da betsson： One more major factor has to be kept in mind while analysing India’schances and that is that they are in a group in which no team is apushover
Partab Ramchand13-Sep-2002Going through the list of teams fancied by the bookies to win the ICCChampions Trophy, I was slightly taken aback to see India third in thelist. They are ranked just behind prohibitive favourites Australia andSouth Africa in the list of those fancied to take the trophy – andahead of hosts Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and well ahead of England, NewZealand, West Indies and Zimbabwe.
One more major factor has to be kept in mind while analysing India’schances and that is that they are in a group in which no team is apushover. In each of the three other pools, there is at least one teamthat can be rated as being there just to fill the numbers. India hasEngland and Zimbabwe in their group and neither of them can beregarded as no-hopers.
Capable as the Indian team undoubtedly is, I wish I could share theoptimism of the bookies. Evidently, the fine showing in England cappedby the triumph in the NatWest series has influenced their choicesomewhat. But while the display in the NatWest competition was reallycommendable, especially the manner in which the Indians won the titleclash against England, it certainly does not constitute a majortriumph.Come to think of it, when did India last notch up a major titlevictory? Not one really, since the outstanding double of the World Cupand the World Championship of Cricket triumphs, almost two decadesago.The Indian team frequently acquires this irritating habit of promisingmore than they deliver, of not playing up to potential, of falteringat the final hurdle. Like they did in the last Champions Trophy atNairobi when after successive victories over Australia and SouthAfrica, they went down to New Zealand in the final. It is moreprobable, then, that India’s overall performance in the tournamentmight have something to do with the bookies line of thinking, for inthe inaugural year of the competition in 1998, India defeatedAustralia before losing to West Indies in the penultimate round.Sure, on potential, the Indian team has it in them to win theChampions Trophy and other limited-overs competitions. With arguablythe best batting line-up in the world, including unarguably the bestplayer in the game today, the Indians should be making mountains ofruns. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.And, then, there is the problem with the bowling. Sure, the weaknessin this department may not be as palpable on the sub-continent as whenit is exposed in England, Australia, South Africa or the West Indies.Again the paucity may not be as pronounced in the limited-overs gameas it is in Test cricket. But there is no way one can argue that it isa strong attack. Also perennial problems like poor fielding and poorrunning between wickets are always there, though, of late, thanks tothe induction of youth, there has admittedly been some improvement.One more major factor has to be kept in mind while analysing India’schances and that is that they are in a group in which no team is apushover. In each of the three other pools, there is at least one teamthat can be rated as being there just to fill the numbers. India hasEngland and Zimbabwe in their group and neither of them can beregarded as no-hopers.In other groups, it is always going to be more or less a straightfight between Australia and New Zealand, West Indies and South Africaand Sri Lanka and Pakistan (which the hosts have already won) to enterthe semifinals. In Pool two, which is India’s group, all three teamshave a realistic chance of qualifying for the penultimate round.One victory does not guarantee them a place in the knock-out stagewhile one defeat does not mean that the team is knocked out. Itcertainly is the most intriguing group in the competition. On presentform, there is no reason why India should not beat England andZimbabwe, particularly on sub-continent pitches. But one-day cricketis all about having one good game or one bad game on the day. Indiawill have to be wary and cannot afford to be complacent on the basisof their good record against both the countries at home, or inconditions very close to home.