Can the West Indies mount a serious challenge?

A cruel game is cricket. Twenty years ago the Fire in Babylon seemed to still flicker. Weak, yes, but there was still memorable performances which reminded the world of the super power which had for twenty years laid waste to all before it. The 1996 Cricket World Cup was probably the last time the Men from the Caribbean showed real, tangible potential to win the tournament. Having despatched South Africa on the back of one of the all-time great innings by one Brian Lara, the boys in Maroon then conspired, with no little help from a certain Shane Warne, to take the game by the scruff of the neck and throw it as far down a narrow well as possible. That was then, though. This is now. The current West Indian side has shown neither the inclination to fashion a reasonable assault on the trophy, nor have they shown ability. Fortunately for them though, they are in what could be argued is the weaker group, and as such avoid the big favourites for the competition, Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately for them however, they simply aren’t in a position to feel any game is a gimme. For those who weren’t watching, AB de Villiers compiled a ruthless, merciless on a rather helpless Windies bowling line up to the tune of 149 runs in 44 balls. Indeed had he come any earlier, he might have had designs on mustering a double century. Keen to prove that this wasn’t a freak occurrence, and that they can in fact bowl, they proceeded to concede 365 runs in forty -two overs against a South African team in Durban. The nadir of this tour came in the final four overs, where they were spanked to the tune of 65 runs in four overs. They simply aren’t in a position to think they can bat their way out trouble either, as their batting line-up really isn’t much better. Their gun batter, Chris Gayle, has only hit two centuries since the start of the decade. In fact, Mr. Cool himself is averaging a rather cool 26.85 in the last five years. Combined with an opening partner who averages less than twenty, and a fragile middle order, then the responsibility of consistently getting the Windes to something approaching a respectable score lies in the hands of the Iceman (what is with West Indians and weather related nicknames?), Marlon Samuels. Samuels averages a better than par 37 in the last four years, and will definitely show a willingness to drive the Windies forward. I don’t think it’s going to be enough though. Prediction: Quarter Finals (possibly group elimination)

ICC stamping down on modern bats.

Male discussions about size generally don't end positively, and it's proven correct again this past week as ICC chief, Dave Richardson has sought to crackdown on the modern day Mjölnir. It's a rather strange state of affairs, but completely in line with the overall strangeness the ICC always seems to be going for when making decisions. Perculiar to the nth degree how an organisation can change the rules to limit the amount of men on the boundary... And then get annoyed when the batsmen start clearing the vacant boundaries. It's the modern equivalent to Fifa doing away with goalkeepers, but then getting annoyed at the increased numbers of goals from the halfway line. Don't misunderstand me, I definitely agree with the idea that modern bats are weapons the likes of which cricket has never seen before, but thats technology. It moves forward, and for the most part does it exponentially. To try limit this is to fight against the tide. Where does the ICC start? Do they test the compression data of every single bat to be used in the world cup? Do they line every bat up, and see which ones hit the ball the furthest, and ban them? It's a ridiculous attempt at legislation. If the ICC is serious about addressing the balance between bat and ball, it needs to start monitoring the pitches. It's almost strange, but you'll find that these boundary clearing supernovae only make scores in excess of 330 on the flat decks. Put them on the Waca, with a pacy bowling attack, or Ahmedabad on a spinning top, and the scores begin to resemble those which we are more accustomed to. I must stress that I'm not against the rule change which limited the amount of boundary riders completely. Used well, it's a reasonable law. If the pitches offer the bowlers something, and the batters have to take proper risks to clear the ring, it makes for interesting cricket. When pitches are basically sandpapered roads - don't blame the batters for taking advantage of your charity.

What South Africa can learn from the British boxing model.

At this stage of the game there are kids in South Africa who have never in their lives seen a fight on the telly. Contrast this to the United Kingdom. They have minor fights on Channel five. Mega local cards on Sky, international superfights on Boxnation (that's right... The United Kingdom has a financially viable boxing network), and just recently, ITV has gotten themselves into the mix, attaining the rights to show the next Carl Frampton fight. Four competing channels mean the British fan has all his needs taken care of, and fighters can fight for the absolute best purses possible. Contrast this with a rather dire situation in South Africa, where boxing is almost exclusively shown on Supersport. Even the recently concluded Premier Boxing League, when it was on eTV, was banished to a late time slot, which would have hurt it's circulation figures. But if the current state of British boxing, where fights are held at the Wembley, and fights between two rather middling heavyweights like Tyson Fury and Dereck Chisora can sell out 10 000+ seat arenas is a story of success - and it certainly is - it is also a story of redemption from which we can learn. The first thing we have to understand though, is that even a viable South African boxing scene is never going to be as financially lucrative as a British one. The current, and future economic outlooks are too far apart to ever have realistic designs on matching up. What we can do, however is learn lessons from them and apply them to our reality. When looking at the current state of prosperity which British boxing finds itself in, it's a little easy to forget that not too long ago, there was no boxing on BBC, and that as recently as five or six years ago Sky was very strongly considering scrapping it's boxing program. What changed? Well, put simply, British boxing had an influx of personalities. Where they had basics only had Ricky Hatton and a fringe star in Amir Khan a few years ago, they now have an assortment of fighters who are, if not household names, then guys whose names have a sense of familiarity. Carl Froch has fought at the Wembley, but before that he's been selling out arenas since the Super Six. Frampton vs Quigg is a fight the average British boxing fan is itching to see get made. Groves, Johnson, Khan, Brook, Eubanks Jr., Fury. These are all big names, and equally important for a sport trying to pry itself out of the fringes, big personalities. In contrast, I honestly don't think the local scene has one transcendent persona. The guy who gets columns in the paper even when he isn't fighting. Daily Mail can tell you all about Amir Khan's love life and holidays. We don't have that equivalent. Of course, we don't even have that for the rugby and soccer stars, but those are huge sports. They can survive without one mention out of the sport pages. Boxing needs to be on the front page, the society pages... It needs to infiltrate public awareness. Without this, it becomes a difficult affair. What local boxing does absolutely need though, is privatisation. Government should be nowhere near the sport. Boxing SA should become a self run and governed body, with government only overseeing matters. Doing things like investigating qualifications of employees. But certainly not making the employments themselves. British Boxing board of Control don't negotiate TV deals on Matchroom's behalf. Good governance should be like good structural support... I shouldn't notice it's there.

Dale Steyn - New ball or first change?

It's certainly a rather strange sight to see the premier fast bowler, in the world, and undoubtedly one of the greatest in the history of the game bowling first change. There is however method to this apparent madness. For whatever reason, South Africa is a rather abject country in the art of death bowling, and in Dale Steyn we have at the very least have one of the more capable practitioners of the art. By bowling him first change, we can have Dale bowling at the death, and in the middle, where in concert with Imran Tahir, we possibly have the most potent combination of bowlers bowling in the middle overs. Since the rule change which limited the amount of ring fielders to four, the middle overs have taken a rather pronounced sense of importance. It is indeed quite simple, if you don't take wickets in the middle overs, you're on a hiding to nothing at the death against teams with wickets in hand. In modern cricket, taking wickets at regular intervals is deathly (pun intended) important. The modern way of thinking has it that run total isn't necessarily as important going into the final ten or fifteen overs as wickets in hand. The reasoning for this is rather simple. If you have wickets in hand, Scoring 130-150 runs in the final fifteen is within the realm of possibilities. Massively so. It stands to reason then, that if batting teams now see wickets in hand as the primary objective - if you will, the first 35 overs are now the launchpad to an abbreviated T20 innings - then it stands to reason that bowling teams have to then be willing to take risks in the first two thirds of the match to take wickets. This is the logic which has seen Steyn moved down to first change. It's not a downgrade, but rather an acceptance of the change of circumstances. There's also the small matter of the fact that if you're going to play Vernon Philander... He absolutely needs to get as many overs out of the way as possible. The Professional, as he is known, bowls an immaculate line and length, and is certainly good enough to bowl in limited overs cricket. What he isn't however is a particularly good death bowler. In fact he isn't a particularly average one if we're honest, and as such needs to have bowled his quota of overs by the time teams have decided to give it a bash. By bowling Steyn first change and bowling Vernon with the new ball, we have a convenient marriage.

When Should it be #MillerTime?

One of the more interesting facets of the South African game during the West Indian series last month was the timing for the introduction of David Miller. Having started out a brutal smasher with a rather catchy philosophy ("If it's in the V it's in the trees, if it's in the arc, it's out the park"), he showed a greater understanding of the finer nuances of the game this summer. Admittedly, the Men from the Caribbean Islands didn't provide the greatest of opposition - to be kind - but Miller still showed high quality in his two knocks where he was given more time to build an innings. Indeed, Miller averages 45 batting at five, compared to 32 when he bats at six. That's a rather large variance in average, and for my money certainly displays a batsman capable of smashing it around, rather than a smasher with a vague idea of batting and all the complications it entails. The problem with Miller at five, of course, is that it's at odds with my previous article in which I proposed that AB De Villiers would make a very good #5. Averaging 45 in the position is indeed a solid effort, and might put you as one of the front line practitioners in the position, but it ignores the red herring that is caused by the fact his averages is significantly boosted by his last two knocks... And the minor matter if the fact that AB averages a phat 72 when he bats at five. This makes it rather complicated. Add in the fact that JP Duminy averages 55 when he bats at four, and you have a rather complicated jigsaw puzzle. It seems nearly impossible to create a batting line up which gets the best out of everyone as their best positions overlap. Personally, I'd put Miller in at six, AB at five, and Duminy at four. If JP plays, he gets wasted a bit lower down. He's a capable hitter, but hardly remarkable at it, and six isn't too far from Miller's best position. You lose a bit of de Villiers' dynamism when he comes in a little later, but he's a supremely gifted cricketer and as the hapless West Indians found, even ten overs of AB can turn a horrible day into the worst day of your professional career.

How far can India go in the World Cup

Defending champions India have not had the most inspiring of limited over international tours to Australia. Having played two matches against Australia and England each, they failed to win a match, and quite honestly, failed to even look like winning one. There are quite obvious weaknesses in the Indian set up. A lack of experienced bowlers, the sometimes lethargic, passive captaincy of Dhoni. The fact that Virat Kohli, who for so long looked like he was born in a power play has chosen a rather inopportune time to forget how to buy a run. Indeed 24 runs in an entire tour does not strike fear into the heart of the opposition. That said though, one must remember that India are the reigning World Champions, and they aren't there by accident. In Dhoni they have one of the best, if not the best finishers in Limited Overs history. His performance in the 2011 World Cup final was for my money the greatest second innings knock in World cup final history. He certainly has not produced a miraculous knock in well over a year, but the tiger remains in there. They would also have been in Australia for a very long time by the time the tournament proper starts, and this can only be a good thing, long as they don't already hate each other. Acclimatizing is not going to be a problem for them this time. So how far will they go? Not an easy question to answer,as I feel India are a little dependent on a kind passage to win the tournament proper. I don't think they will top their group, South Africa will most likely take that honour, but India should battle it out against Pakistan for second or third place. This position pits them against either New Zealand or England (in a fantasy prediction where group A goes - Aus, NZ/Eng, SL). I think they can beat England, but are very heavy underdogs against New Zealand. They can beat both of course, the Indian batting line-up is of such rich quality that a victory would certainly not be unexpected, but they would most likely want to face England. If I'm being completely honest, I think Semi Finals is the furthest this Indian team can go. They are a little too limited in the bowling front and possibly have too many batsmen not in the best of form for winning the whole thing to be a real possibility. Final prediction Quarter Finals

Michael Clarke - Saviour or dead weight?

As some, and most likely, most of you would recall, about six weeks ago Michael Clarke made the rather powerful statement that there was a distinct possibility he would never play cricket again. Fortunately, that has proven to be premature speculation and Captain Courageous took to the field earlier this week for his Grade cricket side, Western Suburbs. He compiled a slightly demure half-century, and spent a rather precious three hours at the crease out in the middle. While this may not have the most ideal of preparations, it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction for a man who could very well be Australia’s Ace in the pack. Whether he really is required though is a slightly more complicated matter. Australia has shown reasonable proficiency at home sans Clarke, with a series win against South Africa and victory in the recently concluded tri-series against England and India. More ominous, for the opposition anyway, they haven’t really looked all too stretched in compiling this impressive run of one home defeat in ten home matches this summer. Steven Smith has emerged as the Heir Apparent to the crown Clarke has steadfastly worn for half a decade as Australia’s best limited over batsman, a fact underlined by his nod as the Alan Border medal winner for One Day International Player of the year a week ago. Smith is but the headline act in a star-studded Australian line up which includes David Warner, Aaron Finch, George Bailey, Shane Watson and the Big Show himself, Glenn Maxwell. The fact that Watson and Maxwell can both bowl a spell or two also does wonders for the balance of the team, as it means they can play an extra batsman, or a wildcard, in the form of James Faulkner, who averages a scarcely believable 48 while batting at #8. The lad can bowl a full quota of overs as well, which makes them even more complete. Indeed, they may be one of the most overpowering cricket teams in the history of the game. Add in a pool of hungry pace bowlers and you have a deadly, World cup-winning cocktail. It would be quite understandable if the selectors were hesitant to mess with the balance of things and select the incumbent captain, Michael Clarke. It is certainly something worth considering. The thing is, though, Clarke is a good, maybe even great Test cricketer, but he is an absolutely sensational One Day cricketer. Maybe the best Australia has ever had. His average of 44.86 is the third highest of any cricketer to have played over 200 internationals, and the third highest by an Australian (behind Mike Hussey, and uh… Faulkner). The decision to select him for the World Cup was something of a no brainer. But now greater questions lay ahead: Where does he bat? Who misses out? Is it worth messing with a rather successful team? Most importantly, what happens if he gets injured again? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but there are a group of selectors who are being paid a king’s ransom to give it a go.