Grey Areas Of T20 WC!

As it happens with a tournament exit for technical reasons rather than performances and consequent impulsive reactions from fans/followers, India’s ouster from the ICC World T20 2012 has got people talking about the loopholes in the system structured for the World Cup that has been used for 4^th occasion now! There are a couple of distinct issues here and most likely they are being mixed up without any reason. Let us begin by addressing the format first.

All the 4 editions have had a similar format for group and super-8 stages; with 4 groups of 3 teams each, top 2 qualifying for the super-8s. The groupings are done differently, either by previous tournament positions or ICC rankings, but never by the open draw method. The super-8s are fixed based on ICC rankings and group stage points aren’t carried forward. A major flaw with this methodology is that you almost make the contest between the best two sides in every group a dead rubber. 4 World Cups and beyond Bangladesh beating West Indies in 2007, we haven’t had a major upset. This is not to suggest that the minnows aren’t good or they should not be included but every match should have a context and can’t allow group stages to go on lumbering.

Rating points are meant to reflect form on a relative scale. In a year teams don’t play more than 15 T20I’s. The basis set is too small to draw inferences or derive a structure. This particular World Cup exposed this flaw; all the teams topping the group stages were included in one bracket for the Super-8s courtesy pre-tournament standings. Ideally in a multi-national tournament you would want to ease your way through to the knock-outs by getting easier opponents by topping the pre-qualifiers.

The eliminators which took place on Monday & Tuesday happened one after another. The murmurs doing rounds is that teams aligned to oust India from the competition. Though this is completely rubbish and mere gossip what it can suggest is a potential flaw in the scheduling. T20 eliminators should adopt a football tournament approach with the deciders held simultaneously; giving all participating teams no idea about each other’s position.

The overall structure of scheduling viz. group stages followed by super-8s and the semis and finals is pretty good and fair, but what is an issue is the way the teams tied on points are separated. A reason why test cricket is probably the best format is because it is fair for both the participating teams as the result is only decided once a particular side is bowled out twice (unless rare cases like chasing a total after the opposite team has declared etc.), in all other conditions it is termed as a draw. Limited over’s cricket has brought with it compulsory results for every match, and limited the fairness the long format has.

In principle ODI & T20I cricket separates the two competing teams on the basis of the number of runs scored and values the rate at which it is done; even a tie is separated by a super over in which the total runs scored in an over is the parameter. At the end of the day, a NRR (Net Run Rate) formula is used to separate teams tied on points, which again is devised on the basis of the rate at which runs are scored. The NRR calculations are tweaked only when a side has been dismissed before the full quota of overs. Is that unfair for the bowlers? Does that mean wickets are worthy enough only when you take 10? Isn’t restricting the opposition to a particular total valuable enough? Why can’t we develop a formula which is inclusive of wickets taken or wickets lost alongwith the runs scored & conceded for all situations? This is a pretty subjective topic of discussion and can have multiple approaches to address, but it is high-time this made it to the discussion forums of the technical committees.

T20 cricket is in its budding stage and obviously it will have its share of teething problems. Issues regarding D/L method not being suitable for T20 cricket or the minimum number of overs to constitute a match being too less to be a farce or disgraceful have been highlighted/spoken about. Thus as teams like India have made an exit, things like scheduling and luck (WI entering semis with only 2 wins out of 5) are likely to be fused rather than identifying the problem (if any) and suggesting a solution. Let us hope that attention is channelized in the right direction and the issues are rectified come the next World Cup!