James Tredwell (centre) of England bowls during the warm-up match against the West Indies at the Sydney Cricket Ground yesterday. The 2015 Cricket World Cup begins on February 14.
The Guardian/London
For the first time in 23 years, the cricketing community descends on Australasia for the World Cup. The fanfares have been blown, mostly via a stream of ICC media releases before the first matches on Valentine’s Day in Christchurch and Melbourne: 14 teams, 42 pool games, three in each of the 14 host cities, which are equally divided between Australia and New Zealand: a nonstop cricketing carnival between Perth and Napier, a distance of a mere 3,409 miles. And then, on 18 March, 32 days after the opening matches, the first quarter-final takes place in Sydney.
So for seven weeks there will, in theory, be a cavalcade of cricket. Even so, the most discerning of pundits, with the freedom to decide when they are available to pontificate, may not turn up until the middle of March (I’m off on Tuesday).
That exalted crew includes the modern establishment man Kevin Pietersen, who works for the Daily Telegraph and the BBC – as well as a few other outlets – and who can therefore be construed as following in the mighty footsteps of EW Swanton and Christopher Martin-Jenkins.
Yes, the World Cup is capable of delivering some surprises, though not necessarily on the field until we reach the quarter-finals. Let us get the gripe out of the way early on. Not for the first time the format for this tournament, which changes almost as rapidly as the Melbourne weather, is flawed. We can all predict with some certainty the identity of the eight quarter-finalists before a ball has been bowled but it will take more than a month to confirm them. During that time six teams, three from each pool, will eventually be jettisoned.
It is possible for England, say, to play atrociously for a month, but if they can scrape victories against Scotland, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, that should be sufficient to see them into the Melbourne quarter-final (their venue has already been decided). Because of the format, England’s fixtures against the three teams named above are arguably far more important than their clashes with Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka.
Dave Richardson, the chief executive of the ICC, is not so daft that he fails to recognise the problem. When asked whether there was any alternative to the current format, he said: “I don’t think so,” before adding, “in this rights cycle”. He went on to explain how in England in 2019 the search for a more competitive format means there will be only 10 teams – after a pre-tournament qualifying process.
In 2015, there could have been steps taken to make the pool games much more meaningful. One alternative, which might seem a little complicated, would have had play-offs between third- and fourth-placed teams in the two groups with the first-placed sides heading straight to the semi-finals. But the most painfully obvious way to improve the format would have been to go straight to the semi-finals from the pool matches, at a stroke giving those fixtures among the “senior” sides far more relevance.
However, one does not need to be Robert Peston to spot one consequence of such a change: the absence of quarter-finals would mean a drop in revenue and contractual wrangles with TV companies. The integrity and quality of the competition are not deemed to be worth such a sacrifice. I will try not to mention this again. But I cannot promise.
There are some mouth-watering fixtures at the start. On Saturday, the favourites Australia play England in Melbourne after beating them three times in the recent Tri Series. Australia are not short of confidence, so much so that they are prepared to start the tournament with 13 fit men as they wait for the return of their captain, Michael Clarke, and their mighty “finisher” James Faulkner. The situation with Clarke could become tricky. If Australia start strongly they may not wish to disturb the balance – and the leadership – of their team; if they start poorly the pressure will be on Clarke straightaway. He has to convince the selectors that he will be fit to play Bangladesh on 21 February.
However, Australia, trusting in muscular hitters rather than durable technicians with the bat and capable pacemen with the ball, look strong. Until the 2011 tournament in Asia, the World Cup had never been won by a host country so that India victory four years ago in Mumbai may be a relief to superstitious Aussies and Kiwis, dreaming of Cup glory.
In recent years England have seldom entered the World Cup with much optimism, a state of affairs soon justified by subsequent events. The same applies this time even though England’s Ashes commitments have been juggled to allow them the chance to prepare properly. The familiar doubts remain even if there have been some changes in personnel. There are the usual concerns about the captain’s contributions with the bat, even though we are now talking of Eoin Morgan rather than Alastair Cook.
No3 is a key position in ODI cricket and is currently occupied by the novice James Taylor, who looks far more competent against Indian bowlers than Australian ones (mind you, he is not alone in that).
Ravi Bopara is back to being a peripheral player again. The bowling is a little more reassuring with the advances of Steven Finn and Moeen Ali and the return of Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson (especially) but it lacks variety. It would be a surprise if England won in Melbourne.
Earlier in the day New Zealand will be the favourites to beat Sri Lanka in the other Pool A fixture in Christchurch. The Kiwis on home turf were victorious by 4-2 in a recent series between the two sides. Historically these are two of the most innovative teams in the competition (think of the exploits of New Zealand in 1992 and Sri Lanka in 1996). It would be welcome to be surprised by either of them this time around.
Both Brendon McCullum, the Kiwi captain, and Angelo Mathews of Sri Lanka have fertile cricket brains and sufficient daring to try something different. The rest of the pool comprises Bangladesh, Afghanistan, competing in their first 50-over World Cup, and Scotland, who have Paul Collingwood back on board behind the scenes, no doubt at this very minute revising the words of “Flower of Scotland”.
Pool B houses the three most unpredictable sides in the tournament. Pakistan were dramatic winners in the last Australasian World Cup when they were required by their captain, Imran Khan, to fight like “cornered tigers”. They have lost a lot of ODI matches recently but their current leader, Misbah-ul-Haq, one of three players over 40 in the tournament (the other two are the captain and vice-captain of the UAE, Khurram Khan and Mohammad Tauqir) has seen enough to remain tranquil about their form. India have been losing regularly since arriving in Australia and West Indies have also been struggling (although they have turned up regularly in recent months).
West Indies, winners of the first two World Cups, are now the outsiders among the senior sides at 20-1. But all three of these teams could beat anyone on their day. They could also – just possibly – lose a match to Zimbabwe and Ireland, though perhaps not the UAE. That leaves South Africa as the likeliest winner of Pool B and even though they have yet to reach a final since their reintegration in 1992, they are, in my estimate, the likeliest winners of the tournament.
