April 26, 1999
|
|
|
|
WORLD CUP 99 The Dark Horse The front runners can only fall from their pedestal. The underdogs, as usual have nothing to lose. By Harsha Bhogle
But the underdog secretly believes he can do it and that is why he is so dangerous. And that iswhere he is so distinct from the loser who, by his very movements, seems determined to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy. India were losers in 1975 and 1979. So were Sri Lanka and New Zealand in 1987 and England in 1996. People said they couldn't win but they were convinced as well! The underdog is different. In 1983 India had just inflicted on the West Indies their first home defeat in a one-day international and there were a few proud world-class performers in the team. In 1996 Sri Lanka had returned from a very tough tour of Australia physically and emotionally drained and they were seething within. Contrast that with the front-runner who, spare a thought, can only fall from the pedestal he occupies before the tournament begins. That is like being a Sergei Bubka at a pole vault event or Tiger Woods at the Masters or any Spaniard at the French Open. South Africa are there this time and they must, within themselves, create an event out of every victory because nobody else in England will. The front-runners have everything to lose, victory is meant to be a mere detail in the score book, and that is why they have been easily toppled in every World Cup since 1979. West Indies lost their first game and their last in 1983; India lost their first in 1987 and so did Australia in 1992. And in 1996 in the first game that mattered, South Africa crashed out. So who are the underdogs in 1999? Which are the teams that are bringing joy to the environmentalists by saving newsprint? And which of them are going to end up giving sleepless nights to opposition coaches? I would pick two, one in each half. The general impression in group A is that any three out of South Africa, England, India and Sri Lanka will qualify for the Super Six. To my mind, Zimbabwe are going to be the snakes in the grass. They have five good batsmen in the captain Campbell, the Flower brothers, Johnson and Goodwin, dangerous hitters in Evans, Streak and Brandes, some good new-ball bowlers in Olonga, Streak, Johnson, Brandes and Mbangwa and a spinner in Paul Strang who knows the conditions in England. Add to that a shrewd and proud coach in David Houghton and brilliant fielding skills and an irritating picture emerges. Group A would have liked Zimbabwe to be in Group B. The action seems a lot more predictable in Group B with Bangladesh and Scotland being the teams to beat. Get past New Zealand (a decent side but you know what to expect from them) and you are in the round of six. That is where I believe the second dark horse will appear. No racism here but once you come to the final stages the West Indies can do anything. You wouldn't give them much of a chance if you analysed their composition. Erratic players who can do well on a day but who can, so easily, be embarrassing. But they have seen humiliation and they have rediscovered victory; they have tasted bile and they have sipped champagne and their pride has been stirred. Especially within three great cricketers -- Ambrose, Walsh and most of all Lara, about whom the West Indians had begun to fear that pride had lost completely to petulance. Now if only they could stir Carl Hooper a bit. |
|
Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY © Living Media India Ltd |
 |
 |
Different teams think
differently but very few would say no to the underdog status in a major tournament. The
underdog grabs the convenient nothing-to-lose platform and while everyone else is
fretting, he can do no worse than what was expected of him. If he loses, well, that was
expected. If he produces a close finish, people cheer him all the way, and if he wins, the
other guy has egg on his face! 
