Email Us Forum Mail Article Print Article

Should India lose to NZ?

Wednesday, March 12 2003

With their surprise win over Zimbabwe, Kenya have joined Australia and India as the teams to qualify for the semifinals leaving New Zealand and Sri Lanka to vie for the last open slot. A Kiwi win over India on March 14th will mean curtains for the Lankans who don't seem as potent a force as before. In the event of New Zealand losing to India, Sri Lanka will have to defeat Zimbabwe in their crucial last game in order to qualify for a semifinal clash with Australia.

With their own semifinal fixture against Kenya confirmed, India are in a position to affect who the Aussies play in the semifinals. The question the Indian team must be asking themselves is who would Australia rather play in the semifinals. Going by current form the
Aussies look quite unstoppable. However if they had to pick, I think that the Aussies would prefer having another go at Sri Lanka rather than face Shane Bond again.

I don't mean to suggest that the Indian team would deliberately lose to New Zealand to make the semifinals more difficult for Australia but they could deliberately rest a few key players. This won't be the first time in ODI history where teams have obeyed the letter of the law but violated the spirit of the game.

Three instances from history come to mind. Like on Feb 1st, 1981, Greg Chappell instructed his brother Trevor to roll the last ball along the pitch underarm in Australia's 3rd final ODI against New Zealand, thus preventing the Kiwis from scoring a match-winning six. A law was subsequently brought into place forbidding underarm bowling in First Class cricket.

Second, in the World Cup 1999, Australia took its time to beat West Indies so that West Indies qualify ahead of New Zealand for the Super Sixes based on net run rate. This meant that Australia would take more points into the Super Sixes stage. In Australia, Steve waugh was praised for his tactics and astute mathematics. For a different matter this ploy didn't succeed, as New Zealand managed to beat Scotland sufficiently well thus earning a berth in the Super Sixes at the expense of West Indies.

Third, in the VB series 2001-2002, Australia found itself at the receiving end of such tactics. New Zealand batsmen deliberately played slowly to hand South Africa a bonus point. This meant that Australia would have to beat South Africa and also earn a bonus point in their next game in order to qualify for the final. South Africa then went on the defensive to deny Australia the bonus point instead of going for the win, thus effectively keeping Australia out of the finals.

Thus there is ample precedent for teams to violate the spirit of the law in order to serve their interests. The Australians can't complain if the Indians do decide on stooping to such tactics. That said, Cricket would be best served if the Indians resolve not to stoop to such
methods.

Posted by Ranjit