CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

The dismal show of Pakistan at Lord's, the global headquarters of cricket, and the self-destruction made by the team as a whole in what was the last act of the seventh World Cup came as a stunning shock to the game's followers, not only those 30,000 packing the venue but wherever cricket is played.

As the highest one-day glory was bagged by Australia when the winning hit was clouted by Darren Lehman towards the cover boundary, hundreds of their supporters charged on the field in delight, not the Pakistanis as in other matches during the 38-day cricket carnival in England. This time the latter wore saddened and forlorn faces as the 59-over throes of their squad ended in virtual nightmare.

To the utter surprise of the cricket watchers and the Pakistani enthusiasts, the last effort turned out to be a pathetic morbidity. As the statisticians have pointed out Pakistan's 132 was the lowest total in a final during the 24-year history of the quadrennial World Cup.

Many have questioned Wasim Akram's wrong reading of the pitch and his option to bat first. The ball was kicking and whipping away and the atmosphere with an overcast sky was propitious to put the Australians in, whatever may be the fearless and cavalier style of their batting after the end of their fallow period in the earlier part of the competition. The critics' complaint may not be off the mark but winning the toss is usually taken as an advantage, a sign of luck. Was not the Pakistani batting frail, hesitant and devoid of strokes? For some time the strip was helpful to the Australian seamers - Glenn McGrath, Fleming and Reiffel - the latter two ordinary mortals in other matches. Then came Shane Warne in the 22nd over to bowl his magnificent, deceptive and lively leg-spin. The innings was over bar the small academic details. The Australian bowler had been treated with utter contempt in the initial stage of the extravaganza and even in the Super Six - nil for 69 in the Kangaroos demolition of India, one for 55 against Zimbabwe, two for 33 in the duel that was a qualifier for the penultimate phase. He rose to heights in the thrilling, extraordinary and fantastic tied semifinal against South Africa when he routed the middle order of the Springboks, the spinal column of their batting by fascinating leg breaks and charming flight. His four wickets for 29 runs were a constant joy to the connoisseurs, even though Australia were lucky to have earned the verdict by what was described by the commentators as the proverbial whisker. Only gutsy and intelligent handling of the bowler by sound technique, stimulating batting could have tackled Warne, not by tentative skill, crude attempt at facing the spinner. In fact the limitations in the batting-line were exposed to the hilt not only by Warne but by the Australian seam bowlers viz McGrath, Fleming and Reiffel.

Supposing Australia would have been asked to go in first and set a minimum of above 200 target; would the outcome have been different with the sickening batting of the Pakistanis against their adversary?

Wajahatullah Wasti was out to a splendid catch in the slip by Mark Waugh; but why should the batsman touch a ball running away from the bat? In the semifinal against New Zealand, he had set up a new first wicket World Cup record of 194 in partnership with Saeed Anwar. In the final he showed lack of proper mode and method to open the innings. Saeed Anwar too needed steady approach. Razzaq appeared to be in a hurry and had to pay the penalty for it. He should have dug in when the situation required care and watchfulness. For Inzamam, it was a case of error of judgement by the umpire. Shahid Afridi also returned to the pavilion with a border-line leg before decision. As an experienced batsman Ijaz should have displayed some responsibility but his stay at the crease, even though he scored the highest, 22, and his downfall, tricked by Warne, made the Pakistani supporters disappointed and disillusioned for he has been facing both spin and fast bowling in the past with assurance and precision.

It was a sign of confusion in the Pakistani camp when one saw Moin Khan elevated in the batting order or captain Wasim Akram preferring to hold himself back for a lower slot. A poorer display in batting in such a significant engagement as the final of the World Cup could not have been imagined. Was it a repeat of the 1981-82 Test when Pakistan had succumbed to their lowest 62 at Perth?

Australia had a tiny target to cross but despite Shoaib Akhtar's booming pace they started in a powerful vein and lashed the short balls - there were many - viciously. Even Saqlain, trying to work hard on hope with his spinning art, failed to unruffle them. They proceeded on their way to victory, admirably, without much difficulty.

The fielding during the Australian innings was wretched, the pickup and throw showed weariness in the extreme as if the match should be handed over to the rival finalists on a silver platter, though the game was literally over when the Australian turn to bat came. The field arrangement was again flawed, hits went to the fence unchecked, an infectious disease which should be contained for the future of competitive cricket in the country.One presumes that the captain went into the final without any proper paper work, without analysing the strong points and the chinks in the armour of the Australians. Perhaps the idea was that the electric pace of Shoaib Akhtar with the brute force that he had in him would paralyze the Australians and then the shrewd off-break of Saqlain would perplex and puzzle their batsmen. The team did not plan and battle as a unit. The captain should have inspired the players to sweat and perspire; this did not happen. The semifinal result against the Kiwis and the Australian stumble in the preliminary created a misconception in the minds of the captain and the officials which led to their abject haplessness in the Lord's final. One can presume that the cricket manager, Mushtaq Mohammad, did not play his due and technical advisory role for the team, which should have been magnetised for the occasion.

One expects Shoaib, the speed sensation, to concentrate on two-way swing and control over line and length like some of the West Indian pace masters of yore or the Australians Thomson and Lillee for then he will be able to shake the batsmen as the Zimbabwean were quivering when he threw the bombs in the Super Six encounter.

The approach by the batsmen was erroneous; the form and technique were inconsistent. In most of the matches the recovery was belated, perhaps too much was expected from the aggressive manner and style of Moin Khan. Among the successes of the tournament the wicketkeeper-batsman put his full weight into the game. Taken in totality Saeed Anwar, Ijaz and Inzamam performed below par, even though the opener had two successive centuries to his credit in the latter part of the competition.

It will be pure injustice for the squad if an issue is made of match-fixing. Woeful performance by the losing finalist in all departments of the game made them capitulate in the last stage. No doubt the bookmakers may have minted millions, if not billions, for the losers were pre-match favourites. But that is general betting and it happens in all big contests, not necessarily the World Cup. It was a cricket loss and it should be taken as such.

Australians were the worthy winners of the highest honours. They had a balanced combination and never looked back after having clinched a crucial match from India. They retained their form and capacity to fight upto the end. However, they had a wonderful and lucky tie against South Africa, perhaps the match of the tournament, a hard response to a pugnacious outfit. The South Africans, no doubt, lost the semifinal but the quality of their cricket in the whole World Cup proved that they are made of stern stuff, prepared to give of their best.