India hammer England to book T20 World Cup final with South Africa

India hammer England to book T20 World Cup final with South Africa
India's captain Rohit Sharma plays a shot during the ICC Men's T20 World Cup second semifinal cricket match between England and India at the Guyana National Stadium in Providence, Guyana. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 28 June 2024
Follow

India hammer England to book T20 World Cup final with South Africa

India hammer England to book T20 World Cup final with South Africa

PROVIDENCE, Guyana: Left-arm spinners Kuldeep Yadav and Axar Patel took three wickets apiece as India thrashed defending champions England by 68 runs in Guyana on Thursday to set up a T20 World Cup final against South Africa.
England, set a challenging target of 172, slumped to 103 all out inside 17 overs, wrist spinner Kuldeep finishing with figures of 3-19 and the orthodox Patel 3-23.
India, bidding for their first major title since the 2013 Champions Trophy, will now play South Africa — also unbeaten at this tournament after a nine-wicket hammering of Afghanistan in their semifinal — in Saturday’s final in Barbados.
The Kensington Oval clash will also be India’s second appearance in successive global showpiece games after they lost on home soil to Australia in last year’s 50-over World Cup final.
“It’s very satisfying to win this game,” said India skipper Rohit Sharma after his team gained revenge for a humiliating 10-wicket loss to England in the semifinals of the 2022 T20 World Cup.
“We worked really hard as a unit. To win like that was a great effort from everybody.”
Rohit laid the foundations by top-scoring with 57 in a total of 171-7 after his side were somewhat surprisingly sent into bat by England skipper Jos Buttler.
It was the opener’s third fifty of the tournament and second in as many games following his blistering 92 against Australia.
India were 40-2 in the powerplay after Virat Kohli (nine) and Rishabh Pant (four) both fell cheaply.
But a third-wicket stand of 73 between Rohit and Suryakumar Yadav (47), spanning a rain delay of over an hour, turned the tide.
Patel, the player of the match, said: “I knew that the wicket was stopping and had something for the bowlers...Our batters told us the pitch wasn’t easy to hit the ball. We felt it (171) was a good total.”
Defeat meant the only Test side that England had beaten at this event were co-hosts the West Indies, with the title-holders also losing to Australia and South Africa.
“India outplayed us, certainly,” said Buttler. “We let them maybe get 20-25 too many (runs) on a challenging surface that they played well on. They fully deserved to win.
“They’ve got some fantastic spinners. Our two (Adil Rashid and Liam Livingstone) bowled well but in hindsight, probably should’ve bowled Moeen (Ali) in our innings with the way spin was playing.
“But with a good score and their brilliant bowling attack, it was always going to be a tough chase.
Buttler launched England’s reply with a brisk 23. When he attempted to reverse sweep Patel’s first ball, however, he clipped a gentle catch off the toe-end of the bat to wicketkeeper Pant.
Fellow opener Phil Salt was then clean bowled by Jasprit Bumrah’s well-disguised slower ball.
England then saw 34-2 become 35-3 when Patel bowled dangerman Jonny Bairstow for a duck.
Moeen was then stumped by Pant and when Sam Curran was lbw to Kuldeep, England were in dire straits at 49-5 in the ninth over.
Wickets continued to tumble and when Livingstone, the last of England’s specialist batsmen, was run out for 11 after a dreadful mix-up with Jofra Archer, England were all but beaten at 86-8.
Archer struck a couple of defiant sixes but Bumrah ended the match when he had the England paceman lbw for 21 with a low full toss.


England opener Crawley to miss Sri Lanka series with broken finger

England opener Crawley to miss Sri Lanka series with broken finger
Updated 04 August 2024
Follow

England opener Crawley to miss Sri Lanka series with broken finger

England opener Crawley to miss Sri Lanka series with broken finger
  • The 26-year-old will switch his attention to being fit for England’s tour of Pakistan in October this year
  • Uncapped seamer Dillon Pennington joins Crawley on the sidelines after sustaining a hamstring injury

LONDON: England opener Zak Crawley has been ruled out of the forthcoming Test series against Sri Lanka due to a broken finger.
Crawley has been ruled out after he fractured the little finger on his right hand while attempting to take a catch during the recent third Test victory over the West Indies.
The 26-year-old will switch his attention to being fit for England’s tour of Pakistan in October.
With Crawley sidelined, Dan Lawrence is set to open alongside Ben Duckett.
Lawrence has been included in several England squads but has not played a Test since 2022.
The 27-year-old moved from Essex to Surrey over the winter and has made an impressive start to the County Championship season, averaging 53.09 at a strike rate of 74.68 with two centuries and three fifties.
England made a number of changes to their side ahead of the West Indies series, handing Test debuts to Gus Atkinson and Jamie Smith, and there is now a first call-up for Essex batsman Jordan Cox.
The 23-year-old has been involved in the England set-up previously after joining the white-ball tour of Pakistan in 2022 and will be looking to make his international bow against Sri Lanka.
Uncapped seamer Dillon Pennington, who was in the squad for the 3-0 series win over the West Indies, joins Crawley on the sidelines after sustaining a hamstring injury playing for Northern Superchargers in The Hundred.
Pennington is likely to be sidelined for the rest of the English summer.
Nottinghamshire seam bowler Olly Stone returns to the Test squad for the first time since 2021 and will be hoping to add to his three Test caps.
The first Test against Sri Lanka starts at Old Trafford on August 21, with the second match at Lord’s and the third at The Oval.
England squad for Sri Lanka Test series:
Ben Stokes (capt), Gus Atkinson, Shoaib Bashir, Harry Brook, Jordan Cox, Ben Duckett, Dan Lawrence, Ollie Pope, Matthew Potts, Joe Root, Jamie Smith, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood


Test cricket continues to struggle for relevance

Test cricket continues to struggle for relevance
Updated 01 August 2024
Follow

Test cricket continues to struggle for relevance

Test cricket continues to struggle for relevance
  • Despite thrilling recent matches, the long format is losing more ground to limited-overs cricket

Devotees of Test-match cricket live in troubled times. Despite July having a thrilling match between Ireland and Zimbabwe in Belfast and a three-match series between England and the West Indies, the matches raised serious questions about the sustainability of the format. These questions are not new but are being observed in sharper relief.

It is the norm to allot five days for men’s Test matches. The one in Belfast lasted until a third of the way into the fourth day. The first one in England was concluded in slightly over two days, the second one at the end of the fourth day, and the third one by teatime on the third day.

A Test match is costly to put on and relies on not just broadcasting and sponsorship revenues but also on income from ticket sales, hospitality and in-ground sales of drinks and food. Tests which finish on day two or three mean less exposure for advertisers and sponsors, lower in-ground sales and, depending on when the match finishes, refunding of ticket income to buyers.

The reasons why the matches did not go the full distance reflect several judgmental but reasonably arguable factors. In the case of England and the West Indies, it is obvious that the latter team were inexperienced both in Test cricket and English conditions, shorn of their best players who chose to play franchise cricket. They were also under-prepared, some players arriving late from the Caribbean because of flights delayed by Hurricane Beryl.

These factors coalesced to produce a tepid performance in the first Test. Much improvement came in the second, marked by several outstanding batting achievements in the first innings that dissipated in the second.

Fighting spirit was evident in the third match, to the point where England were on the rack, only to be let off by a failure to review a decision against masterful batter, Joe Root, now seventh in the all-time list of Test match run scorers. England turned the screw and claimed victory on the third afternoon in merciless fashion. Requiring 84 to win, the target was reached in a mere 7.2 overs.

If the England team were keen to return home early, the spectators were probably not, having been deprived of a full day’s play. No doubt, the players would argue that they provided the spectators with entertainment.

In Belfast, rich entertainment was provided in a match which ebbed and flowed in the true spirit of Test cricket. Both teams suffered batting collapses at critical times, Zimbabwe’s lower order proving to be especially inept.

By contrast, Ireland’s top order collapsed in the fourth and final innings. Chasing 158 for victory, they were reduced to 21 for five. The following morning, Ireland’s batters took advantage of more favorable batting conditions to achieve a memorable victory, their second in a row out of nine played.

All 12 International Cricket Council full members have a remit to play Test cricket. It is something to which new and potential full members aspire and it remains at the pinnacle of cricket for many players and spectators alike.

However, the bonds are weakening. The World Cricketers Association conducts regular surveys amongst a sample of players. A recent survey reveals that, in the past five years, there has been a sharp increase in the proportion, especially amongst young players, who consider the T20 World Cup to be the most important ICC event.

In 2019, 85 percent of respondents ranked the 50-over World Cup as the most important ICC event, compared to 15 percent who chose the T20 World Cup. In 2024, the importance given to the ODI World Cup had fallen to 50 percent, compared with 35 percent who chose the T20 World Cup. The balance of 15 percent voted for the World Test Championship.

A sharp fall in the importance given to Test cricket also surfaced. Five years ago, 82 percent of survey respondents viewed the format as the most important one, whilst 11 percent chose T20. This year, only 48 percent of players chose Test cricket compared to 30 percent who chose T20.

A note of caution should be introduced. The surveys exclude players from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, for whom unions do not exist. Nevertheless, the results do seem to be a fair reflection of the trends in professional cricket that are intuitively felt and have been observed in the recent England versus West Indies series.

This was not an isolated instance. Cricket South Africa sent a much-weakened side to New Zealand in January as their top players were involved in the African nation’s T20 franchise competition.

More hand-wringing can be expected if England’s series against Sri Lanka in September is one-sided. Not that England should be complacent. Their own performances in recent Test series away from home against India and Australia were marked by heavy defeats.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of Test-playing countries have always ebbed and flowed. Match durations have always varied accordingly, along with pitch and weather conditions.

Since 2000, 42 percent of Tests have gone into the fifth day and 39 percent into the fourth day. Perhaps the furor over the recent early finishes is overblown, more an outcome of the way that Test cricket is played, especially by England.

A more balanced approach would be to look at the reasons for what seems to be a growing financial and playing disparity between Test-playing countries. Apart from losing players to the lucrative T20 franchises, there is the escalating cost to national boards of hosting and preparing players for Test matches. Under the existing ICC financial model, host boards keep all revenues earned from a series.

The CEO of the England and Wales Cricket Board has said that the richer boards have a responsibility to help the poorer ones remain competitive. An example of this will be when Zimbabwe travel to England in 2025 for a one-off Test, when the ECB will pay a “touring fee.” It remains to be seen if the boards of India and Australia follow suit.

In a sport in which collective actions are not high-profile, devotees are hoping for an outbreak of collective responsibility.


Equity for women’s cricket edges closer

Equity for women’s cricket edges closer
Updated 25 July 2024
Follow

Equity for women’s cricket edges closer

Equity for women’s cricket edges closer
  • England’s captain Heather Knight has emphasized that the women’s game must avoid falling into the same traps as the men’s by having too much franchise cricket

The 2024 annual conference of the International Cricket Council was held in Colombo between July 19 and 22, and one of its outcomes reaffirmed the ICC’s commitment to equity in the game.

The 2030 women’s T20 World Cup will comprise 16 teams, up from 12 in 2026. In the forthcoming 2024 competition, between Oct. 3 and 20 in Bangladesh, 10 teams will participate. An increase to 16 in 2030 is not quite equity, since the 2024 men’s T20I World Cup comprised 20. However, it ought to be regarded as a step in the right direction.

Women’s cricket has grown very quickly in the last decade. Heather Knight, England’s captain, who spoke at the World Cricket Connects event at Lords on July 5, which was reviewed in last week’s column, emphasized that the women’s game must learn lessons from the men’s game and avoid falling into the same traps.

The main trap to which she seemed to be referring is franchise cricket. There are now 11 men’s franchise leagues compared with four for women. Australia’s Women’s Big Bash League started in 2015/2016, followed in England and Wales by The Hundred in 2021, the West Indies Caribbean League in 2022, and India’s Women’s Premier League in 2023.

Knight is expecting this number to grow. What concerns her is how that growth will be managed.

The expansion of men’s franchise leagues has led to a very crowded calendar that has already forced some Test match cricket out of its historic temporal rhythm and ODI cricket to the margin. There is simply no room to accommodate every format to its full extent.

Knight’s concern is that if the women’s game falls into similar scheduling issues the consequences could be even more severe. She stressed the need for a clear direction to be established, supported by good governance.

It is not clear in which direction she was looking. The ICC is cricket’s governing body. A franchise league requires sanctioning by the ICC in order to be legitimate. If this was refused, players participating in such a league would be barred from existing franchises and international cricket. It is not known if any applications have been refused.

The ICC warns members about dubious offers from intermediaries to organize a franchise league. So far, these actions appear sufficient to deter notions of breakaway leagues.

However, the ICC has not been able to establish a universal limit on the number of overseas players per playing lineup across the franchises. Its preferred number is four. In July 2023, the ICC’s Chief Executives Committee could not reach agreement on the number.

This was a relief to the DP World ILT20 and the US’ Major Cricket League, which allow nine and six international players in starting lineups. It is understood that the Board of Control for Cricket in India, although in agreement with the principle of a limit of four, was against imposing restrictions, a rather anomalous position.

Market forces clearly dominate the men’s game, with some players choosing to follow the money, either by electing franchise cricket over country or one franchise over another.

Knight fears that uncontrolled market forces will affect the women’s game disproportionately. This is because there is a shallower pool of women players in many countries.

If the best players are attracted by the franchise leagues, they may be lost either totally or partially to international cricket. This will be weakened as a result, along with the international team which the players represented.

It is also the case that women’s salaries and the amount of funding available to national cricket boards vary widely. The amount of Test cricket played by women is much lower than by men. In theory, this should cause less of a scheduling issue in women’s cricket.

Yet, Knight is concerned that a proper balance is found, so that players are able to play both for their country and in franchise leagues. The former remains the peak of ambition, the latter an opportunity to earn money and be exposed to different experiences. There have already been examples of the top players having to juggle availability, a situation that Knight is asking to be minimized.

Her aim is laudable, but who will take responsibility to plan coherent schedules? Market forces have a habit of winning if not regulated, as is apparent from the men’s game, in which there seems no turning back.

A new test of market forces is looming which will affect both the men’s and women’s games. This relates to The Hundred and the England and Wales Cricket Board’s proposal to sell off 49 percent of the competition’s equity, valued at $515 million (£400 million) or more by the board. The balance of 51 percent equity would be owned by each of the six host counties, free to decide what to do with it.

Rumors abound that those private investors who have expressed interest are becoming frustrated at the lack of clarity over what they will receive for their funding, a reluctance by counties to sell their equity, a desire to exercise a veto over who could buy stakes, and a lack of player-availability guarantees.

It is known that there is interest from Indian Premier League franchise owners who are sure to want as much control as possible. The ECB’s CEO has said that “English cricket is not for sale.”

There are many variables at play in this complex scenario. At its base, selling and buying parties are seeking to maximize financial returns and control. This normal economic equation is clouded by the sellers’ desires to protect the heritage of English and Welsh cricket. There is no guarantee that the buyers will do that or even understand it.

By acclaim, The Hundred has been positive for women’s cricket. Knight’s hopes for orderly schedules may be dashed by the machinations over that competition, which are directed mainly by men. This seems unfair given the heightened profile and contribution of women in cricket.

It would be no surprise if they felt a need to control their own competitions and schedules.


Suryakumar takes over as India’s new T20 skipper

Suryakumar takes over as India’s new T20 skipper
Updated 18 July 2024
Follow

Suryakumar takes over as India’s new T20 skipper

Suryakumar takes over as India’s new T20 skipper
  • Decision comes after former skipper Rohit Sharma quit shortest format last month
  • Suryakumar last year led India to a 4-1 series win over Australia, 1-1 draw against South Africa

NEW DELHI: Suryakumar Yadav has been named India’s T20 captain, the country’s cricket board announced Thursday, after Rohit Sharma quit the shortest format following last month’s World Cup triumph.
The 33-year-old Suryakumar will lead a 15-member T20 squad to tour Sri Lanka for three internationals starting on July 27 in Pallekele. 
Shubman Gill recently led a second-string Indian side to a 4-1 T20 series victory in Zimbabwe and has been named vice-captain in T20 and ODI matches.
Rohit will continue to lead the ODI team, which will follow the T20 side by taking on Sri Lanka in three matches on August 2, 4 and 7 at Colombo’s R. Premadasa Stadium.
Virat Kohli will also return for the 50-over matches, while pace spearhead Jasprit Bumrah remains absent from the tour after a grueling season.
Rohit and Kohli had decided to take a break but returned for the ODI matches as India begin preparations for next year’s Champions Trophy to be hosted by Pakistan.
All-rounder Hardik Pandya, who was Rohit’s deputy in the T20 World Cup, had started as a frontrunner for the job but lost out due to his frequent injury breakdowns.
Pandya, 30, suffered an ankle injury during the ODI World Cup at home last year and was out of action until the start of this season’s Indian Premier League where he returned to captain Mumbai Indians.
Pandya remains part of the T20 squad but is out of the ODI series, which will see the return of Shreyas Iyer, who earlier lost out on his contract with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Suryakumar, an attacking middle-order batsman who has been India’s go-to player in the T20 format, remained new coach Gautam Gambhir’s top choice, according to media reports.
Rohit, Kohli and Ravindra Jadeja announced their retirements from the T20 format after India’s thrilling win over South Africa in the final last month in Barbados.
The match was also Rahul Dravid’s last as head coach and Gambhir was handed the job last week to build on the team’s World Cup win.
Suryakumar, who previously captained Mumbai in domestic cricket, last year led India to a 4-1 T20 series win over Australia and followed it up with a 1-1 result in South Africa.
T20I squad: Suryakumar Yadav (capt), Shubman Gill (vice-capt), Yashasvi Jaiswal, Rinku Singh, Riyan Parag, Rishabh Pant (wk), Sanju Samson (wk), Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, Axar Patel, Washington Sundar, Ravi Bishnoi, Arshdeep Singh, Khaleel Ahmed, Mohammed Siraj
ODI squad: Rohit Sharma (capt), Shubman Gill (vice-capt), Virat Kohli, KL Rahul (wk), Rishabh Pant (wk), Shreyas Iyer, Shivam Dube, Kuldeep Yadav, Mohammed Siraj, Washington Sundar, Arshdeep Singh, Riyan Parag, Axar Patel, Khaleel Ahmed, Harshit Rana


Cricket’s future path is clear after recent forum

Cricket’s future path is clear after recent forum
Updated 18 July 2024
Follow

Cricket’s future path is clear after recent forum

Cricket’s future path is clear after recent forum
  • World Cricket Connects brought together more than 100 influential voices in the game

A focus of this column over the last three years has been the rapidly changing landscape of professional cricket. Some things which may have seemed like straws in the wind in mid-June 2021 are now in full flow, unlikely to be stopped even by hurricane-strength storms.

Cricket’s governing body is the International Cricket Council, tasked with managing the game. In a previous era, this had been the responsibility of the Marylebone Cricket Club. The latter still has influence in the game. Early this year, its current president, Mark Nicholas, an urbane former professional cricketer, initiated the idea of a forum to discuss cricket’s future. This was held on July 5 at Lord’s prior to England’s Test match against the West Indies.

The gathering was called World Cricket Connects. It brought together more than 100 influential voices in the game, including chairs and CEOs from five ICC full members, plus associate nations, Scotland and Oman. Former and current players, both men and women, were present, along with several executives of T20 franchises.

There was one notable omission. Jay Shah, secretary of the Board for Control of Cricket in India, was not there. He had sent his apologies. The need to be pictured with the T20 World Cup Trophy in India prevailed. Why not, especially after an election victory, since his father is Prime Minister Modi’s interior minister. The BCCI’s priorities are clear. They were clear in September 2021 when it pulled its team from a deciding Test match against England, citing mental health issues, only for the players to return immediately to perform in the Indian Premier League.

Without Shah, described by Nicholas as the most powerful person in cricket, the event was an emperor without clothes. Reports of its content took time to emerge. The ICC chair was reported to have said that the ICC is not fit for purpose and that as a “members’ organization,” it falls short of being a global governing body. Whilst not a revelation to many, the fact that it was said in a semi-public forum is a surprise, perhaps reflecting frustration at India’s power. This is not going to decline.

Ravi Shastri, Inda’s representative and a recent former coach, put forward a view that the 12 teams playing Test cricket should have a promotion and relegation system, with two tiers of six, including promotion and relegation. It may well come to that position, hastened by the costs of hosting Test cricket.

In this context, enter the ICC’s long-term ambition for cricket to become the world’s favorite sport. This translates into leading, growing and promoting cricket. The ICC is not really a governing body. It is an organizer and facilitator of global events, a builder of long-term successful commercial partnerships and a catalyst for growth. Almost as an afterthought, it says that “it will continue to make considerable efforts to protect the integrity of the sport.”

On the latter, there remain doubts, Betting is rife in the game. I have been moved by ICC officials from boundary side positions because I may be passing on information obtained from players to gambling companies. This not something that I would do and I am hardly the problem. It is unlikely that betting’s influence on cricket got a mention at Lord’s, which it should have done.

As we all know, T20 is the growth engine of modern-day cricket, like it or not. This fits the ICC’s vision, it is completely in tune with that of the BCCI and it fits with the growth of cricket in countries where growth would not have been possible otherwise. In this context, I was amazed to be appraised of a tournament hosted by Poland, involving teams from Latvia, Lithuania and Montenegro. My amazement centered on the Montenegro Bokaneers team.

It had three players with the surname of Plastics, its base registered as Brighton (England) and had one player with whom I have shared a pitch on more than one occasion. T20 cricket has democratized the game, but at what cost? At the World Cricket Connects event it was reported that there was much talk of money, about levering the consumer and responding to commercial forces. Apparently, those forces are killing Test cricket for all but the major countries. It costs upward of £1 million ($1.3 million) for Ireland and Scotland, for example, to host a Test match, without commensurate return from gate receipts, broadcasting rights and sponsorship. In Pakistan, costs of providing security for a Test match series are estimated to be up to $5 million.

Meanwhile, viewership levels for One Day International cricket have fallen by a quarter since 2019. In that context, discussions about reducing the number of “meaningless” matches surfaced, whatever that means. Some people may regard the recent England vs. West Indies Test match at Lord’s, completed in just over two days, as meaningless. Those who played a Test at Lord’s for the first time, one of whom took 12 wickets, are likely to disagree. In Scotland, the men’s team is hosting Oman and Namibia as part of the ICC Cricket World Cup League Two, part of the qualifying process for the 2027 ODI World Cup. In general, Scotland is desperate to play more cricket, especially against top-quality opposition, in matches that would have real meaning, as it seeks to improve its position in world cricket. Even Latvia vs. Montenegro Bokaneers has meaning for those who achieved an ambition of playing in an “international” match.

The sad truth is that professional cricket has been captured by commercial forces and, in particular, by those in India. Those forces are advertisers, producers of goods and services, broadcasters, betting companies and sponsors. Their most comfortable outlet is T20 cricket, given its short format and adaptability to broadcasting schedules. The COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial financial losses for cricket worldwide that have accelerated the rush to the T20 format, which looks set to dominate the future in its thrall to money. It now seems clear that both Test and ODI cricket will need to shrink to accommodate this new reality of commercialism and measurement of success by income generation.