Wilful stupidity doomed Champions Trophy final

For some reason, the cricket gods appear to be frowning on one-day finals at the moment. After the preliminaries were rain-free, the final of the tri-series in Kenya was washed out last month. Then, after 14 games without a single interruption, what the ICC wants regarded as the second World Cup ended in damp disappointment. What makes the Champions Trophy wash-out particularly frustrating, however, was that it could so easily have been overcome with slightly more intelligent, flexible scheduling.

Firstly, it is bizarre that the regulations deem an entire game must be replayed on a reserve day rather than carried on from the point where the interruption occurred. This means India could have batted for 24.5 overs on Sunday, the match been virtually three quarters completed, and it would still have had to be replayed in its entirety.

If the first objective is to achieve a result, which in a major tournament final must be imperative, then this situation is plainly illogical. It would, perhaps, be reasonable enough to start over on the reserve day in cases where games have been compromised by the Duckworth-Lewis method.

In an un-revised game, however, it makes most sense to simply continue it on the second day. Not only would it be fair, as it would not penalize the side in the better position, it would also go a long way towards ensuring a result was actually obtained. Nobody wants the nothingness of a split prize, and it seems foolish to attempt to complete another 100 overs on a second day in what are obviously less-than-ideal weather conditions.

Still, those are the regulations, so the argument is hypothetical and could not have been changed Monday. Fine. What made Monday’s no result especially farcical, though, was the decision to re-schedule the original day/night game as another day/night fixture. It was, in hindsight, utterly absurd.

Given that the spectacle of Sunday’s original day/night final had been ruined by the elements, the only consideration thereafter should have been completing a game. And the safest chance of doing that, without question, was to sensibly utilise the time available on Monday by re-starting the game as soon as possible the next day.

It is totally incongruous that the commencement of the replay was delayed until 2:30pm local time in an attempt to schedule an identical, second day-nighter. Priorities have to be weighed. What is better, having half a final played in the afternoon for no result, or re-scheduling an early start to increase the chances of completing a game and determining a champion, which is the purpose of the exercise?

Had the original match continued on Monday morning, it would have been all over by the early afternoon, a 2-day limited-overs game but still an uncompromised 100-over fixture. Had the replay begun as a day game in the morning as it should have, it would still have been completed in advance of a repeat of the previous evening’s storm.

Ultimately, the end came a mere 38 minutes later than it did on the preceding day, and that too after the umpires had persevered vainly for a while. Clearly, the game never had a chance, and it is extraordinary that cricket’s wilful stupidity in these types of situations should extend to day-night one-day finals. We’re not exactly tampering with hallowed tradition here.

Whatever the existing provisions governing re-scheduled games, the Champions Trophy final was a complete and abject failure for common sense.

Failure far from characterised the Indian team, who should have felt confident of their position in each attempt at a final. Irrespective of what the result would have been, the Indians have demonstrated this year that they can win ODI series and tournaments away from home, and remain among the leading contenders for the World Cup.

Sri Lanka, on the other hand, rank as no better than one of the middle tier teams until they prove they are competitive in conditions not tailored to suit spin, which the shared trophy does nothing to disguise.

It should be a telling indication of Sri Lanka’s World Cup prospects that they felt it necessary to resort to a slow, dusty turner to overcome the Australians, when with their spinners neutral batting conditions would have afforded them a good chance anyway. It must be questionable whether a pitch not conducive to what is typically considered a 'good' ODI contest was suitable for the semifinal of a tournament as ostensibly prestigious as the Champions Trophy.

The turning pitch probably equated roughly to bouncy greentop and while there should always be a place for occasional ODIs in which conditions favour a particular type of bowling rather than the usual batsman-dominated affairs, it is disappointing that those type of conditions were produced in a semifinal, and clearly favoured the hosts.

The Australians, though seemingly unprepared and admitting their weakness against the spinning ball, were apparently displeased. Judging from Ricky Ponting’s comments, retribution is to be expected. "We’ll see what happens when they come out to Australia this summer," said Ponting of Sri Lanka’s edge over Australia in recent contests, which is a diplomatic way of saying 'we’re going to kill you'.

In all likelihood, Sri Lanka are somewhere in between the disjointed, abject outfit seen in the England and the confident, dominant side at home, probably tending towards the former in both Australia and South Africa.

It would have been a great effort for India to win immediately following a tour of England, and their performance demonstrates the benefits of having a couple of one-day specialists to inject life and enthusiasm into a possibly tired team. Yuvraj Singh’s catching undoubtedly turned the semifinal against South Africa and the fielding of he and Mohammad Kaif makes the fielding ability of India’s one-day unit quite distinct from the Test side.

From the semifinals on, conditions made acceleration through an innings difficult, and momentum tended to become fixed by what occurred in the first 15 overs. South Africa discovered just how hard scoring quickly was with no pace to use, as they inexplicably subsided against India.

It’s impossible to know, but one would hope that Herschelle Gibbs truly was unfit to continue for another ball when he decided to retire hurt, else it is another case of his arrogance costing South Africa at an important tournament. Even had he hit out and thrown his wicket away under duress, as Sanath Jayasuriya appeared to do in the final, he could have made a difference.

In a way, that win was as impressive as any of India’s one-day results this year, as it had to be achieved on grit and composure in the field and with the ball when the game was in the balance, rather than superlative batting. Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj were the catalysts, but the character shown by Zaheer Khan and Virender Sehwag late on was equally impressive.

Australia should have done what Sri Lanka did in the final, accepting that it was impossible to dominate through the whole innings and resolving to dourly grind out runs until a base was set for more expansiveness in the final overs. Good captaincy by Ganguly reined Sri Lanka back on the Sunday, as he appeared to assess that conditions were not conducive to blasting at the death and brought Harbhajan and Zaheer back early to keep Sri Lanka in check. Exactly like the South Africa semifinal, Sri Lanka’s innings lost momentum, as Sehwag, Harbhajan and Zaheer all stuck to their task.

India surprisingly chose the final to tinker with their opening combination, breaking up the Ganguly/Sehwag partnership so Tendulkar could bat a spot higher at three. More surprising still was Ganguly’s post-match suggestion of pressure on Tendulkar, which apparently prompted the change. In addressing the Tendulkar issue, Ganguly said: "It’s good for the team that he bats at number four," which should have been the end of the argument. It’s not as if results or the form of other batsmen has shown otherwise.

When Tendulkar fails in one-day finals or is perceived to be out of form in Tests, it is reasonable there should be a critical analysis. But there are no grounds, really, for Tendulkar to be the focus right now. It would be ironic if it were precisely because Virender Sehwag and India are performing so well that there is a push to get Tendulkar to open again. If true, can only be motivated by selfishness or misplaced priorities.

Now that it is Sehwag scoring the bulk of the runs at the top, India’s fortunes do not depend on Tendulkar’s blade each time he walks out. Since the nature of the one-day game invariably makes openers the "star" batsmen, could this change of focus possibly be a cause for resentment? It’s possible that those perceived to be exerting pressure, if they exist, would rather see a more prominent Tendulkar, perhaps scoring a few more hundreds and breaking records faster than he would at four, than a successful India. Ganguly perhaps should have mentioned exactly who he felt was putting pressure on Tendulkar, so they and their motives could be exposed.

At least the players have their priorities right, as Ganguly and India are increasingly espousing the team line. Tendulkar said of relinquishing his opening position in the Rediff interview "as long as it contributes to the success of the team I am happy," and Ganguly was quoted by CricInfo as saying "we have to stop selecting individuals and making them stars; we need to pick an eleven and back them". Exactly. And anyone who doesn’t appreciate that should be dismissed as a counter-productive force.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw