The ICC Men’s T20 World Cup has been a rollercoaster of emotions. While the ICC deserves praise for including more Associate Member countries, it became clear that some weren’t quite ready for the intensity of this level of competition. Teams being bowled out for under 50 runs, only to be chased down in under four overs, exposed the significant gap in skill between the Full Member and Associate Member teams. However, the tournament also presented a heartwarming story – the rise of the USA. Not only did they defeat the 2022 runners-up, Pakistan, but they also gave India a tough fight. Their impressive chase of a near-200 score against Canada demonstrated their confidence and ability to handle the pressure of such a prestigious event. Although their team is largely made up of expats from different parts of the world, their performance shouldn’t be discounted. They are eager to showcase their strength in the Super 8, where they’ll face three more teams and prove their readiness for even tougher battles.
No World Cup is complete without a bit of controversy. This tournament saw a heated debate surrounding the ‘dead ball’ rule during the South Africa vs. Bangladesh match. Mahmudullah, the Bangladeshi batter, was given out LBW after the ball bounced off his leg-guards for a boundary. He requested a review, which revealed he was not out, forcing the umpire to reverse his decision. However, because he was initially given out, the ball became dead, meaning no leg byes were awarded to Bangladesh. The dispute arose over whether the four leg byes should have been credited. With Bangladesh losing by a mere four runs, the debate intensified. It’s important to remember that once a batter is declared out, fielders relax, losing focus on the ball. Therefore, the boundary fielders who would have normally attempted to stop the ball would have been celebrating the wicket instead of chasing it. Consequently, the dead ball declaration was the correct decision. Had the margin of defeat been different, the debate wouldn’t have been as heated.
This incident brought to mind a similar situation from the past. In 1979, when we were chasing England’s target of 438 at The Oval, there were at least three instances where a dead ball was called for not offering a stroke, despite us having already taken three runs each time. I questioned the umpire about making us run, especially on a hot day, when a dead ball could have been called immediately. His response was that it was a chance for a run out. I countered by asking how a dismissal could occur if the ball was dead. He simply replied that he doesn’t make the rules, he only applies them. In those instances, the leg byes should have been awarded because I didn’t attempt to leave the ball at the last second. However, the umpire perceived otherwise, and ultimately, we fell short of the target by eight runs. Back then, there were no reviews for decisions, but even so, if dead ball situations become subject to referrals, the flow of the game will be disrupted significantly. I firmly believe that referrals should be limited to dismissals, as they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game. Reviews for wide balls or no balls only waste time and prolong the match.
India will face Australia in their final Super Eight match, which could potentially decide their fate in reaching the semifinals. In recent ICC events, India has consistently performed well but faltered right when victory was within their grasp. It’s as if a batter gets into the nineties but can’t reach the coveted century mark. Will this time be different? Let’s hope so.
