Who Will be World Champion of Cricket ?

re: #54 by rsridhar

The world cup itinerary was finalized many months ago, remember?. At that time India wasn`t sure if it would qualify for the Super Six at all.
Despite fear of losing, India didn`t want to simply forfeit its 4 points to Pakistan. Pre-tournament calculations are always cautious and nervous.

Once the world cup started, India couldn`t boycott the Pakistan game even if it wanted to. Such political decisions are made before the start of the tournament, not after it has commenced. So your argument of India ``making a political statement by choosing to play Pakistan`` is a cold turkey!

To play or not to play was not a choice at that late stage in the tournament.

#58 by rsridhar

no Pakistan dont have a proper cricket team, but what India loosing final against Australia has to do with Pakistani cricket team? India was aiming to win the worldcup or it was all about beating Pakistan?

common, you are not one of those Indian who obsessed with Pakistan and compare everything with it?

Latest team rankings issued.

Austrlia is at top, South Africa at seconed and Pakistan is on third. Due to good performance in worldcup India advanced from number 8 to 5.

#55 by nawaid
Alright, i concede to your argument. India is the second best team in the world. Australians are the best. They whipped us in the finals. Are yu happy now?
Question to you. Does Pak have a cricket team today?
BTW, South Africa pulled out of sharjah. Srilanka sooner or later will. Pakis can play among themselves to their heart`s content and reminisce about the good old days.
Sridhar

re:#57 by Keb-?-
Thanks for your post and informative comments.
Sridhar

rsridhar: It indeed does seem disheartening at times that we dont do well in other sports, but I think we should be bold enough to face the fact that we are just not built mentally or physically to be great sportsmen. But still I guess things are changing. Very slowly but changing nonetheless. Chennai is now a regular stop on the ATP tour, golfers are coming up in the remote small towns, the athletics contingent did remarkably well in the Commonwealth games and reasonably well in the Asian games, Indian shooters have started to make themselves counted in the world areana, and other such small things. All this is happening because cricket has got just too expensive for some sponsors and they dont mind to expirement a bit and also a little bit of help from the government and of course because of general appreciation of sporting talents in the country. Agreed it is no where near the stupendous progress made by the Chinese, but then again it boils down to the fact that we are Indians. We would rather churn out 10 engineers than 1 swimmer. We would rather have 50 engineering colleges in a state than one Olympic sized pool in a state.

And all those arguing about what why Indian government doesnt allow the cricket team to play the Pakis, I dont think any of you have got it right. Its plain and simple, the two countries are in a conflict, perhaps not explicitly, but still nobody can argue with the fact. Neither country will let go of any chance to hurt the other`s interests if it can. The Indian team not playing Pakistan has hurt the Pakistani team very badly. It has hurt the sponsorships, and also the TV rights money which forms the main part of the Board`s income these days. From being amongst the richest boards along with India after the 1996 World Cup today the Pakistani board is in dire straits financially. It was one of the first board to sign one of the most biased contract for the players for the World Cup, while the Indians were able to get the contract changed specifically for themselves and signed it on their terms. And with money drying out it has invariably affected the talent in the team. They are now more interested for playing out of the country rather than for their country. Can anyone imagine Wasim Akram saying that they struggled to make even the 11 for the game for most matches even two years back. And now with no other country either willing to come to Pakistan things are only getting worse. Does anyone really think that Mushy and that other General in charge of the Pakistan Board are such great sport lovers to beg the Indian govt to let the two teams play. Every body knows there is no other team that can help Pakistani cricket as much as the Indian team can.

re:#48 by HisExcellency
Guys,
I do not care about cricket in India or pakistan. I live in US and hardly see any cricket. I saw the India Cricket match on VCR after the match was over. I was amazed at the team effort of India. Pak played well but was outperformed by India just as it was by Australia during the finals.

I know cricket is religon in India and more than religion ( a matter of honor and dignity) in Pak. I saw a gentleman (a Paki muslim, the bearded one, if you know what i mean) among the Paki supporters in that match between India and Pak. This man was fervently appealing to Allah (with his outstretched hands heavenwards) to grant Pakistan victory. His lips were feverishly reciting some Qoranic verses. It was an amusing sight. In the end, the better team won.
The same goes for India. A lot of Indians prayed for India during the India-Australia match. Still, the better team won.
Conclusion: Allah does not interfere with the mundane affairs of human beings!
India does not play (rightly so) Pakistan because board of cricket there has been taken over by military men (or ex-genearals). India has aversion to ex-Paki generals.
There is truly a lot of anti-Pakistani sentiments among general public in India. If you take an opinion poll, i am sure most Indians would vote for India not playing aganist Pak. GOI is only following public sentiments.
Besides, i am intrigued for the following reasons:
1. If Pak team is that good, why does the present Paki cricket board not simply say: well, this was a one time bad performance. Our boys are good. Let us persist with the same team. A lot of Paki players, as you know have been axed.

2. Did you ever ponder over the fact that, while the ex-generals and armywallahs of Pak do not waste time in India-bashing at every opportunity, they seem to want India-Pak cricket match? Something does not jive here. The answer is simple. Cricket, at the highest level, brings in revenues. Not just for the players. For the ones in cricket board, for the ones who speculate money (which includes our infamous Dawood Ibrahim, for whom cricket in sharjah was an important source of money) and for those pathetic ones who seem to view this as something close to and Indo-Pak war. I am not shedding any tears if this game does not take place between India and Pak. India can play against a number of other teams. The last i heard, few teams are willing to tour Pak for security reasons.

Sridhar

#48 by HisExcellency
``To mask this fear of losing, Indian politicians are inventing reasons like Kashmir, infiltration, unfriendly attitude, blah blah blah. After all, the hockey, soccer, squash and polo teams from both countries are still playing each other. ``

If that was the real reason, India would have avoided playing Pak in this world cup as well. After all, India still had a chance (to qualify for the Semis) if it lost to Pak but Pak had to win that match to qualify.
England and some other teams did not play Namibia for political reasons. India could have said: ``we do not want to play Pak because of the political problems and Pak`s support of terrorism``. I think, this would have made a strong political statement even though India would have been severely criticised. India chose to play and made a more powerful statement by winning that important match. Tendulkar single-handedly thrashed that chest-thumping, foul-mouthed monkey (who also goes by the name of Shoab Akthar) into oblivion. That is a statement enough. The result is there for all to see. You do not have a cricket team today. Yes, there are young players in Pak but who would want to play there. Foreign teams do not want to play in Pak for security reasons. India does not want to play Pak for political reasons. There is little to encourage these young players. If Pak cricket has to survive, army has to liberate it from its clutches and improve relations with India. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, cricket has become a victim of subcontinental politics.
Other games are being played because they do not bring in that much revenues and are still played in the spirit of the game. May be India`s next diplomatic move (if relations with Pak deteriorate further) will be to severe all sporting links with Pak. Then, even a third league polo match will not be played.
As i write these words, i am reminded that only a few days ago many innocent hindu women and children were massacred by Kashmiri militants actively aided by Pak. Forget cricket, guy. Fear what Uncle Sam will do to your country once it is through with Iraq.
Sridhar

oh my God! i was hoping some Indian`s ass kicking by aussies but in final those asses were bleeding....what the hell was that....it was Srinath`s last match but he was bowling like his first club match...and Ganguly was just standing there, it was more pathetic then Yunus performance as Captin and who advised him to bowl first.....too much Hardcore for Indian boys,,,,,

#28 Sridhar
[I do not care if India loses to Australia. As far as i am concerned, India has won this cup by whippint the stinking Paki A$$.]

WoW...its more sound like........Angoor Khatay Hain.

re:#43 by Keb-?-
I feel bad that Cricket is the only game India seems to be serious about. In a few years, Olympics will be staged in China. As China romps home one Olympic Gold after another, India will be sitting in the sidelines not winning even a single medal. Again and again, the Chinese national anthem will be played and it will make chinese at home and abroad proud. India, with more than a billion population, will have nothing to show.
China has shown what it can do if it is serious about training young athletes. It has concentrated on some areas like swimming, gymnastic and has produced world class players. India has not produced even one gold medalist in Olympics in area other than hockey (where it does not stand chance anymore). This should make every Indian feel ashamed.
Sridhar

#20 by borg on March 22, 2003 7:15pm PT
India is more likely to win if:

1/ They win the toss
2/ Tendulkar clicks
3/ or score over 240

India is less likely to win if:

1/ They lose the toss
2/ Chase over 200


+++

India won the toss, Tendulkar did not click and scored slightly less than 240.

Astrology should be banned!!!

Hockey?

The Australians have proved that Cricket is not by chance.

And they have also proved that four departments Captaincy, fielding, Bowling and Batting have each equal 25% stake in the team winning.

Ganguly should have batted first on the perfect batting wicket at the Wanderers. He made the same mistake that Waqar Younis did by putting the Aussies in first. Even batting first, India would have to score 280+ to win against the Aussies.. quite a tough ask against McGrath, Lee and Bichel.

I am rather amused by some Indian suggestions that India is a much better side than Pakistan simply because of one World Cup match!

I can bet that if India and Pakistan play in any part of the world next week, Pakistan will cream India. On paper, the Indian victory over Pakistan on March 1 looks convincing. But if you analyze the game clinically, Shahid Afridi`s rash dismissal cost Pakistan about 20 runs. During the Indian innings, Razzaq moved in from the circle where he could have caught Tendulkar at 35. On any other day, Pakistan would defended 271 successfully.

One-day cricket is all about how you play on a particular day.

What really impresses me about Australia is that they could be playing ANY team on ANY day for ANY number of times and still win. Unlike the South Asian champions (India, Pak, Sri Lanka), Australia are the true champs because they have maintained a consistent No.1 record after they won the 1999 world cup.

I think the rest of the world should form one team and play the Aussies for the next 4 years :-(

re: #37 by rsridhar

[Get rid of Mushy, the whore and get a friendly democratic Pak in place. Games are only played between friends, not between enemies.]

The nature of regime in Pakistan is neither the business of BCCI nor the ICC. I don`t think cricket in subcontinent is doomed. I am quite optimistic that this World Cup will spark more competition. It will be a turning point for the subcontinent. Younger players with tougher temperaments will emerge. In 2007 the young guns of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka will have more experience to challenge the Aussies in West Indies.

re: #37 by rsridhar

[There may be a desire to outdo India in the only field where Pak stands a chance viz Cricket. Alas, even that chance has now slipped away. Indian team today is vastly better than the best team that Pakis can produce. BTW, losing to Australia was not a shame. Indians fought well and went down fighting. ]

If Sridhar is so confident of India`s cricket superiority over Pakistan, why does he oppose an Indian cricket tour of Pakistan in April? Three test matches and 3 one-dayers will determine if India is really that good. You can`t determine this on the basis of just one World Cup match. Kenya just beat Sri Lanka in the World Cup but that doesn`t make them the better team.

The real reason why India avoids playing Pakistan is fear of defeat. Indian politicians are quite aware that cricket is taken too seriously in the subcontinent and despite, the win at Centurion, India are likely to get thrashed by Pakistan in a test series.

To mask this fear of losing, Indian politicians are inventing reasons like Kashmir, infiltration, unfriendly attitude, blah blah blah. After all, the hockey, soccer, squash and polo teams from both countries are still playing each other.

Congratulations to Aussies on their WC win. They outclassed India in all aspects of the game. India and the other teams of the world need to do a lot more to match the might of Aussies.

Players from subcontinant got to improve their mind strength , pressure absorption and physic. And less ( much less ) conecentration on money.