Hussey factor & dubious review
Michael Hussey's arrival at the World Cup couldn't have been better timed for an Australian team that remains undefeated whilst enacting a group impersonation of The Invisible Man. Ian chappell elaborates.india Updated: Mar 13, 2011 01:55 IST
Michael Hussey's arrival at the World Cup couldn't have been better timed for an Australian team that remains undefeated whilst enacting a group impersonation of The Invisible Man.
In addition to the undoubted boost his versatility provides for the batting order, Hussey's unbridled enthusiasm will be just the right tonic for a team that's endured long waits in between matches and then experienced very little challenging cricket.
If Hussey's not playing a match, he loves to bat and bowl in the nets and then practice fielding. Then, when the daylight disappears he's happy talking cricket. Even if he doesn't enjoy it, he's earned the nickname, "Mr. Cricket".
The washout against Sri Lanka (when the match was so evenly poised), must have been a major disappointment to the Australians. They were relying on that game to tune up for the knockout stage, especially after New Zealand provided such meek opposition.
To then have a week off, followed by two gentle affairs against the seriously weak Kenyans and the only slightly stronger Canadians, is not ideal. This is why the officials are right to query the wisdom of the minnows at the World Cup. It's like asking a CEO to prepare for a crucial Board presentation by speaking to a kindergarten class.
Apart from Ireland, the rest of the minnows read like a struggling student's report card; "Tried hard but need to do better."Dubious DRS
Another frustrating aspect of the tournament for all players, is the Decision Review System (DRS). In some circles it's now referred to as the dubious review system.
the game and is constantly being used to challenge fifty-fifty decisions; two things it wasn't designed to do. In trying to accommodate the short-comings of technology, the DRS reads as such a complicated playing condition the Australians could easily fill in their numerous off days scouring the document, including the quaintly named clarification communication from the ICC.
This arrived as a result of the controversy over the notorious "2.5 metre ruling" that reprieved Ian Bell against India. If anyone unravels the metric mystery I'd be delighted to hear the explanation.
What I'm eagerly awaiting is the official communique that confirms technology is now officially ruining, (sorry a slip of the finger), running the game. The sooner the DRS is placed firmly in the hands of the off-field umpire, purely to rid the game of howlers, the better off cricket will be.
England has produced two mammoth efforts to defeat South Africa and tie with India, only to stumble like a drunken sailor when confronted by the lesser teams. For now, it's their confidence that needs rebuilding after they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against Bangladesh. England has to beat the West Indies to have any chance of reaching the knockout. The one thing in their favour is they've played their best cricket against the stronger sides. Should England beat the West Indies and reach the quarter-finals, beware. In 1992, Pakistan were playing like drones early in the World Cup and were extremely fortunate to reach the semifinals. They then went on to play brilliant cricket in winning the final against, you guessed it, England. Could be an omen.