So, as was expected by most before the tournament began, Zimbabwe are out of the World Cup without reaching the Super Six stage

John Ward21-Feb-2003So, as was expected by most before the tournament began, Zimbabwe are out of the World Cup without reaching the Super Six stage. Had we beaten India, we would have had a good chance of going through. But now we are left with the need to beat either Australia or Pakistan (assuming we beat Holland, where only the weather or appalling play can stop us), and they are way out of our class.CONTENTS:Zimbabwe v India: scorecard and reportPommie Mbangwa: first-class recordLettersTheoretically, of course, it is possible, but it is better for everybody that we accept Zimbabwe will be knocked out of the World Cup in this the first round. The players must accept that; it will then take the pressure off them, and they will play much better because of it.We can look back to the 1999 World Cup in England. Zimbabwe beat Kenya and India, but lost to Sri Lanka and England, and with their final match against South Africa believed they had no hope of making the Super Six. But South Africa were perhaps over-confident, Zimbabwe were superb, and we made the Super Sixes, with help from England, who threw away their match against India and made an unceremonious exit. The problem then was that the players seemed to think, "We don’t belong in the Super Sixes," and choked badly.So our players’ attitude, in my opinion, should be, "We’re out of it; let’s go out and enjoy this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of playing in the World Cup at home." If they do that, they may just surprise everybody – including themselves. And we may not have to join the World Cup Losers Support Group after all.One of the problems at the World Cup, and indeed in all one-day internationals, is persuading teams to maintain an acceptable over rate. The minnows, being all amateur teams, always seem to bowl their overs in time, and Bangladesh, new to Test cricket, are pretty good. The others, including Zimbabwe sometimes, are often guilty of unacceptably tardy over rates.If anybody thinks 15 overs an hour is unreasonable, then look back thirty years, when teams were bowling close to 20 overs an hour. The penalty in one-day matches so far applies only to teams bowling first, who lose an over of their innings for every over they fail to bowl in time. Even this doesn’t always work, and too many match referees seem to lack the courage to make them pay the penalty.And it is also very unfair to the side bowling first, as their opponents are not penalized at all, however slow they may be. The ICC’s way of making things fairer is to make both teams pay big financial penalties for going overtime, as they do in Test matches.And it will probably be as ineffective as it is in Test matches, too. There are stories about cricket boards or sponsors paying the teams’ fines for them, which may well be true considering how ineffective the measure is. I have two possible suggestions for teams who go overtime, which will apply to both sides:1. Once time has been reached and there are still overs to be bowled, the fielding captain is no longer allowed any boundary fielders; they must all be brought into the circle.2. Alternately, for every complete over remaining unbowled, the fielding captain must send off one of his fielders – who may not return to bowl. If a team is three overs short, it will therefore have to complete its spell in the field with only eight men.But the officials who make these rules seem very reluctant to make any regulations that will actually penalize the teams on the field itself or affect the play. And therefore we are likely to see very little change in the situation as the problem will no doubt remain unresolved. What’s the bet that in the end the authorities will give in and allow teams an extra 15 minutes to bowl their overs – or else reduce one-day internationals to 45 overs a side?