There are people who say T20 World Cup rules were not fair, India won four out of their five matches but could not make it to semi-finals while West Indies who had two victories out five made it to semi-finals. They are wrong.
In the first round every group had three teams and two could go to the next round i.e., Super 8. Once the teams made it Super 8, victories in the first round did not count. In Super 8 India won two matches, lost one match, so also Australia and Pakistan. South Africa lost all three matches in Super 8. India, Pakistan and Australia had four points each. On the basis of net run rate Pakistan and Australia made it to semi-finals. India was in a favourable position as its match against South Africa was the last one in Super 8 and knew what to do to make it to semi-finals. India failed to achieve that. India’s loss to Australia was a huge one and that made a difference in net run rate.
West Indies did not play any full match in first round. The match against Australia was marred by rain and Australia were declared winners based on Duckworth-Lewis rules. The match against Ireland was a wash out. Ireland had lost to Australia. West Indies made it to Super 8 on net run rate. They could have won both matches.
In Super 8, West Indies won against England by 15 runs, lost to Sri Lanka by 9 wickets, won against New Zealand in super over. So in Super 8 they won two matches and lost one match. In semi-final they won against Australia by 74 runs and in final against Sri Lanka by 36 runs.
New Zealand lost two matches in super overs in Super 8, one to Sri Lanka, one to West Indies. Both Sri Lanka and West Indies made it to final. Now some want to split points if a match is tied in a non-knock out match, instead of deciding the winner in super over. New Zealand coach Michael Hesson said “I can’t work out why, in a non-elimination game, you have to have a super over. I’ve never worked that out.” In football and hockey, points are split if a group match ends in a draw. There is no harm in doing away with super overs in group matches in T20. But what would have been the reaction if New Zealand had won one match and lost another or won both matches?
On 2/10/2012 India defeated South Africa by 1 run with 1 ball to spare. On an ordinary day there would have been joy and celebration. But this was not an ordinary day and there was sadness and loss of interest before the match was over.
There were two matches on 2/10/2012 and there were many permutations and combinations before the matches began as to who could make it to semi-finals. First match was between Australia and Pakistan. Australia were expected to win. Second match was between India and South Africa. If Australia had beaten Pakistan and South Africa had beaten India it would have been a contest between India, Pakistan and South Africa for the second place in the group.
The unexpected happened. Pakistan defeated Australia by 32 runs. In spite of the defeat Australia finished first in the group. India had to defeat South Africa by 31 runs and 24 balls to spare to make it to semi-finals. South Africa won toss and elected to field and India scored 152 runs. India had to restrict South Africa to 121 runs. When South Africa surpassed 121 runs in 16.5 overs it was gloom for India.
Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies are in semi-finals. Pakistan have won the T20 Cup before. For others it will be first time.
With Gary Kirsten as coach South Africa had attained No. 1 rank in all three formats. Now they lost all three Super 8 matches. New Zealand lost their matches against Sri Lanka and West Indies in super overs.
Some want a separate captain for T20 team. They want removal of Dhoni as he did not lead the team to victory in T20 after 2007.
Sri Lanka made Kumar Sangakkara captain for one match to avoid Mahela Jayawardene getting punishment for slow over rate. Kumar Sangakkara went for toss. Mahela Jayawardene took decisions on the field. ICC should plug this loophole. Once someone is a captain for a tournament he should play all matches as captain and not as a player under another captain.
There is the story of an emperor who wore just an underwear and was riding a horse. The people could see that but everybody said the emperor was clothed in a fine robe and were praising the qualities of the robe. Then one boy said “The emperor is naked.” After that everybody said the emperor is naked.
Similar is the story of IPL. There was lot of hype and hoopla about it. Many said it was a great brand. The franchisees were not making profit. Some of them thrived on thousands of crores of rupees they borrowed from public sector banks which they did not return. They went for corporate debt restructuring (CDR). That meant they got more time to pay. Debts were converted into shares at higher than market value.
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd, owners of Deccan Chargers, borrowed from different banks and defaulted. Deccan Chargers owe 35 crore rupees to players. DCHL pledged Deccan Chargers to banks. Banks wanted sale of Deccan Chargers. Bids were invited. PVP Films was the only bidder. The bid amount was 900 crore rupees, much higher than 428 crores paid by DCHL for Deccan Chargers. However the banks rejected the bid supposedly because they wanted full amount in cash, PVP offered 450 crore rupees in cash and 450 crore rupees in convertible debentures.
The glamour, glitz and gloss of IPL could not conceal the hollowness of the brand. Players wanted to play in IPL but not for their country. The money for playing in IPL was many times of what they got for playing for their country. Never before in the history of cricket so many cricketers got so much money for playing so less cricket. Now there is no certainty that players will get money if they play in IPL. It is said that Royal Challengers players except for Chris Gayle have not got their money.
There is some talk of action against paid news by politicians during election time. There should be some action against false news. There were reports of many companies bidding for Deccan Chargers. One report even said Videocon has bought Deccan Charges for 860 crore rupees.