World Twenty20 2012

Short, quick tournament for short, quick format

The World T20 was a three-week burst of entertaining and meaningful cricket; the administrators should resist the urge to expand the tournament and dilute its charm

David Hopps

October 9, 2012

Comments: 36 | Text size: A | A

A dejected Mahela Jayawardene with Kumar Sangakkara, Sri Lanka v West Indies, final, World Twenty20, Colombo, October 7, 2012
There was the heartbreak of another defeat in the final, but Sri Lanka can be proud of a well-organised and widely-praised tournament © Getty Images

Now the rains can come. Sri Lanka has waved farewell to World Twenty20 and, perhaps to its own surprise, has run a widely-praised, appealing tournament with considerable efficiency. The monsoon conveniently stayed away, the world's best cricketers have been on show in a meaningful competition and the game has shone with vitality and confidence. If only it was always so.

No sooner had World Twenty20 finished than the next show began. It is faintly ridiculous that opening media conferences for the Champions League Twenty20 were being held before the World Twenty20 final had taken place and that the Trinidad & Tobago players in the West Indies squad had only a few hours to celebrate their achievement before they headed to airport, after no sleep, for their flight to South Africa.

This is cricket's endless merry-go-round. Players find themselves team-mates one moment, opponents next, just by crossing a continent. Some do not turn up at all, such as Yorkshire's Jonny Bairstow and Tim Bresnan, whose priority is to get fit for England's tour of India. There is too much cricket, too many claims on too few players. So another tournament is denuded and spectators suffer as a result.

It is amazing that the players keep up. As they pull on new shirts, do they check the name tags to remind themselves of who they are and who they are playing for? When their agent tells them they have still to be paid for a particularly tournament, do some players scratch their heads and wonder: 'Did I ever play in that one?'

It seems counter-intuitive at best - some will say crazy - to consider the World Twenty20's place in cricket's overcrowded calendar and conclude that it should become an annual event, or at least take place in every year where there is no 50-over World Cup.

But the attraction of the World Twenty20 was that it had real significance at a time when so much one-day cricket serves little purpose at all. Do not doubt that this tournament mattered. Nobody needed a name tag on their shirts. They were there because they cared.

This was a competition that teams were desperate to win and supporters cared about. Coaches studied statistics and determined new strategies, particularly the importance of not losing early wickets, which had received little attention before. The shortest game suddenly felt longer.

Best of all, from start to finish, the World Twenty20 lasted a few intense weeks. The 50-over World Cup could learn something from that.

The tournaments that should be trimmed are the mountain of one-day and T20 internationals in bilateral series as cricket's caravan travels from city to city simply to fill the coffers of impoverished cricket boards and grounds and give the local fans a live game to watch that, for all their understandable desire to see their heroes in the flesh, will probably turn out to be much like the last one, contested by players running on empty.

The danger for the World Twenty20 is not that the administrators might one day imagine it as an annual event, it is that the ICC will allow the tournament to become a swollen version of its fit, lithe self, becoming more corpulent with age and losing its appeal in the process

The danger for the World Twenty20 is not that the administrators might one day imagine it as an annual event, it is that the ICC will allow the tournament to become a swollen version of its fit, lithe self, becoming more corpulent with age and losing its appeal in the process. Even now an influential TV producer is probably emailing an equally influential administrator to suggest how much more money could be made if it lasted twice the time, with twice the games, how much more television coverage, how much more promotion, how much more fun.

All such blandishments should be resisted. The short, quick game needs a short, quick format. Everything about it should recognise the impatience of its audience for instant gratification, a quick outcome and then the chance to move on to the next thing. Its momentum must be protected.

Then there will be an army of fiddlers tirelessly debating the tournament's structure. What can we do about the preliminary round, should points be carried forward into the Super Eights, do we need Super Eights at all, why should there be a Super Over for a tie in the group stage? All are fair questions. But when they are resolved, they should be resolved for a lengthy period of time and the administrators should be told to meet less and reduce their expenses. The 50-over game has long been undermined by such persistent meddling that it is a sign of sanity not to know, or care, how many people need to be outside a circle at any given time.

There is a warning, incidentally, for Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in the way they were often carelessly referred to in conversational shorthand during World Twenty20 as associates, mentally classified alongside Ireland and Afghanistan irrespective of the fact that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are Full Member nations.

An overwhelming majority of onlookers paid lip service to the possibility of a giant-killing, but they did not want one so overwhelming that it would carry a weaker nation into the next round - instead they wanted to see it threaten, then fail. Afghanistan played the role perfectly. Too often, international cricket's appeal is restricted to the top eight and as Ireland and Afghanistan improve, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe decline. It is an unhealthy situation.

As for Sri Lanka, they have played their part well. It is impossible to put their achievement into historical context without being accused variously of being an LTTE sympathiser one minute, an apologist for Sri Lankan nationalist the next. But what is undeniable is that this is a nation free of conflict, full of new ambition.

Finally, with the considerable input of the ICC, Sri Lanka's hosting of the tournament embraced new standards. Gone was the confusion (many will prefer a more damning description) over ticket sales for the 2011 World Cup and England's Test tour of Sri Lanka later in the year. Instead, the World Twenty20 proceeded with an order and efficiency that Sri Lanka has never before achieved and new grounds at Pallekele, in particular, and Hambantota were uplifting places.

There is sadness and frustration in Sri Lanka at the loss of another final, but off the field the ICC has implanted a welcome maturity. It is those standards that their administrators, as they are once more left to their own devices, need to foster in the years ahead.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (October 11, 2012, 11:26 GMT)

@Indian76, I can't see your idea for the 12 team format working either. 39 games are still too many in my view. The super8 or the amount of games involved at that stage wasn't the problem with this event it was the pointless group stage at the start of the tournament which saw meaningless games between the top sides and a lack of competetiveness from the smaller teams. Your format would leave this stage of the event unchanged. There would also be the issue of Ban the hosts probably being knocked out of the competion after 2 matches. You would also run the risk of teams taking it easy in the super 8. If each team has 6 games at this stage they could win their early games and qualify early for the semis which could see them particularly with large squads rest key player at the end of the stage and give an advantage to the team or teams they are due to play at the end of the stage.

Posted by   on (October 10, 2012, 23:19 GMT)

Thanks for this article! Our SL boys failed mentally: they did not have the proper mental discipline going into the final. SL needs a sports psychologist, and thought-control practice, prior to big games. Sri Lankans are well-known for their meditation, and, meditation should be an integral part in a day for all our cricketers.

But, well tried Sri Lanka! Winning is not all. Hope you turn your mental game around, soon. You will be unbeatable like Ricky Pontings Aussies in the 2000's.

Posted by indiafan76 on (October 10, 2012, 23:17 GMT)

@SirViv1973 - I also think that 12 teams is the correct number right now. The total matches would then be 39 with the format i suggested. I was simply outlining the logistics for 16 teams. Remember that it is a 20 over match that is less than half ODI. In my format, a team qualifying for finals would play 11 matches in 22 days, i.e. 5 or 6 ODI equivalent in 22 days. That is not too much. A larger bench strength will also help. Playing each other twice in the Super-8 stage will ensure that the stronger teams qualify with runrate less of a factor. You will have much more marquee matches, teams will have a chance to bounce back. Spectators & media will be happy. During group stages, matches against minnows can be played at the same time without affecting TV ratings. And one doesn't need to play 3 matches at the same stadium, play morning match in another stadium. You have to agree, more matches between quality teams = more fun !!

Posted by stormy16 on (October 10, 2012, 13:22 GMT)

I must admit I enjoyed the T20 WC. It was short and packed with action and the two games a day was like a normal 50 over game but you saw 4 teams and innings. I dont understand what the fuss about too much cricket is! No one complaints about working everyday or too much work. Well we all do but the reality is we all get on with it and so must the cricketers. I am rather looking forward to the champions trophy - how can there be too much cricket for the fan? This is after all about the fans.

Posted by Pilot777 on (October 10, 2012, 11:07 GMT)

An overall enjoyable tournament - Constructive criticism if any would be - Once again Sri lanka refused to deploy the Video review system - key Umpiring decisions at crucial times may well have been reversed. It is important to have this as it gives teams/players a better chance. There were some glaring umpring mistakes. - The Pitches could have been better - The uneven bounce in the outfield was at times quite dangerous for fielders as the balls bobbled along and sprung up at the last minute..

Overall well done to SL for hosting a very entertaining T20 world cup.

Posted by davidlister on (October 10, 2012, 10:23 GMT)

@TommytuckerSaffa has more or less said it all. T20 is dominated by luck and random factors, and as such is pointless because it gives very little gauge of ability- and surely for sport to be engaging ability must be central. T20 is junk food, 50 over cricket a snack, Tests a banquet.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (October 10, 2012, 7:39 GMT)

The number of teams don't matter -8,10 or 16 in such tournaments, be in 50 over or T20 format.Mostly a short burst of good form (or luck sometimes) is decisive in such tournaments.The teams other than the top 8 mostly put up a sorry showing and put down quality of the tournament in at the beginning as in the recent WT20 .Upsets do happen sometimes but they do not matter as the minnows get back to same level of mediocrity immediately afterwards.Also upsetting teams like England who are the symbol of mediocrity esp. in ODIs and T20s does no good as in the next match they get thrashed against good opposition.Holding a world title doesn't really say much as England and more recent India have proved with both struggling after the wins.

Posted by brittop on (October 10, 2012, 7:26 GMT)

@CricketLifer: head to head results can't come into it since in a 4 team group, a tie between three teams will always have each beating one of the others - your complaint about Ind & Pak is not appropriate because it was a 3-way tie between Ind, Pak and Aus, each of who had beaten one other. Aus not reaching 112 would not have allowed SA to qualify (since Aus had more points), it would have meant Pak's NRR being better than Aus's, thus giving India the chance to qualify above Aus.

Posted by   on (October 10, 2012, 6:25 GMT)

@CricketLifer If Aus failed to score 112, and SA beat India, then Pak and Aus would have qualified with 2 wins each. Aus would have been knocked out only if India beat SA by a big enough margin, because then Aus, Pak, Ind would have 2 wins each, and Aus would be out due to poorer run rate.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (October 10, 2012, 5:53 GMT)

I agree with Cpt Meanster T20 should be scrapped at international level and only used domestically (IPL, etc) to encourage/attract people to cricket. So many pointless ODI and T20 series bolted onto tours - purely for money making purposes and not the for the good of the game. Adminstrators really need to do something along with sponsors to sort this out. ODI series should be competitions instead, quadrangulars, tournaments, etc. There should be more iconic test series, test cricket should be reserved for the top teams only as 'the ulimate' test in still and format of the game from a competitive point of view. The Eng vs SA tour was a great example of pointless ODI and T20 series, after the test matches were finished, the ODI and T20s were a complete anti-climax and there was very limited interest. It should have just been a 5 match test series. The ODI series between Eng vs Oz just before the SAficans arrived was equally a complete waste of time. SORT IT OUT greedy administrators.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (October 10, 2012, 5:43 GMT)

@Indian76, I think 51 Matches is way too many, thats more than the 50 over WC and almost as many as the IPL which runs for 7 wks. You say the competition could still be played in 3 weeks by playing 3 games a day, but the 3 games would all have to be played at the same venue which would probably mean the early game has an empty stadium. I also don't think a 16 team competition at this stage is viable there were too many one sided games in the first group stage in this competition which would mean even more in an enlarged event. Personally I would love a 16 team event where all or at least most of the teams were competitive but sadly that's not likely to happen anytime soon. I really think the format I suggested earlier would be more appropriate. 31 matches played at 4 venues, initially showcasing the smaller teams, lots of marquee matches and could be played in a 20/21 days.

Posted by   on (October 10, 2012, 5:37 GMT)

Every time I read a conversation like this I just try to think back to the last 50 over game I bothered to watch from beginning to end, and every time it gets harder. The answer to cricket's grind of matches is to seriously ask what place 50 over cricket has at this time.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (October 10, 2012, 5:09 GMT)

No use. Already the next World T20 has been expanded to 16 teams. And the first two weeks of that tournament will be absolutely boring. Trust ICC to kill a good one !

Posted by CRmadrid on (October 10, 2012, 5:04 GMT)

@CaptMeanster : R u serious ? no crowds for other matches? It was an amazing turnout for all super 8 matches & both the semifinals. Just look at the crowd pulled in for 4 super 8 matches in Colombo.( Sri Lanka didnt play in Colombo until semis). May be a little less crowd for WI vs Auss only because of the fact that we had a game the night before involving SL & the crowd was little tired to come the next day. Overall it was a good crowd compared to the one had in West Indies or England.

Posted by satish619chandar on (October 10, 2012, 3:14 GMT)

Limit T20 to domestic alone and may be can have a WC for it. Bilateral T20 is just not adding any value to cricket. Have tests ONLY for bilateral series and ODI as triangular or quadrangular series often. It will add more spice to the tournament. How often had we seen 5-0 or 4-1 like one sided ODI tours these days. Even tests are one sided these days but still, it is a challenge for the losing team whereas simple bilateral series loses charm once the series is decided. Or even a two tier system every year like in county. 8+8 where the last two in Tier 1 moves out to second level and top 2 in Tier 2 get promoted.

Posted by CricketLifer on (October 10, 2012, 1:15 GMT)

I think the tie breaker simply by run rate is an inadequate way to choose who moves on to next round. Head to head result should weigh more than just a ran rate figure. If you look at American Football then head to head record is the first criteria in case of a tie - since same division teams may play each other twice and that could be split, they then choose wins in conference as the next factor before moving onto points scored v/s points allowed (which would be somewhat analogues to ran rate). In the group of Australia, India, Pakistan and South Africa, if Australia had failed to score 112 and SA had won it would have been comical to see SA advance and a country like Australia with far better record be left behind. Similarly India should have advanced on the strength of having beaten Pakistan. Getting the method right for the next WC is very important.

Posted by indiafan76 on (October 9, 2012, 23:57 GMT)

12 teams in the current T20 WC seems like the right number. Countries 11+ can fight for the last 2 spots in another pre-tournament.

Whether 12 or 16 teams in the next T20 WC, format should be similar to the current WC.

4 groups of 4 teams each = 24 matches (4 good matches) Super-8 with 2 groups of 4 teams. Each team plays each other TWICE. This is a total of 24 matches. Semis & Final. Total of 51 matches (39 matches if T20 had 12 teams).

To finish the matches within say 3 weeks, they should do the following: a) Eliminate the warm-up games b) Increase squad size to 18 c) During group stage, play 3 matches per day (11am, 3pm & 7pm). In fact matches can be played simultaneously at this stage. d) Group will complete in 8 days. Have no break between group and super-8 stage. e) During Super-8, play 2-3 matches per day (Sat/Sun could be 3 match days). The 24 matches will complete in 10 days. f) Total Duration = 22 days (i.e. Sep 14th to Oct 7th). Same duration as current WC.

Posted by StJohn on (October 9, 2012, 23:41 GMT)

One thing that does need tweaking is the "no ball, free hit" rule. In England's last match of the tournament, against Sri Lanka, a no ball beamer was bowled in the final over of England's innings. But apparently this type of no ball doesn't give rise to a free hit. Nonsense. Surely a no ball is a no ball is a no ball?

Posted by roboh on (October 9, 2012, 23:38 GMT)

Cricket needs more international tournaments like the WT20 and far less of bilateral series which are for all intents and purposes just friendlies. I want cricket with relevance, not just a game for the sake of it!

The T20 and ODI world cups should both be expanded to at least 16, with real effort put into getting at least the top 12 countries being competitive on a regular basis. That will ensure that the opening rounds have more drama about them, with teams having to fight to get through to the next round.

The tournament structure also needs to be right. Give us 4 pools of 4, leading into either elimination finals or a further round of 2 pools of 4 like in this last WT20. Please, none of this nonsense of pools of 6 or more which go on forever and lead to irrelevant games!

Posted by Stark62 on (October 9, 2012, 20:35 GMT)

@ anton1234 In Asia, most of the crowds attend ODI and T20 matches, whilst in Eng and maybe Aus, it's Tests.

Have you seen the turn out for Tests in Ind, SL and the UAE?

I guess not or else you would call for an end to Test cricket.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (October 9, 2012, 19:56 GMT)

Mr. Hopps, you missed a KEY point in your article. What about the POOR turnouts in games NOT featuring SL, especially in the opening rounds ? I found the SL crowd to be appalling whenever their team never played. It's frustrating to see how many empty seats there were in the AUS v WI semi final. It shows poor spirit from the locals. I am surprised you forgot about it David.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (October 9, 2012, 19:51 GMT)

T20 should be SCRAPPED as an international format. It's most beautiful when it's played at club level. It's a format that's BUILT for domestic cricket. The ONLY international formats should be tests and ODIs. The problem with world cricket now is that there are so many MEANINGLESS bilateral series. Instead, attention should be given to specific ICONIC test series like the Ashes, India v Pakistan, Australia v SA etc. This is why the ICC should reopen the test championship debate. We simply cannot accommodate every single test playing nation in a calendar year. The IPL, SLPL, BBL etc are here to stay along with the CLT20. It's up to the administrators to make sure the number of ODIs and tests are reduced at international level. I for one would like to see the Champions Trophy and World T20 scrapped. In its place let us have more tests and T20s. The 50 over format should be restricted to a world cup year. Only tests and T20s please, albeit T20s should be a club game.

Posted by   on (October 9, 2012, 18:47 GMT)

for all people who r backing t20 cricket , i think they should remove t20 format , results of t20 cricket will soon be seen everywhere which will result in downfall in standard of test n odi cricket too

Posted by SirViv1973 on (October 9, 2012, 18:40 GMT)

For 2014 I think the S8 should be expanded to 10. The 8 major teams should go straight in at this stage along with the hosts Ban, this would leave 1 place. There would be a 4 team qualifying group at the start of the tournament containing Ire,Zim, Afg and a qualifier from an associate tournament held a few months in advance. The 4 would play a round robin with the winner then taking the 10th and final place in the main competition. the main S10 would then be divided into 2 groups of 5 with a RR being played. the 2 GP winners wld then go straight into the semis with the 2nd and 3rd place teams playing the 2/3 from the other GP in what would effectively be 2 quarter finals, then the semis and final. I think this would be a fairer system for the smaller teams, it would also guarantee that the hosts would play at least 4 games, it also adds 2 extra KO games. There would also be lots of meaningful marquee games at the GP stage & the competition could still be completed in less than 3 wks.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (October 9, 2012, 18:16 GMT)

@Edd Oliver, I think the ICC had initially agreed to 16 teams from 2012 but then changed their minds when they were forced to keep 2015 WC a 14 team event, so the amount of teams and format for 2014 is still up for discussion. I don't feel a 16 team event with 4 groups of 4 then straight KO from the quarter finals is a feasible option. Although it would give more smaller teams a chance and allow them at least 3 games there simply wouldn't be enough Marquee games to satisfy the demands of tv. This tournament didn't get going until the super 8 stage but the format will have to be changed for 2014 as Ban are hosting the event and they will need to be protected. Under the current format its unlikely Ban would make the super 8 and its pretty much unthinkable that the hosts would be ko'd after just 2 games.

Posted by howizzat on (October 9, 2012, 17:57 GMT)

16 teams in next edition of T20 WC is a welcome move. But the format can be made more level playing. It is evident that we hv a super8 and the rest. So in preliminary stage in each of the 4 groups we will hv 2 super8 teams and 2 others. But in this stage Super8s wont play one another and the minnows wont play one another. In each group there will be only 4 matches and then the 8 will proceed to the main stage. In main stage we hv two gps of 4 teams each which will play one another. Top 2 will make the semifinal round and 2nd placed in one gp shall play 3rd placed in the other group for the other two semifinal spots. T here will be 16 + 12 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 33 matches but of better quality and meaningful contests.

Posted by anton1234 on (October 9, 2012, 15:16 GMT)

Get rid of the 50 over game because it serves no purpose. Test and T20 is the way forward. Have a two-division of 8 countries in a world championship of test played over a 2 year cycle with top two in the top division playing in a one off final. The bottom country from division will see relegation while top from division 2 will see promotion.

Have a minimum requirement of 15 overs an hour in test cricket; the teams should wear different coloured clothing, even if only subtle difference.

It may be a good idea to have day-night tests, but they will obviously need to get the ball right so it doesn't wear out too quick and players can see the ball in the night. To be honest, why don't they just play white ball tests?

Posted by anton1234 on (October 9, 2012, 15:04 GMT)

Great tournament. I like the idea of 16 countries in the next event with 4 groups of 4 with the top team in each group along with the two best 2nd placed teams going through to a Super Six stage. If you want to globalize the game then T20 is the right vehicle. Some countries won't even consider the 50 over game, let alone Tests, but T20 has all the right flavours. Done in 2 1/2 hours, lots of big hitting, hectic running, great fielding. Now contrast that to test cricket which is often very lethargic where players show no urgency whether batting, in the field, bowlers really take their time to get back to the mark. Players just do not show the right vibe. You would think they were aristocrats.

I think the 50 over game has to go and, whilst I have been critical above of test cricket, I still believe its the ultimate form of cricket because it is what really test players and is the best just of a player's quality.

Posted by whatawicket on (October 9, 2012, 14:58 GMT)

it seems to me its only when a team is not # 1 in T20 that all of a sudden to that teams supporters, its meanless. the ICC points system is a simple way of indicating a teams prowess and should be taken as such. i thought the WIs should win because of the hitters in the team and as such always looked the best choice to win, but its a big but if SL had won the toss well you get my drift. as to should 1 to 8 be seeded as such of course they should we maybe want to see the so called minnows win but if you are a eng ind or aus for example, not to the extent of your own team now that would be silly. leave it alone the games simple enough it dont need changes just for the sake of change.

Posted by   on (October 9, 2012, 14:35 GMT)

ODI and Test cricket are still the two most ultimate formats of cricket. T20 should only be considered as a franchise game, for entertainment. And this overburden of cricket now a days should be reduced, give players some rest and the fans too. Or the excitement of waiting for some cricket action will dissipate in the coming times.

Posted by Stark62 on (October 9, 2012, 13:47 GMT)

I love T20 WC!!

I enjoyed every minute of it and can't wait for the next one.

They should keep the format the way it is, except the super eight grouping shouldn't be predetermined and I don't mind the addition of more teams because that will ultimately help expand the game.

Posted by SnowSnake on (October 9, 2012, 13:23 GMT)

Cricket becomes complex only when same players want to play in all formats. If players start to specialize and money is paid by the hour then all three formats will be of high quality.

Posted by   on (October 9, 2012, 13:12 GMT)

Hasn't the ICC agreed to a 16 nation competition for 2014? There should be 4 groups of 4, 3 preliminary games each, top two from each group go through, then quarter-finals and a straight knockout competition after that. That'll give the associates 3 chances to spring an upset, and likely give all of the top 8 a minimum of 4 matches each, whilst keeping the compact nature of the tournament. Win-win.

I'd also love to know how much debt the SL board is still in due to building the new grounds at Hambantota and Pallekelle. What would have been wrong with improving the existing grounds at Galle, Kandy and the SSC, for instance, and saving millions in the process, whereby the national cricketers wouldn't have had to go 9 months or however long it was without being paid?!!

Posted by   on (October 9, 2012, 13:12 GMT)

so ICC wants to expand the tournament, did they forget what happened to that eternity-long 2007 World Cup in Caribbean..? Shorter the tournament, more will be the interest. Why impose matches on spectators.? Even the WT20 is being followed by CL, n it will be like this only for years to come.So why ICC wants to expand it or make it an annual affair. they can do away with the Champions Trophy, and let WT20 take place every 2 years.

Posted by i_witnessed_2011 on (October 9, 2012, 12:47 GMT)

What I would like to see in next tournment is get rid of pre-seeding. This pre-seeding of teams for Super-8s or Super-6 is mainly based on team's Ranking. We all know T20 ranking is meaningless. So super-8 or Super-6 should be decided on the performance of the teams in the group stage matches and not on their rankings. Pre-seeded fixtures may allow spectators to plan their visit and help them buying the ticket, But it ruins excitement of group matches!

Posted by CricketMaan on (October 9, 2012, 12:14 GMT)

IMHO...T20 should remain as a FRANCHISE game and not between nations. That right should only be given to Tests and ODIs.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.
Tournament Results
Sri Lanka v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 7, 2012
West Indies won by 36 runs
Australia v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 5, 2012
West Indies won by 74 runs
Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 4, 2012
Sri Lanka won by 16 runs
India v South Africa at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
India won by 1 run
Australia v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
Pakistan won by 32 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days