Passion: why the quarter-final victory was the Black Caps best in a world cup and potentially South Africa's worst loss

Hello and welcome back to my blog

When South Africa eased passed 100 in their chase of the 221 set by New Zealand, many of the latter's supporters switched off their televisions and allowed sleep to take hold, content in the knowledge that their team had performed just as their pre-tournament form suggested they would. I admit that I had my finger over the power button of my own portal to the contest in Mirpur and but for a very nice catch by Jacob Oram to dismiss Kallis, I might have joined the other fans to succumb in the face of another early exit. I decided to give them a chance and they delivered the most fantastic victory while South Africa achieved perhaps their worst choke yet.

Never, and I really mean never, have I seen such a fierce display of bowling and fielding by this New Zealand team (a statement slightly diluted by the fact that i was only born in 1987 and only followed cricket from late 2003). They were purposeful, Vettori's captaincy was aggressive, the fielders were blurs which culminated in the ability at last to create an opportunity AND then take it. As a unit they were able to build pressure without the typical release provided by a short wide delivery or brain melt in the field, no these were to happen to the opposition - the key combination of good cricket and bad cricket required for New Zealand to knock out one of the favourites. In the end the Black Caps wanted it more. Their loss to Sri Lanka, while not overly damaging to their progression, clearly fired them up (or perhaps indirectly by firing up John Wright) In the past, world cup victories have been based on talent, planning and plenty of luck but this one is slightly different in that we won the pressure situation, didn't panic: in 1992 the team was undone by Pakistan's aggression in the semi-final, finally we see that kind of resolve in the New Zealand team.

The South Africans on the other hand, for all of their talk about chucking (not a strike at Botha) the 'choke' label in the dust, managed to find a new and humiliating way to crash out of a world cup. Since their re-entry to international cricket they have consistently been ranked the number 1 or 2 side in ODI cricket but failed to even get to the final of its major tournament. This is beginning to get to them it is clear, the pressure of this reputation appeared to drain all passion from their performance and they couldn't create the kind of energy required to crush what should have been an inferior opposition. At least in 1999 they were in a real dogfight from beginning to end against Australia, in 2003 they were undone by stupidity and in 2007 they were beaten by a far better team. Against New Zealand they were cruising with Kallis and de Villiers at the wicket but the pressure got to them.

There was perhaps one obvious negative to take from this quarter-final upset and that was the obvious jealousy by Kyle Mills of the other players efforts, displayed in a stupid incident involving a South African batsman. Obviously disappointed by the removal of Ms Stalker, being injured is suddenly not as 'fun' as it used to be (notice the absence of groin injuries all of a sudden?) and Mills was actually able to watch the game and got caught up in the atmosphere, lost his senses and decided he would get in amongst it. Frustrated in more ways than one perhaps? In terms of the altercation in the wider context of the team, John Wright correctly came out in support of his team getting a bit of 'agro' in them (at last) and to him I would say 'well put sir and please, more of the same' Against Sri Lanka tonight we will need it. New Zealand face the most diverse bowling attack in ODI history including the Three Upside-down Ws (an appropriate reference to the Ws of the 1950s West Indies team I think) Murali, Malinga and Mendis. Then there is a top order that has barely been troubled in this tournament, all of them will be playing on their home surface. The only way to beat them is to rough them up, get in their face and unsettle a settled team. Thus, I hate to say it, it might be necessary to forgo the third spinner and play McKay (Mills' replacement). I feel he may be able to offer the kind of aggression, at least more than a third spinner will. In terms of the batting, the onus is on McCullum to get as many runs off of the pace bowlers up front (assuming that Sangakkara doesn't make the genius decision to open with Mendis at one end) and not put the pressure on the middle order to get big runs off the spinners. To be honest if Mendis and Murali both finish with figures of 10-X-40-0 that will be a huge victory

In all likelihood the Sri Lankans will win and perhaps win comfortably (note what they did to England the other evening). Although either way it might not matter because the other semi-final can only conclude with the start of World War Three if either side lose.

well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

Certain of nothing but uncertainty

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Pakistan vs West Indies

India vs Australia

South Africa vs New Zealand

Sri Lanka vs England

Well you couldn't and shouldn't be too surprised by that group of teams possessing quarter-final births and although the minnows put up some fight - more than some thought possible - this was likely to be the final 8 from day 1; perhaps England will be feeling a little more relieved than others, a slightly more noticeable sweeping of sweat from the brow? The fun of this group of fixtures is the combinations that will appear should certain teams beat others.

Keep in mind that the winner of PAK and WI will play the winner of IND and AUS. Plus the winner of SA and NZ will play the winner of SRL and ENG

• Thus it is easy to imagine an India/Pakistan semi-final which is always fun (similar to lighting a box of fireworks and not knowing quite what will happen - only that something will). For this favourite of match-ups a good Pakistan team must turn up against West Indies - that is all that is required because their best easily outmatches that of their opponents. However these two teams are the most unpredictable which means that every other team is quite happy not to play them in a knock out match (although perhaps one more than the other)
• India and Australia are the two power houses in this tournament and the outcome of that titanic clash is very difficult to pick as a result. The top order of both teams is very strong and aggressive but the difference might prove to be that the runs have been more evenly split amongst the Indians. This is slightly counter-balanced by the pace available to Ponting to attack the relatively untested Indian team (in terms of Lee and Tait's pace) but then we saw what Canada were able to do to them. India will feel that they have been under pressure more often than Australia and that experience makes them slight favourites for me
• On the other side we find South Africa and New Zealand fighting for the Southern-Hemisphere spot and this seems the easiest to pick on first glance. It really is David and Goliath in terms of cricket: you have a large, powerful team that is the cricket version of efficiency looking to crush the side from a country of just four million people that has almost no experience by comparison. To win against the African juggernaut the first task is to prevent the likes of Kallis, De Villiers and Duminy from lifting the total above 300 which will be difficult enough. Then you have the second task which is to bat well against a strong pace attack and suddenly (from nowhere it seems) more-than-useful spinners I don't think this will be the big problem, so far in this tournament the New Zealand team has faced better bowlers in both departments and although they were unequal to the task on those occasions they don't run into the South Africans unprepared
• Sri Lanka have lured England to their spinning wicket and England will surely fight but just as surely be defeated by a team as used to the conditions as the English are to rain. Probably the easiest to pick of the four games

Although I have my favourites they are guesses at best and I wouldn't put money on any of them. The uncertainty of the results is the best part of it all and at the very least because I feel I need to watch more of these games than in the previous round.

(NOTE: the post up until this point was written before the Pakistan victory, sorry caning of the West Indies team)

Now to other matters: congratulations to the people in the fantasy league who have crossed the 10,000 point mark you do your cricket intellect proud. Also, at last count I will be donating $66 to the Christchurch relief effort with 10 days to go until the end of the World Cup - thank you very much to the people who have supported this. There will be two more posts here before the end of the tournament (one before the semis and one before the final) so still time to get the unique views up!

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

Why being beaten by Australia can help New Zealand win the World Cup

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Well New Zealand have finally beaten Pakistan in a useful, if not entirely crucial, encounter in a World Cup fixture - not to mention the thrashing of several minnows - by using this clever, ingenious, bold and brilliant game plan (I will leave the vomit of adjectives to other media sources as we don't want to be here all day) of retaining wickets till later in the innings. Now even if this were a plan designed to achieve world cup glory, and I will go on to explain why it isn't, assume for now that it is; this should have been the plan ever since the batting-powerplay was conceived - or to win ODIs in general! Add to that the inclusion of a new ball at over 34 and John Wright must be grinning at this idea that what he is preaching is somehow new testament stuff. OK fine, you might say 'where was your blog suggesting such a plan from day one, sir?' and you would be right to do so but in my defense I hoped captains would at least try and use the batting-slog-fest, excuse me, power-play before the 34th over and see what happens. The experiment has been run and the results suggest they can't so the Black Caps' plan is neither revolutionary nor clever but merely natural. Give Wright and the players credit for pulling it off (for now) if you must, but don't tell me it's brilliant.

Now I said before that if you assume it were true that this game plan could lead you to world cup victory etc, well here is the part where we find it isn't. Like most seemingly all-encompassing game plans, this one has some rather large wholes or perhaps, to be fair, tests to be undertaken first. Now ignore for a moment the cesspool of drool about how well the team is progressing and look at what they have actually achieved, namely beating Kenya by aiming at the stumps (I don't like saying 'Cricket 101' but my hand is forced here), losing the plot against Australia, crushing Zimbabwe, lucking out against Pakistan (thank you Kamran Akmal) and failing to bowl out Canada in 50 overs. To expand on a couple of these matches:

1. The all-encompassing plan must be designed to work in most, if not all situations. so when you remove Taylor's large century from the top order, as you must do to retain your intellectual honesty (even the minnow keepers could have caught ONE of the two offerings Taylor sent in that direction) you see how affective the plan is against top sides, or I should say how affective it has been so far. Now, as we won't be facing a parade of minnow teams in the finals stage of this tournament, the plan appears to be nonsense in the first round if you will excuse the pun
2. The Zimbabwe victory perhaps represents a stronger example against my position so I will deal with it now. It is true that the controlled nature of the batting was according to plan and encouraging for that reason - the ability to follow a simple plan has too often escaped New Zealand cricket players - but the only reason that that result seemed to provide legitimacy to the hype was the image of Zimbabwe as a competent foe. Now I take some of the blame for fostering that image (along with many in the media and the team themselves through word and deed) but I quickly doubted this myself when Zimbabwe chose to bat first and not submit our top-order to their spinners who performed admirably against Australia the week before. This same kind of stupidity was on show from the captain against Sri Lanka when they opened with 'pace' bowlers to Dilshan and Tharanga who couldn't believe their luck. Zimbabwe have risen and fallen in my praises like a season i'm afraid but that story is best left for another entry

Once you take these two examples into account you have 1 loss to a top team, 3 acts of minnow-crushing and 1 very lucky encounter with a terrible keeper. Where is all this optimism coming from?

A good friend of mine suggested the other day that I could act the function of the rear end of a male cow on everything but wouldn't when it came to cricket (paraphrasing a tad there) well never let it be said that I declined a worthy, cricket-related challenge! Thus here I give it the old college try

There is one thing which provides me with hope for this Black Caps campaign and that is the reality-check provided by the early loss to Australia. If there is one thing common to the all-encompassing plan is that its failure is spectacular and can be witnessed every time a cricket team, for instance, tries it. In 1992 the New Zealand team coasted on a seemingly sensible plan until the semi-final against Pakistan where the dibbliest, dobbliest and wobbliest of methods was shown up against Inzamam Ul Haq. in 2007 progress was stopped by a strong Sri Lankan side in the semi-final (again) and the ability to chase anything (or 'win from anyway' as Ian Smith rashly put it one memorable night in Hamilton) was revealed as not part of the team's repertoire afterall. The point, ladies and gentlemen, is that the loss to Australia, with any luck, lifted the illusion of a plan that could see us to April and forced the team to be more flexible. To put together a state of mind, enhanced by confidence acquired against minnows, capable of beating strong opposition in key matches. The doom of 1992 does not await if this is true

To end on a slightly more serious tone, if you want a more reliable example of better things to come, the talk this week has been about treating the final group match against Sri Lanka as a knockout match even though we sit top of the table. In 1992 we also lost to Pakistan in the last group match (often forgotten) and in 2007 we lost against Australia before the semifinals. Whether or not the false consolation provided by a rigid game plan has been removed SURELY the overconfidence has been

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

England the charitable cricket team (other teams can't say the same)

Hello and welcome back to my blog

This tournament continues to intrigue the cricket mind if not yet the cricket heart (to the degree I expected). The battle over the role of minnow cricketing nations is playing out before our eyes while the stars of the established teams continue to leave us puzzled by their lack of impact (save perhaps Afridi who is carrying his team at the moment). Each thrashing dealt to the likes of Canada and Kenya seems to be matched by the ever-trying, somehow-English-defeating Irish or the sudden appearance of African spinners good enough to take wickets ...for Africa (ahem). Yet there is still no contender for that coveted title of 'favourite' as the first round crawls on (and on). For now I will focus on the England team who by definition should be at the forefront of the assault on the lesser cricket nations but this week offered a gift to the likes of Holland and Kenya by losing so spectacularly to Ireland.

In one 50 over game the English team may have undone all the work attempted by their cricket board to keep the minnows out of the 2015 tournament and nothing could or should seem more charitable. Add to this the exciting tie with India and the low-scoring-yet-enthralling victory over South Africa the other evening and in the space of two weeks England have set the World Cup alive, provided ammunition to the minnows and knocked the seemingly stable tournament leaders down a peg. In short, whether saving one day cricket or not, the English have given the ultimate charity to cricket.

I can't say the same for every other team with the likes of West Indies and New Zealand inflicting heavy losses on the lower ranked teams (perhaps they have something to prove?). Here is the best part though - Geoffrey Boycott on the question of minnow teams (recorded 24 hours before ENG vs IRE):

"We all await that one surprise match when an Associate defeats a big team. That probably will happen... I know you're from Ireland and you're team's doing really good and I'm pleased for them. But that's not a good reason. There are too many bad cricket matches for one surprise"

You make yourself a hostage to fortune with statements like that. I would read/listen to the entire thing though as this question of minnow cricket nations will not go away and clearly not every Englishman is as charitable as those currently playing

RECENT RESULTS

• Canada vs Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe crushed Canada by 175 runs but my player for ZIM was out first ball for 0
• Netherlands vs West Indies: West Indies were clinical as they won by 215 runs after 6 wickets (including a hatrick) for Roach
• Sri Lanka vs Kenya: Malinga's 6 wickets (including his second World Cup hatrick) ensured a 9 wicket win for Sri Lanka
• England vs Ireland: Ireland achieved the upset of the tournament by chasing England's 327 with 3 wickets to spare after one Kevin O'Brien blazed 113 (63 balls) breaking the record for fastest World Cup century
• Netherlands vs South Africa: centuries to Amla and AB de Villiers were too much for the men from the low countries as victory was as large as 231 runs
• Canada vs Pakistan: Shahid Afridi saved his team with 5 wickets that allowed a successful defense of 184
• New Zealand vs Zimbabwe: Despite plenty of concerns back home given the potential of facing 30 overs of spin (and the Black Caps not quite being as comfortable against spin as the Indian team for example) victory was obtained by 10 wickets in a very impressive performance that assuaged a few fears (but not all)
• Bangladesh vs West Indies: Bangladesh folded for 58, West Indies raced home by 9 wickets and the entire match lasted just 30 overs and 1 ball; disappointing doesn't even begin to describe this match
• Sri Lanka vs Australia: an interesting contest was ruined by rain as the match up from the 2007 Final somehow managed to provide less entertainment than that most farcical of finishes (at least Gilchrist got 144 in the match 4 years ago)
• England vs South Africa: a low scoring dog-fight from a previous era and with England getting across the line by 6 runs the standings become more interesting as one front-runner makes room for a resurgent England team

...but who really knows in this chaotic situation? As I type this, New Zealand have just beaten Pakistan and by beat I mean thumped - more about this on the weekend as we move into the final stages of round 1

Lastly, thanks to everyone that has added their unique view to the counter on this blog - 33 were recorded in the first week of my donation plan. That's $33 to the Christchurch relief effort so well done.

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now