Sport is a selfish, chauvinistic business. And even supporters do navel-gazing, though I suppose I have a preference for some navels over others. Denise Lewis’ was always pretty good. I might pass up the opportunity if it involved rugby teams (male).
The semi-finals of T20/20 begin today with South Africa (who will probably win the competition) playing Pakistan (who are lucky to still be there). England didn’t deserve to be part of the later stages. In the course of the tournament, they beat Pakistan and India, but lost embarrassingly to Holland, were outplayed in every department by South Africa, and then were shaded by the West Indies in a rain affected game which they might have won if it had gone the whole distance.
The English team seemed mildly disappointed that they hadn’t done better. On the other hand the Indian team, who fancied themselves to win the tournament, looked thunderous after the defeat by England which condemned them to an early ride home. As with all Indian teams which fail to measure up to expectations, they knew what to expect on de-planing. The captain and wicketkeeper M.S. Dhoni will have to live with a guard on his house these next few weeks. Indian fans can be just that – fanatical to the point of dangerous.
India lost to England by a narrow margin – just three runs – and had it not been for two balls which contrived to go for five wides each (on each occasion the bowler bowled a wide ball, and Dhoni failed to gather it as it sped to the boundary) the result would have been reversed. In both this match and particularly the game against Pakistan England showed energy and skill, even if they relied on Pietersen too much for impetus.
However the differences in 20/20 ability between England and South Africa were starkly drawn. England are a good fielding side, but South Africa are outstanding, with De Villiers especially brilliant. And young Van der Merwe held a brilliant catch to get rid of Pietersen and rock England’s equilibrium. Pietersen’s shot was mistimed but still forceful, Van der Merwe threw himself high to his right at a wide mid-on and held on to the ball at full stretch. Pietersen’s wry smile said it all: he was unlucky. England’s batting is one-paced, without the ability either to regularly accelerate when required or hit sufficient boundaries. Collingwood is especially puzzling. He’s evidently a whole-hearted cricketer, but as a batsman seems to be one of those who lose timing for whole periods of their career. He’s not in such bad touch as he was early last summer when a big innings seemed an impossibility, but he’s temporarily lost the art of big hitting, and is reduced to pushing the ball around – which doesn’t seem to be what the team needs. Much has been made of his shortcomings as a captain – perhaps too much. Moving people around ostentatiously in the field every ball isn’t necessarily the hallmark of good captaincy. I suspect that if he’d scored more runs in this competition, commentators would have thought him a better skipper too.
England’s bowling was OK. No one was outstanding throughout. Swann was steady, and Broad was perhaps the best overall performer. Anderson had his moments. Mascarhenas’ mojo was never fully working. Rashid made a useful debut. Sidebottom provided some left-arm variety. But there’s no really immediately threatening bowler such as Sri Lanka’s Mendis or South Africa’s Steyn. And in a tournament where left arm spinners often seem to be the most awkward to score from we’ve no one deemed good enough. Panesar languishes, more or less wicketless, in Northampton. At this rate they won’t be able to select him even for the Tests against Australia. Samit Patel will apparently never get a game until he can show more evidence of trunk curls, press ups and half a dozen miles before breakfast. Breakwell seems to be old hat, although he can still hit the ball a fearsome distance, and is having a rather good season at county level. I think Patel would have been a better bet than Rashid here.
And yet…and yet... We weren’t the worst team in the competition by a long chalk – probably better than at least two of the semi-finalists. And there’s a philosophical question which lingers. Do we think 20/20 is a really good example of sport insofar as anyone can beat anyone on the day? It’s a lottery, even without the weather intervening. But wouldn’t we rather our sport decided who truly, simply was the best?
Compare and contrast: 1) Premier League Soccer which over the course of forty or so matches in a season reduces the element of chance very greatly. Granted, even then two teams might be near inseparable until one random event tips the scales one way or another – usually a referee’s disputed decision. 2) The Wimbledon Tennis championships in which either Nadal or Federer may have an off day and be beaten in the second round, so depriving the public of the opportunity to see the two undoubtedly best players in the world slug it out in another ‘epic final’. (Sorry, Andy Murray!) 3) T20/20 in which Ireland beats Bangladesh, Holland beats England, and England beats India. In none of these three matches do we think the best team won, yet we loved it all.
I think it’s all trivial, and a certain randomness in results merely adds to the charm of sport, but I doubt they’d agree in Mumbai or Kolkata. And what do the bookies think, I wonder? Where would they want the balance to lie? Is their cup running over right now, or filled with bitter tears?
The semi-finals of T20/20 begin today with South Africa (who will probably win the competition) playing Pakistan (who are lucky to still be there). England didn’t deserve to be part of the later stages. In the course of the tournament, they beat Pakistan and India, but lost embarrassingly to Holland, were outplayed in every department by South Africa, and then were shaded by the West Indies in a rain affected game which they might have won if it had gone the whole distance.
The English team seemed mildly disappointed that they hadn’t done better. On the other hand the Indian team, who fancied themselves to win the tournament, looked thunderous after the defeat by England which condemned them to an early ride home. As with all Indian teams which fail to measure up to expectations, they knew what to expect on de-planing. The captain and wicketkeeper M.S. Dhoni will have to live with a guard on his house these next few weeks. Indian fans can be just that – fanatical to the point of dangerous.
India lost to England by a narrow margin – just three runs – and had it not been for two balls which contrived to go for five wides each (on each occasion the bowler bowled a wide ball, and Dhoni failed to gather it as it sped to the boundary) the result would have been reversed. In both this match and particularly the game against Pakistan England showed energy and skill, even if they relied on Pietersen too much for impetus.
However the differences in 20/20 ability between England and South Africa were starkly drawn. England are a good fielding side, but South Africa are outstanding, with De Villiers especially brilliant. And young Van der Merwe held a brilliant catch to get rid of Pietersen and rock England’s equilibrium. Pietersen’s shot was mistimed but still forceful, Van der Merwe threw himself high to his right at a wide mid-on and held on to the ball at full stretch. Pietersen’s wry smile said it all: he was unlucky. England’s batting is one-paced, without the ability either to regularly accelerate when required or hit sufficient boundaries. Collingwood is especially puzzling. He’s evidently a whole-hearted cricketer, but as a batsman seems to be one of those who lose timing for whole periods of their career. He’s not in such bad touch as he was early last summer when a big innings seemed an impossibility, but he’s temporarily lost the art of big hitting, and is reduced to pushing the ball around – which doesn’t seem to be what the team needs. Much has been made of his shortcomings as a captain – perhaps too much. Moving people around ostentatiously in the field every ball isn’t necessarily the hallmark of good captaincy. I suspect that if he’d scored more runs in this competition, commentators would have thought him a better skipper too.
England’s bowling was OK. No one was outstanding throughout. Swann was steady, and Broad was perhaps the best overall performer. Anderson had his moments. Mascarhenas’ mojo was never fully working. Rashid made a useful debut. Sidebottom provided some left-arm variety. But there’s no really immediately threatening bowler such as Sri Lanka’s Mendis or South Africa’s Steyn. And in a tournament where left arm spinners often seem to be the most awkward to score from we’ve no one deemed good enough. Panesar languishes, more or less wicketless, in Northampton. At this rate they won’t be able to select him even for the Tests against Australia. Samit Patel will apparently never get a game until he can show more evidence of trunk curls, press ups and half a dozen miles before breakfast. Breakwell seems to be old hat, although he can still hit the ball a fearsome distance, and is having a rather good season at county level. I think Patel would have been a better bet than Rashid here.
And yet…and yet... We weren’t the worst team in the competition by a long chalk – probably better than at least two of the semi-finalists. And there’s a philosophical question which lingers. Do we think 20/20 is a really good example of sport insofar as anyone can beat anyone on the day? It’s a lottery, even without the weather intervening. But wouldn’t we rather our sport decided who truly, simply was the best?
Compare and contrast: 1) Premier League Soccer which over the course of forty or so matches in a season reduces the element of chance very greatly. Granted, even then two teams might be near inseparable until one random event tips the scales one way or another – usually a referee’s disputed decision. 2) The Wimbledon Tennis championships in which either Nadal or Federer may have an off day and be beaten in the second round, so depriving the public of the opportunity to see the two undoubtedly best players in the world slug it out in another ‘epic final’. (Sorry, Andy Murray!) 3) T20/20 in which Ireland beats Bangladesh, Holland beats England, and England beats India. In none of these three matches do we think the best team won, yet we loved it all.
I think it’s all trivial, and a certain randomness in results merely adds to the charm of sport, but I doubt they’d agree in Mumbai or Kolkata. And what do the bookies think, I wonder? Where would they want the balance to lie? Is their cup running over right now, or filled with bitter tears?
