October 9, 2012
Team West Indies – congratulations to the West Indies for deservedly winning the competition. The strength of individual players has long been acknowledged but credit must go the management (Richie Richardson, Otis Gibson and Darren Sammy) for bonding them as a unit.
Organisation, scheduling and crowds – with two matches a day, the competition spread over two and a half weeks (unlike the tortuous six and a half week 50 over World Cup) enabled public interest to be captivated and sustained. From the start of the Super Eight stage every game was meaningful and tightly contested. The tournament ran very smoothly and the Sri Lankans provided colour and atmosphere. However, attendances for matches not involving the home nation were sometimes disappointing.
Celebrations – it was great to see the West Indies in party mood after the final, but was it a bit arrogant of some of the players to start celebrating before victory had been confirmed?
Favourites – The top two test playing nations (England and South Africa) disappointed. Was this anything to do with the fact that unlike other nations they had been battling head to head for three months immediately prior to the tournament?
Spin to win – it is pleasing to note that spin is as crucial a facet of Twenty 20 as in any other form of the game. Overall, the spinners were more successful at countering the big hitters than the faster men.
Star performers – proper cricketers (such as Shane Watson, Chris Gayle, Marlon Samuels, Mahela Jayawardene, Saeed Ajmal, R Ashwin, Steven Finn) were the true stars rather than so-called Twenty 20 specialists.
Women’s competition – the leading teams provided an impressive showcase but much needs to be done to strengthen the women’s game globally.
Umpiring – despite the absence of the Decision Review System (not used in Twenty 20 competitions), the high standard of umpiring from the Elite Panel staved off any on-field controversies. So does international cricket need DRS?
The Scoop 09/10/12