Shouldn’t be all that difficult, scoring six runs an over and saving 10 wickets for 20 overs? But then trust us to make a hash of a small run chase. I hate T20, but on Wednesday, hearing all the hype from my younger colleagues, I thought I should tune in for purely professional reasons, and I was not disappointed about being disappointed.
To make 126 in 20 overs, you just need the presence of mind, or the lack of it, to stay on the crease for the duration. And if you can’t make six runs an over in that period, then you shouldn’t be playing the game. It should be as simple as that. There is no need to go out and blast every ball to the boundary, steal cheeky singles or play risky shots that don’t find a place in any book. Still, I would have been happier if our team had gone down trying any of the above.
The surrender on Tuesday didn’t behove either the triviality of the format or the attainability of the target. It actually reminded me of March 31, 1997 when India was handed over one of its most humiliating defeats in Barbados. But then we were facing a West Indies which still had the likes of Courtney Walsh, Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop, not three spinners who wouldn’t make it to most Ranji teams for their ability to tweak the ball.
Team India, which can sell anything from non-existent Noida housing societies to product ideas that are well past their shelf life, couldn’t survive 19 overs against this Kiwi attack.
Before, you throw the it-is-a-game excuse at me, let me tell you it is a 20-over game. The 20-over format is played all over the country, in school grounds, paddy fields and empty Sunday streets. World class test players playing the format should do a bit better.