World Cup, or: How I learned to stop being fixated and love the game

Anyone else tired of constantly hearing people say "chokers" about The South African national cricket team? It is mind boggling to see all the articles start popping out about previous "chocking" incidents – you know what? That is simply insulting and moreover – pathetic.

Up until the semi finals South Africa has played the best cricket in the tournament - the best all-round cricket, which is exactly what Twenty20 is all about. Anyone who knows the SA team knows that this kind of cricket was invented for the likes of them.

It is unfortunate that a statistic caused the team who played better to not move on to the next stage, and that is exactly what it is – a statistic. Your best way of getting a high net run rate is by batting first, and besides the fact that that is mainly up to piece of silver, when selecting to field or to bat first you are usually thinking of the best way to win the current match, rather than a statistic at the end of a group round.

This stigma has gone on for long enough. Did South Africa choke when they chased over 400 to win not only a match but a series? Did they choke when they won the ICC Champions trophy? Did Australia choke by loosing two matches in the tournament including one to Zimbabwe? After all they are the best in the world and the bar should be higher for them. Did India choke two weeks ago when they lost an entire ODI series in one match, or was it perhaps a couple of wrong decisions by one of the world fines umpires? How many teams have lost a series that could have had a different result based on one event in the game? How many matches appear to have been changed by a run out, a dropped catch, a wrong decision from an umpire or for that matter a right one?

Did any of the other 11 teams who are or were in the tournament choke by losing one match or more? Why is it that South Africa's loss is the one that is labeled with that awful term? A regular answer would be that it was because it was an important match – well aren't they all? Sri Lanka's losses are just as important, after all they had the same result: an exit from the cup. What about England? They played a terrible tournament. And West Indies? They didn't even make it to the second stage…

The fact remains, is that there are many components that create a match, and even more that create a tournament. Going on about chocking simply sounds lame. In one article I read the writer described how you could almost see the word "chockers" in everybody's thoughts and on everybody's lips. Well I'll tell you what – I can see all these people who are waiting to say the word, mouth watering and keys typing – those people can't appreciate the positives of a match and a tournament, those people don’t see cricket for what it is, those people don't see Twenty20 for what it is, perhaps they aren't really looking. As for the 2003 world cup: It's very easy for people to go on about how could the South Africans make such a mistake calculating the necessary runs needed to win according to the Duckworth/Lewis method, but at the end of the day how many people who go on about it actually understand this ridicules system? It is so absurd that calling it a formula is an insult to maths. I for one think that a national team deserves a little more respect. I, for example, am not the biggest Australian fan – but I certainly acknowledge their team's and individual's quality of cricket.