On March 3 2003, Mark Boucher played a solid forward defensive shot to the last ball of the 45th over of a one-day international against Sri Lanka in light drizzle at Kingsmead having earlier hit the bowler, Muttiah Muralitharan, for six to help reach the rain-reduced target of 229.
The umpires took the players from the field, the Durban skies didn’t clear for the rest of the night, the SA changing room was awash with the horror of their misread of the newly introduced Duckworth Lewis method for resolving rain-affected matches. The contest was declared a tie and SA had found another way to exit a World Cup.
No wonder Boucher isn’t a fan of mathematical calculations in cricket.
SA finished level on points with England and Australia but missed out on a semifinal place at the T20 World Cup because their net run rate was inferior. In previous tournaments the first criterion for separating teams in such circumstances was the head-to-head result between them. In which case the Proteas’ loss to Australia in the opening game would have eliminated them.
This was felt to be unfair, punishing a team for one bad day at the office which might otherwise have played some of the best cricket. By introducing net run rate as the primary eliminator, teams were given a chance to “manage” that aspect of their fate throughout the other group matches. Whatever your view of the result, the change in regulations does seem “fairer”.
Tournament organisers were also of the view that it might reduce the number of games which meander to an inevitable result with a superior team using most of their 20 overs chasing a modest total. That also makes sense.
Let’s get the numbers out of the way. As things turned out, if the Proteas had chased down the 85 they needed to beat Bangladesh in 7.5 overs, they would have been in the semifinals instead of Australia. Of course, Australia would have made every effort in their subsequent matches to improve their own net run rate, so the statistical hindsight is far from perfect or definitive.
At that stage SA’s net run rate was significantly superior to Australia’s anyway, so perhaps they believed it wasn’t necessary to bat as quickly as possible to complete an inevitable victory. They might also say it was impossible to foresee what would happen when Australia played Bangladesh a few days later.
Really? Having bowled Bangladesh out for just 84 themselves, what were the chances of an attack featuring Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Pat Cummins and Adam Zampa doing likewise? Very good, as it transpired. Even better, in fact. They bowled them out for 73 and chased the runs down in an eye-watering 6.2 overs in the knowledge that doing so within 7.4 would put them ahead of the Proteas. Captain Aaron Finch smashed 40 from 20 balls.
They weren’t the only team paying brutal attention to the subject. After their opening two losses India’s hopes of a semifinal were hanging by a thread. They needed other results to go their way but first of all they needed the best net run rate in the group. So they bowled minnows Scotland out for 85 and scored the runs in 6.3 overs of savage, compelling entertainment. Job done.
All of this information was undoubtedly available to Temba Bavuma and his team but the SA captain was curiously reluctant and reticent to talk about net run rate. On three occasions he played down its importance, preferring to “just focus and concentrate on winning the match”.
It comes from a superstitious belief among cricketers that you should never look too far ahead or take anything for granted lest “Mother Cricket” decide to take you down a peg or two and put you back in your place. For decades net run rate was regarded as something that “took care of itself” as long as you were winning your matches. It was an obscure tiebreaker which players mostly believed to be beyond their control.
Before this tournament it was placed front and centre of the playing conditions effectively becoming an extra “half point” towards the log standings. After SA had used up 13.3 overs to score the winning runs against Bangladesh, Bavuma expressed his satisfaction that they had done so within the 15-over target set for them by “team management”. Ultimately, that lack of ambition is what eliminated them.
There was a great deal to be pleased about and the Proteas provided their supporters with numerous moments of joy. They competed well, found their best XI for the conditions and were led with wisdom and humility by Bavuma. They were many things during the tournament, including brilliant against England, but they were not “unlucky”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.