ICC World Twenty20 June 19, 2009

No choking but South Africa flunk big test


If Shahid Afridi always played like this, Garry Sobers might be nervously fretting over his place in the All-Time World XI © Associated Press

Farewell then, South Africa. An excellent campaign ended in failure – and within seconds, the choking accusations had begun. As sure as night follows day (but without even the intervening buffer of evening), as sure as headache follows headbutting a lamppost, as sure as, in my experience as a father, throwing food on the floor leads to the mother of your children saying, “Don’t throw food on the floor – you’re 34 now and supposed to be setting a good example,” as sure as all of these things, South Africa were accused of choking on the big occasion.

In all sports, when a team or player has acquired a reputation for choking, fairly or unfairly, any failure is habitually deemed a choke. South Africa’s track record of flunking big knock-out games goes before them, which is understandable, given the spectacular firework displays they have put on when exiting recent tournaments – all the more magnificent for the fact that the team habitually plays with studied focus and almost scientific precision. Seeing South Africa implode on the cricket field is thus akin to watching a normally sedate accountant turn feral and start barking at a filing cabinet after losing his favourite pencil.

However, yesterday, there was no choke. Twenty20 is barely long enough for a team to peruse the menu and order a tempting sandwich of whole sardines, peanuts and biro lids in floury seeded bread, let alone start eating and choking on it. South Africa did not field or bat especially well, but (a) Pakistan were good, (b) Shahid Afridi was exceptional, and, importantly, (c) Twenty20 is a capricious game and this tournament has proved that most teams can beat or lose to most others on a one-off basis.

Indeed, this very result, and the influence of Afridi, were both predicted in the latest Zaltzman Report audio show – listen to it here – along with my thoughts on the Super Eights, England’s Duckworth-Lewis difficulties and world exclusive news of the latest innovations in T20 strokeplay, including Dilshan’s as-yet-unseen Amateur Dentist Shot, in which he deliberately knocks out his own teeth. I hope you enjoy it. After predicting England to romp to a glorious victory over Netherlands in show 1, I am relieved that my reputation as cricket’s worst tipster has taken a dent.

South Africa had been impressive in their previous five games, but despite their victories, they had posted two low scores (including against India, the only other Asian team they faced, when they struggled to score off the spinners), they had not needed to chase a challenging score to win (batting second once previously, in reply to England’s honkingly useless 111), and, due to the success of their top order, their middle order had had little batting and, in Duminy’s case, it showed.

No choke then. They lost, and it happened to be a semi-final. And but for the incandescent Afridi, whose imperious all-round display made a total mockery of his overall career statistics, they might have won. If Afridi always played like this, Garry Sobers might be nervously fretting over his place in the All-Time World XI.

There cannot have been an easier Man-of-the-Match decision since the eight-year-old Andy Zaltzman walked off with the commemorative medallion and a cheque for 25 pence from a one-on-one game against his friend Donal, away from home, in Donal’s garden, with a tennis ball, a home-made bat, and a large tree as the stumps. 208 not out and 4 for 13 − what a display from the young Zaltzman, smashing 52 boundaries into the nearby flowerbed through the untended leg-side field, before taking the tennis ball and mercilessly exploiting the fact that his tearful, bored opponent had never previously played cricket.

(If I may digress a little, which, given that I am writing this under no supervision (the wife and kids are asleep), I may, there is an interesting comparison to be made with baseball. In cricket’s distant rogue third cousin, there are a similar number of ‘events’ as Twenty20 – an average of around 250-300 pitches per match, compared with up to 240 balls in T20, plus wides, no balls, and the possible effects of innumerate umpires. Results of individual matches are similarly unpredictable – a great major league baseball team will still lose more than a third of its matches, and a hopeless one will still win more than a third. It takes 162 regular-season games, plus up to 19 play-off matches, spanning seven months, for a team to win the MLB. The team winning the World Twenty20 will have played seven times. The brevity of the tournament has made it intense, unpredictable and exciting, but a strict meritocracy it is not. And there is a tendency to overanalyse the standard fluctuations of sport, and for some English commentators to ask momentous-sounding questions such as, “So, Graeme, where did it all go wrong?”, whilst desperately trying to suppress a snigger.)

Pakistan, for their part, stride onwards, one more Afridi masterclass away from completing a great, soul-warming story, and extending a giant metaphorical middle finger towards New Zealand’s inane mistaking of their own inability to hit the ball with the bats they had bought specifically for the purpose, for evidence of illegal tampering.

I expect Younis and his men to face Sri Lanka in the final. West Indies don’t have the bowlers to keep Sri Lanka quiet (unless they take early wickets), and, for all their batting depth, their struggles with Graeme Swann in recent months suggest they may also find Mendis and Murali a bridge too far and too confusing.

But, then again, if Gayle gets out of the right side of his bed ... if Sri Lanka lose early wickets and Dilshan successfully knocks his teeth out ... if Sarwan and Chanderpaul neutralise the mysteries of spin ... if stuff happens in a mildly unexpected manner as it always does in sport, and is then magnified by the shortness of the 20-over game ... who knows. Thank Zeus, and those who devised Twenty20, for the glorious unpredictability of unpredictability.

Andy Zaltzman is a stand-up comedian, a regular on the BBC Radio 4, and a writer

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • testli5504537 on March 2, 2012, 12:54 GMT

    Uncle, if you were 12 in 1992, you must be just under half my age. But I'll call you Uncle anyway it sort of fits.This inokchg bit is a bit of folklore now, isn't it? I never knew anyone who could live after inokchg so long as the Saffers did for 15 years. Mythology here

  • testli5504537 on June 29, 2009, 16:17 GMT

    Hey Andy... where is your 4th episode of ICC T20 audio bulletin??? I have been waiting for it for ages...

  • testli5504537 on June 22, 2009, 7:52 GMT

    I can't believe what I've been reading. South Africa are that far ahead of Pakistan in skill level, application and results that it defies logic. South Africa can't continually roll out the phrase we are still learning and improving. They are already the best side by a country mile, daylight second. Time to stand up, not sit back and block ball after ball in a T20 game. To need 23 runs in the last over with 6 wickets in hand was a joke. To me they lacked guts, they were cut-down by self doubt and fear. Although Pakistan played well, when the pressure was on SA scored 15 in the last over even with the loss of a wicket. There is no other word for it. They CHOKED big time.

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 19:34 GMT

    To Burhan, if you want to see a team folding examine Pakistan's record when they play in South Africa. Also perhaps you can tell us how many teams chasing win at Trent Bridge? Pakistan is undoubtedly a talented team and they consistently underperform. Why did they suddenly do so well? Were the betting odds good? I would rather be SA and than Pakistan - always questions. How do they get reverse swing after 12 overs when no one else can? Why did Afridi wander into the middle of pitch in an international matach and sureptiously rotate on his heel? Why did Imziman ul Haq inexplicably dance down the wicket and give his wicket away? And just why did Bob Woolmer die? Of course the Brits have it in for SA, after all Smith has disposed of 2 England captains, Hussein (who was the first to cry choker) and Vaughn. Both blubbed at their resignation speech. Perhaps they needed a shrink!

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 16:31 GMT

    Andy, I thought you wrote a great, balanced, funny article. I also do not believe that South Africa choked - although it was frustrating to watch them lose. I think our South African team has improved a great deal with a more well-rounded performance and I sincerely hope that soon they will bring some silverware home. Go Proteas!

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 14:40 GMT

    The format of these competitions is not designed to get a world champion. SA is criticised for not winning from a front running position but why is the situation equalled up by a semifinal. The answer is for money and TV thrills. The 2 best teams Sri Lanka and SA should have faced off in a best of 3 final. Why is Pakistan who have nothing to loose be even given a look in after their early tournament record. In stead SA had to go to a venue which is a virtual home ground for Pakistan, where no one wins chasing, There was absolutely no benefit from being top of the log. Should crowd support count? No except prima donna Afridi clearly feeds off the crowd. He wouldn't do nearly as well without. SA made very few errors. The only notable one was that Morkel should have come in ahead of Duminy particularly if Kallis not de Villiers was in. Kallis and Duminy became confused with regard to their roles. One or other should have been prepared to sacrifice his wicket to give Morkel a chance.

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 12:59 GMT

    Andy, maybe the lack of responses show people are not interested in excuses. I still feel South Africa choked. They do well in situations where no one expects much (like chasing down +400) but where they start out as favoruites in big matches the story is always the same. Yes they are one of the top teams in the world and ever since i have been following cricket they start tournaments as one of the favourites and everytime they crumble. I believe they are further strenghthening this by have team physcologists giving media interviews about how they are all "mentally tough". For Gods sake do you see any other teams doing that. For crickets sake i hope South Africa shed the tag and in coming years prove (not through a shrink) but through victory that they are not chokers. For now the results prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the truth.

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 9:58 GMT

    I disagree with all who say in T20 any team can beat an other on a given day. But statistics show a different trend. SA and SL are better teams and they won 7 and 6 matches in row, now if at one stage they are beaten then same is the case in test matches too. Every team has a afridi who performs once every 6 months and when he does it makes a difference. I do believe a stronger team will win 80% of times. By the way what happend to Donal, did he go on liking cricket..poor guy

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 6:07 GMT

    ha ha ha..........what is said is hilarious but true......a nice one mr. Zaltzman......keep the stuff coming

  • testli5504537 on June 21, 2009, 0:57 GMT

    Andy, a really wonderful article. I was especially interested in your perceptive comparison between Twenty 20 and baseball - I hope you don't mind but I expanded upon this in my own blog: http://thesillymidoff.blogspot.com/2009/06/twenty-20-baseball-and-how-to-change.html.

    Keep up the great work (and the ever increasing number of podcasts!)


  • No featured comments at the moment.