Australian cricketers threw a World Cup match? Dream on…

By Geoff Lemon / Expert

No sooner had Australia’s women’s cricket team slipped to a surprise loss at the ICC Women’s World Cup than the conspiracy theorists were emerging from their bunkers, their ranks predictably drawn from subcontinental Australia-haters and disgruntled Englishmen.

Australia had been upset by West Indies, collapsing while chasing a modest 164 to fall eight runs short. The upshot was that both teams qualified for the imminent World Cup final, claiming the top two positions in the Super Six stage.

Australia’s place was guaranteed, as they went into that final Super Six round with four wins as compared to West Indies’ three, and England and New Zealand’s two.

If West Indies lost, the winner of the England-New Zealand game would pass them for a spot in the final. Instead, West Indies beat the as-yet undefeated Australians, and leapfrogged them into top spot.

Where most online fans applauded the pressure and belief of West Indies in the chase, and the earlier batting heroics of Deandra Dottin, the disgruntled minority preferred slandering the efforts of the losing side and demeaning the efforts of the winners.

According to their theory, Australia would have preferred to face the greener West Indies side in the final than the traditionally stronger nations of England and New Zealand, and so manipulated results to that end.

There were also facetious links made to the dangerously vague Australian Crime Commission report, as proof that all Australians are officially cheats and liars.

The report has had the British press in particular whiffing up the schadenfreude, and their depiction of Australian sports culture has morphed overnight from one of Labradorish enthusiasm to one channelling the flint-eyed pragmatism of Grease drag racers.

As a child of the modern age, I can’t confidently tell you what codswallop actually means, but I still know a load of it when I see it.

Firstly, Australia’s women’s cricket team is particularly keen on winning. If they triumph in the upcoming final, it will be their sixth World Cup title.

Had they beaten West Indies, they would have won through to the final undefeated in this tournament. For psychological supremacy and pride both, that would have been an achievement worth fighting for.

Secondly, Australia has no reason to fear England or New Zealand. Both have already been dispatched by the Southern Stars this World Cup, and neither were in scintillating form. Australia would have faced either with confidence. Nor is there reason to expect West Indies to be a walkover. It’s no fluke that they topped the Super Six table.

While they’ve only recently begun to challenge the top sides, they are indisputably dangerous, featuring the kind of big hitters that other women’s teams can’t match.

And thirdly? If you have any skill in reading a match as opposed to a comments board, you’ll deduce that this one bears no suspicious marks.

Of course, the match situation is the main argument of those advancing the thrown-game theory. Australia fell chasing a small total, with a late collapse of 6/26, when 34 runs from those batters would have got them over the line. And did I mention there were three run-outs in the innings?

Case closed, it must be a set-up. Right?

Well, not so much. In a general sense, trouble chasing small totals is hardly a new phenomenon. Australia’s men’s side made 74 at the Gabba this summer, and Sri Lanka only passed that score by the skin of their teeth. Wickets tend to fall in patches, something exacerbated by the pressure of limited-overs cricket.

It’s also common to see run-outs as a mode of dismissal. Australia had four in their first match of this tournament, against Pakistan a fortnight ago. The Sri Lankan men’s team had three in the recent ODI at the MCG, including two off consecutive balls.

In this match specifically, had Australia had gone into it intending to lose, why did they bowl so tightly as to dismiss the West Indian team in 47 overs?

Why did they keep them to 164?

Why did they hold their catches, stop boundaries, stay alert in the field?

Erin Osborne bowled four maiden overs in her nine, and took 2/16. Lisa Sthalekar’s 10 overs yielded 1/24, with two maidens. Julie Hunter’s eight overs took 1/22, with two more maidens.

All up, ten maidens were bowled by the Stars, while Holly Ferling and Megan Schutt grabbed three wickets each.

Indeed, if Dottin hadn’t stormed the field with a lower-order 60 from 67 balls, West Indies wouldn’t have made triple figures.

This is hardly the performance of a bowling team open to an upset loss.

The same then applies to the batting. While the collapse came late, Australia’s started strongly: at one point 3/89, and later 4/130. Opener Rachael Haynes made 21, first drop Julie Cameron made 39, and No. 4 Alex Blackwell scored 45 – more than enough most times chasing so small a target.

Again, had the intent been to lose, surely three of the top four batters wouldn’t have provided such a solid start. A team aiming to falter would throw away wickets early, providing a setback that would justify a go-slow by their remaining teammates, and the erosion of their remaining line-up.

At 4/130, with only 34 needed from 11 overs, Australia were cruising. But Blackwell was pinned lbw, skipper Jodie Fields failed to smash one over mid-off, and the newly-arrived Hunter was run out by a sharp throw, all in the space of 14 balls.

In the kind of sequence that happens to teams all the time, Australia were suddenly 7/131, and thoroughly rattled.

From there, it was pretty well an even-money proposition. 33 runs required, plenty of balls to bowl, and number seven Erin Osborne left to shepherd the final three tailenders. It was the perfect scenario for nerves to fray.

Renee Chappell and Osborne put on nine before Chappell was trapped lbw. Megan Schutt saw another 16 added to the total, but a mix-up in the running saw her caught short of her ground. The last pair had eight runs left to score.

Osborne had battled, striking three boundaries and taking the bulk of the strike in facing 31 balls to make 19. But these final moments can go either way, and on this day it was against her.

She tried to scoop a Shanel Daley delivery over the keeper, got a nick instead, and saw it safely pouched. She had taken her side within reaching distance of a win, but fallen short.

For those actually paying attention to the match instead of glancing at a scoresheet, the run of this innings is perfectly reasonable. Similar results at any level are hardly rare. A few quick wickets can kill any team’s ascendancy, and an evenly-poised situation has to fall one way or the other.

These Australian women would have wanted to win every game, to enter the final unbeaten, and to win that too. Ricky Ponting’s side swept the tournament in 2007, and no doubt these players would have relished the same achievement. The only question over this match is whether they can set aside the result to come back in the final.

Those looking for signs of conspiracy or underhandedness will ultimately be disappointed. The only person more disappointed would have been Erin Osborne, walking off after that nick into the gloves on a warm Mumbai afternoon.

The Crowd Says:

2013-02-19T11:09:26+00:00

Lancashire

Guest


Given that England's Men threw the Perth Test in 2010 - how else do you explain losing by 267 runs in the middle of three innings victories?? - then anything's possible.

2013-02-19T01:33:39+00:00

Red Kev

Guest


And every single sportswoman would say "We'll play whoever qualifies." The more confident would add "and win". Just the same as the All Blacks would say.

2013-02-19T01:18:11+00:00

Neuen

Roar Rookie


Question is if you asked them who would they rather face England or the West Indies?

2013-02-18T12:58:54+00:00

Rawling

Guest


"The only person hurt by a team not winning a game on purpose is the punter" If you tank for draft picks, you're directly taking a benefit off another team. If you tank to raise an opposing team in the table, you're denying that position to the team who would otherwise have taken their place.

2013-02-18T12:12:49+00:00

rock

Guest


@Karl your argument is so weak. You base on demeanor through lens of cameras. Its disgraceful that you call these girls calls cheats based on that.

2013-02-18T08:08:23+00:00

Karl

Guest


The argument above is well reasoned and quotes good stats. The truth is that stas only tell you so much. The demeanor of the Aussies in this game during the run chase and the nature of their dismissals was very interesting to see. Let's just say there was a carelessness in their play and lack of disappointment when they got out which we didn't see in any other game they played and I for one watched the whole tournament with great interest. There is no doubt in my mind that the Aussies would not have lost this game had it been a game worth winning such as the final. That in itself means they threw the game which in my mind is cheating. It is cheating because it destroys the very point of sport. Sport is not all about winning a tournament, sport is about entertainment. It has absolutely no bearing on the world around us, it is all about the people that pay to watch the game. Cheating those people is the worst kind of cheating there is.

AUTHOR

2013-02-17T23:38:13+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


Pete, it would be interesting to hear why, in a fashion that refutes all of the points I've made above. Simply stating that it is so is not a very strong line of argument.

2013-02-17T18:24:39+00:00

Pete Mardon

Guest


No matter how you try to defend it,that result stinks.

AUTHOR

2013-02-17T08:38:20+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


All run-outs are avoidable - that's why teams lament them so much. It does't mean they don't happen. I'm not sure if you noticed the part where I discussed other matches in just the last few weeks that have involved as many or more run-outs. This rate is hardly infrequent, especially in limited overs. Are you basing your statement on having witnessed the run-outs in question, or have you just decided in your wisdom that three is too high a number?

2013-02-16T19:24:22+00:00

Gius Julius Maximilianus

Guest


3 avoidable run outs in a tight chase for the tournament's undoubted best side. Come on! Careless doesn't even come close. I don't blame the Aussie girls for favouring another game against the Windies rather than England but don't try and dress it up as anything other than what is was! The rest of the world will hope it backfires and the West Indies manage an actual victory in the final. I'm afraid your ladies cricket team will go down in history with the Chinese badminton teams of 2012 and the "Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón" at the 1982 FIFA World Cup.

2013-02-15T22:04:36+00:00

anfalicious

Guest


Better than nothing I guess. It's like the tour of India, back to enjoying cricket like my grandpa did, on the radio.

2013-02-15T12:59:39+00:00

Jason

Guest


Whether they threw the match or not, once again how silly of the organisers to put on a schedule where the incentive to throw the match exists. Surely they would have learnt after the Olympic badminton debacle.

2013-02-15T10:20:14+00:00

Martyn50

Roar Rookie


ABC radio mentioned earlier today that the final will be on ABC Digital this weekend

2013-02-15T08:07:11+00:00

jabba

Guest


Those obscene pay and benefit packages our female athletes take home are definitely worth throwing matches for... The argument of managed campaign losses has been going on since the EDJBA's U12 long weekend tournaments, when 'someone heard' that you have to have at 'least one loss' to either a) "Get a percentage"; or b) "Not get disqualified. I would contend that the only people who take this conspiracy seriously have never been a competitor, and certainly not a contender - Geoff hits it on the head with the idea that making a clean sweep would be a bigger incentive than tanking for "An easy win later". If the Stars can beat the field, then why would they arbitrarily decide to nominate a 'preferred enemy'? Returning to the original remark, Australia's women's teams have a hard enough fight to win the credibility and support they deserve - often more so than our men's teams. The "Campaign" plan, extrapolated to the longest game, would suggest anything but coming home with a swag of points against. Of course, I think the most insightful argument against the fixed cup has to be the point Geoff made - watch the match, not the stats. Get enough excel spreadsheets, and you can make data say whatever you want.

2013-02-15T08:05:13+00:00

dasilva

Guest


They never been accused of throwing a game but I think Allanthus is referring to the 1999 world cup where Australia deliberately slowed down to chase down 110 to win the match. Steve Waugh scored 19 runs out of 73 balls and Bevan scored 20 out of 69 balls and it took australia to the 40th over to win the match. They openly admitted in doing that to attempt (a failed attempt) to manipulate the draw so that West indies don't lose too much on run rate so that New Zealand have a tougher job to beat scotland by a large margin to qualified to the super six. If New zealand qualify, Australia would have zero points but if West Indies qualify, Austrailia has 2 points in the super six. In fact Bevan wrote in his autobiography that he regretted that Australia didn't go far enough in the go slow tactic and that he believed they should have took it to the last 2-3 overs in winning the match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/65220.html ..

2013-02-15T07:04:06+00:00

anfalicious

Guest


It doesn't seem to me they threw the game (although obviously I couldn't watch it for myself, women's cricket isn't going to get televised on non-pay tv anytime soon), but who cares if they did? The point of a tournament is to win the tournament. If throwing a game means you have a better run in the next round, then surely the smart tactical decision is to throw the game ("throw" is such a dirty word, let's just say "not win"). If you're a supporter, yeah, you see the team lose, but the hope is that you're more likely to see the team win the thing that matters. The only person hurt by a team not winning a game on purpose is the punter, and to be honest I don't really care about them. People who gamble on sport are causing far more damage to the reputation of sport and my enjoyment of sport as a viewer than a deliberate loss ever will. I don't think our champion women deliberately didn't win, but if they did why does anyone care unless you're one undermining the integrity of sport with your dirty habits.

2013-02-15T06:34:34+00:00

MadMonk

Guest


I accept all your arguments. The real problem is, as with Olympic badminton, ifyou have a format where a benefit could flow from not winning, you will get these situations. Like tanking for draft picks in the AFL, if you create any benefit or incentive that flows from not winning you will invite this kind of speculation.

AUTHOR

2013-02-15T05:42:31+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


Thanks for the perceptive comment, Allanthus. I would say that my argument isn't based on any particular characteristic of an Australian team. It's more that an analysis of the match doesn't bear out anything strange. From a cricketing perspective, that series of events is perfectly plausible, when it's taken step by step. I suppose it's hard to remove the pull of parochialism from our judgement of others, but we have to be aware of it and continue trying.

2013-02-15T04:22:35+00:00

Matt F

Roar Guru


If I were an England fan I'd be blaming their earlier losses to SL and Australia more than this conspiracy theory.

2013-02-15T04:17:22+00:00

Allanthus

Guest


Dean, that's not what I'm suggesting. Just making the point, as others have done recently in these pages, that Australia isn't as lily-white as what many want to believe. And posing a rhetorical question... would our reaction to this suggestion of tanking be different - for all the good reasons Geoff outlines - than if this wasn't our team, but a sub-continent team?

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar