Cricket: Winners and Others

Dilrook Kannangara

Murali has come up with some factual statements. Please don’t call our ace bowler a pessimist! We are only optimists who carry our umbrellas. Although we hope, wish and pray for our victory, it is important to be realistic in assessing the ground situation so that it can be (drastically, if need be) improved; we live in no fool’s paradise.

This is an anecdote to my previous article “Will the losing streak continue through April?”
Indeed Murali is correct in many assertions he made recently. Contrary to how the BBC put it, he didn’t, in anyway, play down SL hopes. He commented that the batting department was better in 1996. As I mentioned in the previous article, the maximum average run score SL team can get is 230 (excluding extras) with an optimal placement within the team; however, using the present batting line-up it is 225.

I used a simple linear programming technique using ODI averages, strike rates and a few sensible assumptions. One can simply add up the averages with 50 overs being the limiting factor. It is interesting to note that this score for the 1996 team was actually better than 225! Averages and strike rates of 1996 were used as we know that most who played in 1996 (batsmen in particular) retired late, long after their performance took an irrecoverable dip. Their stats were better in 1996 than in 2003!In conclusion, the 1996 team was simply better in their batting skills; with the captain leading the way.

Another contention made by Murali is the change the ODI game has suffered after the introduction of the 20 over version. It is true that batsmen have gone aggro since, much to the detriment of the bowlers. Powerplay has also added to bowlers’ woes. This magnifies the deficiency in our batting department. A total close to 225-35 today is nothing but inadequate and 241 we made in 1996 WC final will not be able to be defended (except may be at another final as the pattern of first bating side winning continues with few exceptions-indeed we were the exception!).

Murali also touched on the lost flair that was in our batting in 1996; there is no disputing this; our fire power in 1996 was simply magnificent. It was what any aggressive fan wanted the team to do and they did it. We had scored many tournament victories from Sharja to Singer Cup in 95 and we beat Pakistan in their home soil just few months before the 1996 WC. In contrast, this time we are going with a different form. Nevertheless I have complete confidence in 14 players of the squad as they have continuously improved their performance and they are formidable in the eyes of other teams.

However, past performance is no guarantee of what the future holds. No wonder another Sri Lankan victory in 2007 will motivate and energise all SL fans around the world even in their personal endeavours as it happened (to me and many youngsters) in 1996. It should be acknowledged that 4 wins in the super 8 will rocket us through to the semis. We are confident that our batsmen can do it provided they all perform. If Mahela is going to be mediocre with his bat or his once-illustrious-now-hidden talents are going to remain hidden, going by the numbers, there is very little hope of winning 4 matches.

Again it should be stressed that number crunching cannot predict the overall outcome of a dozen cricket matches. It only points out to where we are heading based on past performance. But one thing is certain. If we are to win the ICCWC in 2007, our young scorers have to up their records while the veterans got to maintain theirs. As with anyone who cannot score or bowl, he may well get ready with a palatable sob story.