India's loss in Cricket World Cup

The way India went down yesterday to Australia was truly heart-breaking. They were the only team that hadn't lost even one single match in the entire tournament. 

The only bad day for the team had to be on the day of the final match for the World Cup. The string of 10 successive wins simply came to nought. 

How sad!

But let's give credit where it's due. The Aussie team played superbly. In fact, yesterday's victory was their ninth in a row. Their fielding was outstanding, exemplified by the catch Travis Head took to dismiss Rohit Sharma. In contrast, India's fielding looked sloppy for a change.

I guess the fact that India hadn't lost even one match gave them a feeling of infallibility, a sense of over-confidence. Australia had lost two matches, one to India (on Oct 8) and another to South Africa (on Oct 12). 

There are so many conspiracy theories about the pitch. In the end, it is unfair to expect any pitch to assist bowlers or batters, to say that only if the pitch assists will we win! After all, both teams get to play on the same pitch. 

Regardless of how a pitch might change its behaviour during the match, it's up to the players to make the best use of it. Yesterday, the Australian players extracted the best from that pitch, and they won.

While the role of the win streak was a soft skill issue, the hard skill issue was India's playing style.

Both played their role in India's defeat.

Why Angelo Mathews being declared out 'Timed Out' was a fair decision

In cricket, there is a rule that requires an incoming batter to reach the crease (that's the place where the batter stands) and receive the ball within three minutes of the previous batter having left the crease on being declared out.

This is the exact wording:

40.1 Out Timed out

40.1.1 After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, unless Time has been called, be ready to receive the ball, or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed out.

40.1.2 In the event of an extended delay in which no batter comes to the wicket, the umpires shall adopt the procedure of Law 16.3 (Umpires awarding a match).  For the purposes of that Law the start of the action shall be taken as the expiry of the 3 minutes referred to above.

40.2 Bowler does not get credit

The bowler does not get credit for the wicket.

© Marylebone Cricket Club 2017

This is a rule that very few knew till yesterday. That's because always the new batter is in, and play resumes with three minutes.

WHAT ANGELO MATHEWS DID

Yesterday, something bizarre happened during the World Cup match between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Delhi.

Sri Lanka batted first, and everything was fine till the fourth wicket fell at the score of 135.

The new batter was Angelo Mathews. He walked in and reached the crease as any normal batter would do.

But just before receiving his first ball, he realized that the strap of his helmet was broken. He wanted to change it and signalled to the dressing room to send a new helmet.

Just as the new helmet was being brought in, the bowling team, that's Bangladesh players, realized that the whole process was taking too much time. Definitely, more than the stipulated duration of three minutes.

Bangladesh team captain Shakib Al Hasan raised the point with the umpire. A quick discussion ensued, and Angelo Mathews was declared out "Time Out" without having played even a single ball.

Mathews spoke to Hasan and the umpires that it was a genuine problem and it was unfair to have invoked the rule.

But the umpires went by the rule book.

That was the first time in cricket history a batter was declared Times Out, and in no time, a huge controversy erupted.

WHY CONTROVERSY WAS NEEDLESS

The issue was not about the rule. Many people thought that Bangladesh should have played by the "spirit of the game" and allowed Mathews to play.

But I beg to differ.

One, a rule is a rule. We all play by the rules of a game. Why are we thinking of an exception only here?

Two, Angelo Mathews should have known the rule. Probably he didn't. Or if he did, he didn't bother. He should have informed the Bangladesh captain and the umpires about the broken helmet and sought permission to have it replaced.

Three, better still, he could have received the first ball and then told the umpire and Bangladesh captain and got the helmet replaced.

Four, Bangladesh was well within its rights to raise the issue and get the batter out. After all, teams play to win by playing within the rules. It's not that Mathews was declared in violation of a rule.

Five, if we go back to the rule, it is clear that the opponent doesn't even have to appeal as in other dismissals. In this case, the batter is out, timed out. Plain and simple. Even if the Bangladesh team hadn't raised the issue, if the umpires were alert, they would have realized the extra time taken and declared Mathews out.

Six, should the Bangladesh captain have requested the umpire to "pardon" Mathews? If he had, that would have been definitely "magnanimous" and "generous". But that was his call. Considering the stakes involved, he didn't do that, and one can't fault him. He didn't do anything wrong by not letting Mathews continue to play. 

Seven, what about the spirit of the game? Well, but how are we defining the spirit of the game? If we are going to play games allowing for rules to be bent based on "compassionate grounds" and "spirit of the game", won't many matches end in total chaos?

I don't think it's fair to blame Bangladesh, and there was nothing wrong with Angelo Mathews being declared out timed out.

It would be nice to know your thoughts on this.

New Zealand vs Pakistan: Run Feast in Bengaluru

Yesterday, I went to watch the cricket World Cup match here at the Chinnaswamy Stadium -- New Zealand vs Pakistan. 

On many counts, I was looking forward to the match.

One, it was after a long time I was going for a day match. All the matches I had been to in the recent past were either the ODIs or the IPLs that are played under lights.

Two, it was the first time I was going to a match in which India wasn't playing.  

MATCH FEATURING PAKISTAN

Three, one of the teams in yesterday's match was Pakistan. I never got an opportunity to watch a match in which Pakistan was playing. 

The last time the two teams played a Test series was way back in November 2007, and a One-Day International and T20 series was in December 2012.

The bilateral tournaments remain suspended, and I don't think the sporting ties will be resumed any time soon. 

But the two teams have been playing against each other in multinational tournaments, like the World Cup and Asia Cup.

In the ongoing World Cup, India played against Pakistan on October 14 in Ahmedabad. I wanted to go for it, but I couldn't. India won by seven wickets.

RUN FEAST

In yesterday's match, New Zealand started off aggressively. They piled up 401/6 runs in their 50 overs. The bulk of the scoring was by Rachin Ravindra (108) and Kane Williamson (95). (The video above is of Rachin scoring his century.)

In reply, Pakistan, undaunted by the high score that they had to chase, was off the mark from the word go. Opener Fakhar Zaman belted the NZ bowlers all over the place. His captain, Babar Azam, gave him good support.

Around 5 pm, the rain started. The play was interrupted twice. Finally, at 7 p.m., Pakistan was declared the winner by 21 runs based on the DLS (Duckworth-Lewis-Stern) method.

Even if there wasn't rain, Pakistan would have easily chased the target successfully. In 25.3 overs that were possible, they amassed 200 for loss of just one wicket.

CHEERS FOR CRICKET

Even though India wasn't playing, there was a near-capacity crowd. It was great cricket on display. Not much was lost due to rain, only a quarter of the playing time.

There were loud cheers for both teams -- when there was a good shot, or a good bowling, or a good catch, or a good piece of fielding. 

New Zealand's Rachin Ravindra and Pakistan's Fakhar Zaman scored centuries. On both occasions, the entire stadium was on its feet, giving the batter a standing ovation.

When it was announced on the public address system that Pakistan had been declared the winner, the cheers were no less!

Cheering for a team other than India is okay. But when it's Pakistan, it's not the same, because of obvious reasons. That is the notion a lot of people have.

It was proved wrong yesterday, and the experience was extremely heartening. It was also a sort of revelation that common people are very discerning.

They came to watch cricket. Nationalities didn't matter.

That's the way it should be.