By Kersi Meher-Homji
June 9th 2009 @ 12:23am
Related coverage
Surprise eliminations will spoil the Twenty20 Cup
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.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(27)
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
Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Greg,
Congrats on your 400th comment, and Spiro on your 1019th.
By the way, when was The Roar born?
Shay,
I like your system. Ssed the countries by their ranking.. By the current system, Australia was disadvantaged and India is benefitted.
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
T20QC Qualifying is explained on the official website, but it doesn’t explain the seedings system. Link:
http://cricket.yahoo.com/icc/qualification/7/qualifications
Hemjay said | June 9th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I’m not sure how the seedings are done but to start crying foul about how teams are seeded after the fact of Australias demise is ludicrous.
Australia are the number one team in the world in cricket and quite simply put the just did not perform and its simply not good enough. They should have been able to account for both of these teams.
Maybe as someone suggested earlier that they should have selected specialist players.
Why go if you are not going to take the tournament seriously it reflects badly on the team. Then again a knockout tournament is a farcical way of determining who is the best in the world it only tells you who was the best at the tounament.
We all know how good Australian cricket is so I wouldn’t worry to much about this lads
vinay verma said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Has anyone noticed who the four main sponsors are? Hero Honda, Reliance Mobile,Reebok and LG . These corporates have forked out a total of 80 million dollars for the 16 days of the tournament. Their target market is India. It is not acceptable to the broadcaster if ndia dont at least make the Super Eight stage. There may be a clause in the rights deal THAT ASKS FOR SOME GUARANTEES.. India’s draw seems stage managed. The upsets are the glorious uncertainity of sport ? The cynic in me thinks otherwise.
Australia seem incapable of thinking on the run. Sri Lanka opened with Jayasuriya to see if there was some turn. Mendis came on early and Malinga only got one over to start with. Australia on the other hand persisted with Lee and Johnson for four overs. Clarke and Hauritz should have bowled earlier. Michael Hussey dropped a sitter and Ponting for the most part was bemused. 20/20 is no place to reflect and ponder. Like a boxer you have to ride the punches and counter attack. It is changing every ball and you only get 120 balls. Its like practising on the range. Dont waste the balls just because you have a bucket full.
Ponting played a cracking back foot drive off mendis that showed his pedigree. A bit wasted in this twitter,twitter format.
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
So T20 is big in India?? Well, I never…
Spiro Zavos said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Brett, does that count as a comment. Vinay has put his finger on Australia’s problem with T20. The best idea is to play plenty of hitters, rather than stroke players. Also, it is rare that a side is bowled out so wicket-taking bowlers (Brett Lee in theory at least) are doubtful prospects. The selectors should start picking specific T20 players, or players with specific T20 skills like Brad Hodge. And the captain should be more enterprising and thoughtful in the way he handles his bowlers.
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
No Spiro, not really, but I figured a flippant comment like that was far more productive than escalating into who-knows-what about Vinay’s link between sponsors and demands. I think we all hope that wouldn’t be the case, that demands or such were made about India’s draw, but this is India and the ICC we’re talking about…
Both Vinay and you are bang on the money, by the way, Australia was completely and comprehensively out-thought and outplayed in both games over the weekend, and yes, a major re-think of T20 selection is clearly required. Australia has essentially used ODI tactics (bat first, set big target, attack with pace) since the inception of T20Is and still the penny hasn’t dropped. Even my third grade side knows the key is building partnerships rather than outright slogging, and taking the pace off the ball rather than all-out pace.
And Vinay, I’ve noted down your “Its like practising on the range. Dont waste the balls just because you have a bucket full.” comment for future reference, that has so many applications, and is so true…
Greg Russell said | June 9th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Hemjay – I started my previous comment with “In no way do I wish to complain about Australia’s early elimination”, so I am certainly not “crying foul about how teams are seeded after the fact of Australias demise.”
Brett hits one nail on the head with his statement that “Australia has essentially used ODI tactics (bat first, set big target, attack with pace) since the inception of T20Is and still the penny hasn’t dropped”. With another Roar article today (“Australia lose and drop out of World Twenty20″) I have posted essentially irrefutable statistical evidence for this.
I would like to take issue with the oft-made statement about selecting T20 specialists. Look at the recent IPL, in which players like Hayden, Gilchrist, Kumble and RP Singh were the most successful. There was even the spectacle of The Wall (Dravid) batting Bangalore into the final. These examples prove to me that native cricket skills transfer across all forms of the game. The much mentioned Brad Hodge is further proof of this – far from being a T20 specialist, he’s good in all forms.
Perhaps there’s place for 1 or 2 specialists per side, but that would be about it. Really specialization is in the mind, e.g. quite clearly Chris Gayle is most interested in being good at T20, but in reality he can be excellent at whatever form of cricket he really turns his mind to.
As already indicated, I have said my piece elsewhere (“Australia lose and drop out of World Twenty20″) on what I feel Australia’s T20 problems are.
I have made more progress towards Shane Warne’s mark than I intended to today!
Brett McKay said | June 9th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Quite true Greg, and when I say a rethink on selection policy is needed, I’m not talking about about 11 specialists. In fact I don’t even care if “specilaists” aren’t used, but I’d hope (expect) some obvious thought has been put into naming teams, with the purpose of selecting a team capable of playing smart T20 cricket. I don’t think that’s the case now.
Sri Lanka have got through with two quicks (but not necessarily express), rotated cleverly with spinners and part-timers. Australia’s attack was right- and left-arm pace, followed by several meds, followed by a spinner and maybe some part-timers. As I’ve said above, that same template has been in operation in ODIs for as long as I’ve been watching cricket…
vinay verma said | June 9th 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Spiro,thank you for asking Brett to amplify his Flippant but i say flippin remark.
As to Brett’s conjecture I find it offensive that he should cast aspersions about someone he knows nothing about.
I was introduced to the Roar by Kersi MH and I have known him a long time. He would be the person to inquire about my writing or any other credentials. There is a saying from the Mahabharata that one is judged long after one dies. But he is slandered and crticised every day.
I am all for reasoned and nay even jocular debate. But irony ,I find,is the cheapest form of wit.
Brett, in the true spirit of cricket and sport, I am over whatever you implied or insinuated. Lets move on
Cheers
Timmuh said | June 9th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Shay, it was the seeding mechsnism that caused these groups. Australia’s performance lst time was just as bad, hence the group.
That said, its on;y clown cricket. In the circumstance, its good to see a few minnows get a shot at some sort of recognition. How they can turn that into actual cricket experience is another question, given they never get to play first class games.
Dave Simpson said | June 9th 2009 @ 11:24pm | Report comment
As already commented, this article was riddled with glaring errors, which is hardly befitting a sports journalist. (England were already through and Australia faced real rather than virtual elimation).
I also agree with the comments above that changing the format to help your team is nonsense. It is a cup competition so involves knockout. The minnows deserve a fair chace of progressing at the expense of the bigger teams otherwise stop the pretence and exclude them. at it stands, every team gets a minimum of 2 games. The 3 teams that are out all lost both games. England took their 2nd chance and Austrlia didn’t. The 4th to exit will either have lost both games or would have lost one and had a last ball win. That sounds fair.
Now for the other point by the poster. The draw is odd. The seeded teams are the 8 that made the 2nd stage of the Twenty20 last time. Thus based upon Bangladesh’s single win last time they are seeded this time and had a 3 out of 4 chance of facing another lowly ranked team (Ireland). Ireland duly won and look forward to another kind draw next tournament. In this way they may continue to qualify for the super 8 without having to beat another top 8 ranked team. This could be regarded as a an unfair system, however that is the advantage that the top 8 teams started with. One variation touted is that the super 8 should gain prequalification for the next tournament but seedings of the 16 finalists should be based upon world rankings. Yet, if that was the case West indies and Bangladesh would be swapped and the first group stage would have looked fairly bland. Instead we get the romance of Ireland and Bangladesh fighting for a super eight place and a facinating ‘group of death’. At the end of the day I like the format
Greg Russell said | June 10th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
vinay – I can assure you from personal experience that Brett is actually one of the politest comment-makers at this website. I strongly suggest you avoid going near the rugby discussions at this website, where one is routinely labelled stupid, idiotic and such like merely for daring to have a different opinion, no matter how grounded in fact. By these standards Brett’s use of irony here is highly sophisticated and essentially harmless. In no way do I condone this behavior in comment-makers, but its widespread existence is a fact. There is plenty of fodder here for psychologists to explain to us!
Brett – when I wrote “400th recorded comment” yesterday, I very deliberately included the word “recorded”. I am well aware that you are batting well above 260 in terms of comments overall, because often I do not see that beautiful Roar t-shirt with your comments.
To both of you – please keep posting comments!
Brett McKay said | June 10th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Well Greg, thank you for those very kind words; you’ve convinced me here to make a further comment, which I’ve been debating whether to do with myself all morning (and no, I don’t know who’s winning..)
Vinay, a comment of clarification, if I may. In no way was I casting aspertions at you, and for the exact reason you mention: you’re new to The Roar, and I know nothing about you. If any offence was caused then I do apologise, but it was not my intention. You will recall though that it was you that introduced the link between Indian sponsors and India’s draw for this tournament, and not me. As I said in my comment to Spiro, “I think we all hope that wouldn’t be the case, that demands or such were made about India’s draw”. Thanks also to Dave Simpson for providing more detail on the tournament seedings too. By that system, Australia will definitely be unseeded for the next T20WC, and may in fact face a tougher draw than this tournament.
On the subject of the sponsors you mentioned, a number of those, particularly Hero Honda and LG, are long-term ICC sponsors, and have also appeared on the fences at Australian Test venues for several years now (I checked on a few of my photos over the years lst night). For the record, I love a good conspiracy threory, but I am sure there is nothing sinister in their continued involvement.
Additionally, you would have noted that apart from the one comment that seems to have sparked your annoyance with me, that I am actually in full agreement with you, and again, I said as much in my above mentioned reply to Spiro.
Finally, a belated welcome to The Roar. I have read and enjoyed your article this morning, and I look forward to future debate and discussion with you..
vinay verma said | June 10th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Hello Brett and thank you for your welcome. I am not sure if I made myself clear but my point is that Broadcasters are making onerous demands on cricket administrators and and scheduling. ESPN is making a pitch for the P20 in the UK and have “asked” that the teams include at least one Indian player so that it is saleable in India. Obviously the broadcasters would like to see India progress to the Super Eight Stage.
I will check on it but Hero Honda and LG have generally appeared on Aussie Test venues when India has been playing. Dont know if they were present in the Aust/SA series. I do not think it is sinister but I do believe that major sponsors are capable of leveraging and twisting arms.
And please do disagree if you have to. I promise you reasoned and robust debate.
Greg,thank you for your statesman like intervention. The cold war is thawed.Let the global warming of cricket debate continue unabted.
cheers
cheers
Gulu said | June 12th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
I love seeing upsets, even India (and Pakistan) knocked out early in the 2007 50-over world cup. as for Vinay’s comments that the draw appears stage mannered to suit India, as defending champions and top seeds they have earned the right to be in the easiest group.
vinay verma said | June 13th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Good to hear from you Gulu. Last nights loss to West Indies would suggest that India was underdone. The lack of tough matches is the flip side of being in the easiest draw.
Do you believe that India took the Windies a touch too casually. Simmons catch off Gambhir was the turning point. Difficult catch made to look easy but great athleticism. Similarly Fletcher’s to dismiss Dhoni.
Yusuf should open as his clean striking can win the match in the first few overs. He could conceivably have feasted on Gayle’s innocuous offerings.