PLANNING OF A CHASE - 2

What a chase we had today! India, needing a bonus point win, chased down Sri Lanka's score of 320 in just 36.4 overs, to win by 7 wickets with 80 balls to spare. This win has kept India alive in this tri-series for at least 3 more days, and increased the interest in the last round robin match between Australia and Sri Lanka.

India knew right from the beginning that the target, whatever it may be, had to be chased down in 40 overs or less. So when the first half ended and the target of 321 became clear, the hopes of an average Indian fan were not too high. But the Indian batting unit, which has not enjoyed a fruitful tour of Australia, clicked well and - riding on a magnificent ton by Virat Kohli - chased down the target in a more than convincing style!

The chase was a brilliantly constructed one. Since the required rate for a 40-over win was above 8 runs per over, it was clear that a fast start would be of utmost importance. Sehwag and Tendulkar provided that with some audacious batting. When the mandatory powerplay ended, India had scored 97 runs for the loss of the two openers.

When Tendulkar got out lbw to Malinga in the 10th over, there were a lot of tweets on my timeline suggesting that Dhoni should come out to bat. Their logic must have been that he takes his time to settle in, and if there is time to be used up, it better be between 10 - 15 overs rather than later in the innings. That is fine, but I was happier to see Kohli come in to bat at No. 4, and happier still that he stayed till the end to guide the chase in a manner contrasting of how Dhoni would have done it.

My last post on this blog (about 2.5 weeks ago) was about Dhoni's planning of chases. This one is about how Virat Kohli planned this one, and comparing it with what Dhoni would have done (the latter part would obviously be presumption based on the pattern of his innings in the successful run chase against Australia and the tied match against Sri Lanka).

On of my biggest problem with Dhoni when he comes out to bat with overs in hand in a run chase is that he plays far too many dot balls at the start of his innings. Settling in is fine, but the same can be done more effectively by rotating the strike rather than dead batting the ball. Kohli too played 8 dot balls between 10 and 15 overs, but at the end of 15 overs, he was still batting on 16* (18b). Compare this with Dhoni's knock in the successful run chase against Australia, and you will find that Dhoni stood at 8* (24b) at one stage in that chase. Even if you grant Dhoni the benefit of a much easier chase on hand against Australia, I don't think you'd still justify 8 runs in 24 balls!

At the end of 15 overs, India stood at 118 for 2, and though only 21 had been scored in the last 5 overs, there was enough momentum to make Mahela Jayawardene delay taking the Bowling Powerplay, as he has himself admitted. Had Kohli made the kind of start that Dhoni made at Adelaide, India might have had about 10 runs fewer at that stage, and Sri Lanka might have taken the Bowling Powerplay, causing the batsmen to take a risk or two more than ideal. This is presumption, but by no means far-fetched!

In my last post, I had written: "if the best finisher of the team (MS Dhoni) is coming in to bat with 92 needed of 95 balls and batsmen like Suresh Raina (batting), Jadeja and Ashwin (to follow), and the team ends up needing 13 in the final over with two of these above batsmen still batting, then the chase has been miscalculated somewhere."

At Hobart, two of India's best chasers (Gambhir and Kohli) planned it in such a way that going up to the 40th over would not be necessary. One may argue that the early finish was more a result of the leaking Malinga - an assault that even Kohli would admit that he had not planned for - but I think it is still quite clear that Kohli had planned to finish the game off at least one over before the 40th. Their partnership saw calculated risks (mostly taken by Kohli) for boundaries every now and again, which allowed them to be unflustered if Sri Lanka managed to sneek in a good tight over. This is the reason why Rangana Herath's spell of 4 overs for just 20 runs did not have as big an effect on the result as it should have had.

When the second lot of powerplay overs commenced, Kohli executed the second half of his plan, which was to attack straightaway and keep the required run rate below 9 runs per over at all times, rather than chasing 13 off the final over! He was obviously helped by some poor bowling from Sri Lanka, especially some of the leg-stump lines... but one must consider that when a batsman is pulling off some calculated risks, the bowlers are under increased pressure and have greater tendency to falter.

India may still not reach the finals of the series, but it was a great match for the team... and something they dearly needed towards the end of a very difficult tour of Australia!

PLANNING OF A CHASE

India beat Australia earlier today by 4 wickets with 2 balls to spare at Adelaide in the 4th ODI of the CB Triangular Series. While Gautam Gambhir was India's top contributor with a measured 92, it was Dhoni's knock of 44* (58) that was the talking point of the day.

India won the match due to a massive 112 meter six by Dhoni followed by a no-ball by Clint McKay due to a above-waist height full toss. Once it was over, a lot of people called it all well and good... but was it just as well and good when the chase was on? My Twitter timeline at the time of the chase said that most of the viewers were having trouble understanding why Dhoni was leaving it so late. And I was with them... indeed, why so late?

The biggest question raised after Dhoni hit that monstrous six was that if one can hit such shots, why not try it earlier to ease a bit of pressure, rather than risking it all at the end. And these kind of queries were not just raised in the minds of casual viewers, but also the men in the dressing room. The Man of the Match Gautam Gambhir had this to say: "We should have finished this game in the 48th over. We shouldn't have taken this game to the 50th over, that's my personal observation."

What is the best way to plan and pace a chase? When do you attack and when do you rely on quick running? Obviously, the answers differ in different conditions, but I think certain things remain common everywhere. In my opinion, if the best finisher of the team (MS Dhoni) is coming in to bat with 92 needed of 95 balls and batsmen like Suresh Raina (batting), Jadeja and Ashwin (to follow), and the team ends up needing 13 in the final over with two of these above batsmen still batting, then the chase has been miscalculated somewhere.

And in this innings of MS Dhoni, it is quite apparent where the miscalculation occurred. His innings break up is like this - 8 runs of first 24 balls, 25 of next 31 balls, and 11 runs of the last 3 balls. He came in when 92 were needed of 95 balls, and ended up playing 30 dot balls, i.e. 52% of the total deliveries he faced. To put it in perspective, Gambhir faced 52 dot balls in his 111-ball innings, i.e. 47% of the total deliveries faced by him, despite batting through the middle overs as well!

One might well argue that since Dhoni was not doing much to get the required run rate down, Raina and Jadeja had to go for the big hits, and lose their wickets in the process. Gambhir was right when he said that it's difficult in the middle, and different people plan their chases differently, but surely, when you end up with 7 runs of 19 balls in the Batting Powerplay and play a dot ball in almost every over where you also take a 2, you are not doing a lot of good, are you?

Dhoni is usually a fabulous planner and executor of chases - stiff ones, tricky ones, easy ones and straightforward ones. He, along with Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli, have made India a very competent chasing unit in limited overs cricket, and also made the World Cup runners-up captain Kumar Sangakkara remark that a team needs about 350 runs on the board to feel safe against this Indian team. But every now and again, there arises a question mark of Dhoni's strategies in such situations.

Like it arose today, it had also arisen during the first Twenty20 between India and Australia earlier on this tour. One of the earlier occasions that I can remember when a similar question had arisen in my mind was not a chase, but India setting a target for New Zealand on the tour of 2009 in the 2nd Twenty20 International, where he wasted the middle overs with 8* (18) before ending up with 28* (30). In that match too, it might be argued that Dhoni's slow approach forced Yuvraj Singh, Yusuf Pathan and Ravindra Jadeja to play shots that shouldn't have ideally been required in those situations.

The man I have written this post about - MS Dhoni - had brilliantly executed the 161 required runs of 170 balls in the World Cup finals. The run rate required then at Wankhede Stadium was 5.68 runs per over, and here at Adelaide Oval was 5.81 runs per over. If he can do it so well there, why couldn't he do it as well here? Had this been a one-off case, I wouldn't have bothered writing this long a post, presuming it to be a mistake. But it is not a one-off case, and thus this has to be considered a strategy of some sort - and in my opinion, a miscalculated strategy!

AT 2

CRIC - SIS turns 2 today! I have not been very active on this blog or on Twitter for about last 6 months. As a result, while I had posted almost 300 blog entries in my first year of existence on blogosphere, I have done only about 100 in this second year. This is No. 398th!

I have been caught up in a lot of other things away from blogosphere and twitter causing the lower returns of the second year. Though I do have the satisfaction of having received a lot more hits on these last 100 than I received on the first 300!

I believe I'll manage to be a lot more frequent over my third year, because not being so means missing the company of a lot of brilliant minds, whose comments on this forum and banter over at Twitter has become an excellent company to have at all times! I could never have imagined 2 years ago that there will be so many different people all around the world whom I have never seen by face, but will always relate to them by their Twitter handles and Display pictures!

To all the readers that I have had for these two years, Thank You! It's fun writing about cricket, because when you follow it passionately, the excesses spill out in the form of words. But it's even better to see people read and acknowledge what you have written - whether they agree or disagree from your point of view! Thank you, once again!

WHY I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANDREW MILLER

On reading this piece by Andrew Miller on Cricinfo (How good are this England side?), I was left with quite a few questions in my head. There are a couple of points in that piece that immediately left me shaking my head in disagreement. Here is the first bit:

"It is said that the acid test for this England team will come when they are faced with Asian pitches in the UAE and Sri Lanka this winter, though it's hard to believe that's really the case. If any side has the ingredients to triumph in such conditions, it is England - the fittest squad of international cricketers on the planet, whose batsmen have demonstrated the dedication required to grind out big scores in attritional passages of play, whose bowlers build pressure by strangling runs, and whose spinner, Swann - for all that he falls short of true greatness - is indisputably the best in the game at present."

I do not quite understand why is it so hard to believe that the acid test for England will come on Asian pitches. The current England squad is undoubtedly brilliant, and arguably at the peak of its powers at the moment. They managed to earn a hard-fought draw away in South Africa, flattened Australia in Australia, and demolished India at home. Like the great teams of the past, the only ground that remains to be conquered is the sub-continent (or broadly Asia, since they will be playing Pakistan in UAE).

He reasons that England is the fittest squad currently (though I think that the South Africans might want to challenge him on that), their batsmen have the capability to be attritional and score big, bowlers can strangle runs when needed, and they have the best spinner in the world. Fine reasons those!

But each of those reasons applied even to Steve Waugh's men who conquered everything in their path... or rather, almost everything! They were the fittest squad of their time, some of the batsmen and bowlers on their payroll are acknowledged today as all-time greats, and they definitely featured the best spinner of their time - one who even managed to make it to Cricinfo's All-Time Test XI as a unanimous choice!

Yet, on either side of their run of 16 consecutive Test wins through 1999, 2000 and 2001, Steve Waugh's Australia failed in its acid test on Asian wickets. The Kolkata and Chennai defeats to India in 2001 are famously remembered, but what is not remembered is that just before the start of their 16-match winning streak, they had recorded a series loss in Sri Lanka (September 1999).

So hard as it may be for Mr. Miller to believe that Asian pitches shall be their acid test, they would really still need to pass it to be able to make a further claim. Just having ingredients of success is not enough, as we Indians learnt it the hard way this English summer! We may not have had all the ingredients of success in our Indian squad, but we had managed to hold on to the No. 1 ranking with whatever ingredients we possessed for 20 months. It all came down spectacularly in 1 month! While I don't think it will be quite as dramatic for England, they still do have a task on hand to consolidate their top-of-the-table ranking.

Now, coming to the second excerpt from Mr. Miller's piece that I actually managed to frown upon:

"Passages of play such as Mishra's stand with Sachin Tendulkar prove that England are not unstoppable, but given that no team in the world can replicate their current levels of desire, it's going to take something extra to derail their ambitions."

Just one question here - just how does one claim that a certain person or a certain team's level of desire is the greatest or the least? I am really not a fan of blanket statements such as these where desires, ambitions, courage, spirit, and other such immeasurable aspects of a sportsman or sportsmen are judged.

I was not the only one who did not quite agree with this statement. There were others too, like @thecricketcouch and @grangergabblog. In reply to @thecricketcouch's question as to how could he make such a statement of England team's desire, this is what Mr. Miller (@miller_cricket) replied: 

Honestly, I believe this is as wrong an argument as any I have seen. I don't think that desire is always directly proportional to your on-field performance. Does that mean that every time a team loses a match, they did not desire to win it? It's a very rhetorical question... so lets just explore this with a few examples.

India lost 7 for 33 vs. England at Bangalore, 4 for 30 during the middle overs vs. the Netherlands at New Delhi, a mammoth collapse of 9 for 29 vs. South Africa at Nagpur, and even a 7 for 50 vs. West Indies at Chennai during the league stages of the World Cup 2011. Does this mean that they had no desire to win it? Going by @miller_cricket's response to @thecricketcouch on Twitter, it would tantamount to lack of desire.

Lets use an English example. England lost 6 for 63 in the first innings of the 1st Ashes Test match at Brisbane last year. Does that mean that the Australians had more desire to win that Ashes Test match than England? Does Rafael Nadal's loss to Novak Djokovic at Wimbledon finals this year (2011), or his loss to Robin Soderling in the 4th round of French Open 2009 or Federer's loss to Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon 2008 imply that the victors were the ones who desired those wins more?

That, in my opinion, would be an insult to the vanquished - be it India this summer, Australia last winter, or Nadal and Federer over those (and other) matches. Every sportsman in every sport (be it a team game or an individual sport) takes the field of play with the sole desire to win. That is my opinion at least, for that is how even I used to play during my school days even against an XI comprising of seniors! These men are professional, and to compare and judge their levels of desire, in my opinion, is quite like insulting them!

THE DRAVID DISMISSAL DEBATE

After my previous post on The Dravid Selection Debate, this one is now on the 2nd innings dismissal of Rahul Dravid during the 4th Test at the Oval. It looks like Dravid debates are the fashion for this season! Already, this dismissal has been discussed and dissected all over Twitter and other cricket forums on the internet. Here are my thoughts for what they are worth!

First, let me state very clearly that I did not see the dismissal live and did not even manage to catch a replay till well after the end of day's play. When I did see the replay, I already knew that Dravid had admitted to have edged it. So whether I think there was an edge or not does not matter, because my eyes were always going to be prejudiced after that admission by Dravid. But here's what I do know:

1. Most English commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw a slight deflection from a certain angle, and so Steve Davis was justified in ruling Dravid out.

2. Most Indian commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw no conclusive evidence for Steve Davis to overrule the on-field decision. Since DRS over-ruling works on the basis of conclusive evidence, Davis was not justified.

3. Amongst the neutral, I don't recall many opinions. But I do recall Mike Haysman tweeting that he didn't think there was any conclusive evidence to rule Dravid out.

I think that based on these statements, we can assume that it was a marginal call either way.

Now what I am going to state here has been stated so often already that it's sounding more and more like a cliché, but it has to be mentioned nevertheless. So here it goes again - the DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and not rule on marginal calls. Where marginal calls are involved, the ground umpire's decision should be taken as the final one. Only when there is overwhelming evidence against the ground umpire's ruling should that decision be overturned.

But while I state all this, lets not forget that the primary aim of the judiciary (and this includes the umpires as well as the technology that has been provided for their aid) is to come to the right decision. And in Dravid's case, the right decision was indeed reached, even though in a wrong way! I remember once an umpire (I think it was Simon Taufel, but I'm not sure!) stated that they would not want their walkie-talkie conversations ever recorded, because often they reach the right decisions in very wrong ways!

So what to make of this debate? Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, in my opinion and strictly in my opinion, I think that the right decision was made and Steve Davis was good to have spotted that faint edge and deviation. In his mind, he was must have been reasonably sure that the edge had been taken, however thin it may have been, and he relayed that decision back to the ground umpire. That's it!

But that's not the end of the story! What I have trouble comprehending is that why are umpires inconsistent in this matter. Some like Billy Bowden prefer to go exactly by the rule book and rule Ian Bell not out in the World Cup match against India even though the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that he should have been Yuvraj Singh's victim! And some like Steve Davis decide to use their initiative and overrule the foundation on which the DRS is based - i.e. the foundation of overwhelming evidence!

I know that the "Ian Bell - Yuvraj Singh - Billy Bowden" example is not quite an exact parallel to this one. And to be honest, I couldn't find any exact parallel. So I will give you the best I could find...

The following video shows the wickets and close calls during the Canada vs. Kenya match in the World Cup 2011. Watch this video from 5:02 onwards - the batsman is Kenyan Steve Tikolo, and the bowler is Canadian Rizwan Cheema.



Now, from what I see here, I think that the edge was clearer here on Steve Tikolo's bat than it was in case of Rahul Dravid at The Oval. I know that it may be a futile exercise to compare, since the situations were different and the umpires involved were different (Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Steve Tikolo case). But the point I'm trying to make is that Oxenford saw it was a marginal call, and though some angles suggested an inside edge, he decided to rule it in favour of the on-field umpire's call. He saw no overwhelming evidence to overrule!

Here, I am not trying to blame Steve Davis in any way. I have already stated that with the benefit of hindsight, we can all agree that the correct decision was made. But the blame lies entirely with ICC's pathetic implementation of the DRS, and its use for marginal calls.

I understand that Bruce Oxenford may not have been as convinced as Steve Davis was to overrule the on-field call, but if I am allowed to judge the third umpires here, I am sure that neither Oxenford nor Davis could have been 100% sure about the edges. Even if Steve Davis was reasonably certain about the edge, I am prepared to bet that he could not have been a 100% confident about his call... simply because it indeed was a very marginal call and the replays could not have been deemed to be 100% conclusive. The varied opinions all over Twitter suggest nothing else.

So what does the ICC have to state? Are the on-field calls to be over-ruled where the third umpires are just reasonably sure about the evidence on offer? Or are they to be over-ruled only when the third umpires are a 100% certain about the error in the on-field decision? Till the ICC does not answer this question clearly and decisively, we will continue to have such vagaries in decision-making even in the future. How this decision might affect the result of this match will be known only tomorrow (and even then, just speculatively), but what it did was that it ended a marathon effort by India's best batsman on this tour on a very sour note!

Well played, Rahul Dravid! Much respect!

SNAPS TO REMEMBER #MOAG BY

Here are a few snapshots from the Mother of All Games India v. Pakistan semi-finals at Mohali of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 on 30th March 2011. All photos taken from Cricinfo (except for the first screenshot of my tweet).

This is what I had tweeted 2 and a half hours before the match began...

... and that (and a little more) is exactly what Mr. Shastri went on to say!

If you think that the cameraman wanted to capture India's No. 10 with the two PMs in one shot, think again! He wanted to capture the face above SRT's left ear in the same shot with the two PMs

Discussing the script of a new movie called "Saat Chances Maaf!"

Uhhh... Errr... can't quite understand how they ended up in this tangle!

The best... Here is what Cricinfo's caption reads: "Suresh Raina inexplicably holds Munaf Patel and Virender Sehwag aloft after Abdul Razzaq's dismissal"...

PONTING SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH A LEVEL 1 OFFENCE

Might once again get away without punishment

It is all over the news that Ricky Ponting reportedly smashed the glass of the LCD TV in the Australian team's dressing room after watching the replay of his run out dismissal during their first World Cup 2011 game against Zimbabwe on February 21, 2011 at Ahmedabad.

We all know that this is not the first time that Ponting has been involved in an act that is not worthy of a sportsman, let alone the captain of the three-time defending champions! His most recent tryst with ICC's Code of Conduct was when he was involved in a heated argument with Aleem Dar during the Ashes 2010-11 after the third umpire upheld the ground umpire's decision to rule Kevin Pietersen not out. He was fined 40% of his match fees back then... a punishment too light, in my opinion.

But the media reports suggest that Ponting might well get away with his glass-breaking act this time. Reports state that Ponting apologised for this incident and claimed that it was an accident and not an intentional act of smashing the glass on the TV set. The Australian media manager has also claimed that the glass has not been shattered, but just a corner of the screen has suffered a blackout due to unintentional impact with Ponting's box, which flew up to the screen as he threw it into his kit bag.

Whatever the case may be, the possibility that Ricky Ponting will get away with his apology is a depressing news to hear. I have never been a fan of Ricky Ponting's behaviour on the cricket field... and even though this act came in the dressing room, it was a direct result of what happened in the field.

I will be very surprised if eventually, Ponting escapes with no punishment for his act. Ayaz Menon tweeted that while ICC may be able to frame codes to regulate the players' conduct on the field, there isn't much that can be done for what happens in the change rooms. But he is wrong here.

Level 1 Point 1.2 offence in the ICC Code of Conduct is defined as "Abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings."

Isn't the television in the dressing room a part of the ground equipments? Matthew Hayden had been charged with this offence and fined accordingly when he had broken a piece of glass in his team's dressing room after his dismissal during the 5th Ashes Test at Sydney in January 2003. Why isn't Ponting being charged with a similar offence?

At the risk of sounding like a frustrated Asian ranting out against the Aussies, I have to pose a question for the readers to ponder - had Sreesanth broken the glass of the LCD TV in the dressing room after his bad spell of bowling against Bangladesh and then apologised, would he have been let off?

ANY COMMENTS?

Greame Smith uploaded this pic on his Twitter page. I am speechless...

FIFA WORLD CUP ON THE LAST LAP

In just about a couple of hours, the closing ceremony of the FIFA World Cup 2010 will begin... before the Grand Finale between the Netherlands and Spain.

Now, the bookies all over the world are reportedly favouring Spain to lift the title. In fact, most Indian celebrities are also reportedly backing Spain... a number of them have said as such on their Twitter pages. The German team manager has thrown his weight behind the Spaniards. Robin van Persie, the Dutch striker (supposedly target-man), has also admitted that Spain will start as slight favourites. And yes, before I forget, the star of the World Cup hero from Germany, Paul the Octopus, has also predicted a Spanish win.

Does this increase the pressure on the flamboyant, yet perennially under-achieving Spanish side? I guess it does. Now, I did use the word flamboyant to describe Spain... because all the newspapers seem to think so. But I think that this word has come out only after the semi-final match against Germany... where Spain indeed was flamboyant and the deserving winner.

However, if we look further back, it was not an easy ride for them as it has been for the Netherlands. Spain just about managed to scrape through over Paraguay... and though they were the clearly better team against Portugal before that, they won the game because Portugal underperformed and not because they were exceptional.

Netherlands, on the other hand, have been a lot more attack-minded than Spain. Their goal tally shows as such. Spain have scored just 7 goals over the past one month whereas Netherlands have been way ahead on 12 goals. In fact, the problem for Spain is that apart from David Villa, Andres Iniesta and Carlos Puyol, no one has managed to strike the back of the net. And they certainly cannot rely on Puyol to score everyday... then who will be at the back!?

For the Netherlands, the scorers have been Dirk Kuyt, Robin van Persie, Klaas Jan Huntelaar, Giovanni van Bronckhorst, Arjen Robben and of course, Wesley Sneijder. This seems to suggest that they have a lot more settled and confident attack than the Spaniards.

The Dutch, however, have not been very strong defensively. They have conceded 5 at the back, in comparison to just 2 by Spain. And when you compare the goalkeepers, I would pick Iker Casillas any day over Maarten Stekelenburg.

So this contest builds up nicely... on one hand is a team with a misfiring attack but a strong defense facing up to a team with a confident attack but a faltering defense. Both teams are chasing history... never having won this competition in the past 80 years of its existence.

Spain already starts on the backfoot... in terms of history. No team has ever won this showpiece event after having lost their first match. Spain had lost the first match to Switzerland... but they have regrouped since then.

So... now the wait is just about over. In a few hours, the world will know which team has made history. Let the battle begin...

ABOUT TWITTER AND IRELAND

A lot has happenned around the world since my last blog. A few more matches have been completed (subject to the moods of the Weather Gods) at the World Twenty20 Championship. No upsets yet... though Ireland almost managed one against England yesterday. Sachin Tendulkar has joined Twitter... stormed into Twitter would be more apt. He has 87552 followers when I last checked. That was in 37 hours and 19 minutes from his first tweet. And since I practice Sachinism, I decided to join twitter as well (http://twitter.com/cricsis).

Now back to the cricket that is happenning. Australia have just about wrapped up a win over Bangladesh... a commendable effort considering that they were looking down the barrel in the early stages of the match. Bangladesh showed promise, but once again the batting let them down. Sounds like a very similar story!

But its yesterday's match between England and Ireland that fascinated me a lot. In the end, the score books would show the result as "No Result", and the records would state that England have gone through to the next round. On one hand, the English team would feel that justice was served (they were unfairly declared losers by D/L Method against the Windies), whereas on the other hand, the Irish would feel that they were hard done by. They did extremely well to restrict the English team to a very gettable target. When the match was about the recommence, they would have needed 47 runs from 33 balls.

It would have been unfair for England had they been knocked out... but its not fair for Ireland either. But when was sport ever fair?

Ireland has taken big strides in international cricket over the past 3-4 years. Their progress has looked even more impressive after considering the fact that some of their promising players have been 'stolen' by England (Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan). The contribution of guys like Trent Johnston and Niall and Kevin O'Brien has been very commendable and these guys deserve a pat on their backs.

One of my biggest reasons of me liking Twenty20 cricket is that it gives an opportunity to the lesser teams to shine on the big stage... if not shine, atleast show the promise (like Afghanistan). I really wish to see the Twenty20 World Cup expand to a 16-team format. It is difficult to play 16 teams in an ODI tournament, but can be managed in Twenty20s. So why not try it and allow more nations a chance to impress!

CARBON NEUTRAL - REALLY?

I just heard that IPL and UN have struck a deal - something related to environment preservation. UN has declared 2010 as the 'Year of Bio - Diversity' and is apparently 'impressed by IPL's commitment to the cause of betterment of the environment'.

Lalit Modi announced that by next year, IPL will become a completely 'Carbon Neutral' tournament. I did a quick check on Wikipedia. Here's the meaning of Carbon Neutrality: "Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference."

Trust Lalit Modi to come up with jargons that even he will barely understand. If he is truly committed to make IPL 'Carbon Neutral', he might have to completely let go off the fireworks display that have become a regularity in IPL's opening and closing ceremonies. In fact, the whole concept of opening and closing ceremonies is very much stacked against 'Carbon Neutrality'. Is he ready to let go of the laser shows, stage performances and all the hoopla?

He does not have to stop giving his speeches (something he seemingly loves). He can always use Twitter for that.