LAST Sunday, I had hoped that we will have a good game of cricket worthy enough of a World Cup final. As it appeared, I was asking for a little too much. In terms of a keen contest, the match was a mismatch. It was no different from what we had seen, or suffered, four years ago when the fate of the contest was sealed before the second innings had even begun.
On that occasion, Australia, under Steve Waugh had bowled Pakistan out of the contest. This time, Australia, under Ricky Ponting, batted India out of contention. Having to score in excess of 350 was as difficult for the India as it was for the Pakistanis to defend a paltry total of around 120-125.
The Australian victory was always on the cards. It was the margin and manner of victory that stamped their unchallenged authority on world cricket. It is some reflection of the physical, technical and mental resilience of the Australian side that it achieved the coveted honour without all their first-string resources being available.
Shane Watson, for instance, was selected, but had to drop out before the team had even travelled to South Africa. Shane Warned did travel with the team, but had to leave the camp before the tournament had even started. And, finally, Jason Gillespie had to return half way through the tournament on account of injury. If all this was not good enough, Damien Martin played the final with a broken finger.
And yet, the Australians were a solid hundred runs too good for the Indians. The fact that the likes of Steve Waugh, Justin Langer and Stuart McGill are still available for selection, if need be, goes to show the depth in Australian cricket. Indeed, the Australian victory does not indicate only the level of playing skills, but it is a triumph of the overall machinery that manages the game in that country.
On the part of the Indians, they were the second-best side in the tournament without much of a doubt. But, for all practical purposes, they were a distant second. While they beat every other side that came in its way, the Indians never threatened to turn the tables on the Australians even though the two teams faced each other twice during the tournament. On each occasion, the Indians were thrashed and beaten into submission. But, still, no one can deny them the fact that they were the second-best side in the tournament, which is no mean achievement. They gave it a good try, but, frankly, were found lacking.
In the face of that mammoth total, the Indians had two option: either to go for an early rush and bring the required run rate to around 6-6.5 and then to stabilize the innings; or to stabilize the innings first, keep the wickets intact and accelerate gradually. They took the first option, which had less chance of success in view of the Australian pace attack of Glen McGrath and Brett Lee.
Between the innings, I thought, and hoped, that they would take the second route. Initially it may sound too hypothetical, but just imagine this scenario: They had to make 360 runs in a minimum of 300 legitimate deliveries. If they could hit 20 boundaries, it would have brought them 80 runs, which meant that they had to score the remaining 280 runs in 280 legitimate deliveries, which is run-a-ball stuff.
I know it is easier said than done, but if you could plan it on paper, you start believing in yourself and then set short-term targets, which, in turn, takes the pressure of constantly chasing a mammoth total off you. India, I am sure, could have given itself a mush greater chance had they tried to score around 240-250 runs by the 40-over mark, which is just about run-a-ball. This they could have done without having to take undue risks. With 110-120 runs to get in the last ten overs, and with seven — maybe eight — wickets in hand, anything was possible. Mind you, the plan does not include the element of wides, no-balls and possible overthrows that would have helped India’s cause. All this demanded was for the players to hold their nerves, which they failed to do.
LAST Sunday, I had hoped that we will have a good game of cricket worthy enough of a World Cup final. As it appeared, I was asking for a little too much. In terms of a keen contest, the match was a mismatch. It was no different from what we had seen, or suffered, four years ago when the fate of the contest was sealed before the second innings had even begun.
