Tony Becca
The ICC World Twenty20 may not be the real thing.
In fact, with batsmen being bowled leg-stump by yorkers after going down on one knee and trying to late cut a pacer to thirdman; with batsmen attempting to drive fast bowlers and the ball flying high before dropping into the wicketkeeper's gloves; and with the batsmen trying to hook slow bowlers and the ball again flying high and the wicketkeeper getting under it, some of the strokes by the batsmen, the best in the world, would not even be fit for a curried goat match in the backwoods of Jamaica.
Those playing them would also be ridiculed on an English village green.
Despite the presence of strokes that would make any self-respecting coach go crazy; in spite of the dancers who can hardly dance, the World Twenty20 tournament has been enjoyable.
It has drawn a lot of people who, based on the images on television, are enjoying themselves, and apart from the 378 fours that have been hit in the 15 matches up to Sunday evening, the 149 sixes, a few of them disappearing in the night sky and travelling for over 100 metres before starting the descent, have justified the decision of the organisers to hand out hard hats to the patrons.
Raining sixes
It has been raining sixes in South Africa. Chris Gayle hit 10 sixes in one innings, while scoring 117 off 57 deliveries in the opening match against the home team. Albie Morkel of South Africa blasted three in succession off right-arm leg-spinner Chris Schofield of England. Owais Shaw of England smashed the ball, from South Africa's Vernon Philander, the farthest during the tournament.
England hit 13 sixes against Zimbabwe, West Indies smashed 12 against South Africa, and Sri Lanka, on the way to 260 for six, the highest total in Twenty20 cricket, blasted 11 against Kenya, But for a few matches, including the one between South Africa and England which South Africa won by 19 runs after scoring 154 for nine batting first, the bat, as expected, has dominated the ball, and that is the excitement of Twenty20 cricket.
If that is so, however, if the dominance of the bat is the excitement of Twenty20 cricket, why, in the case of a bowl-off, is not a tied match (as was the case between Pakistan and India) decided by a bowler against a batsman?
The bowl-off was decided by five bowlers bowling at a set of stumps and India won when their first three bowlers hit the stumps and Pakistan's first three, to their embarrassment, failed to hit even once.
Bowler vs batsman
The game of cricket is a contest between bat and ball, and since, according to the rules, there had to be a winner, that winner, in my humble opinion, should have been decided and, in the future, should be decided by both teams selecting their best batsman and their best bowler, and after that the bowler from either side bowl one over to the batsman from the other side with the one that scores the most runs declared the winner.
As difficult as the professional bowlers of Pakistan made the bowl-off seem, a bowler against a batsman certainly would be more testing and would provide more action and therefore more excitement than hitting the undefended stumps.
Another question is this; why is there a need for a result and, therefore, a bowl-off after a tie when there is no need for a result or therefore a bowl-off after a no-result caused by rain?
Rain ruined the game between India and Scotland, only the toss was possible, and the match was ruled a no-result with both teams getting one point each. The match between India and Pakistan ended in a tie and there was a bowl-off with India winning and getting the maximum two points.
That is strange, very strange, and someone needs to explain the reason for a bowl-off in one and not in the other.
