This time last week, Kenya were the only team to concede over 250 at a T20 World Cup.
Zimbabwe have had that displeasure twice since then.
The feel-good factor around the Chevrons has deflated as quickly as it rose; group-stage victories over Australia and Sri Lanka have been undercut in quite brutal fashion against the West Indies and India.
But how did this happen? After all, Australia were ranked second in the world coming into this World Cup, and barring a late blip against England, Sri Lanka were extremely reliable in home conditions.
If the plucky underdogs could turn these two sides over, why did it all unravel in the space of two games?
It is no secret that Zimbabwe are a limited side. There was also evidence that they sought to stretch their abilities to the limit; at the toss against Australia, captain Sikandar Raza noted that the bounce at the Premadasa Stadium was “13 cm higher” than at the Sinhalese Sports Club – a rare moment of specificity from a captain, and a very public sign that they had done their homework.
With both bat and ball, Zimbabwe knew how they planned to maximise the talent at their disposal. Often, an accusation levelled against more talented teams is the lack of a structure that sees that talent not fulfil its potential. But Zimbabwe showed how the inverse is true as well. Just clear heads and well-laid plans will not necessarily overcome superior skill.
When the Zimbabwe template worked...
It worked a charm in their first two games – against Oman, their most potent bowlers, Blessing Muzarabani and Richard Ngarava, did the damage with the new ball, virtually killing the game in the Powerplay. A chase of 104 was never going to be a problem, but even that short innings saw Tadiwanashe Marumani taking the early risks, and Brian Bennett batting through to see the chase over the line.
Against Australia, the batting blueprint was far more evident.
As they batted first, at the end of six overs, Bennett was on 19 off 21, and Marumani on 26 off 15. When the latter was dismissed in the eighth over, Ryan Burl was promoted to No.3 to keep the momentum going even as Bennett held up an end. Raza then came in to put the finishing touches.
It was a pragmatic, old-fashioned T20 approach.
The captain said after the game that there was a discussion in the dressing-room midway through the innings about whether Zimbabwe ought to go for 190-odd, but they defaulted to the safer approach and aimed for around 170, even sending a message out to Bennett to not worry about the pace at which he was scoring.
Read more: Promoting the 'finisher': Why T20 teams don't do it, and when they should consider it
They also used the ground dimensions to their advantage. Zimbabwe ran 17 twos on the enormous Premadasa playing surface, and the slowish wicket worked further in their favour. Without a true surface, Australia’s fearsome boundary hitters could never really get going, and the inconsistent bounce was directly responsible for two of the four Powerplay wickets.
Muzarabani’s overs were front-loaded (three in the powerplay), and from there Australia were always playing catch-up. Despite Matt Renshaw’s valiant effort, they ended up 23 runs short.
Against Sri Lanka, the first crack appeared as the powerplay wickets did not come for Zimbabwe. Even though they kept a lid on the middle overs, bowling at the back end let them down as they conceded 178-7, which spinner Graeme Cremer said was “about par”, but you doubted whether Zimbabwe’s batting lineup (by now sans Brendan Taylor) had it in them to get that far.
Yet again, the openers took the fire-and-ice approach; Bennett was on 35 off 30 at the halfway stage as Marumani and then Burl accelerated around him. Even as the required rate rose, Bennett continued to take his time.
Thanks largely to Raza, consecutive overs of 20 and 12 runs brought the target within touching distance – his 45 off 26 made sure Zimbabwe were almost at the finish line by the time he was out. Bennett played 48 balls, scoring at 7.8 an over in a nine-an-over chase; but this was part of the plan.
... and when it didn't
So far, so good.
But this success came from a structure that was more or less a house of cards – stable enough on its day, but not requiring much to come down. Without early wickets, the bowling attack could be gotten at. The one-anchor-everyone-else-go approach to batting also only really works if the bowling will back it up, or has already restricted the opposition.
Of course, it’s not that Zimbabwe did not know this. They simply had to work within the constraints of their talent pool – building around the strengths of Bennett, Raza, Muzarabani and Ngarava was their best bet of getting anywhere in this competition.
Heading into the Super Eights, Zimbabwe’s base shifted from Sri Lanka to Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, which has smaller boundaries, a faster outfield and a wicket where the ball comes onto the bat far better. Raza downplayed concerns about adapting to the new conditions before their game against the West Indies, choosing instead to “imagine if we can go from this stadium, played one, won one.”
Zimbabwe discovered very painfully that in Mumbai, even mishits would fly for six, and that the ball would speed across the turf like a bullet. Hitting the gaps and running hard also had limited utility on the smaller outfield. Raza chose to bowl first so his seamers could use any bit of help there could be from the wicket; they prised out two powerplay wickets but that would never be enough against a deep Windies lineup. A third could have come, if not for a drop by Tashinga Musekiwa in the deep.
Also read: Fan speak: How 'perfect timing' and stellar cricket have put the world back in World Cup
But once that didn’t happen, there wasn’t much of a Plan B. Just like the Sri Lanka game, the opposition batters made merry in the latter half of the innings. With a more powerful lineup and better batting conditions, the end result was far worse; after West Indies made 254, the result was all but a formality. Zimbabwe’s batting template (indeed, anyone’s) would almost never get that far. It was copy-paste against India in Chennai, from winning the toss and choosing to field to Musekiwa dropping a catch after appearing to lose the ball in the floodlights. This time, the batters fared better but the result would always be a formality.
An already-shaky template had the additional challenge of trying to catch under lights for the first time in the competition. “It’s not as difficult as we make it look sometimes,” fielding coach Stuart Matsikenyeri later admitted. “It’s a case of getting accustomed [to it]. We play a lot of our cricket in the day time so it does take some adjusting. I don’t think we are ever going to use that as an excuse but it would help to play some more cricket under lights.”
It would be harsh to say that Zimbabwe were always going to come a cropper against these two sides – what if Shimron Hetmyer had been caught on nine instead of making 85 – but in the end, they needed far too much to go right to have a chance, and ended up on the wrong side of two batting juggernauts.
Their brand of T20 cricket was no doubt conservative, but not altogether wrong. Rather, it had a (very) low, hard ceiling. It also doesn’t help that much of their T20 games ahead of the World Cup came against African sides far lower in the rankings, where they play with far more freedom, and all the swagger that comes with the status of a bully. It can be difficult to adapt, but they did do so to the best of their ability.
At the end of it all, they have now gone from not making the 2024 tournament to the top eight here, and securing a place for the 2028 edition. But as far as this year is concerned, there is only so much a house of cards can withstand in a hurricane (or two).
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
