World Cup Match Reports, Articles & Interviews

[vvvslaxman]

Last line might irk Padosis :hysterical: . The summarization is pretty much what Manju, Harsha and Ian discussed in cricinfo.

[vvvslaxman]

This guy is full of BS ... I bet behind Dhoni's back he is rambelling about how they kicked AUS out blabla ... I hate this guy

he has said some of the most obvious things that a 5 year old indian cricket fan would know :cantstop:

[Zero_Unit]

^ lol ... I know hein

[EnterTheVoid]

What did Chappell say in this article that is bull **** ?

[Zero_Unit]

^ i didn't say he said something BS in the article ... am saying he "IS" FULL OF BS

[Roshanrocks]

Well said Ian :cheer:

[abhinav]

This guy is full of BS ... I bet behind Dhoni's back he is rambelling about how they kicked AUS out blabla ... I hate this guy

So bitter you are my friend..take it easy..

[Vikas Bhatt]

Statswise I have no doubt Dhoni will lead the rest of our ex-captains by the time he quits captaincy. But I want to see what he does as a captain of the test side and what rebuidling will lead to and what results he will get once SRT, Laxman and Dravid are gone. Right now like Ponting and his mentor Steve Waugh he has a team in both formats that is at it's best. I will save my judgement till he quits and then see how he measured up in times of our weakest moments when player intensity was not the same to get a complete picture.

[akshayxyz]

Statswise I have no doubt Dhoni will lead the rest of our ex-captains by the time he quits captaincy. But I want to see what he does as a captain of the test side and what rebuidling will lead to and what results he will get once SRT' date=' Laxman and Dravid are gone. Right now like Ponting and his mentor Steve Waugh he has a team in both formats that is at it's best. I will save my judgement till he quits and then see how he measured up in times of our weakest moments when player intensity was not the same to get a complete picture.[/quote'] I think he might continue doing as well as he is - as most of the teams are going through rebuilding. I do not expect any current-greats to be around 3-4 years down the line. From here on, once all current oldies are gone, it will be more like race to next great. And we are in slightly better position as our talented youngsters will have added advantage to play alongside Sachin/Dravid/Laxman. Also, I feel Aussies will bounce back faster than we think they would.

[Prakat]

^ ditto on point about oz comeback. they will regroup and the new team will have some surprises for sure.

[Prakat]

Cricket Analyst mad at having his Caribbean vacation come to an end abruptly. :hehe: xOnEqmJn0PE

[Mamu]

Dhoni among the greats Ian Chappell There’s no doubt Mahendra Singh Dhoni is one of the best international captains at moulding a winning spirit; the Indian team showed great resolve in the knockout stage of the World Cup and that can only happen if everyone is enjoying the success of his team-mates. Of the international captains over the last thirty years, Dhoni ranks up there with the best of them in Imran Khan, Mark Taylor and Arjuna Ranatunga. They’re all different in style but each had the ability to draw the best out of their team and win when the going was tough. Overcoming hurdle Of that quartet, Dhoni and Ranatunga both had moderate attacks, which make their achievement in winning a World Cup even more meritorious. One of the foremost requirements of a captain is to realise what he has in firepower and then work out how to best utilise it. Neither Dhoni nor Ranatunga were ones to lament their lack of attacking options; they just devised plans to beat the opposition with the bowlers they had in hand. Dhoni even admitted after the semi-final he’d misread the Mohali pitch but that still didn't stop him from finding a way to win with the attack he had on the field. That’s a smart captain. Another great quality Dhoni brings to captaincy is a quiet calm. Like all good captains he displays an aura that, no matter what is happening on the field, suggests to his team: “All is well”. Once a captain conveys that feeling, the rest of the team starts to believe he can pull off miracles. When the team believe miracles can happen they often occur because of the players’ belief; it becomes a self-perpetuating process. It also helps that Dhoni leads by example. When the going is tough he’s prepared to march into battle and tackle the biggest challenge; the World Cup final was a great example of that aspect of his character. Leading by example The players know that Dhoni is not asking them to do anything that he’s not prepared to do himself. That’s all players ask of their captain. They want honesty and in return they’ll give their respect. That is the foundation on which India's wonderful team spirit is built. By backing his players, Dhoni empowers them. The players know that he has faith in them and consequently when he sets them a task, they go about it with wholehearted confidence. There was no better example of how empowerment works in this World Cup than Zaheer Khan. Every time Dhoni threw him the ball, Zaheer responded with a spirited effort and on most occasions he obtained the wicket India so badly needed. Dhoni gradually brought his team to a peak during the tournament and they were at their best in the final. And, as good as they were, not even Imran, Taylor or Ranatunga put on such a commanding personal performance as Dhoni did in a World Cup final. http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/681729.aspx © Copyright 2010 Hindustan Times

Other than Lloyd in 75 and Ponting in 2003 who played a captains knock ? As good as Ponting's innings was -- Aus were never under any pressure during 2003. In fact Aus were clear and away favorites. Not sure about Lloyd. As somebody said -- this Dhoni innings probably will go down as the best ODI Knock to win the finals -- probably barring De Silva in 96 finals.

[Mamu]

Statswise I have no doubt Dhoni will lead the rest of our ex-captains by the time he quits captaincy. But I want to see what he does as a captain of the test side and what rebuidling will lead to and what results he will get once SRT' date=' Laxman and Dravid are gone. Right now like Ponting and his mentor Steve Waugh he has a team in both formats that is at it's best. I will save my judgement till he quits and then see how he measured up in times of our weakest moments when player intensity was not the same to get a complete picture.[/quote'] That is not true at all. Dhoni has to marshall his extremely thin bowling resources and -- make no mistake -- bowlers win you matches, not batsmen. Ponting and Waugh had an embarassment of riches to pick and choose from, especially Ponting. At least Waugh can be credited for building them.

[Chandan]

A good article by Prem Panickar on world cup final: To Be Seven Years Old Again! Posted on April 7, 2011 by Prem Panicker Meet Charvi. She is the seven year old daughter of my colleague, Priya. And she stole my heart as the April 2 World Cup final unfolded at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. I remember the exact moment. It was the 10th over; Nuwan Kulasekhara straightened the second ball of the over onto the middle stump line. Virat Kohli, who at that point had gone 10 balls without opening his account, flowed into the shot, and with perfect timing and unsuspected power, flicked hard to beat the fine leg fielder to the fence. There were close to 20 of us in the Yahoo newsroom in Bangalore at the time, watching on the two screens in the edit bay. And as the fielder retrieved the ball and threw it back, all was silent. It was a stark contrast to the earlier mood. We had gathered in the newsroom a good hour before the game; as Zaheer marked his run up, the first of many bottles of beer was being opened; as the game progressed and India dominated with the ball and in the field, the beer was supplemented by prime bottles of vodka and whisky. And the noise! Fueled in equal parts by alcohol and adrenalin, stoked to a blaze by the sense of imminent possibility, the Y! newsroom was making noise enough to rival the Wankhede -- and not even the late explosion by Jawardene and Perera could damp the decibel levels. "274! Hmph! We've got the batting to chase that with ease" summed up the prevailing mood. India began the chase. Off the second ball, Viru Sehwag was nailed plumb by Lasith Malinga. The noise continued unabated. "If Viru scores, it's a bonus, that is all. The team doesn't depend on him. The real batsmen are all still there." Then Sachin Tendulkar got out. He walked off -- and with him went all that edgy energy that had permeated our space. What replaced it was the silence of death -- the death of dreams, of hope. Kohli got off the mark with that four. And Charvi -- who needed no artificial stimulants to fuel her buoyant enthusiasm -- began bouncing around the newsroom, her clear treble raised in a compelling chant. "India! India! INDIA!!!" She seemed surprised to find hers the lone voice in a wilderness of despair, so she took to coming to each one of us in turn, bouncing up and down in front of us, her voice raised higher still in that ceaseless chant, as if daring us to stay unmoved. Gambhir danced down the track, took Perera on the half-volley, blasted it over midwicket. "He is taking too many risks," someone said. "Ab out ho jayega!" "Indiaaaa-INDIA!!", Charvi said. Gambhir cracked Kulasekhara over the covers. Next ball, he took a single. Charvi greeted both the four, and the single, with equal enthusiasm. Charvi didn't know that at the ten over mark, India was ahead of Sri Lanka (41/1 against 31/1). That by the 15 over mark, that lead had been stretched further: 81/1 against 58/1. Not being a 'monkey with a calculator' (Amit Varma's pithy phrase for journalists -- and by extension, cricket fans -- who only know to read statistical tea leaves, not understand and appreciate the patterns of the game as it unfolds), Charvi didn't appreciate that the opening up of a gap in the scoring patterns meant that India was, in the middle overs, making up for the Sri Lankan mayhem at the death, and positioning themselves for an assault on the target. Her worldview was simple: her team was playing; two young sweat-streaked players were out there under lights, scoring runs, fighting on, not giving up. She wasn't about to let them down. Just as they weren't about to let her down. Perhaps with the instinctive understanding of the truly young and unspoilt, Charvi understood what makes this team great, what sets it apart from its predecessors: the knowledge that as long as a game is live, there is hope; that as long as the team is out there on the field, fighting, defeat is not a consideration. We -- the cynical 'elders' who show all the inconsistency of weathercocks; we, who fell silent when one player got out; we, who walked in our dozens out of the stadium because we anticipated defeat before it was upon us -- think of it as our team. But it is, in attitude and belief, Charvi's team; its component parts are more closely aligned with Charvi's optimistic mindset than with our own cynical, been there seen that all before pessimism. Thus, when questioned about the absence of a key bowler in the semi-finals, a Suresh Raina could say, simply, "Main hoon na!". Thus, while the game was on we talked endlessly about Sachin Tendulkar's propensity to 'choke' on the big occasion (and while on that, read this excellent post by Siddharth Vaidyanathan on Tendulkar and the big occasion). That is our attitude, and it is a fair-weather one. There is another, and it was exemplified by Virat Kohli who, when asked about his chairing of Sachin Tendulkar on his shoulders could respond, with easy grace: "He has carried Indian cricket on his shoulders for 22 years; it is only right that we carry him on our shoulders today." In an excellent piece written after the final, blogger and author Greatbong, who was seven when India last won the Cup in 1983, pointed out why winning the Cup matters. He said: "It matters because it makes us believe we are part of something bigger than our insignificant selves. It matters because it creates a new pantheon of legends for a new generation." Exactly. A new pantheon, for a new generation. Charvi's generation. Because we are grown too old, too cynical, too world-weary (Even as the chase was on, there was an SMS doing the rounds, 'predicting' the outcome and suggesting the game was fixed), to deserve heroes.

[phaedrus]

Cricket Analyst mad at having his Caribbean vacation come to an end abruptly. :hehe: xOnEqmJn0PE

:hysterical: boria majumdar is such an ****

[Chandan]

Wonder if you people have read this article written by Akash Chopra: When a choke isn't a choke South Africa losing the plot against New Zealand was more panic than choke. There is a difference Aakash Chopra April 7, 2011 South Africa's capitulation against New Zealand has brought the c-word out again. Nothing seems to have changed for them in big tournaments ever since they came back to international cricket after the apartheid era. They have always had the arsenal to go all the way and yet have fallen short, always in the knock-out stages. Not a single win in knock-out games in a World Cup is a record they'd give both their arms and legs to change. While their record cannot be contested, whether they choked or not against New Zealand can be debated. There's a fundamental difference between choking and panicking, which the writer Malcolm Gladwell explains quite proficiently. While Gladwell talks in the context of tennis, his theory explains choking in cricket too. What happened to South Africa against New Zealand in Mirpur was a bad case of panic, though it was conveniently considered a choke. So what exactly is choking and how is it different from panicking? The fundamental difference is that while you think too much when you choke, you think too little when you panic. While choking, you want to delay the inevitable, but when you panic you want to get over with it as soon as possible, for you can't bear the growing pressure. Choking You play safe You may finish 30 runs short of the target if the opposition bowls really well and you lose all your wickets in the bargain. On the other hand, if you get to the 50th over needing 40 runs with five wickets in the hut, that's more of a problem. Some may call it a miscalculation but it really comes down to the mindset: to play safe for as long as possible. South Africa have done this more times than any other team. Remember the tied game against Australia, when Allan Donald was run out? The match would have finished much earlier had Kallis and Co. not allowed Mark Waugh to bowl a lot of overs in the middle. Chasing a target is a lot about identifying threats and weak links in the opposition and then treading with caution against potential threats while going after the weak links. Playing in safe mode can take you only so far; you must change gears at some point. You don't take calculated risks Yuvraj Singh could easily have dabbed the ball towards third man instead of going over the point fielder against Brett Lee in the quarter-final in Ahmedabad. Going aerial may look dicey to some but it is extremely important to take calculated risks when you're playing strong opposition. If you wait forever for things to happen, chances are you won't be there when they do. When you refuse to take these calculated risks, you run the risk of digging a hole for the team, i.e. choking. Chasing a target is a lot about identifying threats and weak links in the opposition and then treading with caution against potential threats while going after the weak links. Playing in safe mode can take you only so far; you must change gears at some point You think too much "When thinking goes deep, decisions go weak" is an old saying and it describes choking perfectly. Sport is more about instinct than intellect. Intellect is the primary requirement while planning but once the game starts, instinct must take over. You are more likely to succeed when you react, not over-think, for there's hardly any time to think too much. When you over-think, you tend to think about how things can go wrong, and so you stop trusting your instincts. When you think before every step you take, you end up walking too slow. If you keep thinking about the possibility of getting stumped, you will never be able to go down the track. Playing an aggressive shot is, most times, about backing yourself and trusting your instincts to go through with it. But the fear of what may happen if the shot is mistimed, or the ball bounces a bit more or less than expected, can result in a defensive prod. This is choking at a micro level. I've also found that teams and individuals who are more inclined to technique than flair are more likely to choke. Their strategic and technical know-how tell them to play it safe. On the contrary, people who have a healthy mix of technique with flair - say, Pakistan - are less likely to choke. Panic You commit hara-kiri Panic is, in fact, the exact opposite of choking. If you play it too safe for too long when you choke, you self-destruct in fast-forward when you panic. What happened to South Africa in Mirpur was a straightforward case of panicking. There were no demons in the track and the New Zealand attack wasn't all that formidable. South Africa were cruising at 108 for 2 at the halfway stage but once they lost a couple of wickets, panic set in. When you start trying to take non-existent singles (the AB de Villiers run-out), start manufacturing shots when you only need to play percentage cricket (JP Duminy's dismissal), play reckless shots despite having a set batsman at the other end (Dale Steyn's and Robin Peterson's dismissals), it's a sign the team has lost it. You abandon rational thought You think too much while choking and too little when you panic. You may need to score a run a ball, but somehow it feels a lot more than that. A couple of dot balls are followed up by a high-risk shot to ease the pressure. When you panic you tend to overestimate the pressure. A run a ball, with wickets in hand, is like walking in the park on most days, but not when you're panicking. Rational thinking deserts you the moment you panic. Why did Bangladesh play silly shots when wickets were tumbling all around them against South Africa? It's common sense that if you're four down for not many, you must drop anchor, but they did exactly the opposite and tried playing ambitious shots. A six or a four can't win you the game, but you don't think along those lines when you panic. Fear takes hold When you choke, you fear making mistakes, and subsequently you fail. When you panic, it is the prospect of failure that you fear, which leads to committing mistakes. The fear of failure cripples you so much that you self-destruct and bring about the failure you fear. Panic has a domino effect. It is like an epidemic that spreads through the team, while choking can be restricted to a couple of batsmen in the middle. Once panic sets in, it's quite apparent and visible to everyone, including the players in question, but choking goes unnoticed till the eventual calamity is at the door. If I may draw an analogy from tennis: when a player chokes, he keeps hitting safe shots, bang in the middle of the court, ensuring they miss the net and are well inside the baseline, hoping the opponent will make a mistake. When the same player panics, he goes for non-existing winners, resulting in enforced errors. The outcomes of choking and panicking may be the same but both are different from each other. So the next time you see a team lay down their arms, it might be worth looking closely to see if they have choked or panicked under pressure.

[ravishingravi]

^Yes I had read that Chandan. I have to say Aakash Chopra has to be right up there with the best criciket writers in India

[goose]

World Cup Images from The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/04/india-wins-2011-cricket-world-cup/100038/ there's some good ones here!