Pakistan and England World T20 champs

Congratulations to the Pakistan men's and England women's teams for winning their respective World T20 championships.

I didn't expect to but, as with the IPL, I watched quite a lot of the men's tournament and much of the small amount of the women's which Sky/ Foxtel showed.

Some observations

# Great to see spin bowlers, eg Ajanta Mendis, play such an often positive part in many matches.

# Also good to see some excellent wicketkeeping on show, notably James Foster of England with an honourable mention to the feisty Irishman Niall O'Brien. Some excellent catches were also taken in the field.

# The Duckworth-Lewis method is inappropriate for these ultra short matches, especially when one team has an absurdly low number of overs and 10 wickets to chase a modest score. I thought that West Indies beat England in what the D/L rules turned into a walkover.

# Without seeking to detract from the winners' achievements (or to excuse Australia's early exit from the men's tournament) it must be acknowledged that upsets are more likely when there are fewer overs bowled.

# The Sky/ Foxtel TV coverage was generally good, though some commentators in the women's matches, eg Ian Chappell and David "Bumble" Lloyd, at times forgot (eg "man on the boundary", "batsman") that they were not describing the men's game.

Trivia

Which player appeared with a black eye?
Answer here .

Cricinfo summaries

Men's

Women's

Brief Australian encounter with World T20

In the ICC World T20 Australia lost its first game to an unfancied West Indies

Next Sri Lanka defeated Australia and thereby eliminated them from the tournament.

As Ricky Ponting said after the game Australia have now lost five international T20 fixtures on the trot . Well short of world champion standard.

No excuses: it's clear that our national team just hasn't adapted to the new format which even purists like me have to acknowledge has its own appeal. The 20 over a side format means that upsets (eg England's loss to the Netherlands ) are more frequent but class should still trump good luck most of the time (even if Ireland seem to have ridden their luck and that of their draw well enough to move on to the next stage).

Results from Cricinfo.

Which was the more important match?

India and Australia slugged out a draw over five days in the Third Test at Delhi, while the Stanford Superstars (a a quasi- official West Indian eleven) thrashed the highly favoured England team by 10 wickets in the high profile and highly rewarded one off Twenty20 match in Antigua.

I saw little of the former and nothing of the latter match so can't make much in the way of worthwhile comments about either. From the media reports I've read it seems that we may, despite some distaste among some media commentators, see more games played according to the Stanford model. This isn't something I welcome but if the short time frame, high stakes and associated razzamatazz combine to enlarge the audience for that form of cricket then I'd hope that some of that audience would come in time to appreciate the virtues of the longer form of the game. But I'm not confident that this will happen.

IPL

I must be the last blogger with even the slightest interest in cricket to post about the IPL, but here goes.

Like many others in these parts I've kept awake longer than I should have to watch the matches, or some of them, or parts of some of them. Channel Ten hasn't helped by delaying the telecasts of many matches (some not even being screened until they are over). Why this is so is beyond me.

Enough for now about that.

Here are some (very general) observations:

• The League is a competition of high standard but some way below international standard
• That said some of the non-international players have performed very well
• While the main batting performances have come from established (if not all top drawer eg Brendon McCullum) international players the bowling achievements - economy rates as well as averages and wickets - have been spread more evenly across the spectrum of experience
• There have been more low scoring games than I expected, partly because of some poor pitches though also because of good bowling.

Australia win T20 practice match as India crumble

Australia 1/75 in 11.2 overs (M Clarke 37 no) defeated India all out 74 in 17.3 overs(N Bracken 3/11) by 9 wickets with 52 balls to spare.

The match was played at the MCG before 84,041 spectators. India, whose officials had indicated that they would treat the game as a practice match, did not include Sachin Tendulkar. Ricky Ponting did not play for Australia because of injury.

Enough said?

For more information see:

Scorecard (includes ball by ball commentary), and Cricinfo Bulletin.

The Age covers cricket's broad spectrum

Today's Age has some very good (or better) articles about what it describes as "the game's broad spectrum".

These range from the future of Test cricket (Greg Baum"'s "Put to the Test") , several pieces about the Australia - India series (including Alex Brown on Australia's apparent fast bowling riches, Peter Roebuck on Sourav Ganguly and Lyall Johnson's analysis of Mr Cricket's way with words) , Twenty20 IPL cricket (Mr Brown and Chloe Saltau's analysis of the player contracts) , and club cricket (the first of a promised series by John Hanlon).

There's also an historical item "Weighing up Bradman's MCG legacy", once again by Mr Baum.

The Age looks like being the print and online media outlet of choice for serious Australian cricket followers over the next few weeks.

One sided contest shows that not all T20 games are close

The margin in tonight's Australia - New Zealand game was "only" 54 runs, but in Twenty20 cricket that's a yawning chasm. Not that the large crowd at the WACA had much time to yawn as the Black Caps collapsed in response to Australia's 6/186 (20 ov). They scratched, edged and snicked their way to 5/31 (7.5 ov) including three ducks, then 6/49 (9.6 ov), and 7/59 (11.4 ov) before Jacob Oram 66 /31 b (5x4, 6x6) entertained the crowd in a lost cause which ended after 18.3 overs when the last wicket fell at 132.

The fireworks were provided by the Australian batting, especially "Roy" (the soubriquet on his costume) Symonds 85/64b (7x4, 3x6), the five man Australian pace attack, some good fielding by both sides, and by the ground authorities after close of play.

A pre-match incident/ accident to Brad Hodge meant that Luke Pomersbach, the WA left hander, who'd recently been suspended by his state for drinking too much, was summoned from the WACA car park as a last minute replacement.

Scorecard.

Pause, break, hiatus, lull, siesta...

These are a few words which have been, or could be used to describe the weeks since the mini-series with Sri Lanka finished.

Years ago (like when Richie Benaud was captain) Australian cricket seasons were divided into those with touring teams and those without. In the former the touring side (note singular) progressed around the country playing matches (which were never called "warm up" matches) against state teams before the test series began, usually in late November/early December. If no overseas team toured the first class season comprised the home and away Sheffield Shield four day series between five states, with an occasional game involving Tasmania. This may explain why interstate cricket had a stronger following then. (How many contemporary South Australians could name more two or three Redbacks?)

Nowadays the emphasis is on international cricket in its three forms by which I mean test, 50 overs and Twenty20, not matches between the top tier of nations and those involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Although two tests are currently under way in the sub-continent the only Australian involvement on the field is via the umpires, whose job should be, and generally is to maintain a low media profile (though umpire Harper has incurred the displeasure of The Times cricket correspondent ).

It's hard to believe that at this time last year the Ashes series was well under way. That of course was shoehorned into a short period, and for the Australians at least, unlike this season with its crop of crocks was relatively injury free.

Anyway a kind of normality will soon be restored with the Australia- NZ Twenty20 game in Perth, followed by the Chappell-Hadlee series, which begins in Adelaide on Friday (where a hot high 30s day is forecast). So Australian reporters and bloggers will have something tangible to write about instead of having to speculate about whether Muttiah Muraliduran deserves to hold his record (I think he does, but may return to this another time) or if Australia should choose a spinner for the Boxing Day test (I think it's a good idea, but am not sure if there's anyone who can fit the bill).

PS Trivia task for the underoccupied: select a team from those who've missed a game or more this season due to injury.

Close contest strengthens future of Twenty20

India has defeated Pakistan by 5 runs at Johannesburg in the final of the inaugural world Twenty20 Championship.

I thought that India didn't make enough runs against generally hostile Pakistan bowling, though passing 150, from a not too difficult chance which Mohammad Hafeez not only fluffed but knocked over the boundary for 6, gave them something to bowl at on the slowish pitch.

Pakistan got off to a rollercoaster start: a wicket and 4 runs from the first probing R P Singh over, followed by a loose one by Sreesanth which conceded 21; Singh again took a wicket in his second; and then, surprisingly, a Sreesanth maiden. 4/31 from 4 overs set the pattern for the innings: each time as Pakistan seemed to pull ahead and position themselves for a final onslaught, they lost another wicket. 4/65 from 9 overs needed the middle order to fire, but Shoab Malik and Shahid Afridi were both dismissed by Irfan Pathan in the same over (6/77 from 11.4 overs). The 7th wicket fell, again to Pathan senior (whose brother made his international debut in the game). Misbah-ul-Haq launched an assault on Harbajan Singh but the errant Sreesanth took a wicket with his last ball (4 - 1 - 44 - 1!) . 8/138 from 18 overs became 9/141 from 19.5 overs.

An edged 4 from the final ball left 13 required from the last over. Joginder Sharma, not the best of the Indian attack, began with a wide: 12 required from 6b . Misbah-ul-Haq played and missed the next ball but hit the following one for six: now 6 required from 4 balls. For the first time in several overs Pakistan looked the likelier to win. But it wasn't to be as Misbah (43/38b) hit the next delivery to Sreesanth.

An enthralling game and one which will, despite the misgivings of cricket purists such as Gideon Haigh writing in today's Australian (and before the final was played), entrench Twenty20 even further in the international cricket calendar. Much as I enjoyed the final (and most of the other games I've seen), I'm not sure that I want it to diminish the amount of test cricket played between the stronger countries. But given the intense India - Pakistan rivalry and control of modern cricket, to which Haigh refers in his article (not to mention Australia's relatively modest performance) this is unlikely to happen.

Cricinfo's match package is here . The site also has a summary of newspaper comments (including Haigh's) from around the world.

India outplays Australia in Twenty20 semifinal

I stayed up overnight (almost to the equinoctial dawn as it turned out) to watch India defeat Australia in the Twenty20 semifinal at Durban.

While I was a Twenty20 sceptic (how can a proper cricket match consist of 20 overs a side?) I am less so now after watching some extraordinary individual performances, not all of them by batters. Yuvraj Singh's 70/30b deservedly won him the Player of the Match award, but two of the Indian bowlers S Sreesanth (4-1-12-2) and Harbajan Singh (4-0-24-1 towards the end) showed how wrong I was to think that this diluted form of the game is dominated by batters.

Yes, it isn't a middle order batter's (or mediocre bowler's) game: the Australian batting collapse confirmed the former and some individual overs the latter proposition. But there are sufficient opportunities for players (except, in many situations, nos 5 and beyond in the batting order) to shift the game in their team's direction.

Congratulations to India, who outplayed Australia. The 15 run margin of victory flattered Australia, who were a bowler and at least one batter light, and who, despite giving it their all in the field, weren't collectively as nimble as we've come to expect.

Upset of upsets as Zimbabwe beat Australia

I know it's only Twenty20, but it's an international tournament, a World Cup, so Australia should have done better than to lose to Zimbabwe by one wicket. I wonder how many people had put money on them at 50 to 1?

That said, and despite my aversion to the regime presently in power in Zimbabwe, I congratulate the cricketers.

The Australian team looked a bit unbalanced, with four quick bowlers, a no specialist spinner (Brad Hogg was omitted, though Andrew Symonds played) and two wicketkeepers. Zimbabwe also fielded two wicketkeepers, one whom, Brendan Taylor, topscored with the bat and apparently kept well (the other, Taitenda Taibu, made a more modest contribution).


No doubt the game will come as a wake up call to Australia, who must now beat England to progress further; and no doubt the media will enjoy rubbing salt into Australia's wounds.

Scorecard

Bring on the Twenty20 World Cup

I'll be following, though how closely remains to be seen, the Twenty20 World Cup which is about to begin in South Africa. While I'm not exactly a convert to the short-short form of the game, I'll reserve my judgment until I see how the tournament unfolds (but not, I hope, unravels).

It does seem to be very much a batter's game: high team scores (around the 180 - 200 mark) are essential while bowlers, as Darryl Cullinan writes on Cricinfo

are certain of trouble and of essentially having to get through four overs of damage control. They will, for a two-week period, be bowling machines, set up on placid pitches, and given not too much leeway. Some may consider eight to 10 runs conceded per over a job well done. Many will simply have the attitude of "Cross your fingers and hope for the best". Batsmen will determine their fate and humiliation in a manner which the game has never seen before. If the weather and the pitches are good, bowlers will die a thousand deaths.

Two views of the shortest form of the game

In the last two days The Age has published two pieces about Twenty20 cricket: the first, by
Waleed Aly, yesterday, and the second by H G Nelson today.

Whereas Nelson's approach is characteristically manic and scattergun (like Twenty20 itself), Aly begins by describing the game earlier this week as "a parading freak show" (a touch of Melbourne-Sydney rivalry here?) but goes on to make some good points about the differences between it and Test cricket:

Test cricket has a natural, but variable rhythm. Therein lies its secret: it is the subtle, sometimes sudden changes of tempo that make it so gripping, so intoxicating to the initiated.

Twenty20 has no secrets, having, as it does, all the subtlety of a summer sitcom. This game is fast all the time. As a cricketing experience, it is the equivalent of a rollercoaster ride: frantic, extreme and disposable.

Which is why it is such raucously good fun. Test matches are slow, tense battles of restraint, guile and attrition. Twenty20 is an expression of unadulterated freedom.

PS Tonight in the final of the Australian domestic Twenty compVictoria beat Tasmania, thereby preserving their unbeaten record over the two years the competition has been running.

Aussies win big bash easily

Twenty20 (is that how it's spelt?) cricket seems to favour the side batting first, especially in the current season where a few domestic games have been squeezed in over the new year.

So it was, at least from Australia's perspective, in tonight's "big bash" proved to be just that, . They reached 5/221 from their 20 overs, to which England, who lost too many early wickets, replied with 9/144.

Adam Gilchrist("Church" according to his shirt) for a time looked slow for a time but made 48 from 29 balls. Brad Hogg ("George" - his real name) bowled reasonably well (is he a candidate for a place in the Test team?), James Anderson ("Anderson"- the England players didn't go in for fancy names) conceded 64 from his 4 overs, and the England fielding was poor.

Scorecard