If the organizers of the 2003 World Cup in South Africa don’t have a problem with teams like Kenya and Zimbabwe qualifying, then I shouldn’t have one. If they don’t feel that the World Cup has been devalued, that less cricket was played due to weather and forfeits, and that their economy is going to suffer as the home crowd, the Barmy Army, the Pakistanis and the West Indians lose interest then I guess I should not worry either. Sadly, as a former cricketer, I do care for this tournament, which started out as a quest to find the best teams in the world.
Today, thanks to poor organizing and to the ostrich-like stance of the governing bodies, we have a situation where Kenya can go through to the semis by virtue of beating only one Test-playing team. If that is not a farce, what is?
The England-Zimbabwe situation should have been sorted out four months before the tournament and not four days before the match was to be played. I cannot be convinced that the tournament would have been any poorer if common sense had prevailed, and England’s match was rescheduled in South Africa. I am all for globalizing cricket, but not at the cost of lowering the standards of the game’s most prestigious tournament.
Will the faulty planning affect the Super Sixes? Of course it will. In every other sport, when teams qualify for the next round, they don’t carry any benefits from the preceding round.
For instance, just because a soccer team tops his group in World Cup Soccer, he does not go into the pre-quarterfinals with an advantage. I had said this in 1999 and I repeat it in 2003, teams must start the Super Sixes on an even keel.
Fortunately, four quality teams made it to the 1999 semis. However, if New Zealand don’t win two of their Super Six games, Kenya go through, and they go through because of rain, forfeits and one win against a quality side.
This World Cup will be the last we see of the Super Sixes system, and after the dead games you will see in the next 10 days, it will be obvious why.
Fortunately, New Zealand are the dark horses of the tournament, and if they stay fit, they can win two games to go through to the last four. In fact all the three top sides on a good day can challenge the Australians. Against England, the champions looked fallible, and while they are the hardest to beat, it’s not entirely impossible.
In fact, England should have won that game, but for their complete inability to go in for the kill against Australia. The latter will have to go through the rest of the World Cup without Jason Gillespie, but seeing Andy Bichel against England, I’m sure Ricky Ponting is not having sleepless nights.
As expected England’s exit saw the resignation of Nasser Hussain as captain. Many experts had started wondering rather loudly, whether he was fit for a place in the one-day side, and of late, the strains of leadership are more visible on his brow when he dons the blue uniform.
There are one or two contenders for the job, but my pick would be 31-year-old Adam Hollioake. He is a good leader, has fine man management skills, and most importantly has a good county season behind him. He showed fine resilience and character to get over the tragic death of his brother Ben, and all said and done fits the role pretty well.
