After exciting, thrilling and exasperating all us England fans during the group stages of the World Cup, the complete drubbing that was on the horizon finally came.
Following such a limp and listless quarter-final display against a far better Sri Lankan outfit, all of England's Group B scrapping and fighting, character, spirit and determination which saw them through to the knockout stages of the competition all seems a little pointless. If England had bowed out after another gloriously entertaining and close affair, competing with Sri Lanka all the way to the death, it perhaps would be easier to take.
Yet adjectives such as tired, jaded, exhausted and drained flow off the tongue once more as England's winter schedule is lambasted by many a respected commentator. But is this a legitimate reason, some might say excuse, for failure at a World Cup once again?
It certainly cannot be dismissed. Some, mostly the everyday men who follow England from their comfy sofas in front of Sky Sports, suggest the players should be fit and strong enough to cope with getting paid vast amounts of money to do a job they would do anything to be able to do. But it is about more than just physical fitness and professionalism.
Michael Yardy is a case in point. Being away from home for months and months, with a measly three days at home between the Ashes tour and the World Cup, takes its toll on minds as well as bodies. Top level sport is not only about being in peak physical condition. For cricketers especially, it is also about coping without loved ones for a serious amount of time, living in the back pockets of teammates 24-7 and being able to deal with that psychologically, as well as the pressure to succeed. It cannot be easy.
In my opinion, it is those mental strains more than the physical ones that have resulted in the negative body language and fed-up expressions so prevalent among Englishmen on the subcontinent.
However, it is not only the ludicrous scheduling of England's winter, having been on the road for five months, with, as I previously mentioned, just three days break before jetting off to the World Cup, which is to blame for another 50-over shambles. It also has a lot to do with a bizarre selection policy when it comes to one-day cricket.
After the Ashes glory had been briefly revelled in, it was straight to work on preparation for the World Cup, starting with a 50-over tour match against a Prime Minister's XI at Canberra. One would have thought that the perfect opportunity to field the XI, barring injuries, in the selectors' and coaches' minds to play in the World Cup - in batting order.
Yet, a typically confused selection hodgepodge ensued. Ian Bell did not open the batting for England at the World Cup until yesterday's quarter-final, despite scoring 124 not out from 102 balls when opening in that match against the Prime Minister's XI. He opened the batting with Steven Davies, who also opened up in England's first ODI against Australia at the MCG in January, when he scored 42 from 35 balls - a strike rate of 120 - before being dropped for the second ODI.
Instead, totally out of the blue, Kevin Pietersen was chosen as Andrew Strauss' opening partner for the World Cup. Steven Davies, and not even Matt Prior, who had replaced Davies during the ODI series in Australia, were clearly deemed not up to the task. It surely does not help a side's preparation when so much indecision and lack of continuity pervades the camp so close to the biggest tournament cricket has to offer.
Then there was the mistake of Michael Yardy and James Tredwell. Tredwell had not picked up a wicket in just three ODIs before going to the World Cup, and Yardy's figures down under during the Australia ODI series were far from impressive. I mentioned in a previous blog that Yardy's inability to actually turn the ball and the fact that batsmen have now worked out his unorthodoxy and variations did not make him an adequate back-up to Graeme Swann on the subcontinent.
Personally, I would have loved to see both Samit Patel and Adil Rashid support Swann at the World Cup. Not only are they younger and would have been fresher than Yardy and Tredwell, but they are also better batsmen. To have the world's best offspinner twirl away, complemented by a left-arm spinner and a legspinner on subcontinent pitches would have really been a formula for success in my opinion.
Clearly the England management thought it too risky. Their opinion of Rashid seems to be that he is still too raw and inexperienced, whereas Patel was left out (after being picked for the 30-man provisional squad) because of the ridiculous, fitness-crazed, ultra-professional approach that now embodies international cricket.
I struggle to understand why if a slightly rounder body shape than normal for an elite cricketer was good enough for Graham Gooch, Allan Lamb, Mike Gatting or even Ian Botham or Andrew Flintoff, why it is now unacceptable for Samit Patel.
There are many other reasons I could contemplate for England's continued failures in the 50-over World Cup, but perhaps we should now finally concentrate on enjoying a marvellous Ashes victory achieved down under for the first time in 24 years. We as fans, let alone the players, have barely had chance to.
When one also considers England have retained the Ashes in Australia as well as won their first ICC world trophy, the World Twenty20, in the last 12 months, it has not been a bad year really.
No comments:
Post a Comment