CRICKET WORLD CUP: IT SHOULD come as no surprise that a World Cup on the subcontinent is being dominated by teams from the subcontinent. Unless New Zealand can raise their game to new heights in Colombo tomorrow, two Asian teams will contest the final.
In a tournament that was always likely to be dominated by spin, those nations who bowl it best and have the most accomplished players of it were always going to succeed. England were not alone in their failure to come to terms with the conditions, for neither the much-vaunted South Africans nor the Australians, who last failed to reach a final almost two decades ago – in their own country – fared any better.
England were given a salutary lesson at the Premadasa Stadium on Saturday evening, inadequate with the bat against a quartet of spinners and a unique pace bowler and toothless with the ball, excepting one over in which Chris Tremlett thrice sliced through Tillakaratne Dilshan, to no avail.
Sri Lanka, intimate with the conditions, had all their bases covered. The field settings of Kumar Sangakkara left England, a team largely without batsmen prepared to hit over the top, little room for manoeuvre.
Only when Eoin Morgan joined the steadfast Jonathan Trott did things perk up. Criticism of Trott, of which there has been a deal, is manifestly unfair. He is what he is and at this stage of the tournament he leads the run-scoring, at a respectable scoring rate. A player such as he can, and must, anchor the innings but he needs others, such as Morgan, to play around him. None have done so.
Trott’s failing on Saturday was only to fail to shift his tempo when it became obvious England would fall short. In part, though, that tempo was dictated by an obvious pre-match conclusion that a total of around 250 would be defendable, and that all efforts should be focused on getting that.
Sri Lanka tore the game to shreds with the bat but it is doubtful had they batted first, they would have seen a match-winning score any differently.
After the most intensive five months any England cricket team can have undertaken, the touring party – players and management alike – return home shattered men. There has been no escape. The cruellest of itineraries, agreed unthinkingly four years ago, saw them on a four-hour coach ride to Canberra the morning after their Sydney Ashes triumph and practising the next day.
All Andy Flower wanted was a week’s down time for his players – the Great Barrier Reef, anywhere – to escape cricket, before picking up the second half of the winter. By the end they could not select Jimmy Anderson, not because he was injured or out of form, but because he had nothing left to give. If Flower and the players are willing to take responsibility for the performance since the Ashes – as indeed they are – then so too should the administrators who put them through the mill.
Things will now move on, for the immediate aftermath of a World Cup provides a natural time to take stock, evaluate and move on. The next tournament, four years hence, is in Australia. It will pose more familiar questions. The process will start with the home series against Sri Lanka at the end of June, which is sure to see a look to the future.
There are players who will probably not be seen playing one-day internationals for England again: Paul Collingwood, the most capped of them all; Matt Prior; Michael Yardy (for reasons other than simply his illness, although he might have retained a Twenty20 place); James Tredwell; and in all likelihood Andrew Strauss. The one-day future of Kevin Pietersen is in the balance, although one would hope not over, as is that of Anderson when in this part of the world.
GuardianService
