For the fan, there is of course nothing more satisfying than seeing one's team win. Those of us privileged enough to be given a writers' soapbox to comment from, however, find it far easier to comment on the misfortunes of a team. Today finds me in odd mood, then: disappointed at another England failure, yet strangely delighted that they have largely written this issue's column for me.

It is as easy for England fans to dismiss the short form of the game as India did England. Despite having co-invented one-day cricket after three days of rain in Melbourne in 1971, the English have never
taken the game to their hearts, possibly due to a lack of success. The cycle is self-fulfilling. Lack of success means a lack of interest, allowing players, coaches and selectors to treat the form with less gravity than perhaps it deserves. Caught up in the idea that the long form of the game is somehow nobler and more worthy of our time, we treat one-day cricket like an irksome fly nibbling our caviar, an impertinence. Even captain Michael Vaughan — winner of an OBE for services to cricket — said, 'If there are too many matches, as was the case in India last winter, you cannot help ticking them off
and counting them down¹.' If the captain can't be bothered, why should anyone else? In England, one-day cricket is a breeding ground for Test cricket; a form of the game so unimportant that players of the calibre of Gower, Botham and Trescothick have been given entire series off in the past. Before you rush off to defend Tresco, who is apparently ill with stress, consider this: would he miss the Ashes with the same condition?

We are alone in thinking this. Every other Test-playing nation attracts larger crowds for ODIs than for Tests, and to say that it doesn't matter is to show the old colonial stiff upper lip to the millions around the world who love the short form. In India they say millions watch Tests, but billions the ODIs. Sniffing at one-day cricket still isn't a solution to our woes. Despite being beaten finalists last time round, the ICC Champions Trophy is happily passing without the slightest measure of excitement in England and after the abject performance against India on Sunday, the players must be delighted by this.

They were poor with bat and ball. The so-called 'pinch-hitters' at the top of the order took 106 balls and four wickets to get to fifty; compare that with India, who took 35 balls and one wicket to reach theirs. By the seventh legal delivery, England's bowlers had conceded more extras than India did in the whole England innings. Although England took six wickets, four of those came when the game was already gone. Pluses were thin on the ground; Collingwood's cameo with the bat, Harmison finding some of his old rhythm and the continuing improvement of the spinners all offered too little hope, much too late. It was difficult to make a case for England's continued involvement in this competition with Australia to come next. They need to win both their remaining group games to qualify, which looks beyond them on this form.

The worst thing is that they're allowed to get away with it, largely because of apathy by both fans and selectors. Imagine if the footballers used the European Championships as a practice arena for the World Cup, and you'll see what I mean. If we fête them on an open-top bus after winning the Ashes, we should likewise turn up to boo them at Heathrow and burn our shirts in protest. Perhaps it is also time to bring a one-day specialist coach into the England set-up; while Duncan Fletcher has done a fine job with the Test team, he has been unable to bring any kind of improvement to the one-dayers. It certainly can't do any harm; England on Sunday were diabolical. And frankly, they've made commentators' jobs far too easy for far too long.

—

So who might do well in the Champions Trophy²? All three of the major subcontinent teams should do well. India have home
advantage and two wonderful spinners in Powar and Harbhajan, and are used to high expectations — but have only won just over half their ODIs since the last World Cup. Pakistan look strong all round, although the absence of Inzamam-ul-Haq leaves the side looking short of experienced leadership. Sri Lanka look good as well under Jayawardene's captaincy — full of flair and guile — and Murali should enjoy bowling on Indian pitches.

Of the rest, New Zealand, West Indies and England will do well to escape their groups, while Australia and South Africa will always be dangerous. Australia have never really looked like winning the Champions Trophy though, and South Africa's lack of a genuine world-class spinner makes them look less likely contenders.

Australia and India look poor value at the odds (best prices 9/4 and 3-1 respectively), but Sri Lanka's 5-1 price looks the most tempting of the lot. Romantics would love an India-Pakistan final, but I fancy
Sri Lanka to go all the way.

—

Finally, if you're an Australian cricket fan and fancy collaborating on a special pre-Ashes Absolutely Plumb in four weeks time, please contact me as soon as possible. If no-one volunteers, I'll just have to invent one .

The Absolutely Plumb Archive

Skankyrich

19.10.06 Front Page

Back Issue Page