England out cold for want of flair (31 May 1999)

31 May 1999

England out cold for want of flair

Mark Nicholas

Well now I really don't know who will win the World Cup. Haven't a clue. Last week this column finished with the words "Roll on the Super Sixes", which rather implied that the preliminary skirmishes had lacked glamour and excitement. This was because ball was dominating bat. Too many games were about the team who lost the toss being put in to bat and bowled out for 150-ish.

After that the team who won the toss batted in the best conditions and cruised to victory by seven wickets. Dull, humdrum stuff and not worthy of a World Cup.

Then, as if to prove that cricket, even one-day cricket, cannot be trusted, three fine performances on Friday and Saturday by the teams batting first brought proper relevance to the initial jousting and gave the tournament a surge of adrenalin.

First, Pakistan overwhelmed New Zealand, who are considered dangerous outsiders, so much so that New Zealand have to perform exotic deeds against Scotland today if they are to qualify. Then Zimbabwe put the mockers on South Africa, and on England too as it turned out. To cap it all, the home team failed dismally in their run-chase at Edgbaston. Sachin Tendulkar may not have batted as he can but his presence in the team is the torch by which they travel. Incidentally, why on earth the master has been dropped down from opener to No 4 beats me. No disrespect to Sadagopan Ramesh, who can play a bit, but who would you rather spend 50 overs bowling to?

What a tense day it became on Saturday as the wider implications of these three matches, and not just their result, became clear. Run-rate queries led to mathematical gymnastics for delighted boffins while the importance of the two points available for the winner of each preliminary match led to the realisation that Zimbabwe would begin the Super Sixes league table above South Africa.

The explanation of this, for those who assumed that points carried forward would be used only in the event of teams being level after the Super Sixes games were completed, goes something like this: teams who qualify take with them the points they earned against the other teams who qualify. These points set up the league table which is then continued throughout all the Super Sixes matches. Thus Zimbabwe and Pakistan begin with four points, South Africa and Australia two points, and India, with either the West Indies or New Zealand, have none as yet.

Credit is due to the World Cup committee for this clever, if slightly complicated, system, which places a far greater premium on every match than most people understood. The group matches were not skirmishes after all, they were crucial battles with potential to affect semi-final places. No one has learned this more to their cost than England, who fell to the two teams, India and South Africa, that Zimbabwe beat.

England cannot grumble; they had an age to prepare and chose to spend a period of it in Lahore and Sharjah. The players selected stayed fit and the tosses that mattered were won. This team are out of the World Cup because they are not good enough.

It was not so long ago that a sports-related journey to Holland was associated exclusively with the appreciation of "total" football. In Amsterdam last Wednesday it occurred to me that South Africa were leading a race to achieve "total" limited-overs cricket. Though they were rudely put in their place by Zimbabwe on Saturday, the flexibility of their players gives the team a myriad of options. For example Lance Klusener, who bats at No 9 and is usually employed as the fifth bowler, could comfortably bat in the first three or bowl with the new ball. There are four high-quality all-rounders - Klusener, Jacques Kallis, Shaun Pollock and Hansie Cronje - the wicketkeeper, Mark Boucher, invariably bats at No 3 and a batsman, Jonty Rhodes, is worth his place as a fielder alone.

Pakistan are similarly blessed and, if not quite so consistent, they have more flair in their approach and more specialists - Anwar, Inzamam, Shoaib and Saqlain - with the capacity to do something out of the ordinary.

England remain disappointingly inflexible and, worse still, short of outstanding players who can turn an unpromising position in the team's favour. Whatever the selectors claim, this team did not include the best one-day cricketers in England. Again England have mistrusted natural talent and therefore excluded men such as Nick Knight, Chris Lewis and Dominic Cork, not to mention Mark Ramprakash and Ali Brown, who would offer class, if at times an uneven temperament, instead of the so-called reliability and commitment which are the strongest characteristics of more ordinary cricketers.

Imagine Pakistan selecting a team this way. No way. Talent should be the basis of a team, not an addition to it. One-day cricket happens quickly - which is, incidentally, why Tendulkar should come in earlier - and missing a moment can mean losing a match. Naturally gifted sportsmen sense their moment instinctively; it is not something which can be taught, it is just there. Were England to achieve anything like the "total" cricket played by South Africa and Pakistan, the selectors had to have chosen the very best. They did not. The result is that the host country's World Cup is over.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)