a mere 152 off their 20 overs, meaning that South Africa had to get a mere 121 to thwart them. That target was easy for South Africa and they then seriously threatened the victory target too. In the end, India held on for a tight 1 run win, but it was the emptiest of victories, for South Africa very much felt like they had won the game - after all, they had succeeded in their aim to thwart India, and India, in spite of the victory, very much felt like losers. Yuvraj Singh was something of a surprise choice as man of the match for his 21 off 15 balls and 2 for 23 with the ball, rather nondescript figures. But in reality there was no real man of the match. There was more one team stuffing up the other to get revenge on the whole choker tag - they made sure that it was India who choked this time around, caused by them.

Read More