The first fortnight of the world cup showcased a new style of One Day Cricket. The storylines is of 300 being a 'par' score, of teams attacking endlessly are variously true. The central story of this World Cup has been the quality of the wickets.
A top quality wicket can produce a high quality 50 over game. The wickets, especially in Australia, but increasingly also in New Zealand, have been superb. What is a top quality wicket? A top quality wicket is one on which a good line and length is possible. A good line and length is one which the batsman has to defend if he cares about getting out. Too many wickets in India allow batsmen to take liberties all too easily with little or no risk due to the modest pace and comparatively low bounce. Batsmen who try to play from off to leg in Australia are taking a serious risk. The late movement available with the new ball means that batsmen cannot walk across their stumps as easily as they might in India. The extra pace means that hitting the ball on the move becomes more fraught. At the same time, the pace in the wicket means that bad lines and lengths get hammered. One gets to see exciting horizontal bat shots, and, thanks to the new fielding restrictions, lofted shots off the fast bowlers.
These pitches have meant that accurate, controlled pace bowling has been rewarded. Fast bowlers go into games knowing that if they bowl well, there is genuine reward available. Inaccurate bowlers have been hammered. The 2015 World Cup perhaps has more teams with genuine pace to offer than any other World Cup. Boult, Southee and Milne for New Zealand, Steyn, Morkel and Parnell for South Africa, Johnson, Starc and Cummins for Australia, Umesh Yadav for India, Mohammad Irfan and Wahab Riaz for Pakistan - all these bowlers can slip themselves should the occasion arise. Some of them, like Johnson, Riaz and Parnell and Yadav can be mercurial and can get it wrong for a spell. The results tend to be spectacular. We have also seen the accuracy of Josh Hazlewood and Vernon Philander and to a lesser extent Mohit Sharma and Mohammad Shami. Daniel Vettori has been brilliant at restricting line ups. Ravichandran Ashwin has enjoyed the extra bounce of the Australian wickets and the runs India's batsmen have posted on the board for him.
Bangladesh and Zimbabwe remain undisputed 9th and 10th ranked teams. The Associates remain firmly ranked 11th onwards. The gap between 8 and 9 has not moved much, but the gap between 5 and 6 has opened up just a little bit. The gap between 10 and 11 has narrowed considerably. England and Pakistan seem to be caught in a losing battle (at least in the short term) with an imaginary inability to play contemporary cricket. They are not as bad as they (or at the very least, their supporters) imagine them to be. Among the Associate teams, Ireland and Afghanistan have excelled. Each has won a game and between the Irish batting and the Afghan new ball attack, they might field one excellent ODI side which could challenge both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on equal terms. On their own, they lack the quality of the top tier sides. It is not just a matter of experience, but of exposure. Still, that at least two Associate teams have excelled against difficult opposition should give the ICC cause for celebration. Scotland and the UAE have battled gamely but have been outclassed more easily than Ireland and Afghanistan. Ireland have now beaten one of the top 8 Test playing nations 3 times in 26 ODIs against them.
After the first fortnight of the World Cup, in the conditions in Australia and New Zealand, I would rank the top 14 international sides in the World as follows:
1. Australia, South Africa
3. India, New Zealand
5. Sri Lanka
6. England, West Indies, Pakistan
9. Bangladesh
10. Zimbabwe
11. Ireland
12. Afghanistan
13. Scotland
14. UAE
Australia and New Zealand, if the bizarre game they played at Wellington is anything to go by, are intent on playing a cavalier brand of ODI cricket. All attack at all times. We will see a course correction and better quality play the next time these teams play. The quality of cricket on display in Wellington was poor. The number of batsmen who were dismissed playing poor shots was remarkable. It was fitting that the game was won by the one player who played properly. It helped New Zealand that Kane Williamson is in the form of his life.
The form book is clear. Brendon McCullum is on a hot streak with the bat. He has made 207 in 110 balls in four innings in the World Cup so far, taking outrageous chances on his home wickets against low opposition scores. His bowlers have bowled out all four opponents so far. Trent Boult and Tim Southee have swung the new ball and bowled attacking lengths. Adam Milne is probably the fastest bowler in the tournament. And Daniel Vettori has been the tournament's most restrictive spinner.
New Zealand have not faced a patient opponent so far. Had Sri Lanka batted first, NZ's bowlers might have been tested. Thirimanne, Dilshan, Sangakkara and Jayawardene might not have been as reckless as Warner, Finch, Watson, Maxwell and co. They certainly would not have been as wretched as the English top order.
New Zealand know their combination. Grant Elliot and Corey Anderson both look like they are batting one position too high. If Kane Williamson fails, as he inevitably must at some point during the tournament, then lots of teams will fancy their chances against New Zealand's line up. Luke Ronchi and Daniel Vettori make a fine lower order - at 7 and 8 - but New Zealand look far from invincible as Australia nearly showed.
It is telling that the top two sides in the tournament are both struggling with the number 7 position. In Australia's case it is due to an injury to James Faulkner, who is arguably the the finest bowling-allrounder-power-finisher in the world right now. Given Faulkner's absence, Australia have had to make do with Mitchell Marsh, who is a good player, but hasn't Faulkner's experience as finisher. Australia are also missing a spinner in their attack. Glenn Maxwell is unlikely to challenge batting line ups or even keep them particularly honest for too long. Australia are also uncertain about their third fast bowler. Pat Cummins provides serious pace, but Josh Hazlewood is the more accurate options. With the assistance on offer with the new ball, Hazlewood may well be the option to be used for 10 overs unchanged with the new ball when Australia bowl.
South Africa have the more serious problem. While Steyn, Morkel, Tahir and Philander pick themselves, and Philander is a reasonable batsman, they lack the hitting muscle in the lower order which Australia and New Zealand possess in ample measure, and India possess to a slightly lesser degree. Their batting basically ends with JP Duminy. It is a magnificent top 6, with the only question mark being over Hashim Amla's opening partner. Between Quinton de Kock and Riley Rossouw, South Africa have at least a good answer to this problem. Number 7, however, remains a problem. Farhan Behardien is a batsman who can bowl a bit. Wayne Parnell is an erratic, but genuinely quick left arm paceman who can bat a bit. If they play Behardien, he must share the 5th bowler's overs with Duminy. If Imran Tahir has a bad day, as leg spinners are wont to from time to time, this makes de Villiers next in line to bowl a few overs. South Africa's superman can do pretty much anything with the bat, but even he will admit that his bowling is best left on the shelf.
India and Sri Lanka seem to know their combinations. At least in a manner of speaking. A better way to put it would be to say that India and Sri Lanka have made their compromises when it comes to balance. Ravindra Jadeja and Ravichandran Ashwin make a reasonable, but not explosive lower order along with Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Dhoni is no longer the player he was 2 years ago, but he's still capable of hitting the long ball. Sri Lanka have Angelo Mathews, who is arguably the best all rounder in the game right now along with Dwayne Bravo who is not at the World Cup. Matthews gives Sri Lanka tremendous balance along with Dilshan. Dilshan is a canny limited overs bowler in the mould of Aravinda de Silva. Perhaps he lacks de Silva's guile, but he makes up for it with accuracy. Once Herath recovers, Sri Lanka have a balanced look to them. They lack serious pace with the ball, but Lakmal and Malinga make a competent pair. Perera bowls useful medium pace to go with his brute power with the bat.
India and Sri Lanka have the classiest batting line ups in the tournament (along with South Africa). Ajinkya Rahane and Virat Kohli make up the heart of India's order, while Dhawan and Rohit Sharma have opened together successfully for over 18 months now. Sri Lanka's batting is built around three veterans in fine form. Thirimanne, Matthews and Chandimal make a fine supporting cast.
England, Pakistan and West Indies are all struggling with various problems. Pakistan and England have similar issues with their batting. England's problems are worse than Pakistan's because they appear to be part of a larger issue of confidence. The West Indies have had a couple of good outings after their opening defeat to Ireland. The West Indies bowling lacks consistency and their batting, with the veterans Chris Gayle, Dwayne Smith and Marlon Samuels at the top remains mercurial. Their young captain Jason Holder has been impressive and they've looked a much better side with Suleimann Benn in their ranks.
England and Pakistan both seem to suffer from a complex - that of not playing a brand of ODI cricket that is contemporary enough. Both sides seem to believe, erroneously, that 300 is a par score in this tournament. No team has come close chasing 300. The two chases in which 300 has been achieved have been easy, thanks to conspicuously poor bowling. In every other game, teams who have made 300 and followed it up with decent bowling, have won easily. On the other hand, teams have been bowled out cheaply trying to set a total of 300 as well.
Despite all the newfangled nonsense about 300 being a par score, certain basic facts about ODI cricket remain true. It is true that the new fielding restrictions have meant about 20 additional runs in an ODI innings, especially on the wickets in Australia. But the wickets have also meant that forcing the pace against accurate bowling has been fraught with risk. The teams which have batted consistently have batted patiently and used the last 15 overs to add about 125 runs to their score. The more adventurous teams try to stretch those 15 overs to 18 or 20 overs by taking the power play early.
The World Cup will be won by the team with the most consistent middle order and the most accurate bowling. When you look at India bowling against South Africa and Pakistan, you see batsmen playing big shots against India's bowlers. But those big shots are being played because that's the only way a boundary is available. Patient, accurate bowlers backed by top quality fielders force batsmen to take risks to score boundaries. England's wildly inaccurate bowling allowed Sri Lanka's batsmen too many easy boundaries, with the result that the runs England had on the board never mattered in Sri Lanka's innings all that much.
New Zealand seem to be the favorites right now. Their style of play is high risk though, and given that they will have to win a game in Australia to win the World Cup, that sort of high risk play is, well risky. It is not a proposition I'm willing to back.
My favorites before the tournament, both as a cricketing matter, and as a sentimental matter, were South Africa. I will continue to back them. As dark horses, I am backing India, not just because they beat Pakistan and South Africa, but because of the way in which they've beaten them. I don't mean the margin. I mean method. Steady batting in the first half of the innings, followed by a sustained assault over the last 20 overs with wickets in hand. More importantly, the bowling has looked in form and well balanced.
The rained off game at Brisbane will create an opportunity for Bangladesh in Group B, while Ireland's performances should create an opportunity for them to sneak through in Group A. Even if they don't, winning the Group will bring non-trivial gains to the winner. Both India and New Zealand should pursue this end for the rest of the group stage.