The World Cup: Good and Bad.

[Arthur Crabtree]

1. Good. Congratulations to England. Nas and Athers were the best commentators at the competition. Relaxed, without any of the braying, the locking of antlers, and the taciturn sulks that went on elsewhere. The Kiwis, Doull and Smith were ok too. Though Smith could get mardy, if necessary.

2. Bad. The Aussie callers were hard to take. Warne was the only commentator I had to mute, though the surly Ian Bishop had me squirming on my side of the settee a few times. Mark Taylor is a good bloke, but it's like listening to PA announcements at a noisy bus station. And who asked for Bernard Julian? Moody was... well, he was one of the best for insight, but he seemed to resent everyone. He was furious all the time, like he was undertaking a long journey in the company of Charles Colville. And my brief period of not finding honorary Aussie, the oleaginous Mark Nicholas, annoying, is over.

3. Good. Mitch2. Clearly, by head and shoulders the man or woman of the tournament. Bowled with a menace beyond the grasp of any of the other great bowlers in the competition. While Trent Boult bowled just as well with the new ball, Mitch2 was deadly at the other end of the game too. Stunning pace and swing, with nerve and a great cricket wit. In a competition of crazy comedy shots played in a swirl of one armed psychedelic orange catchers, Starc maintained the oppressive, ominous presence of Grouty in Porridge.

4. Bad. The bloody graphics. Looked like the same aesthetic as the London Olympics mascot, but there was never any likelihood it was going to end up on a pencil case. Migraine inducing intrusiveness in an emetic purple and sea green. As Martha and the Vandellas sang, so high, you can't get over it, so wide, you can't get around it. All night long.

5. Good. The umpiring. OK, there was little James Taylor's run out off a dead ball. And there was that waist high controversy. But mostly the umpires weren't made obtrusive by bad decisions, and DRS managed to avoid the spotlight. It wasn't really that obvious that there aren't any good umpires. Minus points for not telling Braddin to shut up in the final. Though when Dharmasena told Starc to keep it down, he got a volley of verbals in return.

6. Bad. The world cup song. The simple, repetitive Dr Dre style track, married to the lung busting Jocelyn Brown-a-like vocals, were fine the first time you heard them. And that was it. After a thousand listens, I had a pencil in one ear and a handful of blu-tack in the other trying to blot it out. Too bland for a sanitary towel advert. Presumably no one at the ICC thought to read the asinine, 'inspirational' lyrics.

7. Good. Daniel Vettori. I should write something nice (and lengthy) about Dan on his retirement, but I'm a bit tired. So I'll say it here. Basically one of the good guys for 18 years of international cricket. Slightly strangely, he seems to be fancied by girls, with that glimmer of intelligence and self control, coupled with the cute vulnerability of batting in glasses. Dan gave me my moment of the tournament when his floating slow left arm stopped the charging Aussie openers at Eden Park. I could throw this open into wider point about the Kiwis in general... there was a great atmosphere in their grounds.

8. Bad. Maybe the winners ceremony, but I didn't have the stomach for it. Maybe those weird, patchwork Scotland shirts... I had a feeling that the Aussies weren't into it that much as hosts. But that's just an impression. Also, the stupid times the games were played at. But I'm going to go for people being bad losers who should know better. Principally, ICC big-wig Mustafa Kamal, who two weeks after a single decision went against his team, and despite having an administrative role at the ICC, like a divorced husband unwilling to accept a divorce settlement, he just won't let it go. Add to that the Zimbabwe newspaper who wrote spurious lies about a player (John Mooney at the Bellerive Oval) who, as far as we know, took a fair catch on the boundary.

9. Good. Almost everyone. Just about every team overachieved just a little. The associates played some good cricket and left behind some names we will remember. Pakistan and West Indies did well to squeeze out Ireland and make the last eight, and Wahab Riaz left behind one of the performances of the competition. New Zealand did well to get to the final, and the Aussies won. India went in to the competition with some supporters thinking they had no chance, but their brilliant pace attack helped them take 100% of available wickets going into the semis. Bangladesh got to the quarters, and were robbed by cheating... well, we'll find out. Sri Lanka and South Africa might have done better, but they probably got as far as the their talent deserved...

10. Bad. ... Apart from England! Gosh, they were terrible, from the timid batters to the toothless bowlers. Let down by the selectors, and even by the breathtaking what-iffery of their ousted captain. Hopefully the world wasn't listening when Data-Peta was explaining their performances. Even the press had a shocker, lining up behind the Moores plan of beating the associates and Bangladesh and then getting lucky. But they didn't beat Bangladesh, and didn't deserve to. England were unique among the competitors in not leaving behind a single performance worth remembering.

[mikesiva]

An excellent synopsis, Arthur....

I would add:

Good - Australia and NZ.

Bad - West Indies.

Good - the exciting batting.

Bad - the fielding restrictions that made life hard for bowlers in most of the matches.

[Gingerfinch]

Bad - The stats that were constantly thrown up during play.

Bad - Mark Nicholas

Good - watching Sangakkara, and De-Villiers bat.

[rich1uk]

Bad - The stats that were constantly thrown up during play.

the "keys to the game" stats they put up at the start of each innings really wound me up

Australia win 87.3457197% of games where Mitchell Johnson's moustache causes less than 5% drag during his run up

[Gingerfinch]

Bad - The stats that were constantly thrown up during play.

the "keys to the game" stats they put up at the start of each innings really wound me up

Australia win 87.3457197% of games where Mitchell Johnson's moustache causes less than 5% drag during his run up

Think you'll find it was 4%.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Fielding restrictions, two balls, big bats, associates at WC.

Aspects to look into for the future.

[Making_Splinters]

Fielding restrictions, two balls, big bats, associates at WC.

Aspects to look into for the future.

I've often linked an excellent article on cricinfo about the myths of modern bats, it is well worth a read and will highlight some of the common misconceptions people have.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/787773.html

Regardless of what the ICC do about bats, manufacturers will continue to improve them within the guidelines. Let's not forget the fad that was the mongoose bat which promptly faded from view.

[rich1uk]

but the issue is to do with the size of bats , what that article says is the weight of the bats hasn't changed much but the bat size has increased without adding weight which enables a bigger sweet spot without making it more difficult to use and its that bigger sweet spot that means we see mis-timed shots being rewarded

[Making_Splinters]

but the issue is to do with the size of bats , what that article says is the weight of the bats hasn't changed much but the bat size has increased without adding weight which enables a bigger sweet spot without making it more difficult to use and its that bigger sweet spot that means we see mis-timed shots being rewarded

"It's a common misunderstanding that the size of a cricket bat makes a difference," King begins. "When we talk about size, we're talking about the physical dimensions of the bat as opposed to the weight or the mass. Because that's where people can get a little bit confused. In the days of Botham or Clive Lloyd, for example, who had a three-and-a-half pound bat - that's a hefty lump of willow. Nowadays bats are big but they are light, as you found with Kohli's. And what we're up against is the belief that a big bat is more powerful than a bat of the same weight that's smaller, which it isn't. That's against the laws of physics."

[rich1uk]

which does not disagree with what I said

SKY did a segment last year where they took bats out of the lords museum that were actually used by players during the 70s, 80s and 90s and it was visible to the naked eye that those bats were smaller than modern bats

I repeat, because modern bats are using lighter technology, they can retain the same weight as old bats whilst still being bigger, this enables a bigger sweet spot which means timing isn't as important

its the same principle we have seen in golf clubs , club heads are significantly bigger than they were 20 years ago without being heavier, which creates bigger sweet spots

[Arthur Crabtree]

The extra carry, even from the edges, means bad shots go for six. Tail end batters become power hitters. The worst mis-hits fall into the denuded spaces of the deep. The bowler doesn't get reasonable reward. It stops being a contest. The best sides realised that the only way to slow the scoring was to take wickets. Which did bring some interest. If the ball could be made to swing. So ordinary batters are encouraged, but only truly exceptional bowlers.

One of the commentators was talking about a balsa wood bat, which was used in a club match, and hit everything even further. It only lasted a few overs. But there is space for bats to alter the balance further.

[Making_Splinters]

which does not disagree with what I said

It is a huge misconception, on that is often repeated. The size of the bat has nothing to do with the power it imparts on the ball. What is changing is the power of the players and their approach to batting in limited overs cricket. Players these days are far more muscular than their older counterparts, they have a default mentality to go far harder at the ball as well. When you're built like a rugby player, throwing the kitchen sink at the ball that's why we edges go for six, it's nought to do with the bat.

[rich1uk]

which does not disagree with what I said

It is a huge misconception, on that is often repeated. The size of the bat has nothing to do with the power it imparts on the ball. What is changing is the power of the players and their approach to batting in limited overs cricket. Players these days are far more muscular than their older counterparts, they have a default mentality to go far harder at the ball as well. When you're built like a rugby player, throwing the kitchen sink at the ball that's why we edges go for six, it's nought to do with the bat.

where have I said a word about the amount of power imparted ?

I have said repeatedly its about the size of the sweet spot which means shots not perfectly timed are still rewarded

the harder you swing makes sod all difference if you don't hit the ball out of the sweet spot , and the bigger the sweet spot means a far higher margin of error , thus timing becomes less important than brute force

[Arthur Crabtree]

The bats aren't heavier, but the carry is greater and the 'middle' has expanded. How far did Graeme Swann hit the ball? His batting career wouldn't have happened with old bats. He's hardly a powerful bloke.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The players go at the ball harder because the bats make that a feasible strategy. Give them Jack Hobbs' bat, and it wouldn't work, however pumped they are.