Well, what can you say about the calamity, the debacle, the shamozzle that was the final of the 2007 World Cup other than, fitting.
The besr team won - the most worthy challenger throughout the tournament made it to the final, Glenn McGrath goes out on a high, and the long drawn out, badly organised tournament ended in a debacle, in darkness, with wides being called, video referees making decisions, all this, after the batsmen had already left the field for bad light. This tournament will not be forgotten now and changes will be made. A thrilling cracker of a final would've pushed all the other nonsense to the background and maybe have smoothed some issues over - now, we will never forget it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought once you went off for light of rain, you couldn't come back until the light improves or the rain stops.
If we believe the commentators, there was even talk of coming back the next day to complete the match, at one point - what a joke.
Anyway, the important points are - Sri Lanka were gallant in defeat, I guess acknowledging that they were probably not going to win anyway, but clearly could have been quite justified in being very upset at how their assault on a winning total was inhibited by lack of accurate information and organisation - and, that other point - Australia won the World Cup.
You beauty!
A fitting end...
Capitulation - Outplayed and out-psyched
I commented over on Will's site during the first devastating and match winning 10 overs of the Aus v SA semi-final, that I haven't enjoyed watching a one day match this much since 1999 - yep, that other semi-final.
Contrasting means, to the same end though. Many people say "we want good close, exciting matches". They must be supporters of other sides! When it's your side playing, I don't care how much they win by, and just quietly when it's South Africa you're thumping - I say bring it on! I'd rather that than a tie any day.
I sat down to take in this game thinking I wouldn't be able to stay up late enough into the night (with work the next day) to see anything too decisive. Especially when South Africa won what everyone thought would be potentially a match winning toss - I figured they'd post some sort of reasonable total and Australia would struggle. I honestly thought, based on what Botham and other commentators were saying, that 250 odd would be too much for the Aussie's to chase down, under pressure, late on a dieing wicket.
Well the wicket never got a chance to die, and by the time I was forced to retire to bed, the matched seemed fairly safe. Thanks mainly to a mind melt down by captain Graeme Smith, who seemed to think he was Matty Hayden, walking down the track - twice - missing both, the first nearly an edge and second taking off stump, then disintergration by Kallis, who was completely sucked in by the Aussie's talk. Kallis fell hook, line and sinker for the talk about "letting him occupy the crease and take up valulable deliveries", managing to strike one nice four then being cleaned up by a regulation, full pitched McGrath ball, while Kallis was stretching across from somewhere over on the leg side? Mind boggling! Even Andre Nell was seen to be shaking his head - no doubt because bowling to the looming low total was never going to leave him much room for sledging.
McGrath, who many believed shouldn't go on this tour, moved to front runner for taking out the player of the series. No-one will write him of now, even when he's been out of the game for 10 years! He cleaned up Kallis, was lucky when Prince chased what, had it not been for his thick outside edge would've been a side, then, possibly the most important one of all - Boucher - so often a lower order thorn in the side of the opposition, was dismissed by a ripper, moving away, taking the edged and finished off by big Matty Hayden. At 5 for 27, SA got another let off with Gibbs given not out, from what seemd like a fairly obvious inside edge. 6 for 27 would've seen a total around 50 I believe, as it was they only managed to limp to 149.
Australia cruised passed, the one concern - Gilchrist again failing. Surely now, he'll make up for everything with a classic Gilly ton in Glenn McGrath's fair well performance, a World Cup Final which could be a "three-peat" for the Aussies.
Sri Lanka vs ???
Mike and Ben sum up the disappointment from the NZ perspective and capture the mood very well - here. The all too typical Kiwi response is often something like - "yeh well, what would you expect?"... but Mike and Ben put some perspective behind this. It is really disappointing for New Zealand. Steve Flemming does incredibly well with much less than is available to other sides (notably, India, Pakistan, England!!) but to come so close, so many times is very frustrating.
From an Aussie point of view though, it's a relief actually. Of the teams that made it through to the semis, I think NZ were the biggest threat to creating an upset. The second biggest threat - South Africa. They owe us - big time - and now is the opportunity for a big World Cup pay back. So tonight will tell who Sri Lanka's opponent in the final is. In a 50 over game - take nothing for granted.
Congrats to Sri Lanka. They've been pretty much on course for the final ever since they started in this tournament, and they've move through well - holding up their end of the bargain - representing the Asian block after the shock disappearance of India and Pakistan. The will be a formidable opponent for either South Africa or Australia - the winner I believe will go in favourite, but one devastating spell from Malinga, or some more sweet hitting from Jayawardene could change all that quick smart - and then there is always Murali to deal with.
Would you play Bond?
New Zealand have won three games in a row against Australia earlier this year.
They would probably be assuming that to win the World Cup, they are going to need to beat Australia in the final (you'd assume that at least - they may get lucky ans SA may do it for them).
It seems popular opinion is that Australia's dominance at the moment is coming from their commanding starts - their opening stands while batting.
Shane Bond has an awesome record against the Aussies.
He bowls at the start!
If NZ beat the Aussies in the upcoming "dead rubber" to wind up the super-8s, then to win the World Cup from there, would mean winning 5 from 5 against the top ranked country.
So, would you play Shane Bond in this match?
He's prone to injury and he is their trump card.
So why not leave him out of this match? The "best" result for NZ is that they skittle the Aussie top order and they go on to win - should that happen, he then needs to back up and do it in the final.
The worst thing (for NZ) would be for him to get pasted around the park, or, do well but be let down by others - then they potentially go into a final with doubts.
But if he were not to play, then, he can't get injured, and plus, no matter what the outcome, they did it without their trump card - if they win, hey, things can only get better, if they lose, well, "you never beat the Aussies five times in a row, so when Bondy comes back, things'll be fine". (And Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting and co. won't had a hit out against him...)
So would this even cross Steve Flemming's mind? I seriously doubt it - but should it? I reckon that leaving Bond for a potential final against the Aussies, could just be a phycological twist that would work in the Kiwi's favour...
And the beat goes on...
So, as the World Cup drags on and on, the schedule threatening to delay the start of the 2011 World Cup a this rate, but finally we're getting some tantalising match ups. The only match I've bothered to wake up early for so far was Australia vs South Africa in the Group matches (mind you I was away on holiday for the Australia/England match). New Zealand, despite being fairly easily accounted for by Sri Lanka, hit back today, accounting for South Africa just as easily. A great result!!
So now, it looks like England, or South Africa, will join Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka in the semis.
While Australia have crusied so far, any of those sides have a "punches" chance come the knock semi-finals. The Aussie's are vulnerable - don't worry about that, it really depends on whether or not the opposition are on their game well enough to knock the juggernaut of track early in a game. It can be done - with this Aussie side, if things go wrong in the field, or early wickets put pressure on the middle order, they are very beatable.
This is why the Kiwi's pose possibly the biggest threat. They seem the most capable of doing this to the Aussies - they are not as intimidated by the champs, if anything they rise to the occasion. They have Shane Bond to make those early break throughs, they have the ability to come back, and keep coming back after any set backs, whether batting or bowling. This is where they can beat the Aussies. The Aussies like to dominate opposition into submission and when the opposition refuse to submit, the pressure does show.
For NZ though, the trouble may be getting there in the first place. If it finishes as it looks like it will, they'll play Sri Lanka in a semi - and their record against Sri Lanka is poor. They've won only 54% of games against them. 50% of World Cup games. Considreing Sri Lankas "minnow" status for so long, this is fairly low. Since the 90's NZ have won just under 40% of those games, many in NZ. If they can make it, they'll feel they have at least an even chance to go the next step. Having said that, their record against Australia and South Africa is worse! Nothing will be further from Steve Flemming's mind.
If South Africa can sneak in to fourth place (with a win over England and a few other results going their way, it would set up a tantilising semi-final against the Aussies. Who could forget the drama of the tie in England 8 years ago, certainly not Hercelle Gibbs, who infamously "dropped the World Cup" letting Australia into the semis, then "that tie". So it could be pay back time. South Africa making it would probably be the worst result for Australia as I feel even when out of form, they pose the biggest threat. Anyone else in the running are still more than capable of taking a spot in the final away from the Aussies though.
So finally...finally some games and scenarios to get excited about. Will has a good explanation of the two most like scenarios here - I'm not going to reproduce it now.
It's anybody's cup still.
Back after the Easter break, all refreshed and ready to go...and look what's gone on. Australia pumped England, South Africa drop a game to Bangladesh and one of the two could be very disappointed come semi-finals time. If Bangladesh can manufacturer another win somewhere, one of these sides (England or South Africa) could miss out - I can't quite figure out which one I'd rather see missing - for Australia's sake, South Africa are probably a bigger threat of providing a knock out punch come finals time, but the sheer pleasure of seeing England sent home with their tails between their legs is hard to go passed.
Everyone is saying Australia's big threat now is New Zealand. True...NZ are alway a big threat to Australia - they lift a gear or two whenever they take them on and the recent history is certainly striking - but in this form of the game anyone is a threat. While Australia are still favourites I guess, as they love to say in the world of sports commentary - it's still anybody's game!