Stumped

Sumantro Das

Stumped

Have you ever wondered as to why tournaments exist? It puzzles me that such events take place. What exactly is the point in having them? If the best team plays and gets beaten, chances are that they will still be favorites for the next tournament while the team that beat them will remain the underdog. Take for example, the TVS Cup going in India between Australia, India, and New Zealand. Australia is obviously #1 in the world (and by quite a distance), yet they were beaten by India earlier in the tournament. Now that New Zealand has been eliminated by India (on November 15th), it's a rematch of the 2003 World Cup final. If Australia wins, they will have a reputation for winning without their star bowlers Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee, and Jason Gillespie . On the other side if India wins say by a margin of 80 runs, they will still be considered underdogs for their next series against Australia in Australia, despite the fact that Sachin Tendulkar is an amazing batsman in Australia. Alright, in this particular case, it can be argued that the Aussies are injury-lagged. But what if they lose to India on their home grounds? Would that prove India is better than Australia? My hunch is that there will be many people out there who will consider Australia the favorites no matter what (unless they play like Bangladesh, which is a very unlikely occurrence) until the 2004 Champions Trophy, or even the 2007 World Cup. Is that the way teams should be judged, based on their performance every four years, or following a couple of tournaments? What do you think?

Sumantro Das (also known as Donald) is a contributor for Delhi Dogs Online and is a member of the Delhi Dogs.