That Australia and Sri Lanka will be playing the World Cup final is not a coincidence. They have been the top two sides of the competition, having been served wonderfully by splendid batting, incisive bowling and brilliant fielding.
I always felt Sri Lanka had New Zealand’s measure. The Lankans are at home on typical ‘one-day’ wickets, and the one at Kingston belonged to that category. But that should not take anything from the performance of Jayawardene’s side, which was clinical and professional. As is the case with all great sides, the Sri Lankan players have distinguished themselves in difficult situations. Their talent and commitment cannot be doubted. Tom Moody’s influence as coach should also be acknowledged.
The captain himself led from the front with a magnificent hundred. I don’t think he has played a more important knock in his career. He ensured that his side ended with at least thirty runs more than what could be termed as a ‘good’ score in the conditions. Sri Lanka could have struggled after Jayasuriya left early, but the captain saw to it that they didn’t. The Kiwis were not helped by an ‘off-day’ for Shane Bond. He couldn’t make the new ball count, and that made a huge difference.
New Zealand had their task cut out when the Lankans finished with 289. Vaas, Malinga, Fernando, and that man Muralitharan were not going to lay the red carpet for them. When Murali bowls, he always poses problems, and when he has runs to bowl with, he is positively lethal. He has tormented the Kiwis on numerous occasions in the past, and the first semifinal was no exception.
The second semifinal was an anti-climax. The pitch reports suggested that South Africa had leveled the contest by winning the toss and opting to bat first. The wicket looked full of runs and I guess everybody expected a thriller of an encounter.
Well, I am not too sure what happens to the South Africans when they play the Australians in ‘big games.’ Not for the first time, they displayed a mental fragility, and paid the price. Why Graeme Smith came dancing down the wicket, only he will be able to explain. I also cannot comprehend why a champion batsman like Jacques Kallis changed his approach. South Africa needed him to bat right through, and had he done so, they would have most definitely finished with a competitive score. But he made room to play Glenn McGrath of all bowlers, and missed. Those two early wickets forced South Africa onto the back foot, and they were never in the game thereafter. Their tactics were flawed to say the least. I feel they need to get together and rethink their methods of preparing for critical games.
Shaun Tait was outstanding. Damien Fleming hit the nail on the head when he likened him to Clint Eastwood. Bowlers like Malinga and Tait can be ‘good, bad and ugly.’ They tend to bowl some ordinary deliveries from time to time, but these are outnumbered by the wicket-taking balls that they produce. Both bowlers have the propensity to jolt the top and middle-order, and that is what matters at the end of the day.
The South Africans were lucky to reach 149 against the Australian bowling, which in this tournament has been second to none.
Tait apart, McGrath, Hogg, and Bracken have done their jobs with aplomb. Graeme Smith’s only hope was a freakish performance by Pollock and Co, but that was unlikely on what was a perfect ‘one-day’, ‘batting-friendly’ wicket.
There is a lot that the fourteen sides that failed to make the grade can learn from the Australians and Sri Lankans. Australia will be expected to complete a ‘hat trick’ of World Cup wins, but if there is one team that can give them grief, it is Sri Lanka.
