Was the cup a hit?

Aakar Patel wrote a very interesting piece on the Indian cricket fan. In it he describes how India loves India and how if any other country was playing, nobody cared.
He's been criticised.
But the truth is that he's absolutely correct.
How many of us saw Rizwan Cheema hit Murali for two sixes in the Sri Lanka Vs Canada game?
How many of us saw Ryan ten Deschorte make a century against England?
How many of us saw Ireland beat England? And by that, I mean the whole game?
If the answer goes above 10,000, then I'll change my name.
10,000 in 1.61 billion people is still nothing. However, it says a lot.
In comparison, how many of us saw each India match? I'm not going to even bother answering that question. The numbers were big and all of us know it.
Aakar's trending on Twitter at the moment and a lot of people are talking about the way fans watch football games in Europe. Two things here: there are crowds in football matches all the time. Be it a club game, be it a game between two nations - even in neutral venue - the grounds are always full. Where do we see packed stadiums in India if India is not playing. Would a ticket sell for Rs 1.25 lakh if Sri Lanka and Pakistan was playing the final? Would air fares increase to 22,000 between Mumbai and Chandigarh if India wasn't playing Pakistan in the semis? You know what the answer is.
This World Cup was a hit because three of the four subcontinent teams played a role in reaching the final four. Vodafone spent Rs 45 crore on its 3G campaign that launched during the World Cup. Ad rates, according to a few people, cost approximately Rs 20 lakh for a 10 second slot. However, these ads were only seen during the day-night games and when subcontinent games.
The matches played in the morning had empty stadiums and no ads between the overs. The game between England and South Africa had a decent crowd because it was played in Chennai on a Sunday. The problem was that India was playing Ireland on the same day. Suddenly we could see James Anderson and Stuart Broad changing ends, while we see an umpire requesting that he goes for a piss during the overs break during the India-Ireland game.
People talk of the 2007 World Cup as dark and gloomy. Sure Bob Woolmer's death had a significent role, but I wonder whether India and Pakistan's early exit also triggered a lot of things. It didn't help that the weather in the West Indies is unpredictable and that the matches were played when it was night in India.
Ever since World Cup matches could be screened on television, the only successful World Cups were 1996, 1999, 2003 and 2011. All these World Cups were successful because subcontinent teams were either in the finals or hosting the event.  I'm counting 2007 out of this because of the reasons I mentioned above.
So does the so-called cricket fan watch the World Cup for the love of the game or is it the only platform for him to vent out his frustrations at his team and the opposition in a large area. Emotions are high and he'll feel right at home. Pity about the game though. It's becaome something like Latin American football: a way to vent out your frustrations.

The A to Z factor

Sometimes, I get these random moods to write in verse
Some people like them, the critics and experts would curse
But I'd like to explain this match today
And the next 3 games (will it be hip, hip hurray?)

Today, we had the A to Z factor in Indian cricket.
Ashwin opened with Zaheer and between them they took five wickets.
Aswin took the first and then he took the last
Zaheer had a burst in the middle and the Chennai crowd had a blast

Now we face the Aussies and the heat is on
We've had batting collapses, which has made critics frown
The bowling has looked weirder,
But if we get things right, Vision World Cup 2011 will be clearer

Elsewhere in Mirpur, Pakistan will face the Windies,
The contest will be good, just as the one between the Springboks and Kiwis
Sri Lanka will face the Poms,
Whose only support will be the Barmy Army and their moms.

There will be a good contest between bat and ball
Runs will be scored and wickets will fall,
But it's the teams that holds their nerve
That will make it to the finals for us to see what Mumbai serves.

Who will be the winning side,
To hold the cup and gush with pride?
Put in your bets and lay down the cuts,
Just do it with someone authentic and not Salman Butt.

The Subcontinent syndrome

Sri Lanka is a good side. I'll go on to say that they're the best ODI side in the subcontinent.
Unfortunately, that doesn't say much about their cricketing ability.
Like other teams in the subcontinent, there is a lot of dependence on two or three players. If those guys make a mess, the team crumbles.
If I'm not convincing, here are a few examples:
In the 90s, Sri Lanka depended on two batsmen: Sanath Jayasuriya and Arvinda de Silva. If either one of them failed, the other would make runs (see Eden Gardens 1996 semi-finals at the World Cup). If both failed, then Sri Lanka was screwed.
Note: At that time, Murali was still discovering that he was a freak of nature.
Move to the current scenario. Sri Lanka's openers are strictly okay. Tilakratne Dilshan is an attacking player, as is Upul Tiranga. However, if you take away Dilshan's subcontinent record, barring South Africa, he has struggled elsewhere. He averages 22 in Australia, 10.33 in England, 26 in New Zealand and 36 against West Indies. South Africa is a more impressive 64. However, this shows that he is inconsistent.
Sri Lanka still depend a lot on Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene. If they fail, the rest of the team fails. In today's game against New Zealand, had the two of them not made a century and half century respectively, the rest of Sri Lanka scored 69 runs.
Sri Lanka also still depend a lot on Murali. Although he is playing his last ODI series, he is a key bowler in their team. Lasith Malinga is also a valuable asset to have, but he's like a very non-controversial Shoaib Akhtar. He can be brilliant on one day and very ordinary on the next. Like Shoaib, he too has the makings of one of the greatest ever - only if he is consistent.
My point is that had Sri Lanka had not have players in the calibre of Muralitharan, Jayawardene and Sangakkara, the chances of exposing a weak spot would have been done even my a minnow side.
I think that this over-dependence by teams in the subcontinent. India had it on Tendulkar then and Zaheer now. Pakistan has depended on Wasim, Waqar and Inzi when they need help, which is probably one of the main reasons why the team is so mercurial.
In Sri Lanka's favour, however, the experts publically announce the fragile batting and bowling if Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Murli and Malinga are absent from the team. For India and Pakistan, nobody says it too often. They just keep saying India's strong batting lineup and poor bowling lineup. Yeah, the bowling is weak, but the batsmen don't exactly make you want to jump with joy either (remember 9/29 against South Africa and another collapse against England?).
If India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka want to be consistent, they should remember that cricket is a game about 11 and not about a few brilliant performances here and there. 

Ireland deserves to play in 2015

There have been two controversies that have come up during this World Cup: one speaks of the UDRS, which I'll probably write about some other time if I understand the rule book.
The other is the huge debate over the ICC choosing 10 teams to play the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. It's raised a number of questions, with players like Ricky Ponting suggesting that the minnows shouldn't be playing with the 'big boys.'

When you think of Ireland and cricket, you say, "Yes,
they can!"

Normally World Cups have seen upsets, thanks to non-test playing nations. West Indies lost to Kenya in 1996. Kenya beat Sri Lanka in 2003. Canada beat Bangladesh in the same year. Ireland beat Pakistan and England in 2003 and 2007 respectively. Netherlands nearly beat England this year and if it wasn't for Afridi the other night, Canada might have just beaten Pakistan.
The last two games may have been won by England and Pakistan, but it shows us that a bunch of talented guys if given some direction, can rattle a strong opposition. Both Canada and The Netherlands stuck to their basics and played good cricket. Unfortunately for them, they weren't used to 50,000 people cheering on. Somewhere at some point of the game, the pressure undoubtedly got to most of them.
Ireland has managed to deal with the pressure. The reason for this is pretty simple, actually. Most Irish players are used to playing in front of crowds during the county season. It's not as big as a Bangalore crowd, but the players are used to playing with noise around them.
Another thing you've got to remember about the Irish is that they are the forefathers of the Australians. In an interview, former Formula One driver Eddie Irvine, an Irishman was asked why he had such a huge fan following in Australia. He replied, "Because Australia is full of Irish convicts."
The Australians probably got their fighting spirit from the Irish. They probably drink beer because of the Irish and since they're the best in the world in cricket, the Irish want to be as good as them because they are their forefathers.
The Irish are very realistic about their game. When asked in an interview a day after the England victory, Ireland batsman Niall O'Brien said that Ireland wasn't still ready to play test matches because cricketing infrastructure was poor in the country.
When you think of statements like these and look at the way the Irishmen have played their cricket, you wonder what a game between Ireland and Australia might look like. I'm sure that Australia will win, but the Irish game may make Ricky Ponting want to take back his words on the minnows.