Pakistan bowled aggressively and batted with supreme calm to seal a convincing eight-wicket win over Sri Lanka in the final of the World Twenty20 on Sunday.
Shahid Afridi’s finely judged 54 saw them home with eight balls to spare after three wickets from Abdul Razzaq had limited Sri Lanka to 138 from their 20 overs.
Pakistan’s superb start with the ball almost decided things by itself, with Tillakaratne Dilshan’s duck setting the tone, but captain Kumar Sangakkara played beautifully to rescue the innings, scoring 64 to see his side to a total that was at least competitive.
Pakistan batted sensibly during the power play to put themselves in a winning position at 63-1 at the start of the 10th over and they made it home quite comfortably.
What did you think of the final? Let us know in the comments.
PHOTO: Shahid Afridi plays a shot during Pakistan’s World Twenty20 final win over Sri Lanka at Lord’s, June 21, 2009. REUTERS/Kieran Doherty .
Tillakartne Dilshan gave Sri Lanka a total and West Indies were undone by an astonishing first over that saw them lose three wickets…. There’s no coming back from that against a team that bowls as well as Sri Lanka. What an extraordinary tournament this has been, to provide something unexpected almost every game…
So what do you think? Pakistan or Sri Lanka? If Pakistan play like they can I think they’ll win, but if this tournament has taught us anything it is to expect the unexpected…
Let us know what you think…
PHOTO: Spectators try to catch a Chris Gayle six during the ICC World Twenty20 cricket semi-final match between the West Indies and Sri Lanka in London June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Philip Brown
England may argue that they were unlucky to exit the World Twenty20 following a five-wicket defeat by West Indies but the simple truth is that they batted poorly throughout the tournament.
With the honourable exceptions of Ravi Bopara and Kevin Pietersen, the batsmen completely failed to get to grips with the art of scoring runs in this form of the game.
Call it lack of urgency, lack of innovation or lack of skill but the main problems were a shortage of power and the confidence to take calculated risks.
Dmitri Mascarenhas’s bizarre innings against India summed up England’s problem. The burly all-rounder has proved that he is capable of hitting sixes at international level. After a steady start to the innings against India he was promoted up the order to number four, specifically to take on the Indian slow bowlers and boost the run rate with a few lusty blows. Or so we thought.
Instead, Mascarenhas paddled the ball aimlessly around for ones and twos, facing 27 balls for his 25 runs. Far from actually clearing the ropes, he did not even once attempt a big hit. Momentum lost, Owais Shah, Paul Collingwood and James Foster, all far more suited to the type of supporting innings Mascarenhas was playing, perished trying to find the boundaries England so desperately needed.
Against India, England’s bowlers performed heroically to pull off an unlikely victory but 24 hours later the tournament hosts found themselves in a similar position against West Indies. A solid platform laid by Bopara and Pietersen simply cried out for sensible attacking batting to lift England to a formidable total. But England went some 50 balls without hitting a single boundary until Stuart Broad hit the last two deliveries of the innings for six and four. Again, England finished at least 20 runs short of a challenging total and West Indies took full advantage.
Watching from the sidelines were Graham Napier and Eoin Morgan, strangely not given a chance to try to convert their prolific county form to the international arena. Napier is a specialist six-hitter while Morgan is a master of the unorthodox shots which upset bowlers and garner vital runs in Twenty20 cricket.
Given England’s lack of firepower, their continued omission from the team was as baffling as the team’s approach to batting.
PHOTO: England’s Paul Collingwood leaves the field after his dismissal in the defeat by West Indies at the Oval, June 15, 2009. REUTERS/Philip Brown
England went out of their last home one-day World Cup in the group phase … could the same thing happen here?
What an extraordinary result in the gloom of London, and here’s how the English newspapers saw things:
The Daily Express said: “England have had some embarrassing moments in World Cup cricket but none as embarrassing as this, coming on their most famous of grounds…”
“Clogs 1 Clots 0″ was the headline in The Sun which said England bowler Stuart Broad, who missed with a throw at the stumps to hand the Dutch victory off the final ball, “was made to look a total lemon by the orange men of Holland…”
The Times added: “Fluffing your lines against the likes of Australia or India is one thing, but England played like headless chickens in the closing two overs…”
The Telegraph’s verdict was just as damning with the newspaper telling readers that England had lost to “a rag-tag assortment of Dutch cricketers made up of downhill skier, a debt collector and a 37-year-old advertising executive.
“It’s lucky the Dutch didn’t pick Burger King employee Mudassar Bukhari or England could have made even more of a dog’s dinner of their World Twenty20 campaign.”
England must beat Pakistan on Sunday to avoid a first-round exit, while the Netherlands will clinch a second-round spot if they produce another upset against Pakistan next Tuesday.
Can’t wait to read what the Australian papers say…
PHOTO: Edgar Shiferli (2nd R) celebrates as the Dutch team get the winning runs in the World Twenty20 group match against England at Lord’s, June 5, 2009. REUTERS/Philip Brown
In an ideal world Twenty20, cricket’s newest and shortest format, should be hailed as the perfect way forward for a game still played by barely 10 teams at the highest level.
The World Twenty20 which begins in England on Friday is expected to draw huge crowds and television audiences, pointing to the galloping popularity of the three-hour game, the sporting equivalent of a Hollywood action flick rather than the Bollywood drama of a five-day test.
Twenty20 is drawing new and younger audiences, at stadiums and in living rooms in front of TV sets. Last year, it triggered the Indian Premier League (IPL), the multi-million dollar franchise event with players from many countries which resembles other major professional sports like soccer and NBA.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) says it is pleased to own three versions, the 50-over game being the other, but betrays nervousness that Twenty20 could gobble up the other two in the near future.
The ICC has said it wants Twenty20 to be played more at the domestic level. Its CEO Haroon Lorgat said last week it would keep a tight leash on T20 on the international stage.
Some fret that upcoming players could soon lose the skill and temperament essential to even survive five-day tests.
So should fans laud Twenty20 or worry about what cricket could lose in the long term?
Many other games such as tennis, table tennis and volleyball have all benefited after being tweaked for the sake of TV, gaining more exposure and endorsements.
Twenty20 also appears the best bet for cricket to reach America. The ICC has even asked U.S. cricket officials to start a tournament on the lines of IPL to counter an unauthorised American Premier League planned to launch soon.
The short game is throwing up many new players, quashing the initial argument that unless one had the skill honed in the longer version, the player may not survive the latest slam-bang format.
Will Twenty20 change the world cricketing order in the near future? Will test and one-day cricket bow to it? It’s unlclear how long will we have to wait for a definitive answer.
PHOTO: England’s Ravi Bopara (R) and West Indies’ Denesh Ramdin during the ICC World Twenty20 warm-up at Lord’s in London June 3, 2009. REUTERS/Philip Brown
If the result of a cricket one-day international is forgotten by most fans within a week the shelf life of Twenty20 memories must be measured in Mayfly proportions.
However, that does not mean that there is no value in the smash and crash of cricket’s newest format. Quite the opposite.
England all-rounder Kevin Pietersen, one of the most explosive and inventive batsmen in the game, greeted the first edition of the world Twenty20 by describing his efforts as “silly shots for a silly game”.
As he prepares for the second, having yet to master a format that would appear tailor-made for him, he says he is taking it very seriously.
A close-up view of the IPL, where he was jointly rated as the most valuable commodity in the game alongside Andrew Flintoff, and the realisation that international trophies are few and far between, have combined to focus Pietersen’s mind.
Unlike football fans who would revel in a 5-0 win, cricket supporters who attend a one-day match generally do not go home singing if they see their team triumph by 10 wickets or 150 runs.
A rash of tumbling wickets is good, but not too many please — we all want a close finish after all.
“Have I got news for You?” and “QI” are hugely popular TV shows in the UK but nobody even slightly pretends that the final scores matter in the slightest. It’s all about the entertainment along the way.
Therein lies the true appeal of Twenty20 and the reason why the franchise version in India proved so successful. Contrary to most, if not all other sports, the result is somehow less important that the process.
The game can and probably should be appreciated just for the beauty and power of its best protagonists. If Adam Gilchrist smashes 30 off a single over, those who see it will be telling friends about it for years.
Just don’t expect them to remember if he was on the winning side.
PHOTO: Umpire Krishna Hariharan orders a dog off the pitch in the opening game of the IPL Twenty20 tournament between the Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings in Cape Town, April 18, 2009. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings
Cricket never had much of a reputation for embracing innovation but now the stately rhythm of the five-day Test is being elbowed out of the way by the hell-for-leather scramble of Twenty20 perhaps it’s no surprise that the Mongoose bat Stuart Law used on Tuesday has generated hardly a whimper of protest.
Midway through his innings for Derbyshire on Tuesday, Law switched to using the new Mongoose T20 bat, which, we are told, has a handle that’s 33 percent longer than the standard bat, but with hardly anything in the way of shoulder.
At first glance it looks a bit odd, something that’d be very useful for killing spiders but a bit awkward for batting. Still, Law sounded cautiously pleased with it after a brief knock that included one huge six. Here’s a Law quote from The Buzz:
“You need to get used to it,” Law said. “The greater bat-speed means you’re more inclined to go through early with the stroke — which is a good thing in a way.”
The question now is whether we’ll see this thing being used at the World Twenty20, which is almost upon us. And if so, is there anything wrong with that? From what I’ve read, it sounds like the lack of shoulder means it might not be appropriate for facing quick bowlers, but seeing as slower bowlers seem to be key to success at the Twenty20 game this thing could have a profound impact.
And never has the phrase “Give it the long handle” been more apposite.
Mongoose photo by Alexandra Beier/Reuters. And you’re right, we didn’t have one of Law batting yesterday.
The first Tests against both West Indies and Australia this year start on Wednesday instead of the traditional Thursday because the second Tests are scheduled for the following week.
West Indies, beaten by 10 wickets, were not even the first choice team to open a season the marketing men have called the greatest summer of cricket ever staged in England with a Twenty20 World Cup and an Ashes series.
And after regaining the Wisden Trophy in the Caribbean this year in an increasingly torpid series after they shot England out for 51 in the first test, West Indies have shown little appetite for the always fickle and often chilly English spring.
West Indies were not the only ones caught cold. Cricket fans seemed surprised to learn the test season had started and there were 7,500 unsold tickets for Wednesday. Even Saturday, traditionally one of the highlights of the London sporting and social calendar, was not a sell-out.
The West Indies series was squeezed in at the start of May to allow the ECB to fulfil its obligations to Sky television who pay for seven tests a season. The Ashes series will start in July to make room for the 16-day Twenty20 World Cup in between.
In the meantime, the ECB must refund those who bought tickets for the weekend (nearly 20,000 on Saturday) while West Indies leave the comparatively tropical south for Durham in the north-east and the second test.
What is certain is that they will play an awful lot of cricket this season and by the end of the final day of the final Ashes test at the Oval this week’s Lord’s match, which should be a special occasion for players and spectators, will be a distant memory.
More, as too many sports governing bodies fail to realise, does not necessarily mean better.
PHOTO: ECB Chairman Giles Clarke (L) and England’s coach Andy Flower talk after the first Test against the West Indies at Lord’s, May 8, 2009. REUTERS/Philip Brown
If you think soccer is a hard sell in the United States then what about cricket? As we reported today, an American Premier League Twenty20 tournament is to be held in October on Staten Island, New York, with a cast made up largely of players from the rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL).
Usually whenever the words ‘cricket’ and ‘America’ are in the same sentence, it prompts laughter -– if the world’s most popular team sport, soccer, can’t breakthrough into the U.S. mainstream, what chance is there for cricket with rules and vocabulary that are unfathomable to most who haven’t grown up with the game?
On top of that, the most recent coverage the game has had in the United States has related to Texan Allen Stanford’s involvement in the Twenty20 game prior to his recent difficulties with his financial business — not perhaps a helpful introduction for the game.
Well, maybe this time the laughter should be put on hold. Forget test match cricket in the U.S of course (Americans may give most sports a try but they are never going to buy into a five-day game that ends in a draw after ‘tea’ on the final day).
But Twenty20, the quickfire, spectacular short-version of the game, has found a mass audience in all the major cricket playing nations and while it is clearly not going anywhere near the American mainstream, New York has a large community of immigrants who are very familiar with the game.
There are large numbers of Indians and Caribbeans, along with expats from other cricketing countries, and certainly enough to fill up a minor league baseball park such as the one for this tournament. Sure, it’s unlikely that the major sports networks would be interested, but it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if some televised deals were done with some outlets in Asia.
So it could be a fun couple of weeks in New York for cricket fans but the event has yet to get the backing of the USA Cricket Association and therefore the International Cricket Council, the game’s governing body, have been warning their members against getting involved.
But if, as organiser Jay Mir says, two thirds of the players are from the already outlawed ICL, that is not going to be such a deterrent.
As for the broader question of could cricket catch on in the United States? I think the answer has to be clearly not, certainly not in any major sense. But the way modern sport is developing, with specialist niche media covering events and minority sports finding their place within cosmopolitan communities, there is no reason why cricket couldn’t find a small but secure place in certain cities.
In some places it already has. Cricket is actually played in some New York schools and down here in Florida there is a decent purpose-built stadium in Lauderhill where Florida league cricket is played.
But what about playing the game in a baseball venue? Would that attract some followers of America’s preferred summer pastime to check out another game involving bat and ball?
Manny Ramirez of the LA Dodgers did just that in a recent promotional spot for Direct TV and as the clip shows below - he didn’t make that bad of a first attempt.
Bit of a cow-corner* slogger mind…
* See here for a friendly list of cricketing terms
The second Twenty20 World Cup takes place in England this year and the hosts are facing the prospect of a humiliating experience.
England’s feeble six-wicket loss to the West Indies in Sunday’s one-off match was further proof that they have completely failed to get to grips with the newest form of the game.
A swashbuckling 100-run victory over Australia in their first ever Twenty20 clash in 2005 proved the falsest of dawns for England who have won only five of 14 matches since and tried an extraordinary 42 different players in a bid to find the right team.
While other countries have used a core of proven test players as the nucleus of their Twenty20 sides, England have blooded a succession of journeymen county players in the vain hope that they would be up to the job.
Michael Yardy, Jonathan Trott, Jeremy Snape, Tim Bresnan and Paul Nixon never had the basic skills to strike fear into the world’s top teams and they have duly returned to the county ranks after palpably failing to cut the mustard on the international stage.
Dimitri Mascharenhas has enjoyed limited success but the burly 31-year-old all-rounder is essentially a slogger, capable of hitting the odd boundary but lacking the technique to survive for long against the world’s top bowlers.
England do have world-class players in Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff while Ravi Bopara and Stuart Broad are young players with genuine potential. But the selectors must show far more consistency and demand a complete rethink of the team’s tactical approach if England are to have any hope of being competitive in the 2009 World Cup.
Bright spring sunshine hit Lord’s on Saturday 
