England still don’t get limited overs cricket

The 3rd ODI between West Indies and England, reduced as it was to 45 overs per side, was won and lost within the first 7 overs.  Done and dusted, fat lady limbering up, time to go home.  Why?  Because despite being shown the way by every other international team around the world for well over a decade, England still have no comprehension of how to approach one-day international cricket.

Having allowed themselves to be tied down for the first six overs to the tune of 15 runs, Andrew Strauss and Ravi Bopara were out, both misplaying the hook to Fidel Edwards, in the space of three balls.  With two new batsmen yet to face a single ball between them, the innings had to be restarted from scratch.  So well done there.

Yes, we can say that West Indies played good cricket, that Fidel Edwards is fast and that Chris Gayle a whirlwind, but it doesn’t matter.  We have seen this kind of performance time and again.  England scored their measly 117 runs in 41.3 overs, at less than 3 runs per over.  Even in a test match nowadays that would be considered slow scoring, but in a 50 over game it is criminal.

It was way back in 1996 that Sri Lanka won the World Cup in stunning fashion with their repeated early overs assaults.  The world sat up, took notice, and realised that the bar had been raised.  England, in contrast, put it down to the sub-continental conditions, a one-off, a freak result.  We preferred to continue with outmoded tactics that still appear to be in use 13 years later.  They just do not seem interested in learning basic tactical principles.  Before we start defending players by saying that they are not playing in their natural format, these are experienced cricketers who should be able to adapt their game according to circumstances.  They are certainly paid well enough to do so.

Back in England this summer, we will appear to perform far better.  It will be an illusion.  The pitches will favour seam bowling early in an innings, which will bring teams down to our level.  It is also the reason why England perform so poorly so often – domestically there is no incentive to develop any other game plan, and this translates to the international stage.

Before 1996 we were much more of a force in previous World Cups, reaching the final in 1992.  Our our overall record in World Cups up to this point was played 34, won 23.  Since then our record is played 25, won 13, lost 12, which includes the 1999 tournament played in England.  Eight of these victories were against non-test playing nations.

What is worse is that nobody seems to know it.  Surely amongst the sycophants at the ECB, someone must have an idea of what is going on.  If I can spend ten minutes on Statsguru figuring this out, why can’t they?  Or are they all too busy trying to seduce the next mogul or push through the next madcap idea (The IPL?  Honestly, who knew it rains in London in April?).

I don’t know whether it is the players or the ECB that make me angriest, but I can tell you I have steam coming out my ears right now.