10 Things We Learnt From the 20-20 World Cup

To call the recently-concluded Twenty20 World Cup anything less than a roaring success wouldn't quite be a shameful blasphemy, but would certainly be mighty close to it. We should know, the ICC officials wouldn't be grinning from ear to ear if the event was anywhere near as bland as the 50-50 World Cup in the West Indies. So what were the things that we learned from this very special event? Taking a cue from the innumerable movie message boards across the internet, I'll do my own list of the 10 most significant lessons that the Twenty20 World Cup taught us:

1. An Indo-Pak match is an Indo-Pak match is an Indo-Pak match: Maybe this isn't such a new lesson. No matter how strange the format or how neutral the venue, India and Pakistan really do know how to produce electrifying cricket matches with more twists than your average Bourne flick. If the first round encounter between the two turned out to be historic, what with the bowl-out and all, the final that these two teams put on show is already being heralded as the best finale to a major tournament in cricketing history. The Ashes? What's that?

2. South Africa are chokers, but never expect Graeme Smith to admit that: Honestly, Mr. Smith, the cricketing world is tired of bringing up that semi-final of the 1999 World Cup whenever your team crashes out of a major tournament inexplicably. Why not spare us the trouble and not raise everyone's expectations by performing so brilliantly in unimportant matches?

3. Stuart Broad can do a Daan van Bunge: I know, I should probably concentrate on Yuvraj Singh's jaw-dropping splendor in that unforgettable 6 sixes-over, but pray why has no one thought of taking a poke (or several pokes) at the bowler who made it all possible, Stuart Broad? The fact that only one international bowler (a Netherlands bowler, no less) in the history of cricket has ever let such an embarrassment come to pass should be a fair indication of how poorly Broad bowled in that over. Ah, the English! They can be quite freakish sometimes. And that brings me to the next lesson.....

4. The English can be pathetic at every innovation that they bring into cricket: Ok, 'pathetic' may be a little harsh here, but the English side was supposed to have a better shot than most at winning the tournament, armed as it was with a battalion of '20-20 bits-and-pieces specialist cricketers' and because, well, they started 20-20 cricket. Which is why the solitary win against Zimbabwe must hurt, perhaps even more than their customary insipid performances at the 50-over World Cups. 'Skill' is still the most important virtue for a modern cricketer, dear Englishmen.

5. Santhakumaran Sreesanth will perpetually try to be the Shahid Afridi of the bowlers: 21 runs off his first over, 0 from his second. Was he trying to create some kind of record? To be fair to him, he did bowl brilliantly against Australia and he played a big role in India's victory over Pakistan in the first round. But I do know that if India had lost the final to Pakistan, forgiving Sreesanth would have been a pretty hard thing to do. How do you let a batsman like Sohail Tanvir hit you for 2 sixes in a single, desperately crucial over?

6. Mahendra Singh Dhoni can make singularly inspired decisions: The tournament made a strong case for Dhoni to be appointed the Test skipper to go with his newly-acquired one-day responsibilities. His choice of players to bowl in the bowl-out was fantastic to say the least, and his handling of remarkably inept bowlers like Joginder Sharma deserves applause of the highest order. Maybe if he regained some of his batting magic the selectors will give him the chance he so thoroughly deserves?

7. It's never too late to announce your arrival on the international cricket stage: At 33, Misbah-ul-Haq is 3 years older than Mike Hussey was when Hussey first started to show the cricketing world that there can be better finishers of a match than Michael Bevan. And yet, Misbah batted so breathtakingly well throughout the tournament that one was almost tempted to give him the title of 'Best finisher in world cricket', or even 'Mr. Cricket', if you will. Unfortunately for him, only 'almost' - the cute chip/nudge/glance or whatever other name you wish to give to the ungainly shot that Misbah played on the last ball of the tournament will haunt him for the rest of his life. Nevertheless, Misbah undoubtedly was the most unlikely star of the World Cup - he sprang up from virtual nothingness and played not one, but two innings for the ages during the tournament; I'm sure Mohammad Yousuf isn't quite so wild now that he lost his place in the team to a nobody like Misbah.

8. Australia are not invincible in every format of the game, and Ricky Ponting can get REAL cranky about that: Just as we were getting over Graeme Smith's child-like condemnation of the tournament's format that was supposedly responsible for his side's early exit, Ricky Ponting came out and blamed everything in sight for his side's rather unexpected early exit (on a side note, it's a mark of Australia's supremacy in all forms of the game that a semi-final loss is dubbed an 'early exit'). Lack of match practice, his openers being too prolific for his side's own good, luck, the cruel scheduling of Australia's matches in distant venues.....the list was endless. Dear me, have the elements all of a sudden turned their back on the Australian cricket team? Or did Ponting listen to one Serena Williams press conference too many?

9. You can score a century in a 20-20 match, and still end up on the losing side: Poor Chris Gayle, he was in such a violent mood in the very first match of the tournament, bludgeoning 10 sixes and blowing the South African attack to pieces, that it seems he scared his own bowlers. I'm sorry, but the West Indies bowling attack is really quite ridiculously spineless, and it wouldn't surprise me if Chris Gayle ended up on the losing side even if he made a double century. Honestly, nothing about this West Indian team can surprise me any more. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

10. Twenty20 Cricket is THE FUTURE: Daniel Vettori and Adam Gilchrist can turn their noses up at the format all they want, but it is clear that if cricket wants to have any semblance of an existence on the world sports stage, then it's got to invest in Twenty20. Get rid of 50-over cricket within a year, I say. And puh-lease, get rid of the ludicrous dancers/cheerleaders too.

The Fine Art of Over-Rating

Every age has a favourite darling. And every darling has a golden age. And when the darling becomes the favourite in the age that is golden, the result is an insufferable dose of good, old-fashioned over-rating. In today's post I'm going to list some of the people, mostly famous people, who I personally think are hugely over-rated by the media and subsequently (or consequently) are rewarded with a large amount of undeserved hero-worship by an adoring but intensely gullible public. So here are the most overrated (in my opinion, at least) people of our generation:

Abhishek Bachchan: Since his name starts with an 'A', I thought he'd be a nice place to start with. And even if the people on this list were ranked in order of most undeserving, he'd definitely be at the top or very near it. Since the past 6 years I've been trying to figure out why he's constantly been lavished with so much acclaim by critics and fans alike for his supposed 'acting abilities' and 'charm' when it has been clear to me from the outset that the only thing charming about him is the fact that he has great genes. The man cannot act to save his life (and neither can Fardeen Khan, another star-son with alarmingly low artistic powers - but at least Fardeen is showered with his fair share of flak from time to time), and yet the media and critics go on and on about his 'powerful' screen presence and restrained execution of his roles. There's a difference between restrained acting and NOT acting. If only the people of this country understood this simple fact.

Kimi Raikkonen: He was supposed to be the youngest world champion in Formula One history. He was also supposed to be the sparkling new heir to Michael Schumacher's throne of F1 dominance. Perhaps someone should have told these two oft-repeated truths to a rampaging Fernando Alonso, who not only stole the 'youngest champion' title from Kimi but also usurped Schumacher's throne while the legend was still in business. I'm sorry if sworn Kimi fans are offended by this, but the fact remains that when Kimi was at McLaren, the team was desperately floundering and in the depths of doom. This year, Alonso joined McLaren, and all of a sudden they're comfortably leading the drivers' standings. Engine problems, bad luck, a sub-standard car - what's the latest excuse for Kimi's continued failure to live up to the expectations? A team that is too perfect, perhaps?

Martin Scorsese: I must confess that I haven't seen many of the most-acclaimed movies of this supposedly genius of a filmmaker, but if the praise that some of his latest movies garnered is anything to go by, I haven't missed much. Gangs of New York was quite intolerably boring, The Aviator was really nothing great and The Departed has to be one of the best examples of how an unnecessarily long second half can completely ruin a movie. Honestly, I think the Oscar jury, for once, was right in denying Scorsese the glory of the Best Director award for as long as they did in spite of the nearly two decades of sustained critical acclaim that sat so prettily on his resume . Just goes to show the critics don't know everything.

Saurav Ganguly: Sure, he led India to the final of the 2003 World Cup, and beat the visiting Australians at their own game in 2001, but has there ever been a more self-centred player in the history of Indian cricket than Sourav Ganguly? Two years ago he almost brought Indian cricket to its knees with his ugly altercation with coach Greg Chappell, and this year he was at it again, creating divisions in the side which very probably led to India's humiliating early exit at the 50-50 World Cup. And don't even get me started on his glaring shortcomings as a batsman in the longer version of the game. I, for one, am really at a loss to see why a man who is clearly afraid of the short ball, creates ungainly camps in the team and is as much a team player as Shoaib Akhtar gets such enormous and unwavering support from his countless fans. Perhaps it's just the Bengali tendency of over-hyping every single person who hails from the state of West Bengal at work here.

Almost every fashion designer on the planet: This one's my favourite. Just when you think that clothing designs can't get any more bizarre, out comes a fashion designer showing off to an unsuspecting public an outfit that tightly binds your two hands together in a manner that forces you to constantly keep your hands outstretched and parallel to the ground. I honestly felt very sorry for that unfortunate model. Tell me, how many of the outfits that celebrated designers showcase in the scores of fashion shows across the world are actually wearable? It's one thing being creative and letting your imagination run wild in a field that prizes innovation and inventiveness, but quite another to put your admiring patrons through long periods of discomfort and embarrassment. Some would say there's no difference, but others (including me) would say there's all the difference in the world.

Pete Sampras: Alright, this may be a shocker for some - Sampras is the one who's won the most Grand Slam titles in history, right? Pete Sampras was a great tennis player, I agree. The only reason he's on this list is because roughly half of the tennis following population considers it appropriate to call Sampras the GOAT (or Greatest Of All Time, for the uninformed) in spite of the dazzling four years that Roger Federer has just put on show in front of an awe-struck audience. Federer is a better and more complete player than Sampras ever was, period. I know this may sound childish and a touch harsh on Sampras who was indeed a wonderful champion, but I can't understand how a player whose only major weapons were a monster serve and a terrific volley - ok, I'll add the running forehand to that frighteningly small list - and who never even made it to the finals of the claycourt Grand Slam can be talked of in GOAT discussions with as much reverence as is Sampras. Maybe this time it's the American tendency of over-praising the sons of its soil at work.

Heavy metal/hard rock bands: One of the biggest mysteries I've ever come across - why would loud, mostly unpleasant noise (that is actually supposed to be 'music') and generally crude and frustrated-with-life lyrics command millions of devoted fans all over the world? Does the fact that most rock musicians are shabbily dressed, cocaine-snorting, potential suicide candidates somehow add to the charm of rock/metal music? As I said, one of the biggest mysteries I've ever come across.

Ayn Rand: Ok, her books make for fairly interesting reading, but that's just about as good as it gets. Her strangely self-glorifying philosophies, fierce trumpeting of Objectivism and generally scathing views on generosity and charity that are prevalent in most of her major works are nothing short of laughable when thought about for more than a minute. Moreover, the effects that reading an Ayn Rand book can have on an impressionable youngster are quite disturbing to imagine. Quite why every celebrity worth his or her salt likes to declare that The Fountainhead is the best book they've ever read (it's not even the best book that Rand's written - Atlas Shrugged is, in my opinion, a better read) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they think it makes them sound smart. In Rand's case, nevertheless, there is one small comfort: literary critics have, by and large, dismissed her writing as melodramatic and unimportant. Maybe the critics do know some things sometimes then.

Shilpa Shetty: She became a household name in the UK by claiming to be a victim of racism, and for that is held up in our country as a shining example of an Indian making waves internationally. Do I need to say any more?


Whew! That's a long list. And yet I haven't mentioned even half of the many names that came to my mind while starting this post. We do seem to have perfected the art of over-rating. How wonderful.

Cricket Gets Its Saviour, Tennis On The Lookout For One

As Chris Gayle got down to some seriously savage ball-thwacking in the first match of the Twenty20 World Cup between West Indies and South Africa, all I could think was: why are they still playing 50-over cricket? If any cricket follower still feels the need to defend the logic of holding 50-over tournaments in the face of the adrenaline-rushing, maddeningly exciting blur that is Twenty20 cricket, then I have to fear for his sanity. Cricket needed something to save itself from the embarrassing doldrums that it was plunged into after the match-fixing saga, and it has got one. Twenty20 is fresh, innovative, thrilling and intense: just about everything you'd ask for in a modern sport. Thankfully, Twenty20 is also a money-spinner, and that would probably be a good enough reason to induce the bunch of dolts that is the ICC, which had the gall to insist to an outraged cricket community that this year's World Cup in the West Indies was a 'great success', to do some progressive work for a change. And while they're busy slobbering over the enormous mounds of money that they're bound to make through this new golden egg, will someone advise the idiots to push for Twenty20 cricket to be included in the Olympics?


Speaking of Olympics, I'm sure the fact that tennis is an Olympic sport must have alerted a lot of tennis followers to the deliciously fascinating possibilities the next year holds for a certain male tennis player. Roger Federer has achieved just about everything there is to achieve in tennis, having this week added yet another Grand Slam title to his already bulging collection by defeating Novak Djokovic in the US Open final, but a 'Golden Slam' might just be the one thing that firmly and eternally closes the GOAT debate. It's never been done before by a male player - Steffi Graf managed to win the Olympic gold medal in addition to the 4 Grand Slams in 1988, but no man has ever even come close to such a feat. Of course, Andre Agassi does have a career Golden Slam, but his career spanned two decades, so there. (On a side note, isn't it simply fabulous that the only two players in the history of tennis to have completed Golden Slams, whether in a calendar year or a career, ended up being married to each other?). The French Open remains the most worrying obstacle for Federer to achieve this Holy Grail-like accomplishment, but I like to believe that he's been saving it for the year when the full force of his achievements will hit the tennis world like a tornado. Yes, a Golden Slam next year would be totally stunningly terrific, and honestly, if anyone could ever do it, then it's got to be him. Federer will, however, have to watch out for an outlandish young player who likes to do silly impersonations of his well-respected peers, looks to the crowd instead of his coach when in need of advice whether to challenge a call, and who goes by the name of Novak Djokovic.

They said Federer didn't win the US Open final as much as Djokovic lost it, and for once they were right. When you get 7 set points spread over 2 sets, 5 of them on your serve, and fail to convert a single one of them, it says a lot about your poor mental strength, but if you're playing Federer, it also says a lot about your huge talent. Federer played awful for long periods during the game, I agree, but at times he was also outdone by Djoker's range of shots, his amazing movement, his effective serve and his exquisitely potent backhand. He's almost like a mini-Federer, to be very blunt. Of course, Federer managed to withstand all of Djokovic's weapons without so much as a grunt of frustration, armed as he always is with his own, much more important weapons like the ability to play the big points alarmingly well and an almost indefatigable serve. And that's precisely why he is THE Federer, all glory and perfection, and not a 'mini-Federer'. But Djokovic, it cannot be denied, is an irresistible talent, and it seems clear that from now on Federer will have not one (we've almost forgotten Rafael Nadal, haven't we?), but two great rivals. All the more motivation, I think, for Federer to raise the bar even higher, even if age isn't exactly on his side, and go for something that no man has ever dreamed of before. And oh, Pete Sampras's record is just a formality now, don't you think? 14 Grand Slams? If I were Federer, and that's a big 'if', I wouldn't settle for anything less than 18. Maybe even 20. Scary? You bet.

Of Sportsmanship and Showmanship

So, one half of my US Open nightmare has come true. Justine Henin has just capped a stunningly successful, almost Federer-like year with an incandescent showing at the year's final Grand Slam, destroying three former champions - Serena Williams, Venus Williams and Svetlana Kuznetsova in succession to a well-deserved 7th Grand Slam trophy, and I'm not smiling. Sure, Henin may be an aesthetic shot-maker and her backhand may be 'a thing of beauty', as many people like to put it, but her lack of personality and charisma make it very hard for me to root for her in any match that she plays. Of course, her 'incident' in the 2003 French Open semi-final against Serena Williams, when she raised her hand during Serena's service motion leading to a serving fault, and subsequently refused to back Serena's perfectly legitimate request for another first serve may have a big part to play in my unqualified prejudice against her. Unfortunately for Henin, that incident isn't the only one that people like to twirl about when vociferously pointing out how un-sportsmanlike Henin can get. The 2006 Australian Open final, when Henin retired while trailing Amelie Mauresmo 6-1, 2-0, thus denying Mauresmo the unadulterated glory that comes with a maiden, hard-fought Grand Slam triumph, is still fresh in everyone's minds, perhaps much more vividly in mine. I suppose you might say that talking about these past fallacies in the face of the unquestioned brilliance that Henin has put on show this year is childish, but is it that difficult for Henin to muster up a belated but much-warranted apology, specially about the French Open incident? Ok, I think I'm starting to sound like the sore and cranky statistician that I always do after things don't go according to my liking in a sports match, so I'll just let Henin be for the moment.

While we're talking of un-sportsmanlike sportspersons, the name Serena Williams can't be too far away, can it, particularly since she chooses to state in her press conference after getting whipped by Justine Henin that she lost because "Justine played a lot of lucky shots". Alright, I know that press conference made Serena sound really bad, but that doesn't quite explain the unmistakable hatred that most tennis fans (well ok, when I say 'most tennis fans' I only mean most of the people who visit internet message boards) have shown in spelling out their distaste at Serena's words. Serena Williams has been, in the words of her father Richard, an arrogant "pit bull" for the whole of the 10-odd years that she's been on the women's tour. In fact, most tennis analysts in the past have admitted that her stubborn refusal to believe that anybody could beat her when she was playing her best had a major part to play in her 8 Grand Slam trophy wins. Which is why it is plain irritating to find people still giving her grief about the 'lack of respect' that she gives her opponents. Even though I personally wish she took a leaf or two out of her sister Venus's book who has matured considerably over the years, I can totally understand if she still wants to doggedly believe that she can be the best player in the world anytime that she really wants to. After all, isn't 'believing in yourself' the favourite mantra that mentors like to throw at their charges to inspire them to greatness and beyond? There is, of course, also the inescapable fact that Serena is every bit as good a tennis player as she claims - she can be hideously overweight, sorely bereft of match practice and completely lacking the agility and speed that made her such an irresistible force back in her glory days, and still manage to win a Grand Slam ranked 81st in the world. I'd like to see Henin try that. Serena is still the woman with the highest Grand Slam tally among current players, and has been the best player of the decade according to many tennis experts. So why all the malicious Williams-bashing then? I don't like to bring up the R-word, but it's very difficult to comprehend why a Martina Hingis, who is fair, pretty and lissome, can get away with downright offensive remarks, alarmingly childish tantrums and embarrassingly loud sobs after her losses while Serena Williams is labeled a disgrace to the sport of tennis for unwaveringly believing in her own abilities, unless there was some sick and disgusting attitude at the back of it all. For those of you who didn't get it, I'm talking about racism. And before this post gets any more sordid, I think I should move on to less unpleasant things.

The men's final will begin in a few hours' time, and I just can't wait for it because it's going to be a cracking match, if the level of play of the two finalists throughout the tournament is anything to go by. There's been a lot of talk about this being the first 'interesting' US Open final in years, and while I'm willing to give Novak Djokovic the credit for bringing 'interest' back to US Open finals, I just don't see him putting it past Roger Federer barely two years into his thus far impressive career. Remember, we're talking about defeating the man who's won 11 Grand Slams in the space of 4 years, and who managed to defeat Andy Roddick, a former No.1 player and US Open champion, in straight sets, in spite of the fact that Roddick was probably playing the best match of his career. That's unreal, unbelievable fantasy, that's GOAT stuff, that is. Djokovic needs to improve his serve a little, and learn to be more aggressive, and for heaven's sake he needs to drop all of that ludicrous showmanship and arrogance. It's amusing, even entertaining, to watch an up-and-coming tennis prodigy doing imitations of well-known tennis stars to thunderous applause from the crowd, but it's simply unacceptable for a potential Grand Slam champion to be doing that. Get a grip on yourself, Novak, you want to earn a little respect from tennis enthusiasts. And oh, while you're preparing yourself for the final, you might want to have a nice long chat with Rafael Nadal and collect a few tips from your physio about the best way to survive a marathon, lifeforce-sapping encounter in the New York heat. Against Federer, you'll need all the help that you can get.

By the way, if you're wondering what the 'other half' of my US Open nightmare is, it's Djokovic winning the men's title. So much for a stress-free US Open final.

Bad And Worse

Right then. This has got to be one of the first US Open tournaments I have ever watched. The horror show started yesterday evening, just the 5th day of the Open, a time you wouldn't normally associate with heartbreaking losses. First Marat Safin, that charming little volcano-man, went down with disappointing tameness to Stanislas Wawrinka. Then Novak Djokovic, that outrageously gifted but hideously arrogant peacock of a man didn't go down to an inspired Radek Stepanek, instead eking out a scary five-set marathon. I say scary because it is clear to me now, if it wasn't already before the Open began, that Djoker has it in him to give a mighty challenge to the Grand Slam dominance of Federer-Nadal. And that was just the start of my miseries. The big blow came next. Lleyton Hewitt, the one sportsperson I have stood by through injuries, atrocious lack of form and repeated humiliating whippings at the hands of Federer, gave me yet another solid reason why I should probably move on to a new favourite player. I mean come on, Hewitt has become so nondescript now that the tennis websites didn't even bother to write anything about his defeat, which by all means is still significant considering he's a two-time Slammer. I've been trying to find the story covering his match all day, hoping that there perhaps must have been a legitimate reason why he lost to a decidedly over-the-hill claycourter like Augustin Calleri, like maybe an injury or something, but haven't had any luck so far. And much as I hate to admit this, there probably is a legitimate reason for the tragedy - that Hewitt is just not good enough anymore. Sad, sad.

Things just got worse today. Maria Sharapova, the defending champion, lost to a player whose name I can't even spell, let alone pronounce. It was someone called Radwanska, I think. Yeah, I know, Sharapova cannot lose to a Radwanska in the 3rd round, just a year after her glory days of defeating Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin back-to-back. But guess what, the blonde Russian has regressed by around two years instead of moving anywhere forward since January. If you thought being regularly dismantled by a Williams sister wasn't bad enough, look what's happening to her now: being bounced out by 17-year-old Radwanskas. Poor Maria, the avowed anti-Pova club members aren't going to be anything less than scathing in heaping their gleeful scorn on this latest embarrassment. Incidentally, I don't think I can visit a tennis discussion forum anytime soon, considering how vociferously I have been battling these distinguished anti-Pova members for the past month. I'm sorry, but reading a thousand-odd statements like "Look where the overrated brat is now", "She's just another Kournikova" or "HAHAHAHA" is just not my thing.

So could things get any worse after these tragic few hours? Well yes, they could. Sania Mirza could get overawed by a higher-ranked player and put in a completely listless performance in her 3rd round match. And she did precisely that. To be honest, Anna Chakvetadze is probably a much better player than Mirza and will likely defeat her 4 time out of 5, but that doesn't make the loss any less sad. Mirza needs to do well at the Slams if she has any hopes of being counted as a world-class player, and clearly she hasn't done too much of that yet. Chakvetadze, on the other hand, suddenly finds herself in a very favourable position now that Sharapova is out, and I'm willing to bet that she'd be the one to come through the bottom half of the draw and book that final against a Williams.

Right then. This is now officially the worse US Open I have ever watched. All I need now is for Roger Federer to not win the men's trophy. Or for Djokovic to win it. Or for Justine Henin to win the women's trophy. Wow, the US Open is fraught with more potential disasters than the regular Hollywood blockbuster. Maybe I need to stop following tennis and watch more movies instead. Hollywood blockbusters.