Confusing Bopara comment

The London Paper last night reported some of Ravi Bopara's comments after he and Stuart Broad guided England to an unlikely victory in the 4th ODI against India. Bopara was quoted as saying "All I could think about was the Sri Lanka game against the West Indies. I had a bit of stick for not finishing the job and I was desperate to finish it off here."

My question is, as someone who was out of the country at the time, who gave him some stick? OK, I was watching the game on a fuzzy screen in the middle of the night in India, and often couldn't see where the white ball had gone as the picture was that bad(!), but it looked like a heroic effort that just came up short to me. Were people really giving him stick after the Sri Lanka World Cup defeat?

"Disasterous" World Cup?

I've just heard on the BBC Sports News that Michael Vaughan has stepped down from the captaincy of the ODI side following "a disasterous World Cup". Read more about him stepping down here.

I must have been watching a different World Cup. We were ranked 7th in the world going into it and came 5th. India and Pakistan had disasterous World Cups - England didn't. I was out of the country when England won the Commonwealth Bank final against Australia through one good victory and another chance one when the game was reduced due to rain, so all I can assume is that the media built up the chances of the England team at the World Cup following that win to such an extent that the general public thought we would magically out-perform our ODI ranking by more than 2 places? Or maybe the media is now telling us it was a "disasterous" performance, and we're all beginning to think it was?

To be positive, if the England Test team move up just one place in the rankings we're top!

The ICC avoided another crisis...just

It's long gone now for everyone, but it turns out that the World Cup Final, which was soured by the inability of the Match Control Team to know, and implement, the match regulations properly, could have easily thrown up another anomaly that the ICC were aware of, it appears, but had done nothing about. I pondered the use of the powerplays in the final and, having checked into the match regulations for the World Cup on the ICC's website and it turns out that but for Ponting's tactics, the ICC would have been completely embarrassed. To refresh your memories, the match was shortened to 38 overs each and it threatened rain from early in the Sri Lankan innings, the rain eventually falling after 24.5 overs, so the innings had to be further reduced to 36 overs. From there, the players were taken off for bad light after 33 overs and, as has been commented on many times, were wrongly asked to play out the last 3 overs. In fact, the game should have been considered over after the players went off for bad light, Sri Lanka having completed 33 overs of their innings. The shortening of the game to 38 overs meant that after the initial 10 overs, only one more powerplay of 5 overs was required to be used.

Seeing that the rain was coming, Sri Lanka's batting was very attacking, as they knew that they had to be ahead on the Duckworth/Lewis system because rain was inevitable. Ponting must have known rain was inevitable too, but he perhaps wasn't aware of the intricacies of the Duckworth/Lewis system, because if he was he may well not have used his powerplay until the final overs. Alternatively, he may have been fully aware but decided to use it anyway, knowing that in the semi-final and final teams averaged over 6 out of powerplay overs but less than 5 in them. But despite that, leaving the second powerplay to the end of the innings could have been the best tactic because the Duckworth-Lewis method does not take into account powerplays in calculating runs required, so in this hypothetical example below, the team that batted first could get away with using only 10 powerplay overs when fielding, rather than 20, which they had received.

Team 1 bats 50 overs
Team 2 bats 20 - 40 overs, then it rains making any more play impossible (20 overs constitutes a match)

Of course, the likelihood of a captain fielding second being able to tell exactly when the rain will come is unlikely, but if they are able to tell that it will come within, say, 5 overs, or even 10 overs, they have a pretty good chance of increasing their chances of winning by leaving powerplays to the end of the innings, knowing there is a very high chance that they won't be used at all, as the players will have left the field. While Ponting didn't do this in the World Cup final, he could have done and it would have left the ICC with egg on their faces as it would literally have meant one set of rules for one team, and another set for the other.

Here's the ICC's thoughts on why the D-L method doesn't take into account powerplays:

"If any allowance were made for the different scoring abilities for overs with fielding restrictions, then the identities of the different types of overs would have to be input into the target calculation, and this would be a considerable and unwelcome complication for the scorers and would prevent targets and par scores being known instantly they are required. But a thorough analysis of several thousand match scorecards covering the different rules in place over the years has shown that the effects of these rules on scoring patterns are not statistically significant. So no allowance for the effect of rules on fielding restrictions have been considered necessary."

I find this statement very strange. The first sentence seems to suggest that to take into account powerplays would be too much admin for the scorers, then later in the same sentence they refer to needing to know par scores instantly. As the D-L method in use at the World Cup was the "Professional edition" that requires a computer to calculate the par score (rather than the Standard edition that uses a table that can be printed so that players and umpires can read off the par score), there is no concern over how quickly the par score can be calculated - a computer is needed whether powerplays are considered or not. I also don't understand why they were looking at thousands of matches to look at scoring rates...the matches that were relevant were the games since 7th July 2005, when the powerplay rule was brought in, and of those matches, only the ones where the powerplays weren't taken as quickly as possible. The games that are relevant to look at are those that would have constituted a match at 20 overs or more, but where powerplay 3 had not been completed at that point.

I'm not sure how many matches there were like this, but there were only 272 from when powerplays were brought in to the last game prior to the World Cup, so it's not going to be a decent sample from which to prove whether powerplays need to be accounted for in the D-L method. That being the case - until proven otherwise - the logical argument is that, all other things being equal, a side will score more if they face a greater proportion of powerplay overs within their innings. So rather than using excuses to avoid the issue, the ICC should address this now before it effects a key match in a key tournament. If they really find it too difficult to get their heads around the formulae required, then perhaps this would be a simple part-way solution in the mean time:

*Powerplays must be completed with 10 overs of an innings to go

That way it is less likely that a captain can correctly judge when the rain may fall and avoid using powerplays 2 and 3 when fielding second (although it's still completely possible). It also gets back to the reason for powerplays in the first place - when fielding restrictions were in place for 15 overs without any decisions from the captains, overs 16-40 were considered "boring" with the game livening up again in the last 10 as sides looked to increase their scoring rates dramatically. Powerplays aren't needed in the last 10 to increase excitement, so this would seem like a reasonable measure while the ICC considers the issue of taking into account powerplays in a weather affected game. Ignore this at your peril ICC - it's another PR disaster waiting to happen and you came very close to embarrassment in the 2007 final.

May the best team win?

Possibly in a minority of one outside Australia, I was supporting Australia to win the World Cup final. It seems strange to me that anyone should have wanted otherwise unless they were Sri Lankan - after all Australia had proved comprehensively they were the best team in the tournament hadn't they?

But the problem with wanting the best team to win is that the audience, be they at the ground or watching on TV want a close match, and that doesn't always happen or, in the case of the 2007 World Cup, rarely happens. But that still doesn't mean that the game should be allowed to be shortened when it comes to the knockout stages - there is simply too much riding on the game to allow the chances of the lesser team winning to increase.

This contradicts what Michael Atherton was telling everyone in commentary during the World Cup final - and for one very good reason, I couldn't disagree more! He reckoned that as Australia had more big hitters this made them greater favourites in a shorter game, so let's take that to a hypothetical (and admittedly ludicrous conclusion). Australia were hot favourites to win the 50 over game before the final, but if they had played one ball each? The odds wouldn't have been much more than 50/50 as to who would win.

Let's hope that the best team is given the best chance of winning cricket World Cups, because the alternative is the situation in football where the best team certainly doesn't always win. Greece the best team in Euro 2004? I don't think so...

Surely Sri Lanka can't think they have a case?

Can the Sri Lankan's really be suggesting there is a problem with Gilchrist's use of a squash ball in his batting glove in the World Cup final? Surely, they can't...can they?

It appears they can. It could have been hoped that Tom Moody's presence in the Sri Lankan camp might have brought about some sensible thinking, but unfortunately things don't appear that way judging from reports.

What exactly is Gilchrist guilty of? He has been quoted as saying "I had a squash ball in my bottom hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match."

He clearly doesn't think there's anything wrong with using a squash ball in his glove or he wouldn't have said this publicly, and Cricket Burble agrees entirely. After all, had he asked a glove manufacturer to produce a glove with an inlay of squash ball material, they would undoubtedly have done so, and surely even Sri Lanka wouldn't have considered that unethical? As it was, things were made tougher for him as he had a loose squash ball in his glove.

But Sri Lanka do seem to be more than a little peeved about Gilchrist's admission. Sri Lankan cricket secretary Kangadaram Mathivanan has let reporters know his opinion on the matter. "We are of the opinion that it was unethical for Gilchrist to use a squash ball to give unfair advantage." He went on to say that Sri Lanka could even call on the ICC's cricket committee to enforce stringent application of law 42 on fair and unfair play to ensure that only approved protection equipment was used.

According to The Goan paper, Herald, the "revelation" made by Gilchrist caused uproar in Sri Lanka and many letters have been sent to Sri Lankan newspapers from members of the public "accusing the Australians of resorting to unfair tactics to win the game". The reaction of both the public and the administrators continues to go over the top in situations where even the most biased person must see that there is no reason for complaint. Before the 2003 rugby World Cup England Manager Clive Woodward asked Nike to produce a tight fitting shirt for the England team, which Nike did, but did the teams that weren't supplied by Nike complain? Of course not, they knew they could have done the same, and perhaps kicked themselves that they hadn't.

As always when something is done legally to advance sporting performance, there is a sense of jealousy from others that they didn't think of this tactic themselves. And the change will no doubt mark an improvement in the grips used on the inside of batting gloves, which all countries will be able to take advantage of because whether it made any difference to Gilchrist's performance is immaterial - the perception is that it did. Please Sri Lanka, you had a great World Cup, don't make yourselves look stupid by pursuing any line other than to congratulate Gilchrist and Australia on their win.

Too long...

Commentators and observers have been falling over themselves in criticising the 2007 World Cup. Simon Barnes might have called it "the worst sporting event in history" in The Times, but was it really? There seemed to be so many things that the tournament could be criticised for that no-one focused on any particular area and dissected what the reasons for that particular failing were and how to avoid them again. Of course the duration of the tournament seemed to be top of many people's list for criticism and Malcolm Speed admitted as much, "We'll seek to reduce this 47-day World Cup by seven or ten days, and hopefully we'll get it down to somewhere between five and six weeks next time."

But did any one of the commentators journalists that have been so scathing about the tournament's duration, go public with their concern prior to the tournament? Not that Cricket Burble heard - if you know different please let us know. The tournament schedule was released well in advance and little was said, except to argue that some of the minnow sides shouldn't be taking part. This, perhaps, is the real issue - there were too many one-sided games and even those that could be expected to deliver a little excitement (eg. England v South Africa) failed to live up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So the duration then....how does 47 days compare to other sporting events?

2007 Cricket World Cup - 13th March to 28th April
2006 Football World Cup - 9th June to 9th July
2002 Football World Cup - 31st May to 30th June
2004 Football European Championships - 12th June - 4th July
2004 Athens Olympics - 11th August - 29th August
2007 Rugby World Cup - 7th September - 20th October

So the cricket World Cup was undoubtedly very long compared to other world sporting events and yet the event had considerably less teams competing than for example, the football World Cup. Recovery time between matches is often a crucial factor in sports such as rugby, but no such concerns exist in cricket (unless you are Shane Bond), and yet the rugby World Cup scheduled for later this year will be fractionally shorter than the cricket World Cup.

So why exactly was the cricket World Cup so long?

For that, it seems you have to look at the commercial side of the World Cup. The cricket World Cup is, after all, an advertising and sponsorship extravaganza in India. Indian cricket is a 185m pound industry according to India Today. The World Cup was surrounded by various product launches and special edition products such as the Yuvraj Singh Xbox 360 game and special edition Pepsi Gold.

Although final figures for the current World Cup are still to be compiled, revenue is likely to be around $300m of which India's contribution is 65%, despite the early exit of their national team. "It is estimated that over 45m pounds was directly riding on these men through advertising spots that media buying agencies bought on behalf of their clients from Sony Entertainment" (who had the TV rights in India), say India Today, so not unsurprisingly there was outrage when India didn't make it through.

The sheer size of some of these numbers demonstrate why the World Cup was as long as it was. Sony thought that they could cash in on the World Cup in India - the Indian public would watch every night of the World Cup and they would make huge amounts of money through advertising slots. But, even in India, with a population of over 1 billion people, viewers can only watch one channel at a time, so even though Sony had two channels at its' disposal to televise cricket, they understandably wanted to increase their revenue by showing one game per evening. From the players' perspective, of course, there was nothing to stop two or more Super 8 games being played on the same night.

As well as Sony wanting to maximise their returns on the Indian TV rights they purchased, there were of course the 12 sponsors of the event who wanted to maximise their time in the spotlight. In the space of the last 3 cricket World Cups, the number of sponsors has gone from 4, to 8, to 12. All these commercial pressures are undoubtedly what pushed the ICC into creating a tournament schedule that relied upon tight games to keep the public's interest - the fact that there were a lack of close games was not their fault of course, but to gamble on that being the case in pursuit of greater revenues was.

This is not a vote of no confidence issue and it's not a resignation issue. But it is something that the ICC can learn from when scheduling the next World Cup. Malcolm Speed has suggested that they will seek to reduce the World Cup by 7 to 10 days, but why is he putting a figure on it? What the ICC need to do is go away and come up with a sponsorship and media rights deal that takes duration out of the commercial equation. They are then free to look at the duration that suits the players and fans the best.

World Cup XI

Well, everyone has a go at naming their World Cup XI - here's a couple I noticed:

Cricinfo's: 1. Hayden, 2. Gilchrist, 3. Ponting (c), 4. Jayawardene, 5. Pietersen, 6. Styris, 7. Hogg, 8. Bond, 9. Muralitharan, 10. Malinga, 11. McGrath. Twelfth man: Clarke.

Viv Richard's: 1. Hayden, 2. Sangakkara, 3. Ponting (c), 4. Pietersen, 5. Jayawardene, 6. Gibbs, 7. Styris, 8. Tait, 9. Bond, 10. McGrath, 11. Muralitharan.

So who would I pick?

1. Hayden, 2. Gilchrist, 3. Ponting (c), 4. Clarke, 5. Hodge, 6. Styris, 7. Symonds, 8. Bracken, 9. Malinga, 10. Muralitharan, 11. McGrath. (Twelfth man, Hogg, if the wicket will take a lot of turn)
Yes, I know, it's made up of 8 Aussies, 2 Sri Lankans and 1 Kiwi, but Australia were far and away the best in the tournament. Clarke averaged over 87 at a strike rate of 95 and is a class fielder and yet was overlooked by most selecting their World Cup XI. Hodge didn't get much of chance, but he played great innings and had a strike rate of 129 (bettered only by Shane Watson in the tournament). He is also a great fielder. Styris just edges out Kallis who is unlucky considering he averaged over 80, but his bowling was less effective than Styris. And lastly on the batsman, Symonds gets in ahead of the likes of Pietersen, Kallis and Jayawardene because he averaged 63 at a strike rate of nearly a run a ball, but more importantly he's shown his versatility. He can adjust his batting to suit the situation, he is a great fielder and he can bowl spin or medium pace, giving his skipper options.

Of the bowlers, everyone would pick McGrath and Muralitharan I asume, although Hogg is incredibly unlucky to miss out given that he was more economical than Murali (4.00 v 4.14) and took 21 wickets in the tournament. For me Malinga gets the "fast bowler" birth as his nearest competitors were Bond, who didn't take enough wickets despite topping the economy rate charts with 3.05 per over, and Tait, who was too expensive. Malinga falls somewhere in the middle. And lastly the forgotten Nathan Bracken. Why does everyone overlook him? Is it because of those shaggy blonde locks that make him resemble a pop star rather than a cricketer? Bracken took 16 wickets at an economy rate of 3.60 and at a very reasonable strike rate of 26.8 - that gets my vote.

So no more arguments! The World Cup XI is:
1. Hayden, 2. Gilchrist, 3. Ponting (c), 4. Clarke, 5. Hodge, 6. Styris, 7. Symonds, 8. Bracken, 9. Malinga, 10. Muralitharan, 11. McGrath.