No Indian figures in the ICC World Cup team, a host of one-sided contests are some of the flip sides of the otherwise well-organised quadrennial event
Of the many PR-ish releases the International Cricket Council dispatched during the course of the tournament, the one on Monday hailed the 11th World Cup the "most popular ever". In many ways, the governing body was right. Over a million fans "passed through the turnstiles" to watch 49 matches (including a washout) across 42 days. An unprecedented "36 million unique visitors" surfed the official website, icc-cricket.com, to register 300 million page views, representing a 10-fold increase from any previous ICC event. The official tournament app was downloaded more than 4.5 million times and became the No. 1 sport app in 48 countries.
At the same time, how long, mundane and predictable was the tournament? How ordinary was the quality of cricket? How few were the number of edge-of-the-seat thrillers? How dominating were the batsmen? How hapless were the bowlers even though one of them ran away with the Player of the Tournament award?
dna reviews the tournament…
'O' FOR ORGANSING, OUTSTANDING
First appreciate, then criticise. An event of this magnitude can be an organisational nightmare. But the ICC got everything right. Each of the 14 venues was player-friendly, spectator-friendly and media-friendly. The local organising committees in both countries didn't leave a stone unturned. From logistics to ticketing, hotels to hospitality, food to transport, everything was spot-on. The volunteers, too, did a great job. In fact, they were the heart and soul of the tournament.
THE LONG & SHORT OF IT
Each team played six group matches over a period of 30 days. Fourteen teams are not a lot, but when six of them happen to be weaker, with another two barely competent, then something is not right. In a way, the ICC's decision to make the next World Cup a 10-team affair is justified. Only one Associate — Ireland — managed to defeat a Test-playing nation. An official dna spoke to conceded that the developing nations "have a long way to go". He also made it clear that the ICC was in no mood to trivialise its signature event by organising "a series of one-sided affairs". The next World Cup, to be held in the UK in 2019, will allow the eight top-ranked teams to gain automatic entry. The rest of the teams will fight for the last two spots. How about staging FIFA-style qualifiers? Won't every team take the World Cup a little more seriously, then?
PREDICTABLY…
How many times did you rightly predict the winner before the start of a match? Now ask yourself why you didn't call up the 'right' people and place bets. Simply put, you can count on your fingers the number of games that prompted you to have breakfast in front of the TV set. In all, one in seven games made for gripping viewing. They were India vs Pakistan, India vs South Africa (not so much after AB de Villiers's run out), Afghanistan vs Scotland, West Indies vs Ireland, Australia vs New Zealand, England vs Bangladesh, New Zealand vs South Africa. Each of the four quarterfinals, one semifinal and the grand final were largely one-sided.
IT'S A BAT, BAT WORLD
Of the 25 games played in Australia, 16 were won by the team batting first. In New Zealand, 15 of the 23 games were won by the teams batting second. That stat evens out, you see. But with three 400-plus totals, several 300-plus totals, 38 individual hundreds, unfair rules, fat bats, 463 sixes (many of them off edges), the World Cup belonged to the batsmen. That Mitchell Starc hoodwinked them all to win the Player of the Tournament award is testimony to nothing but his brilliance, which will be on display regularly in the years to come.
INDI-YEAH
Whoever slammed MS Dhoni and his brave boys for having a bad day in Sydney must take a good hard look at the team's record in this tournament. After seven superb and straightforward wins, the law of averages was bound to come into play. And it did. To make matters worse, Australia won the toss, strutted their batting might before the bowlers defended 328 with ease. Even then, India had a chance. But Mitchell Johnson ran amok. And the folks who came up the World Cup XI would do well to realise that India picked up 77 of the 80 wickets on offer. Shouldn't Mohammed Shami and, to some extent, R Ashwin have made the cut?
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}