#CricketWorldCupdates: England out, but there are bigger lessons to learn

Winning the toss was just about the highlight of Eoin Morgan's day. 

Statistically speaking, he chose wrong though...

Moments ago, England crashed out of the 2015 Cricket World Cup. It has been a long time coming, but with the format as it is, until this morning they still looked set to make the quarterfinals. But they didn’t.

A hugely frustrating run chase that saw a steady start, a stuttering middle, a Jos Buttler-inspired rally and a tame end saw the Three Lions come up 15 runs short of Bangladesh's 275-7. This leaves them on two points after only one win in their first five games, unable to make the top four.

Rather than carry out the same post-mortem as everyone else, lambasting and lamenting the effort of the 15 professionals sent Down Under to do a job, I’ll simply say what England’s World Cup efforts have taught me.

This is the first global tournament to feature the key rule changes to ODI cricket that have seen different balls used at each end and a reduction in fielders allowed outside the circle. The experiment hasn't worked, and English trials and tribulations have only served to emphasise the point.

When the new playing conditions were introduced it was with the aim of making the game more exciting, compared to its little brother, T20. More runs were to be scored, with the aim of keeping the interest of fans for 100 overs of cricket.

After a while my observation was that it didn’t necessarily mean it would be easier to score every time. I thought the new rules served to emphasise and exaggerate the other factors on display. If it’s a good batting pitch, even more runs will come. But if conditions are favouring bowlers and the fielding side is on top, forcing the captain to bring an extra fielder up can make scoring even harder in the middle overs too.

During this World Cup, and particularly in England matches, I have seen more areas where match factors are exaggerated. Simply put, the conditions make the better side even better. Weaker bowlers are given a smaller margin for error and stronger batsmen are given more room and opportunity to score their runs, which inevitably makes the gap between sides even bigger.

Two examples of this are the way England’s bowlers have gone to all parts in the latter overs of the innings, and the results of the Irish team. Most teams have struggled to contain batsmen in these overs, but the England attack, lacking a clear plan or any semblance of confidence, has suffered more than most.

Ireland have beaten West Indies, UAE and Zimbabwe in this tournament and been one of the bright sparks of the whole event, but when they faced South Africa they didn’t have a prayer. I’m sure that a side full of confidence and with some very useful cricketers would have given the South African’s a much better game had they not been faced with the current fielding regulations that saw the last 15 overs they bowled disappear for 200 runs.

The other thing that the new rules has exaggerated and intensified is the importance and affect of runs on the board. In good batting conditions 300 is no longer enough but even if 350 is a ‘par score’, chasing it is some challenge. There have been 18 scores of 300 or more in the first innings showing the opportunity to go big is there, but only two of these have been chased successfully.

More tellingly though none of the scores over 310, let alone the scores upwards of 350 or 400, have been successfully chased. The opportunity to score 100 or more in the last ten overs is undoubtedly there, but doing that to set a score has proven immeasurably easier than doing it because you need to when chasing one down.

It’s not the battle between bat and ball that has reached an untenable level, but the battle between batting first and second. The experiment hasn’t worked.

The monotony of modern football

'I'm more than capable of looking after myself, don't worry about that...'

The first rule of football club is don’t say anything original about football club. Sam Allardyce’s ‘thump it forward and see’ description of Manchester United’s approach towards the end of Sunday’s game only serves to prove a theory I’ve been working on for some time; football has run out of ideas.

As pundits continue to trot out recycled thoughtless descriptions of what has gone before and what might follow and @footballcliches thrives on Twitter, I’m left believing that managers are destined to repeat accusations once thrown at them, as a cycle of nothingness continues to go nowhere.

Allardyce v Van Gaal: Long ball team…

Putting aside the negative connotations of long-ball football, the suggestion that this was United’s best chance of scoring a goal at the weekend was, from Allardyce, undeniably the pot calling the kettle black.

Recently United have gone noticeably direct in an attempt to utilise Marouane Fellaini’s attributes and avoid previous criticisms linked to ponderous build-up play, but let’s be honest, Allardyce was just frustrated about conceding a late goal.

Anything else would be hypocrisy, as during his tenure at West Ham he has repeatedly come under fire from his own fans for a style of play far removed from the passing game believed to be the ‘West Ham way’.

We're not keen on long-ball football either Sam...

Less than a year ago ‘Fat Sam out, killing WHU’ was displayed on a large banner as Allardyce watched his side lose to West Brom, and this followed a long period where results were poor, and the style of play was regularly criticised. Despite this harrowing experience, something he also dealt with in his ill-fated period as Newcastle boss too, Big Sam was happy to make the same accusation this weekend.

Allardyce v Mourinho: Parking the bus..?

Just over a year ago, as Allardyce was fighting against poor form and the abuse from sections of his own fans, West Ham won a hard fought point at Stamford Bridge against Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea.

‘It's very difficult to play a football match where only one team wants to play,’ declared Mourinho, as he described the West Ham playing style as being from the nineteenth century.

This particular assertion, that West Ham had wronged Chelsea by not attempting to take them on blow for blow is not a new one to Mourinho, as he has put teams out to (often successfully) stifle and suffocate all creativity from a game. Not more hypocrisy, surely?

His comments received a variety of responses, including a description of Victorian-era football, and reasonable suggestions that he has been equally guilty of this type of tactic.

Jose is disgusted by defensive football...

The best response though, comes from Mourinho’s own archive of witticisms. Following a 1-0 defeat at the Nou Camp that saw his Inter Milan side reach the Champions League final on aggregate, Mourinho triumphantly rejected allegations that his side had parked the bus.

‘People say we park[ed] the bus,’ he said. ‘That is not true, we park[ed] the plane!’

Van Gaal v Koeman: You came for one point…

The most blatant example of repetition involves colleagues turned nemeses, Louis Van Gaal and Ronald Koeman. When Koeman took his Southampton team to Old Trafford, and beat United 1-0, Van Gaal was exasperated by the result.

‘They came for a draw and they got away with a victory,’ he said, barely making sense.

Three weeks later, Koeman’s team were the hosts, and Swansea City were the visitors. After more than an hour of near-domination by the home side, Jonjo Shelvey scored the winner for the Welsh side, and it was Koeman left lamenting a smash and grab defeat at home.

As if reading off a script prepared for all managers faced with explaining a 1-0 home defeat, the Dutchman said: ‘I think the luckiest team won today. They came for one point and theygot three points.’

Maybe the bizarre touchline incident involving Nigel Pearson and James McArthur on Saturday was the Leicester manager's attempt to break the monotony and repetition of modern football, and we should be grateful if that is the case. Strangely, his comment after the incident that he is ‘more than capable of looking after himself’ was rhetoric more akin to Fight Club than a football club. Fortunately, the Leicester manager didn’t breach the first rule of this club any further by explaining or justifying his behaviour, a shrewd move indeed…

#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 5: ...The Unexpected

Rain on their parade! The rain rule thwarts the South African challenge in 1992

The World Cup should be the pinnacle of one-day cricket, with the best players on show, fighting for the biggest trophy in the sport. Unfortunately the high-quality cricket often gets overshadowed by any number of bizarre off-field events.

For example, in 1992 the pre Duckworth-Lewis “most productive overs” method of calculating rain-affected results left South Africa needing 22 off the final ball to reach the final. However hard you run, it’s unlikely you’ll turn a single into a 22...

In 2003 the controversy started in the build up to the tournament with the question mark over playing matches in, and against, Zimbabwe. Attention was particularly focused on England, and they eventually chose to boycott the fixture. Zimbabwe players Henry Olonga and Andy Flower went on to stage their own protests against the Mugabe regime. Shane Warne failed a drugs test in the build up to Australia’s first game, meaning that the hero of the 1999 final was sent home without bowling a ball.

The 2007 tournament was also plagued with criticism long before the first ball was delivered. The way the ICC commercialised every aspect of the tournament and high ticket prices came under the heaviest fire, and the standard and readiness of facilities were also questioned.

Andrew Flintoff made headlines for getting drunk and capsizing a pedalo after one of England’s matches, and the tournament will also be remembered for the sad, and mysterious, death of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer. 

2011 was relatively controversy free, given that part of the schedule had to be rearranged due to Pakistan’s ban on hosting international matches, but it didn’t escape entirely. During England’s tie with India, Ian Bell survived a DRS referral on the grounds that he was more than 2.5 metres away from the stumps, much to MS Dhoni’s dismay. As we know, the Indians aren’t the biggest supporters of technology in cricket anyway.

The ICC and host nations in particular will be hoping that the 2015 tournament passes by without criticism and controversy, and that the tournament is remembered for what happens on the field: but history suggests that might be hoping for too much.

#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 4: Aussie Grit

Straight to the Pont! The Australian captain leads his side to World Cup glory

Having scraped through the group stage in 1999, Australia needed to win all three of their Super Six matches to reach the knockout stage. After comfortable victories against India and Zimbabwe they were set a challenging total by South Africa.

Needing to win to set up a semi-final against the Proteas (and we know what happened there) Australia chased down the target of 272 to win with two balls remaining. There was a patient 69 from Ricky Ponting, more from him later, but it was captain Steve Waugh who held the innings together. His unbeaten 120 from 110 balls started the trend of Australian captains coming up trumps in huge World Cup games.

By 2003, Ponting had taken over as captain, and his side were favourites to retain the title won in 1999. After a mediocre group stage that only included a couple of half centuries, Ponting exploded into life in the first Super Six game against Sri Lanka. His 109-ball 114 helped the Aussies post over 300 to win a game that sent them through to the semi-finals with two games to spare, and acted as a sign of things to come.

After meeting, and beating, Sri-Lanka again in a low-scoring semi-final, Ponting’s men faced India in the final. Ponting lost the toss, but having been put into bat, this was the last thing that would go wrong for the Australian skipper on the day. After putting on a century stand for the first wicket, openers Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden fell in quick succession. This brought Ponting and Damien Martyn together at the crease, and they took the game away from their opponents quickly and brutally. Martyn’s unbeaten 88 was impressive, but Ponting’s 140 not out was one of the greatest one-day innings ever seen, on the biggest stage of them all.

Uncharacteristically, Ponting’s only century of the 2007 World Cup was against an associate nation. He followed up the 113 against Scotland with half centuries as Australia defeated South Africa, England, Sri Lanka and New Zealand to make serene progress through the tournament. The reality though was that Australia didn’t need their captain to be anything more than steady in a tournament they won easily.

2011 was a lot more challenging for the Australians though, and Ponting’s own struggles were evident. New Zealand and Zimbabwe were the only Test nations Australia beat in the group stage before bowing out in the quarterfinals to eventual champions India. The quarterfinal was ultimately disappointing for Australia, but showed the fighting qualities of their captain. After failing to pass fifty in the group stage, Ponting rolled back the years to score 104 and help his side to a competitive total. While 260/6 was not enough on the day, the qualities that current captain Michael Clarke will be expected to show, if he gets himself fit for the World Cup this year, were on display for all to see.

#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 3: Choking Proteas?

Donald's Duck! Adam Gilchrist completes the run-out to send Australia through

Every World Cup can be counted upon for high scores, exciting cricket and drama. The drama often comes in the form of an English collapse, like those mentioned yesterday, but another country involved in more than their fair share of drama, and collapses, is South Africa.

The South African’s usually arrive with a strong squad and a strong claim over victory, but as strong as their squads have been, getting over the line has been a problem. As tournaments have gone by, and South Africa have fallen in tight games in the latter stages, they have been labelled as chokers.

This World Cup will be no different in at least one respect, questions will be raised about the ability of South Africa to get over the line, whether the label is a fair one or not.

In 1999 the Proteas had more than one foot in the final before their first major meltdown. Having slipped to 61/4 chasing Australia’s total of 213, Jacques Kallis and Jonty Rhodes put together a partnership of 84 and Shaun Pollock and Lance Klusener’s big hitting gave them a great chance. Wickets continued to fall until they entered the final over on 205/9, Klusener still at the crease, and on strike.

The left-hander hit the first two balls of the over for four drawing the scores level. A run-out was narrowly avoided on the third ball before a mix-up on the fourth led to both batsmen ending up at the same end. The run out, and tie, meant Australia went through due to their superior record from the previous round.

More examples of narrow losses in bizarre circumstances have included a miscalculation in 2003 that led to a Duckworth-Lewis tie, and their elimination, following an incorrect message from the dressing room, and a miserable collapse in the 2011 quarterfinal against New Zealand.

Graeme Smith’s decade as captain was littered with attempts to distance his side from the chokers label, but having failed to get over the line in a major tournament, they’ll face question marks again in Australia and New Zealand this year.