Hello friends! Apologies for the radio silence the last few weeks. It’s been a confluence of distractions keeping me away from the keyboard—I didn’t realise agricultural engineering would be so demanding! Again, apologies, and I look forward to resuming normal service. Happy Tuesday, wherever this finds you.
Before we get to the post that’s been in my drafts for the best part of a month, we should jump to the present and look at the upcoming semi-finals.
To me, Australia has the better side of the draw. I would take South Africa over New Zealand, as it stands right now. The Protea's look very toss-dependent and over-reliant on Quinton de Kock at the top of the order—although 591 runs at 65 look pretty damn good. Their preference is to bat, play a solid powerplay, preserve wickets, and then explode at the back end. Very scripted and extremely vulnerable under elimination pressure. Australia, on the other hand, has won defending and is well capable of chasing down totals—with the help of some Glenn Maxwell heroics.
India will be more nervous—should they be? Has any side in a World Cup looked better? It’s like they're shipped into a frozen metamorphism at the conclusion of each resounding victory, to be then thawed and sent out again with more of the same. There has been zero deviation from their path. This goes without saying, but Rahul Dravid has one of the easiest jobs in world cricket—it’s akin to selling fake news to Donald Trump supporters.
So, why should they be nervous then?
New Zealand—that's their cricket team—is as far away from fake news as you can be. They give a crap, then they don’t. As a collective, they shun popularity and embrace anyominity. A formula that has served them well for over two decades. If India slips up, it will be New Zealand that takes them down. Personally, I think India's bowling attack is too strong, and we will win out tomorrow night. We shall see.
It's been a marathon, but probably just what the Indian Board (BCCI) wanted. The tournament has felt, from day one, like a BCCI run tournament rather than an ICC event—such is the new power in this part of the world.
Like a Broadway musical, it's gone on night after night: mountains of runs, a scarcity of wickets, golf concussions, even a timed-out dismissal—you could hardly fault Angelo Mathews for falling asleep at the wheel!
Notables departing the scene early are England and Pakistan. One promised more than the other, but sadly, neither fired a shot. The English will have EPL football to comfort them; Pakistan, well, I’m not too sure of their fate.
Afghanistan—for me, the side most likely to beat India—made excellent progress. Sri Lanka disappointed, and Bangladesh and the Netherlands were just that.
So, finally, back to the post I started with Australia, apparently, stood on the precipice.
This post started after Australia lost their opening two games in the 2023 ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup.
Poisoned scribes sharpened their quills; the championed old school crew, since protestingly banished to the back benches, found their voices again; and I, too, questioned the final 15 selected.
It was actually four straight losses including their last two games in 2019.
Australia’s squad for this World Cup campaign looked top-heavy with each-way all-rounders, and no back-up—or second spinner—looked like a glaring omission given the sandtrap served up in game one by the host nation. Then there was the sameness issue between Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne. The trusty triumvirate: Pat Cummins, Josh Hazlewood, and Mitch Starc looked vulnerable in batting-friendly conditions. Was it to be Alex Carey or Josh Inglis, or both? Many questions presented themselves, with few discernible answers.
And there was the current form. Yes, international teams do ebb and flow when it comes to form; how will the different units within the team interact? Australia had looked only ‘just’ in their warm-up games.
Also, Tanveer Sangha looked every bit the up-and-comer that many mooted. Did Australia miss a trick by not including the talented rookie?
Really, what were the Aussies doing?
Oh, and there was the matter of Travis Head nursing a broken hand back home in Adelaide while his expectant teammates looked hopelessly lost in a game of ‘hide and seek’,.
The post’s original headline might have it all summarised best:
“Australia is Headless.” (Now replaced.)
All this was to be compounded by the unthinkable: five-time champion Australia losing a fifth straight World Cup game. Sri Lanka would be the recipient of their muddling and fuddling.
SpeakingNick is a reader-supported venture. Free and paid versions are available. The best way to support me is by taking out a paid subscription.
And, you nearly guessed it—90 minutes in and Australia looked on toast again.
The new ball was ineffective, Mitchell Starc seemed better preoccupied with keeping Kusal Perera from stealing a base—Starc has developed an unhealthy obsession with the non-striker run-out scenario—anyway, and the general team vibe appeared listless, as had been the case in their first two outings.
At 0-125, openers Pathum Nissanka and Perera had laid the perfect platform to challenge their more fancied opponents.
Sadly for Sri Lanka they butchered the set-up with a combination of ill-disciplined batting and Australia’s awakening with ball, hand, and foot.
Australia eventually ran down the 210 required five down with 15 overs to spare, buying their cup campaign some much-needed breathing space.
Previously, in their opening game, Australia started promisingly against India with ball in hand, this after posting what seemed like a below-par total (199).
Alas, this was all too brief. India seized control after losing Rohit Sharma, Ishan Kishan, and Shreyas Iyer with just two runs on the board—all three registering globes, with Virat Kohli and KL Rahul combining for a flawless 165-run partnership. The hosts cruised home with nine overs to spare.
Next was an absolute shellacking from South Africa. Enough said. And, still, no Travis Head—I’ve been under the impression most people are keen to exit Adelaide at the earliest opportunity!
David is such a ticklish name.
Dave seems too abrupt, and David is too formal.
Australia’s David—David Warner—chooses ‘Davey’ or ‘Old Davey’ or, in Aussie dialect, ‘ol Davey’. Anyway, Warner brained Pakistan all over Bengaluru with some significant help from Mitch Marsh and Pakistan’s woeful catching.
Adam Zampa finally lifted his bottom lip and found some mojo with a dryer ball to grip and rip. (Best I leave the original sentence in.) We now know he was battling a dodgy “tin-tac” and is currently the tournament’s leading wicket-taker.
Pukekura Park in New Plymouth, New Zealand, is a beautiful cricket ground—you’ll have to believe me on this—it is. Dharamsala, though, is something else. Readers in South Manchester would be more accustomed to seeing ‘Dharamsala’ on the menus of their go-to Indian restaurants.
For me, this has been the game of the tournament to date. New Zealand frequently reserves their best for their trans-tasman rivals.
In summary, Australia outlasted New Zealand, just. In a game of mountainous run-gathering and unflinching bowling, it was a piece of boundary-fielding that finally turned the tables in ‘big brothers’ favour—take a bow, Marnus Labuschagne.
Travis Head finally escaped Adelaide, making a blistering 109 (67) with 10 fours and seven maximums. Josh Inglis found his World Cup feet with a useful contribution, and probably the telling cameo for Australia came from captain Pat Cummins; his 37 from just 14 balls pushed the total to 388, which ended up being five too many for the Kiwis.
I mentioned Tanveer Sangha earlier. New Zealand might have a similar talent in Rachin Ravindra, a stylish left-hander whose languid bat-swing belies his power and placement. He’s a real talent and is showing the world his all-round worth. While he was batting, the Kiwis had a chance to chase down the improbable. Ravindra exited with 116 (89).
So Andrew McDonald’s Australia is back on track.
‘Ronnie’ is a conservative soul by nature; not much bothers him until he reaches boiling point; then, watch out, he can go off with the best. Happily, his team didn’t push him that far.
The batting is re-formatting with Head, Warner, and Marsh looking like a dangerous trio up front. Steve Smith is likely to bat at four, with Inglis and the mercurial Glenn Maxwell also in the middle order, leaving either Labuschagne, Marcus Stoinis, or Cameron Green to fight over the last spot.
Glenn Maxwell: It’s best to allocate a full post to an extraordinary inning. Much has been said, spoken, and written; sometimes it's best to sit on the sidelines and come in later. I should share this, though. Typical Maxwell:
When asked after his entree hundred against the Dutch if he might do “that sort of thing” more consistently, he shot back.
“I would if I could just get past the first ball; once I do, I’m normally good to go.” Or words to that effect!
Vintage Maxwell. Pat Cummings’ and his men will be hoping for more of the same.
As always, thank you for being here.