The Netherlands cricket team celebrate after defeating England in their Twenty20 World Cup cricket match at Lord's cricket ground in London, Friday, June, 5, 2009. AP Photo/Alastair Grant
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.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (19)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (1)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
Colin N said | June 9th 2009 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Do your maths, England have pretty much qualified for the super eights, unless some bizarre D/L method Pakistan win happens. See, England only just lost to the Netherlands, hammered Pakistan, meaning they have a pretty good run-rate. If Netherlands win, Pakistan are out. If Pakistan hammer the Netherlands then they go out. If Pakistan only just beat the Netherlands then Pakistan are out. So, England are 99.9% through.
As I write this, Australia are 79-5 off 12.3 overs against Sri Lanka.
Personally I think it would be great if smaller nations got through the tournament and it’s fantastic when these smaller nations achieve shock results. Ireland are now through the super 8′s today after beating Bangladesh, which is the second time in a row they have achieved this feat in the 20/20 world cup.
pothale said | June 9th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
Whee! Up the minnows. Even though I wouldn’t know one side of a cricket ball from the other.
Nick said | June 9th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
If the last one day event had four groups of four, then why not here? (admittedly the last Cup was horrible)… The problem with this ‘world cup’ is that it occurs every two years… at that rate it will probably become just some annual slogfest to make money…
P.S. There is too much cricket now, there are three world cups in a cycle (two twenty20, a 50 over) and now talk of a Test ‘Championship’ over a four year period…
ren said | June 9th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
now we can concentrate on the real cricket
australia 3 england 1
Jimmy said | June 9th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
“A loss to Sri Lanka would mean the virtual end of Australia in the World Twenty20.”
Not “virtual” end, but actual end. You can’t qualify with a record of played 2 lost 2.
“One shock defeat and a strong team is left gasping for breath. There is hardly an escape route.”
Of course there is. You can do what England did, select a better-balanced team and give your next opponents a thrashing. Or you can do what Australia did . . .
After all the gloating over England’s “humiliation”, it’s rather pleasing to consider that England will be competing in the next round while Australia get to enjoy the delights (?) of a fortnight’s holiday in Leicester. And — unless they manage to change the rules before next time — Australia will be faced with the ignominy of being unseeded for the next T20 WC. Ho hum!
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Kersi, I must disagree, I think the elimination of “high-powered teams” is exactly what a compressed, mainly-for-tv tournament such as a T20WC needs. Already Ireland are through, and the Nethelands could well follow them, and that can only be great for cricket in those countries. I don’t think Australia and England/Pakistan missing out is a bad thing. In fact this could/should be the catalyst to force a rethink in the selection of Australian T20 teams finally.
That all said, I still can’t take International T20 seriously, and it seems by some results over the weekend, that neither can some countries. As Nick said above there is FAR too much cricket now, and more and more T20 is nothing more than a cynical cash-grab. I’ve written previously, and maintain this stance, that T20I could easily be dropped without so much as a ripple of discontent, with the IPL being the main international tournament of the short-from game. And the success of the South African-hosted IPL series shows the potential to take the series on the road. ring in the best players from all corners, in a stand-alone window, and in different countries in alternate years.
In my mind, there’s no better indication of how people see T20I and the T20WC than the completely underwhelming response to Geoff Lawson’s article this morning….
Shay said | June 9th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
England are through. Their Net Run Rate is better than Holland’s, so if Holland lose there is no way they can improve their NRR. If Holland win they are through and Pakistan go home.
The format for this tournament is ridiculously poor. Australia are in a group with West Indies and Sri Lanka (all three are among the best 8 teams in the world), while India are matched with Bangladesh and Ireland (two of whom certainly aren’t). Surely the simplest seeding mechanism would have avoided this! To add to that, the Super Eights groups are not based on who finishes first or second in their groups, but they are pre-determined so that, for example, the Windies-Sri Lanka game will now be completely meaningless. If they are going to make a world championship, they should take it seriously – how about three groups of four, with top two and two “lucky losers” making the Super Eights? How about two pools of six, everyone gets five games each, then go to quarter-finals?
Greg Russell said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
In no way do I wish to complain about Australia’s early elimination (which I was going to predict in a tournament preview article that unfortunately I didn’t get the time to write!), but I was wondering if anyone (Kersi or Brett?) understands how the draw was made for this event? It stands out that Australia’s group of 3 contains 3 top-8 teams (including the two finalists from the last World Cup), whereas all other groups contain at least one minnow, and India’s group of 3 contains Bangladesh and Ireland. This hardly seems equitable.
A complete change of topic: this is my 400th recorded comment on The Roar. I dedicate it not to Brian Lara but to his batting (cricket tragics will immediately understand why). The aesthete and the lover of Shakespeare in me finds so much in Lara and his batting that confirms cricket as the greatest sport of all. In modern times he is exceeded in these respects only by Shane Warne, but I have a while to go before I reach 708!
Incidentally, some other running tallies: Spiro Zavos 1019 comments, Brett McKay 260.
Benjamin Conkey said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Haha nice one Greg. Congratulations on the 400. I’ve only just notched the century…so I have a long way to go, but definitely have the eye in.
In terms of being an equitable draw, you have to remember that when there was “fairer” draws in the 50-over world cups we still had upsets, with Bangladesh and Ireland getting through the group stages in 2007 (at the expense of Pakistan and India)…and Kenya and Zimbabwe getting through in 2003.
I don’t know exactly how the draw works for the T20 WC, but I’m assuming India have an “easy” draw because they won the last tournament.
Four teams would seem sensible, but I guess the organisers want the tournament to be different..and I do like the fact that it’s all over in 15-days.
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
um… (partial blank)
I think Greg (and this is without any certainty) that the “seedings’ are based on the previous T20WC placings (I’m assuming the Super 8 stage), but I don’t know what they were, except that India and Pakistan played the final. Someone has already pointed out on The Roar today that Australia’s early exit now means that they likely won’t be seeded for next months installment of the T20WC (or however often they’re held), but I’m not sure if that means qualifying is required. Ireland and the Netherlands definitely came through qualifying touraments. I will try and track down the policy…
Now as for the 260 comments, that wouldn’t include any that I’ve made without being “logged in” (like this one), as my “other” computer and network doesn’t let me get to my profile for some such reason. So that number would be higher in reality, but if my boss is reading, it would only be a total of 261 comments