Three Kings

Let me also clarify something else first up … for all terms, purposes and debates, this particular post is going to focus only on the modern day short format cricket (the ODIs and the T20Is).

Is it only me or you too think that on-paper, doing a side by side comparison, would reveal that Sri Lanka is a much stronger outfit than Pakistan?

During the recent Champions Trophy … Pakistan was praised for its very well balanced bowling attack … Afridi and Ajmal hailed as the best ever spinners of the game. Hello? Hasn’t anyone heard of two certain gentlemen named M&M? Gul bowls those Yorkers at death like nobody’s business … sure, but do I need to remind people of the Slinger Malinger? Sure Aamir is very young and a great new find, but so is Kulusekara (ranked no. 1 as an ODI bowler), and what about Mathews and Thusara? Forget bowlers, let’s take a look at what else Pakistan team was extolled for … explosive batsmen at the top … sure, but please … is someone really going to compare Akmal and Nazir against Jayasuria and Dilshan? I don’t even need to go beyond this to compare the middle-orders or teams’ fielding habits or their coaching staff/techniques … I think you get the drift.

Why is it then that before and during the recently held Champions Trophy, Pakistan was somehow constantly talked up by the analysts, panels, media, cricketers, experts … every one. Not enough (and due) credit given to the Sri Lankan team, not the same hype surrounded them and they were left aside as sort of the forgotten lot. Now had Pakistan played a game against them, this head-to-head comparison would definitely have surfaced but for now we’ll have to stick to the collective mindset of individual projections … Pakistan were constantly right up there, called ‘dangerous’ to be more specific … as if they had cast a psychological spell over whoever picked up a pen to write or held a microphone in their hands in a commentary box.

I am sure you too noticed this and shouldn’t come as surprise to anyone that ever since I have started writing on this blog, I sort of pay a little extra attention to what other’s have to say (or write). This had me thinking and I ended up digging old record books to figure out these phenomenon that are almost always out there before and during the major tournaments. No matter how the present participating teams are structured, all the experts somehow revert back to their long-standing stereotypes.

You know what I am talking about … not only Pakistan is almost always considered more dangerous than Sri Lanka but England is always considered an absolute nobody. It’s never a surprise if New Zealand gets into the Semis and same no-surprise for South Africa getting out early at home or at Semis abroad. Australia is always Australia and India when can’t hold their own together are either tired or hit with a few key injuries.

This wasn’t the only major tournament to start like that … it happens all the time. Pakistan is always termed the surprise factor and England always a laughing stock. Sri Lanka always walk-in with a strong line-up on paper but it’s almost always New Zealand that makes it to the top four. Neither is Australia ever counted out based on their skill nor is India (not so much on skill, but perhaps nobody wants to make any sponsors or other ‘right people’ unhappy).

I embarked on digging past records to see how and why these typecast have come about. It can’t be just that one 1992 World Cup win (when Pakistan sneaked in to the semis courtesy of the rain washing out our England game and then Windies beating Australia) … Pakistan must have inflicted some prolonged sort of psychological damage on the media’s minds to deserve that kind of credit over some others. Yes, 92’s is a great story but it wasn’t anything like that Miandad’s six off the last ball which in Richie Benaud’s words “gave a psychological advantage to Pakistan against India that lasted almost a decade”.

I am sorry, I was just telling you my thought process there … but now I am going to share with you what I found, and interesting these findings certainly are …

I started where it is the easiest … let’s take a look at the T20Is first.

Well, it was an Aussie (Jarrod) who declared Pakistan to be the undisputed King of Twenty20 recently on this very blog. And who will differ … they are the current World T20 champions. They are the only team to reach both Finals of the only two T20 World Cups held so far. In fact no one else could even make it to the final four twice. And to top it all, if you look at the overall figures of all T20Is played so far … well, just look at them:

This was rather too easy, didn’t need too much digging … Pakistan is well ahead of the rest and everyone else is going to play catch-up for a while now. In Jarrod’s words Pakistan’s style of play was invented decades ago hoping that some day Twenty20 will be invented.

Cricket as a sport doesn’t have the concept of Majors like Tennis or Golf does. True those are games played by individuals and are not team-sports but the concept of tracking Majors (and at times other ‘competitive enough’ championships which are at par with some of the Majors) to showcase who stands where amongst the all-time greats is a fairly well-respected model.

Who is the King of Tennis? Of course Roger Federer … not because he is ranked no. 1 today but because of just having surpassed Pete Sampras (in terms of winning most Majors).

Who is the King of Golf? Well the younger generation would straight away say Tiger Woods, and yes he is ranked no. 1 as well … but wait just a second. Answer is ‘not yet’. If he plays for another couple of years, yes he eventually should become the King but not just yet. He is still about five Major wins short of the legendary Jack Nicklaus.

Now tell me who is the real King of Cricket?

Yeah we know Pakistan for Twenty20, but let’s not upset too many others out there and since T20 format is only new, so to add some credibility let’s look at the overall short format (inclusive of both ODIs and T20Is). Tests unfortunately have to be ignored at this stage as we don’t have a Test championship yet and also more importantly the no. of Tests played by different teams are very different.

Oh, and take the hint from rankings in Tennis and Golf examples … so pls. don’t give me some ODI ranking list sponsored by Reliance or Bossini or another commercial unit, in which somehow a team claimed the no. 1 spot for about four and a half days … well maybe five and a quarter, but something like that ;-)

Here’s my guess … about 98% of you think the answer is Australia. Maybe they are, but maybe they are not … let me just show you some data I compiled over these past weeks.

Let me first go back to my Majors debate … Tennis has four Majors, so does Golf. Mark my words today … Cricket too will end up with four Majors sometime in near future: Two 50 over tournaments – the World Cup and the Champions Trophy and two T20 championships – the World T20 and the Olympics (coming possibly in 2020, after all Golf and Rugby both just got slotted in for the 2016 Olympiad).

So if one was to come up with a Majors tracking chart in Cricket, this is how it would look like (Table 1):

Well this confirms, Australia are after all the Kings.

But wait just a minute … look at the skewed-ness in the chart. About 5 tournaments in the first 20 years (1975-1995) and then 12 tournaments in the next 14. But we’ll fix this a little later, let’s just take this as is for now. Australia no. 1, no problems … but if you are scratching your head by seeing West Indies at no. 2 spot, let me explain how these points above are awarded.

I have simply compiled a table of the three Majors cricket currently has, the ICC World Cup, the ICC Champions Trophy and the ICC World T20. For winning the trophy the team has been given 3 points and is shown in GOLD. The SILVER is showing the Runners-Up status with 2 points. Finally 1 point each is given for reaching the Semi-Finals of that tournament. Pretty straight forward stuff, and pretty straight forward results.

Why India is below Pakistan when they both share 16 points? Well, India didn’t really have a 3 for their 2002 Champions Trophy and that should really be a 2.5 each for them and Sri Lanka for sharing a rained-out Final.

Now below is the another table (Table 1b) based on the one above (Table 1), which goes beyond a simple points system and explains how the teams have fared in terms of getting to the top 4, then converting that Semi-Final spot into a place in the Final and finally having won the tournament. Where this one gives you the win ratios of each stage, the table is sorted based on the no. of times a team reached the top 4, and if tied at that then the no. of trophies they lifted.

No surprises that Australia tops the chart again, but look how Pakistan moves up to no. 2 from 3 and how New Zealand jumps to 3 from 5. Well what that is telling me is that both Pakistan and New Zealand have a knack of reaching the top four whenever it matters.

If you stare long enough at the first table (Table 1) of the Cricket Majors, you will see the same thing I noticed and mentioned a little while back … World T20 has just been introduced given the format is new but then Champions Trophy too is relatively new to the table, coming in only around ten years ago. So what went on before that (in the first two decades of the ODIs, say from 1975 to 1995)? Did teams only gather every four years for a World Cup? I don’t think so … I remember many other major tournaments like the World Championship of Cricket in Australia that India won by beating Pakistan in the final or that Nehru Cup in India, which Pakistan won by beating West Indies … surely those tournaments were very similar to the Champions Trophy format of today with pretty much all the teams participating.

So I dug some more and enhanced this by adding five more to my original list as major ODI tournaments. Now I couldn’t add all the triangular or quadrangler tournaments since there are so many and they would only pollute the data and credibility of this table so the criteria for me was pretty simple – at least six of the eight top teams should have played the tournament for it to be called a major ODI tournament. Remember South Africa was banned in the 70s and 80s so its really six of the seven top teams.

Now here is the improved and expanded Majors list (Table 2):

Look who is wearing the crown now? Not only Pakistan jumps to the no. 1 spot, India too pushes the West Indies down to claim the no. 3 spot. Then I also did a second table (Table 2b below) to look at the various ratios at the top 4, similar to the one I had done earlier with my first table.

And the results here only confirm further that New Zealand is probably the best at making it to the Semi Finals but not beyond and England is pretty good at playing the Finals but never winning. South Africa is right up there exactly with New Zealand but since they only re-entered the cricket in 1992 so the results above are a little skewed against them.

Anyway, the two secondary tables (Table 1b and 2b) in Gold, Silver and Bronze colours are good to study the teams’ behaviours and trends (and prove how the commentators generalize the teams to their stereotypes) … but the ones that really matter are the Tables 1 and 2 showcasing the teams performances at big stages over the complete history of modern day cricket. Table 2 of course being the most comprehensive ever produced.

When I embarked on compiling these tables, I honestly thought Australia would top all and West Indies might be a distant second. It came as a very pleasant surprise to see Pakistan emerge at the very top. Not just overall points but the fact that we have made it to the top 4 more consistently than anyone else … no wonder Sri Lanka doesn’t stick out and Pakistan has dug its foundations deep into the minds of various analysts worldwide.

Cricket might be as old (if not older) than some other sports but the short format is relatively very new. The One Day was first played internationally in 1971, and the multinational tournament came to life in 1975. Twenty20 came around thirty years later, only just now, in 2005. There is now talk out there to change the ODI format and it might happen as well in the coming years. Whatever form or shape these short formats exist in … these are the people’s games. The Tests belonged to the lords and the newer shorter formats belong to the masses. It’s them (the masses) along with media, sponsors and technology that will shape the trends here in the coming years. But if other sports are anything to go by … these tournament Majors will remain the peak of public and fan’s interests and eventually a measure of one’s performance over the years.

There have been only Three Kings in cricket so far … the first decade (1975-84) belonged to none other than the mighty West Indies. Pakistan ruled the next (1985-1994) and Australia the third (1995-2004). Where Australia have continued their reign into this decade (2005 onwards) as well and have won all three 50 over tournaments, the emergence of Twenty20 has set them back a little (and those retirements). Can India or Pakistan challenge them in the remaining years being the only other teams to have won a Major each?

Who will rule this decade? Who will be the next King? Well, I’ll tell you in about another five years … as the daily changing rankings don’t make Kings. In the meanwhile keep an eye on that overall spot up there ;-)