This is the question which cricket fans in Guyana and elsewhere in the Caribbean are asking as the region prepares to host, for the first time ever, the world’s premier limited-over cricket competition. Picking a winner in the limited over version of the game is always difficult. Such is the unpredictable nature of the event. As West Indies coach, Bennett King, observed recently, “the limited-over format is an interesting game. Anyone on their given day, if they have a good day, can win a game of limited-over cricket. If a side has a below par game, they can lose.”
To predict the winner of this year’s World Cup has been rendered more difficult by two factors. The first is the recent and current injuries to several key players which may affect both the final composition of teams as well as the fitness and form of the players. Among the key players whose fitness is currently in question are Andrew Symonds and Brett Lee of Australia, Kevin Pietersen and Michael Vaughan of England, Shoaib Akhtar and Umar Gul of Pakistan and our own Ramnaresh Sarwan.
The second factor is the very recent One Day setbacks suffered by Australia, the reigning world champions. A month ago the Aussies appeared virtually invincible having carted off the ICC Champions Trophy for the first time and, subsequently, “slaughtering” England in the much-anticipated Ashes series. Austra-lia’s sudden and unexpected slump occurred earlier this month in a tri-nation ODI series with New Zealand and England. Ricky Ponting’s team not only struggled in three successive matches to defeat New Zealand but, more surprisingly, lost three games to England, including two in the finals. As if that were not enough the Australians suffered their first ever 10-wicket defeat – at the hands of New Zealand a few days ago..
The team which wins the World Cup is likely to have at least the following five virtues:
1. A strong batting line-up, marked especially by quality, depth and effective aggression.
2. Penetrative economical bowling.
3. Excellent fielding.
4. Astute captaincy.
5. Consistency.
Australia, despite its recent “wobbles,” appears to be the team with the best combination of these virtues and should therefore be regarded as favourites to win the competition for an unpre-cedented three successive times. These difficulties, as Ricky Ponting observed, “may be “the kick up the backside we [the Australians] needed”.
The Aussies have sources of strength which are reflected both in their attitude and their performance on the field of play. They customarily demonstrate confidence, mental toughness and a determination to win. This attitude is normally complemented by excellent fielding and shrewd captaincy, particularly in terms of tactics, field placing, bowling changes and the exertion of pressure on the opposition. All this is usually supported by the ability, depth and aggression of the batting, attributes that result in the team posting challenging totals.
Adam Gilchrist at the top of the order, known for aggression and productivity, is the most dangerous batsman in limited-over cricket. Even if he fails, one can expect the rest of the batting, in particular Ponting, Matthew Hayden and Michael Hussey, to produce at least a very competitive score.
Australia, however, does have at least one major possible source of weakness, namely, the uncertainty of its bowling. Brett Lee – whose present injury makes him a doubtful starter, at least for the early stages of the competition – is the team’s only proven penetrative ODI bowler. He is, however, somewhat inconsistent. Frequently he routs the opposition with fast, accurate bowling, justifying Ponting’s opinion that he is the best ODI bowler in the world. At other times, however, his bowling is wayward and expensive.
The supporting Aussie bowling is useful, but by no means intimidating. Glenn McGrath, though likely to continue to bowl with economy, no longer has the penetration he once had. Nathan Bracken is not likely to achieve the success in the Caribbean that his swing bowling enjoys in more favourable conditions elsewhere. Furthermore, the other bowlers, such as Mitchell Johnson, Shaun Taitt, Shane Watson and Brad Hogg, may have ability and potential, but they are inexperienced and can be expensive and ineffective.
The Australians will go into the World Cup hoping that their batting can make up adequately for the possible deficiencies of their bowling on a given day. Their greatest threat is probably South Africa which is eager to make amends for its embarrassing failure at home during the last World Cup, when it did not advance beyond the preliminary stage.
Graeme Smith’s team is full of confidence after its recent 4-0 and 3-1 ODI victories over India and Pakistan respectively. Its greatest strength is its bowling which at its best does not have any particularly weak link. Makhaya Ntini is one of the more penetrative ODI bowlers and periodically routs the opposition. For example, in a match against Pakistan in last year’s ICC Champions Trophy tournament, he had a hostile opening spell in which he took five wickets for eight runs in five overs, reducing Pakistan to 27 for 6 in 10 overs before being dismissed for 89 in 25 overs. His fine bowling enabled South Africa to gain a decisive victory by 124 runs and to secure a semi-final berth.
Ntini’s opening partner, Shaun Pollock, is probably the most economical pace bowler in limited-over cricket. He is also sometimes very penetrative, as in the final game of the recent ODI series against Pakistan in Johannesburg where he bowled superbly, taking five for 23 in his 10 overs, his fifth five-wicket haul in his ODI career. He tore through the Pakistani top order, causing the team to be dismissed for only 153 in 40.5 overs and to lose the game by nine wickets. He and Ntini are supported by three other bowlers who are usually competent.
South Africa also normally profits from being a good fielding side. Its batting, however, is suspect and unpredictable, though at least on paper it does have some depth with the wicket-keeper, Mark Boucher and Pollock, dangerous lower-order batsmen, coming in at numbers seven and eight. It suffers considerably from the lack of a single world-class ODI batsman, that is, someone who can dominate the bowlers and consistently produce big scores. The approach to batting of the best South African batsman, Jacques Kallis, is much more suited to, and productive in, the longer version of the game, where he is one of the world’s most sccessful players.
Like South Africa, several of the other leading teams have weaknesses in their batting which may jeopardise their chances of winning the World Cup. This appears to be the case especially with New Zealand, England and Sri Lanka. These countries have an excessive dependence on one or two batsmen-New Zealand on skipper Stephen Fleming, England on Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood and Sri Lanka on wicket-keeper Kumar Sangakarra and Sanath Jayasuriya. The early dismissal of these crucial batsmen usually makes it difficult for their teams to make a competitive, much less a challenging, score.
In striking contrast India, like Australia, has a very strong batting line-up. Its batting has class in the persons of skipper Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar – playing in his fifth World Cup- depth, reliability especially in Dravid, and aggression in Tendulkar, Mahendra Dhoni and the unpredictable Virender Sehwag who, admittedly, is currently struggling with only one fifty in his last eleven innings since August 2006. India’s Achilles Heel, however, is its bowling which is often deficient in limited-over cricket where its world-class spinners, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh, are usually not as effective as in Test cricket. India’s hope of success in the World Cup is therefore likely to depend considerably on its questionable bowling attack being able to restrict the opposition to a total which is not too challenging for even its formidable batting to surpass.
Of the major teams participating in the World Cup, the greatest enigma is probably Pakistan. Pakistan’s batting, at least on paper, appears reasonable. The team has three quality players in Mohammed Yousuf, Younis Khan and Inzamam-ul-Haq, The openers and the lower order are often not productive. Pakistan’s bowling depends heavily on the unpredictable Shoaib Akhtar. On the whole, Pakistan seems to be too inconsistent a team to win a competition which will require the victorious side to play sustained good cricket. Furthermore, the Pakistanis will be entering the competition lacking in confidence after their recent ODI series loss in South Africa.
Finally, what are the prospects for the West Indies, who will be playing before and with the support of some of the most ardent cricket fans in the world? Can the West Indies, recently ranked seventh in the ICC ODI ratings, win a competition which it originally dominated, winning in 1975 and 1979 and being the losing finalist in 1983? Admittedly, the regional team has not done well in the World Cup since then with its best performance being in 1996 when Richie Richardson’s side reached the semi-final which it lost to the eventual runner-up, Australia.
History does not provide much optimism for a West Indies victory in 2007 for no host country has ever won the competition. This writer certainly expects the regional team on this occasion to reach at least the quarter-finals and to play at the newly constructed Providence Stadium and not to be eliminated in the preliminary round as in the last tournament in South Africa in 2003. In spite of its low ICC ranking in both versions of the game, the West Indies, in winning the ICC Champions Trophy in 2004 and being the losing finalist in 2006 and securing two victories in its five ODI encounters with the mighty Aussies in 2006, have shown since the last World Cup that on a given day it can defeat any team in the world in limited-over cricket.
Success for the West Indies in the forthcoming tournament is likely to depend on at least three principal factors. The first is consistency, which, regrettably, has not been one of the characteristics of the regional team for many years. The second factor is team selection. This writer believes that it will be in the interest of the West Indies to include in its final eleven only two of the fast bowlers named in the squad, for almost all of them are liabilities with the bat and often in the field. The rest of the bowling should be undertaken by the all-rounder, Dwayne Bravo, and the batsmen Christopher Gayle, Dwayne Smith and Marlon Samuels who are useful bowlers in limited-over cricket but not genuine all-rounders.
The third and arguably the most important of the three factors is the team’s batting whose weaknesses over the years are well-known -poor starts, the unreliability of the middle order, the fragility of the lower order and unexpected cataclysmic collapses. To perform well in this year’s World Cup, the regional team will need good starts as Gayle and Shivnarine Chanderpaul provided in some recent innings and consistently big scores from the admittedly technically deficient Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan, its two most successful batsmen in the last two years in limited-over cricket. This is problematic especially for Sarwan whose recent and current injuries are likely to affect his fitness, confidence and form.
Equally crucial to the success of the West Indies is a return to productivity in ODIs of master batsman, Brian Lara, who, until 2003, was the pillar of the team’s batting in limited over games with an excellent average of about 45 runs an innings. Since then, however, his performances have declined markedly with his average plummeting to around 30 in ODIs in the last three years. The West Indies need Lara at least to repeat his achievements in previous World Cup tournaments where in 25 innings he scored 956 runs, including two hundreds and six fifties, with an average of 43.45, a figure surpassed by only one West Indian, namely, Vivian Richards (63.31). In short, the West Indies urgently need Lara not only to lead the team on the field, but to lead by example with the bat in this World Cup, as he almost invariably does in Test cricket.
The question of batting is a particularly crucial factor for the West Indies since the team’s bowling attack is, at best, moderate. Our bowling bowling suffers from at least two major deficiencies. First, it lacks a penetrative bowler- a Lee, Ntini, Shane Bond or Muttiah Muralitharan- who can be expected to take several wickets, especially in the first 20-25 overs of an innings, either routing the opposition completely or at least putting it under pressure to rebuild an innings affected by the loss of early wickets. Secondly, the West Indies lacks a bowler or bowlers who can be relied on to bowl economically in the crucial last ten overs of an innings, when it is not unusual for good batting sides to score as many as one hundred runs. South Africa no doubt will commit this very important responsibility to Shaun Pollock and Aus-tralia to Glenn McGrath. To whom can Lara entrust it with confidence? Bravo, Gayle and others in the squad have been tried in the past without consistent success.
In conclusion, who will win the 2007 World Cup? The truth is that any of the top eight teams, including the West Indies, that is, any of the Test playing sides except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, seem to stand a reasonable chance of emerging victorious. Each of these eight teams suffers from at least one disability of varying gravity. The West Indies’ prospects certainly seem better than they were on the eve of the last World Cup, when our eventual failure to reach the Super Six stage was not a surprise. As in 2003, however, it seems that Ricky Ponting’s Australians, in spite of their unexpected recent reverses, seem to be the team most likely to succeed.
