Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

The Cricket Season begins in earnest…..

After a surreal interlude in South Africa, the 2007-08 cricket season begins in earnest on the coming weekend. England are touring Sri Lanka, the South Africans are in Pakistan, and the World Champions are in India. The month of October will see 2 Tests (in Pakistan) and 17 ODI games being played. This will lead into the heart of the Test match season in November, December, January, when India host Pakistan, Sri Lanka host England, Australia host India and Sri Lanka and South Africa host West Indies and New Zealand. Much like the 2004 season, this post World Cup season promises a re-ordering of the pecking order in World Cricket.

Australia face their first major challenges without Warne and McGrath. They will start at the deep end against India in India, without Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey. India have had a terrific run of Home form since Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell took over in 2005 (19-8), and have not lost a series at home in the past two years. Without Ponting and Hussey in the Aussie ranks and with McGrath having retired, India start the series as favorites in my view. India will have to overcome their bowling and fielding deficit (Bracken and Lee have terrific ODI records), but they will hold the batting edge. If Irfan Pathan can come through and provide the side with crucial balance (5th bowler, number 7 bat), it will give India an additional edge, what with Shane Watson struggling with fitness again.

England believe they have turned the corner during the recent NatWest series against India. This will be severely tested against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. This is one of the toughest assignments in ODI cricket today (along with from Australia in Australia and South Africa in South Africa), but England seem have the batting to cope. The exciting Luke Wright will invite much scrutiny. If he can maul Murali, England will be well and truly on their way. For their part, Sri Lanka are possibly the most stable combination in World Cricket today. The core of their batting (Jayasurya, Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Dilshan) and bowling line ups (Murali, Vaas, Malinga, Fernando) is ably supported by Chamara Silva, Upul Tharanga and Farveez Maharoof. This stability and balance led them to the World Cup Final earlier this year, and with no immediate retirements likely, should continue to ensure a quality Sri Lankan show.

South Africa, despite some terrific ODI performances continue to be underrated as an ODI side, mainly because they haven’t made a major final for a long time (the 1998 ICC Knock out, then known as the Wills International Cup was their last major final). They have not named their ODI squad for the Pakistan tour yet, but it will be interesting to see if Jacques Kallis makes the ODI squad. I would be surprised if he didn’t. The South African Test side have been in decline for some years now. In the early part of this decade, they were the second best side in the world (and even won the World Test Championship due to a quirk in the silly ICC Test Match Rating). In recent years their pace attack has lost its edge, with Pollock aging and Donald in retirement. Ntini – fine bowler though he is, is no Donald. The support bowling has been an even bigger problem. Nel is the first change bowl, but South African hopes remain pinned on the development of Dale Steyn as a genuinely quick bowler in the Jason Gillespie mould at first change. The batting, all though it seems to be well manned, does not look a convincing combination. Herschelle Gibbs has not been a disappointment Test middle order bat (averaging 39, 23, 35 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively). Mark Boucher and Shaun Pollock form the most formidable lower middle order in World cricket today. Very few sides can field number 7 and number 8 batsmen who both average better than 30 in Test cricket.

Pakistan continue to be unpredictable. Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul form a skillful opening pair and Danish Kaneria continues to be a threat in Pakistan. Pakistan will miss Shoaib Akthar, but that may turn out to be a minor problem compared to the bigger issues with the batting. Pakistan have not named their Test squad yet, and one suspects that this is largely due to the uncertainty about Mohammad Yousuf and Inzamam Ul Haq and their association with the Indian Cricket League. These two veterans have been mainstays of the Pakistan middle order, and seemed to get better with each passing year. Yousuf especially is in his prime as a batsman, and should he not be available, will hurt Pakistan, for he is at the moment irreplaceable.

South Africa lost 1-0 to Pakistan in Pakistan the last time they toured. Gary Kirsten was famously felled by Shoaib in that series. With all the uncertainty Pakistan face, they may just be looking at a home defeat this time around. South Africa will have to bowl out of their skins, and their inability to field a quality spin bowler may just thwart them.

All in all, an exciting month in store for cricket fans and it just gets better in November and December…..

Can a batsman be Mankaded?

I remember reading somewhere that the non-striker can’t be Mankaded anymore. England seem to have cottoned on to it….. Does anybody know what the exact modification in the Law is? Or is it just in the playing conditions for the Natwest series?

ICL, BCCI and Cricket….

The Indian Cricket League is possibly the biggest competitor to the BCCI since its inception. One area where they have unquestionably trumped BCCI is in having a website. Normally, it takes about a month to build a presentable website – 3-4 months if you want to do an elaborate job. BCCI could have had one 10 years ago, and I’m still waiting for them to establish themselves in cyberspace.

The threat to BCCI’s monopoly has been much discussed. Ironically, had BCCI not been as successful as it is, ICL would probably have had no competition and with the amount of money they are able to throw around, would have hired the whole Indian team and most of the fringe players as well. In effect, it is the success of BCCI and the Indian cricket team (which in my opinion is extremely competent – in fact it is India’s only competent sporting team competing at world class level – and its players are trained in India unlike some of our neighbors), which stands in ICL’s way.

At best, ICL is an entertainment show like “Chappar Phaad Kay” or others of that ilk. In Harsha Bhogle’s words it comprises of “has-beens and never-will-bes”. Mr. Bhogle is probably right with the possible exception of Mohammad Yousuf, who along with Ponting was the best batsman in the World in 2006. What it has achieved however is that it has roused the BCCI into action, and for that reason alone it has some merit. It can never be a serious threat to BCCI unless the clubs which are currently associated with State Associations which are members of BCCI switch affiliation from BCCI to ICL. ICL seems to have no ambition in this direction. I’m not entirely certain why BCCI reacted as petulantly as it did to ICL.

The broader question of monopoly is an interesting one – not from the point of view of whether or not there should be one, but whether there is one in the first place. The ICL website states for example that BCCI refused to “recognize ICL as a cricket league”. I wonder why that is necessary. BCCI does not own cricket, either in India or anywhere else in the world. I don’t think they can direct any player not to play in the ICL either. So why has ICL sought BCCI’s permission at all? Is it because the BCCI employs all the fine players in the country – the very ones who do not make up a “reasonably competent cricket team”? Without involving BCCI (if not willingly, then by positioning themselves in conflict with BCCI), ICL would just be another game show. Indeed ICL has sought BCCI’s attention, because such attention legitimizes ICL as a cricket thing.

Any agency which was genuinely interested in cricket and in administering the game well in India would have started at the bottom – built new clubs and invited existing clubs, built high quality local leagues, non-televised ones, in a handful of big cities with a cricketing tradition. Then they might have built an inter-city league based on these leagues. It would have built new facilities in those cities and a new parallel cricket structure to that of the BCCI affiliated clubs. It would have funded schools to build age group cricket teams and developed inter-school leagues. It would have built up loyalty. But that would have taken genuine effort and brought no immediate returns. I doubt whether Kapil Dev or Zee TV are interested in that sort of thing (and I’m not referring to over hyped fast bowling speed gun competitions, where the fastest bowler bowls at 125 kph). ICL does propose the creation of residential academies as a kind of a talent feed for their league. The prospect of a factory churning out cricketers must make traditionalists squirm. Considering the fact that it took Sachin Tendulkar 5 years of near full time serious organized cricket to get from being a rank newcomer to an India player (and he is a genius), one wonders what sort of time frame these academies have in mind.

Unless ICL can convince ICC to discard BCCI, they are not challenging a monopoly in any real sense, because the ICC has no intention of entertaining two Indian teams. The great thing about cricket is that it has traditionally been a truly international sport. I certainly hope that what we accept as the Indian cricket team remains a monopoly in the sense that there is only one national Indian side.

In any case Counterfeit BCCI is not the kind of challenge BCCI needs; for cricket’s sake.

Note: This article also appears on desicritics. It has been revised keeping in view the first comment on that post. Thanks to the author of that note and apologies for the error…

Do India lose because of their batting or their bowling?

This post is in part a response to a comment on my earlier post about the 3rd ODI between England and India at Birmingham. I suggested in that post that the bowling was the primary cause of India losing the Birmingham ODI. The table below can be read as follows:

W,L – Win, Loss; SA – Runs/wicket scored, SR – Runs/Over scored; CA – Runs/wicket conceded, RA – Runs/Over conceded.
These results from India, Australia and Sri Lanka take into consideration matches involving India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand and West Indies only.

(Please click on the image for a larger view)

The choice of Australia, India and Sri Lanka was determined by my perception of the three teams. I percieve Australia to be the best batting and bowling side in the world (high SA, SR, low CA, CR); India to be one of the best batting sides and one of the worst bowling sides (high SA, SR, high CA, CR); Sri Lanka to be not as good as India as a batting side, but superior with the ball (medium SA, SR, low/medium CA, CR). This perception was largely borne out the numbers. Extracting these numbers from the Cricinfo database is time consuming and hence i have limited it to these three teams.

The numbers show that Sri Lanka inspite of scoring slower than India in almost every year has a better win/loss record, simply on account of its superior effort with the ball. The difference between an economy rate of 4.5 and 5.0 is 25 runs. Australia are consistently successful mainly because of the consistently low CA numbers. A case in point would be their record in the year 2007. They won the World Cup, but also endured a streak where they lost 6 out of 7 matches just before the world cup. In those six matches, here is their sequence of totals: 200 all out chasing 293, 291/5 chasing 290, 252 all out, 152/8 in 27 overs, 148 all out, 336/4, 346/5. The totals they conceded in these games are: 292, 290, 253, 246, 149, 340, 350.

For both India as well as Sri Lanka, their best years have coincided with their best bowling years – where they have managed good economy rates and good bowling averages. Not surprisingly, lower economy rates almost always mean better bowling averages (CA). Even in 2003, when India reached the World Cup final, their economy rate of 5.16 is bloated because of a 7 match home series where they conceded over 6 runs/over in 6 out of the 7 games (they lost that home series 3-4).

The moderate quality of the Indian bowling is indicated not just by economy rates, but also by bowling averages. They have been unable to take wickets consistently enough in the long run. This is easily indicated by the fact that our best ODI bowlers invariably average in the late 20’s, while Australia’s and Sri Lanka’s average in the mid to early 20’s.

Averages are not meaningless numbers, they reveal quality or lack of it.

If we go back to the comment on my earlier post, the reference to the “daft” shots by Tendulkar and Kartik is telling. I point this out not because i think this is a one off, but because i suspect this is the generic argument offered by most people. If India lose, the first question is – what did the stars do? And that is a fundamentally wrong question to be asking. If “daftness” is to be questioned, then RP Singh, Zaheer Khan and Munaf Patel would have to be asked the same question about twice an over. “Why did so and so bowler offer up a leg stump half volley?” – “Why did the spinner drop it short and let the batsman cut?” – “Why did so and so bowler drag it short and wide?” – these questions can be asked over and over and over again because that is what the bowlers do more often than not.

Bowlers make the play in cricket. Batsmen have about half a second to make their choices and take action. Thats why bowlers win games, batsmen prevent them from being lost – this is enduring mantra of Test cricket. Simply because a team has great batsmen and moderate bowling, does not mean that this mantra goes out of the window! The “daft” strokes were an error of judgement – sure. But by that count, each of the Indian bowlers made an error of judgement alteast once and over – and they bowled 50 overs. 50 (only a ball park figure) errors of judgement at the very least and you get a 280+ total against a batting line up which is not amongst the best in the world.

Do the batsmen make errors of judgement? Sure! But their errors of judgement result in their career records and their records this year (posted earlier). The bowlers errors of judgement lead to the economy rates and strike rates described above and three consecutive 280+ totals being conceded.

So while it may not be the in thing to do, it is a sad fact of life. For all the demands about “team” and all the habitual rants from fans (im not referring to the author of the comment here) about players being “selfish” – these very apostles of the team ethic, forget the first rule of a team – that it is as strong as its weakest link, not as strong as its strongest link.

India’s best bowler has delivered 8 no balls in 12 overs in the last 2 games. Enough said!

A peculiar dilemma…..

Watch this video..

It illustrates one of the most peculiar dilemma’s in the game. The commentators (both former England players – Dominic Cork and Ian Ward) think Shaun Pollock is being petulant. Here’s the dilemma though. Consider these instance:

Inzamam Ul Haq obstructing the field
Shaun Pollock bowling to Andrew Strauss

If you think that is simple petulance, have a look at the following

Dean Jones Run Out

Batsmen especially when they play forward tend to follow through and take a few steps down the pitch out of habit. This is construed unambigiously in the laws as amounting to the batsman setting off for a run. In fact, unless the batsman intimates the umpires before he sets out of his crease that he isn’t setting out for a run (how often have you watched batsmen signaling to the leg umpire before embarking on a bit of gardening..), it is assumed that he is setting off for a run, unless it is after the umpire has signaled the end of the over.

So, in all the instance where the ball was thrown at the wicket or such a threat was made, the bowler was within his rights to aim at the stumps. Thats why, when you see a batsman backing away hastily if he sees a bowler unleashing a quick shy at the stumps after he’s hit it back to him, he is not backing away in fright, but is in fact try to make his ground. As the Jones run out shows, a dismissal in this fashion is not beyond the realms of realistic possibility especially if batsman turns his back on the ball.

These laws are quite fascinating. For example, a batsman is allowed to position himself between ball and the stumps to save himself from being run out, if he lets the ball hit him. But the batsman may not actively try and block the ball. Something which Strauss tried to do, and Inzamam did. Technically, had Pollock appealed when Strauss tried to hit at his throw, in all probability the Umpires would have had no choice but to give Strauss out under Law 37 above, just as Inzamam was. Whether or not the batsman is out of his ground is not relevant as per the obstructing the field law.

Would it have been outside the spirit of the game? Younis Khan in the first video might also have been out obstructing the field had he tried to hit Pollock’s throw away. It would not have been outside the spirit of the game, because the bowler is well within his rights to try and run the batsman out.

It is invariably assumed that bowlers are being “aggressive” when they threaten to aim at the stumps. If you actually think about it, bowlers are legitimately trying to dismiss the batsman, especially if he’s on the verge of stepping out of his crease (within that short time span its very difficult for the batsman to reverse his forward momentum). It is batsman who are being petulant by trying to strike at a throw aimed at their stumps. Sometimes the bowlers throw is way off the mark, either by accident or by design. That is a judgement which the fielder umpire must make.

What spectators at the ground seem to believe however, is that the bowler is threatening to “bean” the batsman or even being unnecessarily aggressive. The primal aggressive indicated by the swift pick up and throw by a bowler in his follow through invariably draws boos or cheers depending on whether it is the visitors or the hosts in the field. Even commentators view it that way.

There are occasions why bowlers threaten to bean the batsman. A run out opportunity has not really presented itself every time a throw is threatened.

How then does one distinguish which is which? Is it within the spirit of the game to attempt to throw down the stumps? Is it any more or less within the spirit of the game than a Steve Waugh or Michael Vaughan style handling the ball dismissal (both attempted to push a ball bouncing dangerously close to their stumps away with their gloves – had they hit the ball a second time it might have been legal!)?

How much has the commentary and the spectators reaction fed the public perception of these events? Does it constitute a poor understanding of the Laws of the game? Is it important and useful that the existing Laws be well understood and well applied by expert commentators?

Whether the intention of the bowler is to throw down the stumps or merely an expression of pure frustration remains a matter of conjecture. There will be those who say we can always tell which is which. But think about this…. Would it be possible to an act of pure frustration as being an attempt by the bowler to keep the batsman honest – not get too comfortable wandering about the crease? Or could it be just a human thing? A act of pure aggression designed (thats a poor word but i know) jolt the batsman?

I am always weary of black and white attempts to paint one party as the villain – in this case the bowler. What about the batsman who has an equal stake in events and is in a contest with the bowler just as the bowler is in a contest with the batsman? By doing something vaguely illegal (eg. Strauss) confident that few fielding sides would risk an appeal for obstructing the field given all the “spirit of the game” conventions, are batsmen in fact taking undue advantage of the situation?

Oscar Wilde said about Cricket : “I never play cricket. It requires one to assume such indecent postures.”

Maybe he was referring to more than just the batsman’s stance……

The last word on Cricket!

Here it is

Is this why the English bowling is superior to Indias?

The common refrain about the “inexperienced” English bowling has been well accepted. But consider this for a moment. The following are the First class records of the six fast bowlers on view in the Lord’s Test:

R P Singh 30 matches, 5531 balls, 121 wickets at 24.07 (2003-2007)
Zaheer Khan 107 matches, 21692 balls, 442 wickets, 27.41 (1999-2007)
S Sreesanth 37 matches, 6713 balls, 118 wickets at 31.20 (2002-2007)

Chris Tremlett 69 matches, 11322 balls, 234 wickets at 26.94 (2000-2007)
James Anderson 64 matches, 10917 balls, 221 wickets at 28.81 (2002-2007)
Ryan Sidebottom 110 matches, 18336 matches, 346 wickets at 24.95 (1997-2007)

England’s attack had 69 matches more first class experience (in conditions akin to Lord’s, unlike what Sreesanth and RP may have had) than the Indian bowlers. Were they really inexperienced compared to the Indian attack?

Which begs the question – do the Indian bowlers bowl in enough number of first class games? R P Singh averages 7.5 first class games per year, Sreesanth averages 7.28 first class games per year. Zaheer averages 13.38 games per year (but that includes 16 games in 3 months in England in 2006). The English bowlers average 10, 11 and 12 matches per year. Additionally the English bowlers arguably play their matches against better players of fast bowling than Indian fast bowlers do in India – just have a look at the glittering array of overseas professionals playing county cricket.

India need to encourage more cricket of a better quality at the domestic level. It needs to be rigorous and it needs to keep bowlers match fit. The problem is not too much cricket. The problem is too little cricket. England manage their cricket season within a 5 month window – April – September.

Lets look at the first class careers of some of the great fast bowlers, just to verify how much cricket they actually played.

Wasim Akram 257 matches, 50277 balls, 1042 wickets, 21.64 (1984-2003)
Glenn McGrath 189 matches, 41759 balls, 835 wickets, 20.85 (1992-2007)
Malcolm Marshall 408 matches, 74645 balls, 1651 wickets, 19.10 (1977-1996)
Allan Donald 316 matches, 58801 balls, 1216 wickets, 22.76 (1985-2003)

All of them played more matches per year than the Indian bowlers do and three of them were significantly quicker than any of the Indian bowlers. All of them played regularly in England. All of them were great bowlers. Now lets have a look at the only great Indian fast bowler.

Kapil Dev 275 matches, 48853 balls, 835 wickets, 27.09 (1975-1993)

Kapil’s record compares more favorably than those four greats than it does with the current Indian lot.

Looking at Srinath, who was more akin to the current Indian lot than he was to the greats listed above.

Javagal Srinath 147 matches, 28618 balls, 533 wickets, 26.31 (1989-2003)

Even Srinath averaged 10 first class games per year.

All these numbers include the number of Test matches played by these bowlers, and im willing to bet that as these bowlers established themselves and became great bowlers, they played fewer first class games. While they were learning their trade, they probably bowled day in and day out.

Thats why they never bowled poorly all day and thats why their par effort was so always special.

England know this and therefore English cricketers are expected to play first class cricket when it isn’t immediatly before a Test match. Extra players selected are released to play for their county sides rather than sitting around in the dressing room. They are released because there is first class cricket being played during the Test match season.

India’s first class cricketers play lesser cricket every year than their Test cricketers do. The Indian bowlers seem to be light invariably light on match practice as indicated by their tendency to go off the boil frequently.

In a real cricketing sense – the reality of India’s domestic scene, which contributes nothing to the development of fast bowlers in merely underlined by the Lord’s Test.

Flair, Imagination and Captaincy

Rahul Dravid lacks flair and imagination. Ganguly had the personality of a leader. Ponting was a poor captain at the beginning of his tenure. Fleming has been a fine innovative tactician and captain. Imran Khan was a great leader. Sunil Gavaskar was a cussed, defensive captain. Mark Taylor was a brilliant captain. Steve Waugh was not quite so brilliant (in his case his personality as an individual cricketer more than made up for this in people’s minds). Every commentator, every fan… even people who are not particularly interested have an opinion about this.

Part of it is because the Captain and Coach are the faces of the side. When a team wins, its the match winning innings or the match winning bowling spell which gets the the plaudits – it is rarely the captaincy. When a team loses however, it is the captain and the coach who must come forth the face some fairly shrill music. The public’s ire is directed at the easiest target. As the most visible target, the Captain is also the most analyzed. His personality often defines how he is viewed as captain. Thus Brian Lara is invariably viewed as self centered and a poor man manager, Tendulkar was viewed as someone easily frustrated by the lack of ability and performance from his teammates.

In part, it is true that personality does contribute to the way an individual captains a cricket team – in the case of great players, their approach towards their own specialist skill may often guide their approach to Cricket. What seems to dominate however, is that their percieved personalities are somehow invoked in order to explain the results teams achieve on their watch – thus, a defeat under Ganguly was never because Ganguly was staid or unimaginative – it was invariably because the team looked “flat” on the day, while a defeat under Dravid almost always involves a line about “unimaginative, uninspiring captaincy”. Steve Waugh always took fewer risks than Mark Taylor and Taylor was always ice cool and in complete control in delicate match situations. Vaughan is more aggressive than Hussein was. When it comes to coaches, it is even worse, because nobody is able to place their involvement in events.

I cannot help but feel that these “personalities” are media created archetypes which tend to caricaturize cricketers – the image overtakes reality. Let me give you an example – Rahul Dravid’s great 233 at Adelaide is invariably described as “determined, steely minded…. marathon” – in my view it was one of the finest displays of classical strokeplay in recent times. Very few batsmen play the cover drive as classically as Dravid – with the full stride forward to the pitch of the ball, the ball played close to the pad. The same is the case with the on-drive. His square cutting off the spinners is the result of a masterful reading of length and the break off the wicket. He plays all the strokes in the book, and in that particular innings he matched VVS Laxman run for run. He reached his hundred with a slightly miscued hook for six for Jason Gillespie. Yet, the one thing Dravid’s innings are never known for is decisive attacking intent – which is the hallmark of his batting in my view. The very fact that he attempted a hook off Australias best bowler bowling with the new ball is a signal of the intention to dominate. Take Brian Lara – his innings are invariably strokefilled, but most people ignore the fact that he has unbelievable fitness and powers of concentration – and a very tight defense, which are as crucial to his run making as his strokeplay.

This is just batting – which is far simpler and probably involves fewer dimensions than captaincy. Captaincy is truly complex and is in essence a managerial and directorial task. Success in captaincy is a function of other peoples performance. By definition it is a function of other people’s efforts. Now, obviously a captain has an influence on that performance – in the sense that some captains inspire more loyalty and therefore greater effort than others (all though i would venture that in these instances it is the entire situation, of which the captain is a part – that inspires that little bit extra from the players).

What i want to do, is put in perspective the captain’s situation in international cricket – he wields limited influence compared to that by each individual batsman, bowler and fielder – the captains effort is simply to manage the show. Can captaincy influence the outcomes of games? Sure it can – if gambles pay off. Are some captains better than others at weighing the odds – i have seen no evidence to suggest that any captain’s ability to weigh the odds in favor of or against a particular decision is better or worse than any other captains. Every international cricketer can read a cricket match better than almost anybody else who is watching it. But every captain may not necessarily have the means at his disposal to effectively deal with that read. This is in fact true in most cases. Captains end up making the best of the resources at their disposal – but they only have the resources at their disposal and no more. So a reference to Rahul Dravid as uninspiring and unimaginative because Zaheer Khan, RP Singh, VRV Singh and Ramesh Powar did not possess the wherewithal to break the Mortaza – Hossain stand, is a bit silly, and more than a little bit unfair. One look that these bowlers records will reveal that they haven’t had a great deal of success with the ball in Test Cricket. Or commentary about Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh’s captaincy, as compared to Taylor’s – even though both have achieved far superior results compared to Taylor is simply the result of a stereotype surrounding their respective personae.

My point is – if batting is so sadly misunderstood – then, the next time you read about someone making an observation about any captains “captaincy” or saying that such and such captain is “unimaginative and uninspiring”, take a moment and think to yourself whether such a sweeping comment is at all reasonably possible. I enjoy reading and writing about cricket as much (probably more) than the next guy, but i am weary of commentary tending to characterize what a player is about. Stereotypes exist in newspapers and news-magazines, not on the cricket field…..

Australia v Sri Lanka – World Cup Final Preview…..

Australia and Sri Lanka – the two best teams in what has been the least competitive World Cup ever (not unlike the 2003 edition where rain, politics and one stray upset played havoc with the competition), will face off at Kensington Oval in Barbados in the World Cup final. At neutral venues in this decade, Australia have a perfect record against the Sri Lankans – winning all World Cup encounters. These two teams met in the World Cup semi final in 2003, where Australia limped to 212/7 on a spin friendly Port Elizabeth wicket. Aravinda De Silva came on in the 5th over of the innings for Sri Lanka and accounted for Gilchrist. Vaas (3/34), De Silva (2/36), Jayasurya (2/42) and Murali (0/29) bowled 40 overs between them. The Sri Lankan batsmen could not chase down these runs and in the end Sri Lanka lost by 48 runs.

If you look back at various semi-finals and other sudden-death games, Sri Lanka have excelled in the field against the Australia. It is the batting which has been problematic, especially in recent times, chasing modest totals. Further, Sri Lanka have almost always faltered batting second outside the subcontinent. The last time they beat Australia chasing a total outside the subcontinent, was in Hobart in January 1999.

This Sri Lankan batting has done well outside the subcontinent in recent times. They beat England 5-0 in England and then drew a series in New Zealand 2-2. They also achieved 1-1 draws in England as well as in New Zealand in the Test Matches – which if anything is an even stronger indicator of class and quality in the Sri Lanka batting. Sri Lanka’s best bet is to bat first, make a competitive total, and the put Australias largely untested middle order a thorough examination.

There is a similarity between the two sides in terms of their bowling – except for the presence of Glenn McGrath. Nathan Bracken and Chaminda Vaas are similar bowlers (and this similarity goes well beyond the fact that both are left arm medium pace). Bradley Hogg is similar to Murali – in the sense that both bowlers are not always picked by the batsmen. Malinga and Tait are slingers, erratic and capable of producing a match altering burst – Tait is probably marginally quicker, but Malinga’s is the more unorthodox bowler. Both sides possess additional bowling options as well, and here Sri Lanka are better equipped – with the experienced Jayasurya filling in as the fifth bowling option. Dilhara Fernando is not quite Glenn McGrath, but has the happy knack of producing wicket taking deliveries. On days when he gets it wrong however, he can be spectacularly wayward.

In terms of batting, Sangakkara and Gilchrist are the two best wicketkeeper batsmen in Cricket today. Jayasuriya is one of the great opening batsmen – while Ponting is possibly the best batsman in the world right now. Hayden as mentioned earlier is in the form of his life, while Tharanga has shown the ability to play big innings. Hussey, Symonds and Clarke have not really had to break a sweat yet, while Chamara Silva, Tilekratne Dilshan and Russell Arnold, while not being required to performance rescue acts, have had a significant amount of batting to do. Jayawardene is in great form with a fine century against New Zealand in the semi finals. It remains to be seen whether Shane Watson and Farveez Maharoof play in the final. Watson is more likely to play, all though, with all the wicket taking options at their command, i would not be surprised if Sri Lanka played Maharoof instead of Fernando to bolster the batting.

The two teams are uncannily similar and can indeed be seen as prototypes of the modern ODI team – 6 specialist batsmen, including a wicketkeeper who is good enough to play as a specialist batsman, one quality spinner, a left arm bowler, a right arm pace man, a tearaway quick bowler and an all rounder. Both sides could do better with the quick bowler and Sri Lanka would probably feel that their batting after Jayawardene (Dilshan, Arnold and Silva) might be more accomplished with some big hitting potential….. but both sides do possess the core components of the perfect, well balanced Cricket team, especially for the ODI game.

It should be a cracking game. Will Jayawardene spring Arnold or Dilshan at the Australian left handed openers early in the game, if there is no evidence of seam movement or swing? Will Ponting promote Hussey to ensure that a left-right combination is as the crease as long as possible (especially when Murali is bowling)? Will Tait and Malinga have a good day? Will the Australians demolish the third subcontinental in this World Cup final?

History is on Sri Lanka’s side. Lloyd’s much fancied West Indians lost to India in their third World Cup final. Australia, after winning in 1987, won in 1999, after not making the knock out stage in 1992 and making the last four in 1996. Similarly, Sri Lanka won in 1996, failed to make the knock out stage in 1999, and made the last four in 2003.

I have not had a good time of it with my predictions – but the form book as well as conventional wisdom about Cricket would point to Australia winning the World Cup Final on Saturday, and unless Sri Lanka’s left handers intervene, the World Cup will stay down under.

Lets just hope its a better World Cup final than the previous 2.