The PlanetCricket View: ICC Champions Trophy ? A Brief Review

[PlanetCricket]

Article by Shashindra Silva -



The ICC Champions Trophy is finished and after a very competitive tournament India has once again crowned as winners. The success of the tournament has prompted ICC to review it’s decision of?discontinuing?the tournament in the future. This is a very brief review on the performance of ?teams in the ICC champions trophy.

• Pakistan

With zero points from 3 matches Pakistan was the most disappointing team in the tournament. In the beginning very few believed that they were able to qualify for the semi finals and they lived according to majority’s expectation. The only match they really gave a fight was the match with the WI and if their batsmen have scored some more runs they may had a chance to win. Altogether they need to find good batsmen who can score fluently in ODIs. Otherwise their future in cricketing world looks bleak despite the continuous supply of quality fast bowlers.

• Australia

Watching this Australian team play would be the most saddest thing in the world for a neutral cricket fan who have followed cricket for the past 15 years. The Australian team have lost their golden form which was with them for the past decade. For the first time they were unable to get in to the semi finals of an ICC event since 1990s. The batting looks listless and bowling ordinary. They should find proper batsmen instead of filling their side with T20 superstars. One may argue that the T20 format has affected the Australians more than WI and India. With the performance shown by the current Australian team there is a serious doubt whether they can match England in the upcoming ashes tournament.

• West Indies

West Indies is the most unlucky team in the tournament. They would have easily register a win unless rain interrupted just as Pollard got out. Even if there were no rain Sammy would be able to guide the chase easily. Yet rain god had other plans for WIs. They seems to be carrying their good form from T20s to the ODIs. Sunil Narine kept his reputation as a mystery spinner even in the International level. They need to find a stable batsmen in the middle order. Chanderpaul would have been ideal for such a role and Sarwan’s did not get the

• New Zealand

New Zealand is also one of the unlucky sides. Not only they came close to be selected for knock outs but also they had a chance to win the game against England if Steve Davies gave the benefit of the doubt of the no ball to the Kane Williamson in the latter parts of the chase. As always they performed better than most of the people’s prediction. They have a very good bowling unit. But their batting carries few non performers. They should seriously think about the role of James Franklin in the team. He is not bowling much and not performing with the bat.

• South Africa?

South Africa reminded the world that they are still the “Chokers” at the big stage. However they performed without four of their main players. Steyn and Morkel are the one of the best opening bowlers pairs in the world. But SA had to play most of the matches without the service of these bowlers. Also they were without Kallis and Smith for the whole tournament. Probably the loss of Kallis who is a very good?all-rounder?had affected the SA’s team balance. Considering those facts the SA’s performance can be categorized as satisfactory. However the way they lost their semi finals match was very?humiliating.

• Sri Lanka

This time Sri Lanka were able to lose at the semi final stage without getting qualified for finals and losing the final. Mopst of 5the time I think Sri Lankan team lacked the balance in the team. They played with just 3 specialist bowlers and 2 or 3 batting?all-rounders. Also Kusal Perera was a great failure. He was unable to get into double figures in any of the matches. The senior trio of Mahela, Sangakkara and Dilshan took the responsibility of building the innings but failed in the semis. Malinga proved that he is still dangerous in the ODI format as well.

• England

With the home advantage England were favorites to win the tournament from the beginning. Yet their plans were hit by ball tampering accusations and the loss to Sri Lanka in the group stage. Yet they recovered well to reach the final. But as South Africa they choked under pressure at the final. Probably they now need to wait for some more time before adding a ICC ODI silverware to their cabinet. The way they lost the game in the last 3 overs was very?surprising. Bopara has done a great work both with the bat and the ball. ?Not so often we see the most performing player becoming the most criticized player. But with Trott it has been the case. He has performed extremely well in the tournament but been severely criticized for his slow batting.

• India

At the beginning there were many problems associated with India. Many people questioned the ability of the Indian batsmen to survive the bouncy pitches and the ability of Indian fast bowling resources. But this young Indian team has performed extremely well and able to win the final. Dhoni continues to be a?successful?captain winning all the available formats of ICC trophies. Ravindra Jadeja has become a real superhero in Indian cricket. Shikar Dhawan has become a consistent and attacking opener. ?Indian fast bowlers finally shown that they can perform well. A young Indian team once again proved the depth of the resources available in India.

• UDRS and Umpires

Apart from the teams another thing which caught the attention was the use of UDRS and umpiring. There were several instances where the third umpire gave controversial decisions. The no ball call against Broad in the match against New Zealand was one such incident. Also the use of reviews in a match was very crucial. As an example in the SL vs NZ match both teams had used their reviews in the second innings. And if there were more reviews available the result may have been different. So in the latter parts of the tournament teams were very conservative about using their review early in the innings.



However with all these things the tournament was a grand success. ICC should consider themselves lucky to be able to play at-least a 20 over game in the final. With no reserve day for the final if there were some more rain, the whole tournament would have been a waste of time. Yet we witnessed and enjoyed a competitive finale for a competitive tournament. As a cricket fan I would be waiting for a tournament like this where all the high ranked teams play with each other to chose a real champion.





More...

 

[used2bcool]

Oh, lord.

• Pakistan

... Otherwise their future in cricketing world looks bleak despite the continuous supply of quality fast bowlers.

We all jump the gun too easily on this. Pakistani batsmen are out of sorts currently, but there is talent there in the country and despite a complete lack of domestic structure they tend to somehow produce quality cricketers with some regularity. I think it's too early to pass judgment on the future of Pakistan cricket.

• Australia

...For the first time they were unable to get in to the semi finals of an ICC event since 1990s...

No. The Australians failed to make the semis of the 2011 World Cup and the 2009 World T-20. Maybe you meant just the Champions Trophy?

• West Indies

West Indies is the most unlucky team in the tournament. They would have easily register a win unless rain interrupted just as Pollard got out. Even if there were no rain Sammy would be able to guide the chase easily. Yet rain god had other plans for WIs.

How are West Indies unlucky? What might have happened in their game against South Africa is pure conjecture. The West Indies were blown away by India and won a game against a faltering Pakistani unit. They failed to win the one game they HAD to win, and were therefore eliminated. It's not a question of luck, it's a question of talent and application of said talent.

• New Zealand

New Zealand is also one of the unlucky sides. Not only they came close to be selected for knock outs but also they had a chance to win the game against England if Steve Davies gave the benefit of the doubt of the no ball to the Kane Williamson in the latter parts of the chase.

Again a bit of conjecture. Poor New Zealand were hoist by their own petard and the follies of the NRR system. The way the NRR is calculated made NZ's squeaky 1-wicket win over Sri Lanka seem like a one-way demolition job, which indirectly forced Australia to try and chase the Sri Lankan target in a ridiculously small number of overs, which caused Sri Lanka to win, and New Zealand to get knocked out.

• South Africa?

South Africa reminded the world that they are still the ?Chokers? at the big stage.

"Choking" implies that you were in a winning position at some point before losing. South Africa played largely uninspired cricket (possibly due to all the missing big names) and were utterly blown out in the semifinal. There was no choke. The South African replacements (Kleinveldt, Tsotsobe, Ingram, et. al.) didn't show up at all, JP Duminy looked lost, and du Plessis, de Villiers, and Amla all failed at critical junctures.

• India

...Many people questioned the ability of the Indian batsmen to survive the bouncy pitches and the ability of Indian fast bowling resources. But this young Indian team has performed extremely well and able to win the final...Shikar Dhawan has become a consistent and attacking opener...Indian fast bowlers finally shown that they can perform well...

I agree with most of what you said; we played better cricket more consistently than others and therefore won. But I don't think our batsmen and pacers have really answered too many questions. The middle order was largely untested in tough conditions - they failed the one time they were called upon. Our pacers, though good in patches, were easily the weak link of our bowling, and seemed not to have the captain's confidence in critical situations.

Shikhar Dhawan has played a grand total of six international matches since his comeback. He's been fantastic. But let's wait a little before bandwagoning.

Our fast bowlers haven't proven a damn thing. If you gave batsmen the choice of pace attacks to face between England, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, India, and New Zealand, they would choose our attack 4 out of 5 times.