Varad
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 0
Are we becoming a nation of poor losers?
The 2011 Cricket World Cup concluded a fortnight ago and still the debate on why Sri Lanka lost in the final to India rages on in the media. It is a topic that has been widely discussed on television channels and opinions expressed by regular writers and readers in newspapers. Even the Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage has joined the bandwagon and expressed his concern over the defeat and wants an inquiry held. What all this points out to is that Sri Lanka are looking for excuses for the defeat in the World Cup final instead of graciously accepting the fact that they were beaten by a better side.
If one looks at how Sri Lanka and India played in the final, there had to be only one winner and that was India. Sri Lanka may have dominated the final to a point, but the strength of the Indian batting proved more than a match for the Lankan bowling line-up. More importantly India was a fitter side than Sri Lanka with no passengers and this was a stark contrast on the field.
The question that remains to be asked is whether Sri Lanka was tested to the full on their way towards reaching the final? India came through several tough matches and was well prepared to throw down the gauntlet at any given time. They had a high scoring tie against England, they struggled to beat Ireland, a lackluster win over Netherlands, a loss to South Africa, a win over West Indies and in the knockout phase they beat two countries tipped to win the World Cup – Australia in the quarter-finals and Pakistan in the semi-finals. To come through to the final with such a track record and then beat Sri Lanka (who was also one of the favourites) was no surprise.
Sri Lanka on the other hand had a rather easy passage to the final in comparison to India. Their victories in the group stage were over Canada, Kenya, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. They lost to Pakistan and had their game against Australia washed out by rain. In the quarter-finals they beat England and in the semi-finals they once again met New Zealand and won. Throughout the tournament the fitness of some of the players like Muthiah Muralitharan and Angelo Mathews was questionable, but they are outstanding cricketers and the extraordinary talent they possess may have overridden their selections. When one compares the two finalists India had a far superior side to Sri Lanka. Where they outshone Sri Lanka was in the long batting line-up and their fielding which rose to great heights in the final. Sri Lanka’s strength was their bowling and in batting (with the exception of a few) and fielding they were found wanting. One-day cricket is a batsman’s game and it’s all about batting and fielding. Bowling comes second best. When Sri Lanka won the World Cup in 1996 they had all these ingredients in order. And there is also the element of luck which Kumar Sangakkara’s team didn’t have.
The weak point in Sri Lanka’s batting was their middle order comprising Thilan Samaraweera, Chamara Silva and Chamara Kapugedera. They contributed a total of 190 runs which is only 9.16 percent of the total number of runs scored by Sri Lanka in the tournament. Compare these figures with India’s middle order comprising Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina who collectively contributed 677 runs, and contributed 28.95 percent of the overall runs scored by their side and, you can easily see the reason why they are worthy winners of the World Cup.
Sri Lanka captain Kumar Sangakkara quite rightly said at the end of the final that they were beaten by a better side but for some who are unable to stomach the defeat they are still raising questions on the composition of the side, whether there was any political interference, whether Sri Lanka sold the match to India etc, etc (see Michael Roberts piece on this page). Why can’t Sri Lanka accept the fact that they were beaten by a team that played better on that day rather than go looking for excuses for the defeat. Are we becoming a nation of poor losers?
The captain has given his reasons for stepping down, so has the vice-captain and the national selection committee headed by Aravinda de Silva who we think had done an excellent job in the eight months they were in power. Have the resignations which followed one after the other given room for such speculation?
De Silva undertook the job on one condition that there would be no political interference and at his final media conference he reiterated that stance and thanked the President of the country for keeping to his word.
The World Cup has come and gone and there is no point harping on it anymore. Sri Lanka cricket has to move forward and it would be pertinent if the focus of attention is turned towards the future and what it holds.
Sport
The 2011 Cricket World Cup concluded a fortnight ago and still the debate on why Sri Lanka lost in the final to India rages on in the media. It is a topic that has been widely discussed on television channels and opinions expressed by regular writers and readers in newspapers. Even the Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage has joined the bandwagon and expressed his concern over the defeat and wants an inquiry held. What all this points out to is that Sri Lanka are looking for excuses for the defeat in the World Cup final instead of graciously accepting the fact that they were beaten by a better side.
If one looks at how Sri Lanka and India played in the final, there had to be only one winner and that was India. Sri Lanka may have dominated the final to a point, but the strength of the Indian batting proved more than a match for the Lankan bowling line-up. More importantly India was a fitter side than Sri Lanka with no passengers and this was a stark contrast on the field.
The question that remains to be asked is whether Sri Lanka was tested to the full on their way towards reaching the final? India came through several tough matches and was well prepared to throw down the gauntlet at any given time. They had a high scoring tie against England, they struggled to beat Ireland, a lackluster win over Netherlands, a loss to South Africa, a win over West Indies and in the knockout phase they beat two countries tipped to win the World Cup – Australia in the quarter-finals and Pakistan in the semi-finals. To come through to the final with such a track record and then beat Sri Lanka (who was also one of the favourites) was no surprise.
Sri Lanka on the other hand had a rather easy passage to the final in comparison to India. Their victories in the group stage were over Canada, Kenya, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. They lost to Pakistan and had their game against Australia washed out by rain. In the quarter-finals they beat England and in the semi-finals they once again met New Zealand and won. Throughout the tournament the fitness of some of the players like Muthiah Muralitharan and Angelo Mathews was questionable, but they are outstanding cricketers and the extraordinary talent they possess may have overridden their selections. When one compares the two finalists India had a far superior side to Sri Lanka. Where they outshone Sri Lanka was in the long batting line-up and their fielding which rose to great heights in the final. Sri Lanka’s strength was their bowling and in batting (with the exception of a few) and fielding they were found wanting. One-day cricket is a batsman’s game and it’s all about batting and fielding. Bowling comes second best. When Sri Lanka won the World Cup in 1996 they had all these ingredients in order. And there is also the element of luck which Kumar Sangakkara’s team didn’t have.
The weak point in Sri Lanka’s batting was their middle order comprising Thilan Samaraweera, Chamara Silva and Chamara Kapugedera. They contributed a total of 190 runs which is only 9.16 percent of the total number of runs scored by Sri Lanka in the tournament. Compare these figures with India’s middle order comprising Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina who collectively contributed 677 runs, and contributed 28.95 percent of the overall runs scored by their side and, you can easily see the reason why they are worthy winners of the World Cup.
Sri Lanka captain Kumar Sangakkara quite rightly said at the end of the final that they were beaten by a better side but for some who are unable to stomach the defeat they are still raising questions on the composition of the side, whether there was any political interference, whether Sri Lanka sold the match to India etc, etc (see Michael Roberts piece on this page). Why can’t Sri Lanka accept the fact that they were beaten by a team that played better on that day rather than go looking for excuses for the defeat. Are we becoming a nation of poor losers?
The captain has given his reasons for stepping down, so has the vice-captain and the national selection committee headed by Aravinda de Silva who we think had done an excellent job in the eight months they were in power. Have the resignations which followed one after the other given room for such speculation?
De Silva undertook the job on one condition that there would be no political interference and at his final media conference he reiterated that stance and thanked the President of the country for keeping to his word.
The World Cup has come and gone and there is no point harping on it anymore. Sri Lanka cricket has to move forward and it would be pertinent if the focus of attention is turned towards the future and what it holds.
Sport
