A Boon for David Boon

YOU WATCH TV for 12 hours and then you are obliged to do a column. Darned  unfair, if you ask me. But one has to make a living. So here goes.

          New Zealand  vs. Pakistan . My better half is a God -fearing Muslim . She fasts and prays, and therefore, gets up quite early. Early enough for me to request her for a cup of tea so that I can watch this crucial World Cup  match. She obliges and I put on the TV and New Zealand is batting, put in by Imran  Khan.

          After a few overs from Wasim Akram  and Aquib Javed , I ask myself: Is this the team, which has won seven matches in a row? Gracious me! They are novices. Take Martin Crowe  out and they would find it difficult to beat Lahore  Gymkhana. Or perhaps they were a bit relaxed.

          The Christchurch  wicket, the commentators told me, was the fastest in New Zealand . Either that or Wasim Akram  made it look like that. Greatbatch did what he has been doing to the other teams until Imran  Khan brought on Mushtaq, the leg-spinner, and he immediately began to tie the slogger into knots. And with Wasim Akram getting Crowe early on, that was the end of the matter. Take the 42 extras and New Zealand would have been bowled out for around a hundred or so. But when Pakistan  began their innings, Aamir Sohail  was out first ball, and when Inzamamul Haq  followed him soon after, I thought of switching off the TV and going back to sleep.

          Then I said to myself: If this is going to be our last match in the tournament, one should see it through to the bitter end. Miandad , obviously not at terms with himself, and Ramiz Raja , batting, as he always should, made it certain that Pakistan  make it to the semi-finals.

          But wait. Raja  and Miandad  did play a vital role but the number four slot for us was assured for us by Australia . Had they lost to the West Indies , it would have been curtains for Pakistan . Two morning papers here ran the headline THANK YOU AUSTRALIA. A friend was willing to bet two days before the crucial match started that Australia would deliberately lose to the West Indies out of spite for Pakistan.

          Nonsense, I said, and laid a wager. A cricket match is a cricket match even if you know that your side is out of the Cup, every batsman likes to score, every bowler likes to take wickets, and every fielder likes to catch you out or run you out and every team plays to win. My friend would not agree and the bet was on. I am glad he did not see the light of reason because I am three thousand rupees to the good and I, too, can say: Thank you, Australia . That really was a boon from David Boon who laid the foundations of an Australia victory with his second even hundred of the tournament.

          One of the main reasons why Australia  is not among last four is Allan  Border's dreadful form. Nothing went right for the Australian captain from day one. What can a side do when one of its main batsmen strikes a lean patch? It has been tough for Border and his boys, but that the way it is. Hard luck, boys, you would have made better semi-finals than New Zealand  despite their impressive record in the preliminary round.

          Compare the two teams man for man and your's come to the conclusion that Australians are a far more talented, a far more balanced side than New Zealand . The reason why Australia  and India  did so badly is that they have had too much cricket this season. They first played a series of Test matches and then that enervating World Series with the West Indies  thrown in for good measure. Senior players in both teams were clearly jaded. There is a limit to human endurance, after all.

          Every single match, every single over, each single ball takes its own toll, brings its own stress and strain. It takes effort to bowl and to bat and to field. Every single match in a tournament like the World Cup  is the final, because it is never played again. You cannot take the preliminary matches lightly and preserve the best in you for the semi-finals and then the Final. If you take the early matches lightly, you never make it to the last four.

          Now a word about the pundits. Permit me to use an essential cliché here: Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties. One single stroke (Javed Miandad 's immortal six at Sharjah), one single run-out (Inzamamul Haq 's at Brisbane against South Africa ) can change the course of a match. And the weather, too. Bowled out for 74, rain helped Pakistan  to take a point off England  and a vital point it turned out to be. Similarly, rain and rules enabled South Africa to beat Pakistan. Had rain not intervened, Pakistan would almost certainly have won.

          Talking of rules, the tournament organisers have devised a strange method for deciding a rain-affected match. When a side batting first has completed its quota of 50 overs and the other team begins its reply, the rains come and stop play for a certain period; it becomes necessary to reduce the number of overs.

          Now when Pakistan  were playing South Africa  at Brisbane, their innings was interrupted by rain. Pakistan's quota was reduced from 50 to 36 and, under the rules; they were required to make 193 (just 18 runs less than South Africa's 211) in 14 overs less than those played by the latter. A ridiculous rule. As Imran  Khan said, "you might as well decide rain-interrupted matches by the toss of a coin."

          Even more harshly treated were India . Their quota was cut to 47 overs but they were required to score only two less than Australia  had made. Ridiculous? Outrageous would be a more appropriate word. But back to the pundits. When South Africa  beat Pakistan , a commentator, reporting from Brisbane for a local paper here, wrote: "Kuiper (3 for 40) bowls Pakistan out of the World Cup ." Another venerable colleague wrote that Pakistan very definitely out of the tournament. There simply was no way Pakistan could make it to the last four. How can people be so definite while commenting on a game as fickle as cricket? And when events take a turn other than that predicted by them, they don't even eat their words. That is not cricket, surely?

          One of my abiding regrets: India  deserved better than the five points they got. A side having such exciting stroke players as Tendulkar , Azheruddin  and Kapil Dev  never got its act together. Apart from having played too much cricket, I think India were a house divided against itself. Azheruddin had too many former Indian  captains playing under him-Vengsarker  (though he did not play in the cup matches), Shastri , Kapil Dev and Srikkanth . This does not help. Former captains can have contrary opinions on how to cope with a given situation. Apart from the younger players, Tendulkar being the foremost among them, some of the seniors in the team showed a certain lack of interest and this was visible at times even on the small screen. A certain lack of resolution, of the killer, instinct.

          And, finally, how about the semi-finals Pakistan  vs. New Zealand  and South Africa  vs. England : I have seen too much cricket to stick my neck out. If you look at the table, New Zealand and England should be the finalists but if you want a romantic final (as I do), it should be Pakistan and South Africa.

Friday, March 20, 1992