Other than Pakistan there will be no team less prepared for the World Twenty20 in April and May than England.

The bizarre paradox that in an era of short-format overkill there are very few Twenty20 internationals means that the Indian Premier League, which finishes less than a week before the World Twenty20 begins on April 30 in the Caribbean, is the key preparation for players going into the tournament.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cricket’s schedule barely relents at all these days, so it’s a bit of luck that Afghanistan’s significant victory against Ireland has come at a time when the clutter has, albeit briefly, cleared.

For the Afghanistan story is one worth telling. In short, it is the result of the refugee phenomenon. Millions of Afghans fled their country following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1979 and the civil war that ensued. Estimated figures suggest around three million ended up in Pakistan’s refugee camps, where, amid tens of thousands, they caught the cricketing bug.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nine months in the life of Younis Khan:

January 2009: made captain of Pakistan, a team short of cricket-playing options because of the perceived security threat in the country. He returns to Test cricket with a triple hundred against Sri Lanka at Karachi and is briefly the number-one ranked Test player in the world Read the rest of this entry »

Market research tells us that the public want to see lots of fours and sixes. Our own informal research over the last couple of decades has revealed that the public are a load of idiots who are generally wrong about everything. The public want ring tones. It isn’t worth listening to the public.

Test matches and the shorter formats are decided in different ways. You win Tests by bowling sides out. You win one-day and Twenty20 matches by scoring more runs. The metric for deciding the winner may be completely different, but Pakistan still won the World Twenty20 through their bowlers.

Over its short life, Twenty20 has been largely about batsmen. It’s been about individual players playing explosive innings to win matches. Who was Pakistan’s match-winning batsman in the World Twenty20? Shahid Afridi played two blinding innings and Younus Khan has been solid, but overall you’d say that their batting was almost a liability. Pakistan have triumphed because of their bowlers.

It’s been the fashion to use a variety of ‘mix it up’ bowlers in Twenty20 and to bowl them in one or two over spells to keep the batsmen guessing. Pakistan’s bowling approach has been far more predictable in terms of who’s bowling and what they’re bowling. Mohammad Aamer opens, bowling back of a length; Shahid Afridi and Saeed Ajmal bowl the middle overs, tempting batsmen and turning the ball; and Umar Gul finishes things off.

Gul in particular is hugely predictable, bowling reverse swinging yorkers almost exclusively. It barely matters that the batsmen know what’s coming. As the one bowler in the tournament to regularly swing the ball, he’s been almost impossible to hit.

With all the top wicket takers and all the most economical bowlers appearing in the final, it shows bowlers are far from mere cannon fodder in Twenty20. We’ve made a ‘dot ball’ sign to take to the next match we go to and we’re going to wave it maniacally every chance we get.

See King Cricket’s regular blog at www.kingcricket.co.uk. King Cricket is a cult figure in the world of cricket blogs and was TWC’s first Best-of-blogs winner in April 2008.

Frank Duckworth is one of the two statisticians who developed the Duckworth-Lewis method of resetting targets in interrupted one-day cricket matches. He is a consultant statistician and the editor of the Royal Statistical Society’s monthly news magazine, RSS NEWS. He was speaking to Sam Collins.

I feel very sad that England lost to West Indies on Monday, but I don’t feel guilty. On reflection, and listening to it on a ball-by-ball basis and watching the way the West Indies were progressing towards their target and dithering, it was very, very touch and go until about two overs from the end, and the 80 set by the Duckworth/Lewis method seemed a very reasonable target.

My feeling (my partner Tony Lewis is away at a conference but I would guess he would agree with me) was that 80 from nine overs, the equivalent to nine runs an over, whereas England scored at eight runs an over, was a sufficient enhancement of the run rate to allow for the fact that West Indies would have all their wickets in hand. Wickets aren’t a great resource in a shorter form of the game; a team can lose wickets without losing much run scoring resource. The West Indies showed this, losing five wickets and still having experienced batsmen in Shiv Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan to see them home.

Was the target too lenient? I think most people were coming to that impression with the benefit of hindsight, knowing that the West Indies made it. But they certainly didn’t make their target easily.

I’ve had a lot of media attention since the game, I don’t think there would have been so much interest had England won; it’s always of interest to the media when a match involving England is decided by the method. I think that a lot of the discussion, having listened to Test Match Special, was based on a feeling that the target was a little bit lower than it might have been. There was a suggestion that a target of 84 or 85 would have been more realistic, but West Indies were nine runs ahead of par when they won, (i.e. they were heading for about 88), they had four balls in hand and were scoring at two a ball, so even if the target had been 87 or 88 then I think West Indies would still have been favourites to win.

In all there have been 60 previous T20 matches that have involved a D/L calculation, and no one has ever queried the method or targets set before. People often ask about why targets seem to be much more proportional to overs in T20, but that is because it is a reduced game and scoring rates are higher.

In a short game, the value of wickets is less. If one looks at the par score sheet for the other day, every wicket West Indies lost just raised the par score by about one run, some by no runs at all. Wickets are not as important a resource in a much shortened game. Apart from the fact that you lose a batsman with his eye-in, the worst thing about losing a wicket is not the threat of the side being bowled out within the allotted overs, it is that it is a dot ball.

We have made one or two adjustments over the years. The original formula, which we started with back in 1997, a manual method with a set of tables based on run percentages, was drawn up using matches played between 1990 and 1995. In 2002 we did a review of the data because we had accumulated a lot more data and it was obviously more recent data. That review led us to adjust our tables slightly, and in 2004 we brought in the Professional Edition, more or less the same but adjusted to take account of higher run-rates. This Professional Edition is much more applicable to T20 with its higher scoring rates; the disadvantage is that it must be operated by computer, as no one set of tables will allow you to do the calculations.

We did a further review of the numbers used in the formula in 2005 but decided that no tweaking was necessary. We are now undertaking another review, incorporating a greatly increased set of data from T20 matches, but this was underway a long time before the match on Monday. We might make a few changes, but we might equally find that our formula still reflects the game properly at 50-over and T20 level. If we do decide to make any changes it will be in time for the start of the southern hemisphere season on October 1.

When we came into this tournament, a lot of people were saying we lacked the basic interviewing skills to answer a few simple questions without becoming bogged down and making the same old errors of saying: “Er, well, obviously we’ve got to be disappointed with that, er, Nas, er, I mean Wardy.” And it’s true that, in the past, some of our lads have frozen under the lights in these short-format interviews. But I think we can all be very proud of the way we’ve dealt with some often highly-skilled questioners over the last couple of weeks.

Every one of those lads in that dressing room has done a great job, but I’d like to single out Jimmy Anderson. A few years ago, Jimmy would have just stared back at the interviewer with his mouth open, looking like he might cry. But these days, he listens to the question, nods a bit and then he’s straight into the right areas by saying: “Look, I just try to get it into the right areas.”

Broady too – he’s coming on leaps and bounds. He’s a very intelligent cricketer, and he’s not afraid to try different things, running his hand through his hair, slipping in a little joke, dropping the microphone at a key moment. He’s got a massive future ahead of him as a specialist post-match interviewee if he wants it.

Even when we had our difficult times, for instance the Netherlands game when people were asking: “Is this the worst performance by an England team in the history of cricket?” and “Why don’t you just retire now?”, we never let our heads go down. And we bounced right back by saying: “Well obviously it’s disappointing to get beat but there’s a lot of positives to take from defeat by a very well-organised Dutch outfit.” That showed a lot of character, that did.

With hindsight, maybe we didn’t get the balance right by only sending the bowlers out to be interviewed. Would a Robert Key-type have made the difference? Someone with his experience of waiting for the question, rocking back on his heels and chewing thoughtfully for a few minutes before answering? Possibly. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. We probably missed Freddie, as well, he’s the sort of guy who can change the course of an interview in a second with a joke about going to the pub or, these days, a little bit of politics.

On a personal level, it’s not been the greatest tournament for me, interview-wise. It’s not through lack of effort, I can promise you that much, but I have felt a bit one-paced if I’m honest. No matter how hard I try I just can’t seem to come up with anything interesting to say. I’m very happy to hand back over to Straussy in the studio.

Alan Tyers was taking the positives from this interview

If cricket can make mugs of us all, Twenty20 heightens the effect. Your blogger recently took part on Sky’s Sunday-morning Cricket Writers on TV show and semi-confidently predicted India would win the World Twenty20. The reasoning? Because their players – all their players – had just been exposed to the pressure cooker of the Indian Premier League and would therefore have no problem getting tough when the tough got going. Well, it was a nice theory.

What I failed to factor in was that the Indians were starting to believe their own hype too. Sure, the defeat to a Dwayne Bravo-inspired West Indies could have happened to anyone. That, as they will one day doubtless be saying, is Twenty20. But the loss to England was the classic hubris-nemesis one-two.

Not only did their fans boo the English as they finished their practice session on the Nursery Ground before the game, but their brains trust cooked up a scheme whereby the debutant Ravindra Jadeja was allowed to play one of Twenty20’s great match-losing knocks. Even to an Englishman apparently anaesthetized over the years by watching his own team, it was painful to behold.

Before the tournament started, most observers agreed India’s IPL war-wounds would trim off the rough edges. Now, their coach Gary Kirsten says the IPL tired his boys out. Pakistan, meanwhile, were supposed to have been off the pace because their players were banned from taking part in this year’s IPL. And England, whose cricketers had a bit-part role only in South Africa, were arguably only a random thunderstorm away from the semi-finals too.

The point is this: Twenty20 yields to no easy explanations. The IPL is a hero one minute, a scapegoat the next. Just as we use it to justify our preconceptions (and TV punditry), so we realign the senses with the benefit of hindsight. Sport, like everything else, craves coherence, but Twenty20 denies us. It may be why this tournament has been so gripping.

Of course, the process will continue. Tillekeratne Dilshan’s excellence will keep being attributed to his stint with Delhi Daredevils, even though I don’t remember seeing his ramp shot once out in South Africa. Roelof van der Merwe’s miserly slow left-armers will be put down to his experience with Bangalore Royal Challengers, as if he didn’t know how to bowl before then. Bravo must thank Mumbai Indians and Sohail Tanvir still owes Rajasthan Royals a debt of gratitude after starring for them in 2008.

Or possibly they’re just all very good players who are able to adapt their game to a situation. If India blame their feeble exit on the IPL, they are only fooling themselves.

Lawrence Booth writes on cricket for the Guardian

So England’s Twenty20 campaign is over with more questions than answers. Did they really expect to win this tournament with a specialist wicketkeeper batting at six? Why did Paul Collingwood choose to bat first at the Oval when rain was so clearly going to play a part in the match? Does Collingwood even warrant a place in England’s best XI? Yet the public mood after England’s exit to West Indies was one of sympathy, not uproar. England had been hard done by. To their fans England had not lost because they didn’t score enough runs, or because they couldn’t bowl the right lengths or set the right fields when it mattered. No, their defeat to the West Indies exposed a flaw in the way this format copes with rain.

Statistics back up the perceived misfortune. Of the 22 matches played in the tournament so far, this was only the third match to be affected by rain, and the first to be decided by the Duckworth-Lewis method. Go back further, and England are even unluckier – in the entire history of international Twenty20 (114 matches to be precise before today’s super-eights games), D/L had previously decided only three games. Of those, Sri Lanka were halted by the weather pursuing New Zealand’s total back in 2006, but perhaps mindful of the threat of the weather were well ahead of the D/L rate, and the other two matches involved minnows.

In short, never before has a T20 contest between two major nations been played with the side batting second chasing a D/L target boosted by a full complement of wickets. While D/L has proved its reliability in the 50-over format, it’s standing in the 20-over stuff seems less clear. That the West Indies could afford lose five wickets in six overs in pursuit of quick runs, and still regroup to win the game comfortably was not entirely as it might seem – canny organisation of their batting order saw them have Shiv Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan coming in at No.6 and No.7. Yet it still reflected an almost impossible ask for England to stop their opponents scoring at nine-an-over for only nine overs with so many wickets in hand. Hard-nosed observers would say England should have scored more runs, and they are right, but it is more realistic to defend eight-an-over over 20 overs than crawl from the hole that D/L left them in.

Duckworth-Lewis is a method based on ‘resources’, namely the number of overs remaining and wickets in hand. While the targets it generates are essentially reasonable, it may be that a tweak is needed for the shortest-format to account for the advantage of pursuing a small total with plenty of wickets in hand.

It also seemed unnecessarily inflexible that, with floodlights in place and the weather set fair after between-innings rain at the Oval, the match could not be extended beyond it’s scheduled 9.15pm finishing time to accommodate the full quota of overs. Tournament rules dictate, but do not lessen the frustration, and while the result may not have changed, the manner of defeat would not have stung so much.

Sam Collins is website editor of thewisdencricketer.com

I have been to three days of the World Twenty20, and I cannot think of a better-organised tournament.

Look at the genius of that name – the World Twenty20. Is it a cup? Is it a trophy? Who knows, but it is that kind of intrigue that gets the punters talking. It is also cost-efficient. Think of all the printing bills they save on by not putting a superfluous word like cup on the end. Especially in a credit crunch.

The opening ceremony had two giant phallic-shaped balloons, and three mumbly guys who you couldn’t hear. I personally couldn’t think of a better opening ceremony.

Then there were the dancers, dressed in Smurf-esque costumes, with a politically correct mix of the sexes and their three main dances. They certainly bring the crowd endless enjoyment. Especially the male dancers – the crowd bubbled with excitement as the men showed them their tasty moves.

The structure of the tournament is brilliant; who could argue with a tournament where a team like Ireland only needs to win one game to make the second round?

Unfortunately there has been some trouble; Stuart Broad’s arm out (as he came into bowl) was a punch to the groin region of the spirit of cricket. It could have torn at the very fabric of the game, but the ICC has put a stop to that before any kiddies were corrupted.

The other major controversy at the tournament has been Gaffergate. The ICC has taped up every aspect of cricket. The Brit Oval is now the Oval; their OCS stand is the Stand. Players’ trousers are taped, the odd shirt and helmet as well. Of course they have run out of tape when it comes to Ian Chappell, but he would probably chewed through it anyway. This is an important part of watching cricket, as the constant advertising at cricket grounds has disturbed me like so many others. Luckily the ICYahooC have put a stop this subtle advertising that made us choose Brit Insurance and employ OCS to do whatever it is OCS do.

There has also been cricket played, and it must have been pretty good because at times I stopped looking at dancers in blue tracksuit pants and massive inflated devices.

I can only hope the ICC officials haven’t spent all their time stopping us looking at non-sanctioned ICC sponsorship, and have watched the magical farce that was the opening game, Ricky’s constantly craned neck, Umar Gul’s deadly swing, Dirty Dirk’s international debut, the awesome ginger O’Brien brothers, India’s failed Russian Roulette batting order, the wonderful oddity that is Aaron Redmond, and the pure magnificence of the Dilshan Dentist shot.

Jrod is an Australian cricket blogger. His site Cricketwithballs.com won last July’s Best of Blogs in TWC

BBC highlights presenter keeps his fans up to date with all the World Twenty20 goings on…

Updated 2 hours ago: The Lords is so cool!! To be at a venue where legends of the game like Sir Steaky Botham, Donald Batman, Freddie Flintoff and Alesha Dixon have all played – awesome.

Updated 90 minutes ago: Just found out that Alesha didn’t get to play – shame. She is a brilliant singer and well fit: probably considered one of the great all-rounders? (Check this fact later).

Updated 1 hour ago: Very excited about England v South Africa later today. Should try and get some player interviews. Approach South African captain Graeme Smith with trusty notebook in hand (I’m a real journo now mum!!!?!!)

Updated 55 minutes ago: Graeme Smith says he will have the t-bone steak rare, a lasagne, two portions of chips, a chicken and a pint of double cream (low fat if available).

Updated 54 minutes ago: Explain I am not a waiter but in fact BBC face of cricket seeking interview.

Updated 53 minutes ago: In Lord’s kitchen getting food for Graeme Smith in exchange for interview.

Update 49 minutes ago: Graeme Smith finishes his breakfast and we settle down to serious cricket chat. It’s like Frost v Nixon… or Ambrose v Walsh! (Check later).

Update 48 minutes ago: First question: “So Graeme, what would you say is more important, batting or bowling, in the context of the Twenty20 format?” (Testing one first up I reckon?!!?)

Update 47 minutes ago: Smith asks for Lemon Meringue Pie and falls asleep.

Update 40 minutes ago: I am not discouraged – it is the job of the serious journalist to ask the tough questions. This I learned from Gabby Logan when we did BBC Children In Need fun-run together.

Update 35 minutes ago: See legendary figure Sir Jeffrey Boycotts and decide I will ask him my question instead.

Update 31 minutes ago: Boycotts is not a nice man.

Update 28 minutes ago: But in between the unkind remarks and laughter I reckon he thinks that batting is most important. This could be significant piece of information for broadcast tonight.

Update 25 minutes ago: See my colleague Rishi and we practice our cricket trivia knowledge together.

Update 12 minutes ago: It’s a tight-run contest but I just edge it one question to nil.

Update 11 minutes ago: For any young sports fans, I knew that leg before wicket means that you have to go out; Rishi (durrr!) thought it was one of the fences at the Grand Nationals.

Update 4 minutes ago: Only 12 hours to go before highlights broadcast tonight now. Producer gives me copy of ‘Freddie Flintoff Cricket Annual For Boys 2005’ and tells me to wait quietly in trailer.

By Alan Tyers