Line and Length - Times Online - WBLG

World Twenty20 random thoughts

Just got in from a wonderful day at Lord's. I'm glad that Pakistan won the men's final because, the magnificent Lasith Malinga aside, they had the better bowlers all tournament and had come so close to winning in 2007, but I'm even more glad that Sri Lanka made a game of it after slipping to 70 for six from 13 overs.

When Malinga conceded only three in the 16th over, we almost had a chase to the finish. Pakistan needed 33 from four overs at that stage, which was reduced to 26 off three when Murali bowled a tidyish 17th over. Should Malinga have bowled the next? I can see why Sri Lanka wanted to keep him for the final over, after conceding only eight from his first three, but if he had bowled the 18th over and conceded only, say, six or seven, Pakistan may have felt the pressure. Instead, Udana bowled, had a shocker and conceded 19 runs, so the game was gone by the time Malinga was brought back.

It will have brought joy to the dozens of ticketless Pakistan fans who were crammed outside the gates at Lord's. I saw them there when I went for a mid-innings comfort break, pressed hard against the railings, trying to spot the action through the gaps between the stands, straining their ears to hear the score over the crowd, wondering whether a roar signalled a boundary or a wicket.

On the other side of St John's Wood Road there was a sizeable Sri Lankan demonstration, protesting against the massacre of the Tamils by the Sri Lankan army. Wonder whether they were also happy that Pakistan won.

A few celebrities were in attendance. Before the final I walked past Amir Khan, the boxer, who was being escorted to a private box with five security guards around him as if he were a visiting president. "Surely he is the least likely person to need protection," I said to a steward.

I'm glad that Sri Lanka made a game of it because two lop-sided finals would have been a bit of an anticlimax for a wonderful tournament. England women were ruthless when they bowled at New Zealand, skittling the opposition for 85. Katherine Brunt, bowling with a shiner on her right eye that came from a fielding mishap rather than a row with Amir Khan, took three wickets for six. Laura Marsh, who opened the bowling, was similarly successful, getting a wicket with the fifth ball of the game, and the result was never in doubt.

The only downer, for those of us who prefer our women more curvaceous, is how lithe and slim the England women are. Must be all that training they do. New Zealand, on the other hand... well, as one person sitting near me said: "Their opener reminds me of Robert Key."

Perhaps the classiest thing about our women was how well they fielded. One moment by Lydia Greenway was enough to confound any doubters about women's cricket. The ball was slogged out to the boundary, Greenway charged around to cut it off, dived headfirst and not only stopped the ball but grabbed it flush in her hand, bounced up and returned it to the stumps, turning a possible four into only a single. Astounding play and as good as any fielding we have seen from the men.

So women can't bowl above 70mph and their batsmen don't strike many sixes, the quality and entertainment of their play is still first-class and not for the first (nor we hope the last time) Claire Taylor was again the rock at No 3. Although she was dropped before scoring - a tough chance by the keeper that was heading for first slip if there had been one - she never looked flustered afterwards and hit the winning runs with a four down the ground.

I was there for the first over, which seemed disturbingly early at 10.30am, and Lord's was hearteningly heaving. The public areas were probably a third to half-full, but the stands for members and their friends - Tavern, Warner and Allen - were packed with barely a seat to be had. OK, these are unreserved seating areas and people may have come early to bags a spot for the men's final, but it is still a good sign that the MCC and their guests turned out in force and stayed to watch. I reckon the women were seen by about 10,000 and that will have given them a boost.

England reach final

So that's put paid to the Sunday morning lie-in. And the second half of the Archers omnibus will have to be ignored. Now that England women have qualified for the final of the World Twenty20, I'll have to be at Lord's early this Sunday for the 10.30am start.

Marvellous effort by the women, showing cojones that the men lack. To reach the target of 164, they needed to make the highest total of the tournament. When Charlotte Edwards was out to a rather needless toe-poke at a bouncer that would have been wide if she'd missed, England were 43-2 and needing 121 in 13 overs. But there was no flapping. Claire Taylor showed why she was named as one of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year this year with 76 off 53 balls and even if she was so out of puff at the end that singles, let alone twos, seemed an ordeal, she had no difficulty striking boundaries. Ably supported by Beth Morgan, with 46 off 34, they got home with three balls in hand. Roll on New Zealand on Sunday.

Afridi puts Pakistan into final

At what point does it stop being a coincidence and start looking like a curse? How many times can South Africa enter a tournament in great form, look beautiful in the early stages and then not win it? Heck, even reaching a final is beyond them (the 1998 Champions Trophy aside). I feel for the South African supporters, I really do.

The South Africa cricket team remind me of the All Blacks in rugby, whose last World Cup win was 22 years ago and who have found a string of absurd reasons not to win another. England have had their own frequent disappointments, of course, especially in football, but the difference between the Proteas, All Blacks and England sides is that generally we don't enter tournaments as favourites. Any disappointment we feel, therefore, is partly caused by falsely inflated optimism.

In fact, on the rare occasions when we have put some good results together going into a big event (2002-03 in rugby, 2004-05 in cricket, 2007-08 in more than a few Olympic sports), we tend to go on and finish the job. The 1990 football World Cup is an exception.

South Africa's defeat today is not their own failing, of course. Pakistan, a side who have played precious little international cricket recently and whose players were banned from competing in the IPL this season, have bucked the trend all tournament of batsmen being the star players. Their bowlers have been wonderful in almost every match.

Shahid Afridi, who had done his part with the bat, played the key bowling role again, with two wickets for 16 runs in his four overs. His economy rate of 5.4 over six matches is astounding, the best of anyone to bowl eight or more overs, and only marginally better than that of Saeed Ajmal, who takes two wickets every time he bowls. With 150 being regarded as a low-ish par score this tournament, it is impressive that Pakistan have six bowlers whose economy rate is better than that (ie, 7.5 or better).

For that reason, I'd quite like to see them play West Indies in the final. The best bowling side against, possibly, the best batting side. Certainly the Windies score boundaries more frequently than any other team. Sri Lanka are a four-man batting side at best, while the Windies have at least six batsmen who can win matches. Then again, so did South Africa.

In praise of Mithali Raj

All you Indians who worship Sachin or Yuvraj or Rahul or Dhoni (are there any of the latter left) have got it wrong. As far as I'm concerned, the most wonderful Indian batsman to see is Mithali Raj, the rather fetching former captain and No 3.

Not only can she bat - she made 214 in a Test against England in 2002 and averages 50 in Twenty20 internationals - but she looks so stylish batting in a floppy hat. Why don't men have the courage to do the same, even if only against the slower bowlers? Helmets have taken all the grace and character out of batting. Batting in a cap is good - Viv Richards springs to mind - but batting in a sunhat is even better.

And how nice to see the India women, even if they have just lost their semi-final to New Zealand, playing in the proper sky blue colour, rather than the dirty navy that the men wore this tournament. As with England, it is the Indian women who are keeping national pride afloat.

The scoop of the century

I've been suffering from World Twenty20 deprivation for the past 24 hours. One day without games and suddenly I feel disorientated, missing my daily evening dose of boundary thrashing (or, if England were playing, nurdling). I never thought I'd be gripped by Twenty20 like this, certainly I never felt like this about 50-over cricket.

Sure, Test matches are still what gives the greater enjoyment and there is more beauty in five-day cricket in whites than there is in T20, but I've found the latter a whole lot of fun. And the fact that Australia can get knocked out in the first week and the whole thing be done in 16 days has a lot going for it.

Anyway, we're back again this evening with the first semi-final: South Africa v Pakistan. I'm calling this as a win for the men in green...

And tomorrow Sri Lanka v West Indies and perhaps another chance to see Tillekeratne Dilshan's "Dilscoop" shot in action:

While searching for that clip, I also came across one that portrayed Dilshan in a less glorious light. In a rare journey behind the stumps, he celebrates taking a catch by throwing the ball straight up in the air. Unfortunately, Dilshan must have forgotten what he was taught in school about Mr Newton's theories on gravity... I wonder if he can combine the two tomorrow and scoop the ball straight up in the air and on to his helmet?

Wake up to reality, Kirsten

Gary Kirsten says it's all the fault of the IPL that India were knocked out of the World Twenty20. They're tired, apparently. The poor diddums.

While Pakistan have reached the World Twenty20 semis without having any players in the IPL, or indeed playing much international cricket in the past year (which could have left them rusty, rather than tired), the same is not true of the other teams.

Of those to make more than 100 runs or take half a dozen wickets in the IPL this season, nine are playing for South Africa in the World Twenty20 and doing rather well, six are playing for Sri Lanka, three for New Zealand and two for West Indies. I wonder how tired the likes of AB De Villiers, Tillekeratne Dilshan or Dwayne Bravo feel? Maybe winning makes them forget their aches and pains?

Three of the Indian squad were in the Deccan Chargers team that won this year's IPL - Ojha, Rohit Sharma and RP Singh - but there are four Chargers playing for other countries in the World Twenty20: Styris, Gibbs, Silva and Edwards. Three of them will be playing in the semi-finals. Not heard their coaches complain about them being tired yet...

Smashes win matches

Paul Collingwood was right when he admitted last night that England simply weren't good enough. Above all, they weren't good enough at finding boundaries and putting pressure on the fielding sides. To bat for more than nine overs yesterday without hitting even one four - let alone a six - was pretty pathetic. Nudging and nurdling can get you only so far.

I've done some number-crunching on the tournament so far and have discovered that, by and large, the more successful teams score at least one boundary per over and while England are not the worst at this, they are not in the top four. The anomaly is Pakistan, but it has been their bowlers who have got them to the semi-finals more than their batsmen.

Average runs scored from boundaries per over

West Indies: 4.7 (73x4, 16x6, five matches)

South Africa: 4.5 (62x4, 17x6, four matches)

Sri Lanka: 4.3 (70x4, 10x6, four matches)

New Zealand: 4.0 (43x4, 15x6, four matches)

England: 3.8 (67x4, 12x6, five matches)

India: 3.7 (54x4, 17x6, four matches)

Pakistan: 3.3 (54x4, 16x6, five matches)

Ireland: 2.7 (51x4, 10x6, five matches)

Are England just a three-man team when it comes to batting? Certainly there has been precious little contribution from the middle order and England have appeared over-reliant on the openers and Kevin Pietersen to get the runs. Yet the stats suggest that all the successful teams have been reliant on contributions from the same few time and again.

78% of Sri Lanka's boundaries have come from Jayasuriya, Dilshan and Jayawardene

72% of South Africa's have come from Kallis, De Villiers and Smith

69% of West Indies' have come from Bravo, Simmons and Gayle

69% of India's have come from Yuvraj, Rohit Sharma and Gambhir

67% of England's have come from Wright, Bopara and Pietersen

56% of New Zealand's have come from McCullum, Styris and Redmond

49% of Pakistan's have come from Younus Khan, Kamran Akmal and Shoaib Malik

46% of Ireland's have come from Porterfield, Mooney and Niall O'Brien

The silence of the fans

And then there were seven. Sixteen days into the World Twenty20 and India became the fifth team to be eliminated tonight, with Ireland all but mathematically certain to join them in the departure lounge. England are still in the tournament (as, to be fair, would they have been if they had lost to India today) but now they don't need to rely on a favour from South Africa. Beat West Indies at the Oval tomorrow and they are in the semi-finals.

Mike Walters, of The Mirror, raised the biggest laugh with his press conference question to Ryan Sidebottom this evening: "Tell me Ryan, have you ever been so happy or so popular with your team-mates after conceding 15 runs in an over?"

It was Sidebottom who was given the final six balls with India needing 19 to win. Boundaries proved as hard to get as they had been all night and India ended up four runs shy of victory. It was Sidebottom's first two overs that set England on their way to the win, though. He was sharp, aggressive and hard to get away, as were all England's quick bowlers. It was the bouncers that won it: England sent down 22 short-pitched balls, from which India scored 20 runs but lost two wickets. India bowled 11 short ones at England and they went for 23.

Or maybe it was the fielding that won it. India have improved a lot in this skill, but England's fielding today was sublime, Luke Wright in particular, who cut a certain four down to two on more than a couple of occasions.

Or maybe it was the two leg-side wides that Harbhajan Singh bowled that went for five. The second came off what should have been the last ball of England's innings. If the ball had not turned so far - and if a short leg fielder, I think it was Yuvraj, had not been unable to prevent it whizzing to the boundary - India would have won. Possibly. Certainly it took England past the 150 boundary.

It was just about par for a Twenty20 game at Lord's, but it was a miracle England made that many. While Ravi Bopara and Kevin Pietersen were batting a large total looked likely and understandably England sent in Dimitri Mascarenhas at No 4 to hurry the rate along. Instead it stagnated. For seven overs, England could score only one boundary. Mascarenhas finished on 25 not out off 27. If we wanted someone to nudge and nurdle and fail to score fours or sixes, a Shah or Collingwood would have done.

India had a similar problem. The dismissal of Yuvraj Singh was key, a brilliant piece of stumping work by James Foster. A bit like with the Conservatives in Britain hoping that Gordon Brown stays as Prime Minister because it helps their chances, so many England supporters at Lord's were hoping that England would not take too many early wickets and keep Yuvraj on the bench. He should have come in earlier than No 5.

And so the Indian fans were finally silenced - or at least the ones in the stands were. The post match press conference with MS Dhoni lasted half an hour as the Indian press wanted to dissect every ball, it seemed, of the game. Fine, fair enough, they love their cricket, but the British press had deadlines we had to meet and we were almost not given any time with the England captain before our editors started calling. It is a small quibble, but the ICC failed to call time on the post mortem.

Before the game, I saw a few hundred Indian fans around the Nursery Ground cheering on MS Dhoni as he left the nets. I was disappointed to hear after the game that some of them had been booing Collingwood and the England players as they netted. Passion is one thing, boorishness another, but we should not judge all Indian fans by the rude behaviour of some, nor should all Englishmen be branded hooligans by the actions of some of our crass cousins.

Twenty20: a bowler's game?

Gradually the bowlers are moving back towards parity in Twenty20. Yesterday we had Umar Gul take five for six for Pakistan against New Zealand and now word reaches me from Taunton of Isa Guha's achievement for England women against Sri Lanka. Four overs, two maidens, two for four.

Guha's bowling is the sixth time in Twenty20 cricket, male or female, that a bowler has conceded only one run per over (with a minimum of 12 balls) and the second time in international cricket that it has happened, after Alex Cusack took two for three in three overs for Ireland against Kenya last year.

Now if only England's men can find someone to keep it tight for a few overs against India this evening...

Indian fans

Does the India cricket team have the noisiest fans in any sport? I was at Lord's yesterday and it was like standing in the middle of a school playground. Their barracking of the poor Pakistani fans, who were heavily outnumbered, was merciless and when the TV screens in the ground flicked up a picture of Mahendra Singh Dhoni standing on the dressing-room balcony watching Pakistan v Sri Lanka it was greeted with a louder roar than you get in St Peter's Basilica when the Pope emerges to give his Easter benediction. Not that he deserved their adulation later with 11 off 23 balls.

I'm not complaining. Twenty20 is about noise and colour and the fans added to the occasion. I saw a couple of Pakistan fans behind the Tavern after their defeat and expressed sympathy. "I've lost my voice trying to compete with the Indians," one croaked.

India are lucky to have such enthusiastic supporters. And at least these are loyal even in defeat. As they left the ground after their defeat by West Indies, a crowd of them started singing "We still love you India". Why do we never hear that from England fans?