Sunday, May 24, 2009

Deccan's Charge!

This is how the IPL teams stack up after 2 years of the Indian Premier League.

Its good to see the Rajasthan Royals at the top of this table since they were far ahead of all the teams last year.

They also have an IPL trophy to show for that.

On the other hand you have a Deccan Chargers, who have almost the lowest win %, and have lost the most number of matches among all IPL teams.

Yet they have an IPL trophy to show for that!

How cruel is this game of cricket?

Chennai, Delhi, and Punjab should be kicking themselves up their backsides. They have surely been the stronger and better sides, but on the days when it has mattered, they have not been up to the task.

Not to take anything away from the Chargers however.

They have just completed what probably was one of the best turnaround stories, if not the best, in cricket history.

Yes I know you have heard it everywhere, but I want to say it again - from the bottom of the table, to the top of the pile!

Last year it was the team with the lowest odds that won the final; this year it was the same.

Last year it was a purple cap winning left arm pacer that led his team to the title; this year it was the same.

Last year it was a retired Australian who captained his team to victory; this year it was the same.

Last year it was the Royal March; this year it is the Deccan's Charge!

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , , ,


14 Pitched:

  1. Naked Cricket said...
     

    Q angles at work again!

  2. achettup said...
     

    Great post Q and thats an interesting table, makes you wonder how Deccan picked that narrow sphere of matches to win that were necessary to get a championship... very efficient indeed!
    Who knows this time next year, a former Aussie captain (Ponting? :D 2011 and all) could lead the worst team to victory and we might congratulate SRK!

  3. The Old Batsman said...
     

    Very interesting and revealing stat. Just shows it's as much about when you win as how often!

  4. Q said...
     

    NC: I put up another one of those Q angles in the comments of ur post on jumbo on BCC..

  5. Q said...
     

    Ach: Thanks man.. abt Ponting, well if he does become captain next season, then FIP will prove correct. But if the trends are anything to go by, its a MI vs KKR final next year.

  6. Q said...
     

    OB & Ach: ur both right, its a lot got to do with when u win, rather than how many...

    Delhi have now failed twice in crunch games, despite having been one of the best sides in group stages in both tournaments.

    Deccan, on the other hand, barely scraped to the semis this year. They won 7 of their 14 group games, losing just as many.. so they cud have been on either side.. they got ahead cos of a better run rate than Kings XI and also due to luck cos Rajasthan had one washed out game..

    And then when Deccan got to the crunch games, they held their nerves.

  7. Ottayan said...
     

    Q,

    CSK and one other team had a 'no result' this edition. You appear to missed it in your calaculations.

  8. Q said...
     

    I forgot to mention it Ott - The Win % exclude no results and count the tied matches as half wins.

    The only tie in the IPL (SURPRISINGLY) was between KKR and RR this year, which ended with the Super Over win for RR. But in the results i've taken it as a tie.

    As for the No results, there was a NR for RR vs MI, and for CSK vs KKR. I have excluded those matches - they don't come under played column either.

    I don't know why I put in an NR column :-/

  9. Ottayan said...
     

    No problems Q.

  10. raj said...
     

    Crunch games matter. And Delhi's double stumble in two years proves that something is lacking in their make-up. Viru will do well to smell the coffee and admit that he didnt select big match players for crucial matches - well, one BM player really. McG, they call him.
    This year we got an interesting equation between the erstwhile aussie opening partners.
    Hayden was consistent but it was Gilly who performed when it mattered most!

  11. Q said...
     

    Raj: interesting point u make about Gilly and Hayden.. though Gilly's failure in the final puts a ? over his tag of being a big match player.

    Kumble was bigger than him. Ironic how the captain that led from the front, lost.

  12. King Cricket said...
     

    We're not against a competition being about when you win, rather than how often, but it would be better if there was a tad more 'how often' about it.

    Big matches should occur naturally, within the confines of a meritocratic competition.

    That's what we think - only normally we think it with shorter words.

  13. Q said...
     

    King Cricket: u maybe a man of shorter words, but high quality and impactful words they are.

    I see what you mean, but then what could be the alternative? Have the top 2 teams play a final and let go of the semis?

    Or have a best of 3 for the semis and the final?

    It cant end at just the league stage can it?

  14. Q said...
     

    Old Batsman: your line has been used in an article by NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/sports/cricket/26iht-CRICKET.html?_r=1

    Ottayan: Thanks for pointing us to that.

    King Cricket: it may be of interest to you as well.

    See this post of Ottayan's also:

    http://midoff.blogspot.com/2009/05/twenty20-thinking-players-game.html

    Cheers guys.

Post a Comment