As I write this on Monday afternoon, I sense the possibility of high-powered teams Australia and England being eliminated from the World Twenty20 Cup.
Netherlands dropped the first bombshell, defeating the in-form home team, England, at Lord’s barely four hours after the official opening of ICC World Twenty20.
England fought back by defeating Pakistan on Sunday. If Netherlands upsets Pakistan, then England will be in Super-8.
But lightening does not strike twice.
If Pakistan wins, as per expectations, then there will be three teams with two points each. And it will hang on net run-rates.
The defeat of Australia by the West Indies on Saturday was not exactly an upset but the thrashing was. The way the Windies’ skipper Chris Gayle toyed with the Aussie bowlers is a cause for concern.
On Monday, Ricky Ponting’s men play Sri Lanka, a strong team in any form of the game but particularly brutal in Twenty20s.
A loss to Sri Lanka would mean the virtual end of Australia in the World Twenty20.
Even a win against Sri Lanka does not guarantee the Aussies an entry in the Super-8 stage. Then it will depend on the Sri Lanka–West Indies clash and will come down, again, to net run-rates.
Too many ifs and buts.
The system is at fault. Three teams in one group can lead to surprise eliminations. One shock defeat and a strong team is left gasping for breath.
There is hardly an escape route.
I suggest that in the future World Twenty20, there should be three groups of four teams each, rather than four groups of three teams each.
Then a shock loss can be compensated as there are two more matches to play and just not one more.
The current system (only three teams in a group) can result in the ‘sudden death’ of strong teams like Australia and England.
ICC, please take note of these suggestions for the future. Especially in Twenty20 cricket, where a minnow has more chances of swallowing a shark than in a three or five day match.
No comments:
Post a Comment