An Unemotional Post Mortem

Dilrook Kannangara

It is commendable how our cricketers and cricket authorities conducted themselves during the World Cup. Lack of political interferences, in terms of both national politics and personal politics, makes it even more appreciative. We should also thank the higher authorities for separating cricket from corruption and for salvaging it from the clutches of criminals. Fourteen teams rank behind us and just one managed to amble past us. Being the only Asian team to reach the semi final is no mean feat and reaching the final for the second time is even more fantastic.

That fateful day of the final was marred with so many unhealthy signs. The toss, rain and D/L method that eventually won the day and decided the winners, were all against us. Against all odds, our boys did a remarkable job by standing their ground.

However, there could certainly have been a different result had a different team played. The pitch that was artificially dried displayed no swing irrespective of overcast conditions. Our three pace bowlers were anyway not ‘swingers’ compared to Maharoof. He came to the permanent side because of his ability to deliver swing into the attack. This is what Aussies have failed to face comfortably when Ravi Bopara played in Australia a few months ago. Gilchrest would have been a sure wicket for a swing bowler. The other batsmen failed to make any impression anyway.

Another piece of evidence is found in the Champions Trophy match against the West Indies. Windies who were the masters of pace and facing pace attacks, still have some influence of it left from the 70s and 80s. They are surely familiar with their own pitches and have hence developed a batting style aptly influenced by what their pitches offer. During the previously mentioned match, Maharoof ran through their batting line-up reducing them to an incredible low. He could have done it again this time against the Aussies in the West Indies.

Third point is Maharoof’s ability to score and score big. Next to Jayasuriya, he holds the highest strike rate of 82. Although he averages around 19, the marvellous strike rate and the ability to execute fours and sixes make him a sure-fire gun in our arsenal. There were times during the match when we were about 20 runs away from D/L required score. Two consecutive overs of 16 runs each would have put us in the saddle. Thereafter is it all about maintaining it. First, it was Kumar, and then Jayasuriya fell short of doing so. Desperation in the eyes would have given any Sri Lankan cricket lover heartaches. They were doing so well but the moving target provided by the D/L method was unachievable. Had there been Maharoof, things may have been different. With his very short time to settle and aggressive attacking style, we could have easily got over the hurdle rate and then cruised to victory.

Fourth point is that this particular player is a good fielder; he was fielding in the finals and was doing a good deal of work. He is a better fielder by any account than his replacement.

The other drawback was the inclusion of Russel; he was not directly instrumental in winning any match. Though he is an ‘all-rounder’, the fact that he didn’t bowl makes him as good as Mahela or Thranga in terms of bowling. Instead had we a batsmen who is capable of scoring aggressively, things would have turned out differently. Merely the average cannot dictate the usefulness of a batsman; the number of times he has lead the team to victory (when bat second) and the number of times he has been instrumental in reaching a high score (when bat first) should have been considered. In wide contrast, all the batsmen in the 1996 team had this capability.

Most Sri Lankans are definitely not proponents of race-based selection as it is ridiculous. We all knew the surnames and middle names of our cricketers but didn’t give a damn about it; just as we don’t care the race of our associates. It was a priest who painstakingly analysed the race of the players and made it so important. He could rather have picked the Sri Lanka’s large Cabinet, which also houses peoples’ representatives belonging to all races; and this has been the case always. The reason why this striking example was not cited is to justify the existence of an ethnic divide in our country. This was the same clique that jumped for joy when the terrorists declared that they are cricket fans having killed Durraiappa, Dissanaike and Premadasa! This is a good opportunity to remember the yeoman service they have done for cricket, if not for them we may not have come so far in cricket. Had the terrorists not taken their lives untimely, they could have done more for cricket. One may even argue for a stadium by the name of Dissanaike as there are stadiums named after the other two. It’s a shame that we have not learnt from these three giants of cricket promoters. The vital lesson they taught us is not to trust the terrorists under any circumstances, not even when you are praying and not even we you have befriended them.

A simple statistical and qualitative analysis could have provided ample insight to each player. We need a policy framework based on quantitative and qualitative criteria in selecting the team for a match. Our cricket is too matured and professional to be influenced by gut feelings of the selectors and/or the captain. This can also curtail the potential of young players and we have always thrived with young blood. Gone are the days when cricket was merely a past time and a not so much of a competitive sport when a few powerful individuals / few schools dominated it. This sport can take Sri Lanka to where the US team is ranked in the Olympics.