Did we not agree that trying to second-guess the result of any given England match, before it was done and dusted, was a fruitless exercise?
You were warned but you simply couldn’t help yourself could you? and you now have cricket flavoured egg all over your face.
But sweet lordy they are giving value for money. I don’t know what is going to happen now. I suspect we’ll get through but when we do. All bets are off.
Based on Tredwell’s performance we could have a decent spin attack, we certainly have capable batsmen. we know they can field when they put their mind to it (they were pretty good yesterday).
So all the elements are there, What’s the betting that the only convincing performance they put in will be a trouncing of Australia in the final.
You know the thing about cricket flavoured egg, at least in this case? It tastes pretty good.
I suspect that it is fruitless to try and understand what is going on with the England cricket team but I’m going to try anyway. I think that it’s probably got a lot to do with tiredness (quite a few of the team have been on tour since November with no break - and our best performers yesterday - with the exception of Trott, who could probably bat for a lifetime if he really needed to - have all been drafted into the squad late or didn’t play in the Ashes). I also suspect it’s got something to do with the team not really knowing when it is beaten. I’m actually quite proud of them; this is the first English cricket team in quite some time that does not give up when faced with a seemingly lost cause. Credit has to go to Flower and Strauss for building the squad spirit up.
They’re also the first English team in any World Cup competition I can think of in any sport where you can say with a reasonably straight face that the tournament will be poorer if they go out. Even the RWC 2003 boys had retreated into their shell a bit by the time the tournament rolled around and only really played well in the semi and the final. That said, who would put it past this mad, mad tournament for Bangladesh and the Windies to win both of their games and England go out, despite beating 2 quarter finalists and tying with a third?
I think we’re going to wind up with Sri Lanka winning this. I don’t have much to base this on - just gut feel.
I find it amazing that the England party have been touring without a meaningful break since mid-November. That is crazy. (and no, a few days home before flying to India does not count)
Most of them must be mentally shot and I don’t find it surprising that form dips and physical breakdown follows.
It is too much to expect them to win it, too erratic I think though they have given me immense entertainment along the way.
My money is on India (with the little master to get his hundredth hundred in the final)
With due respect, this “team is tired” excuse comes up every time a team is not performing. Teams stay in comfortable surroundings, and lack for nothing.
The great Windies team of the 80’s and the Australian team of the late 90’s never complained of being tired. And if you go far enough back you will find the teams that toured England in the 1920’s would finish a game and catch a train to the next game which started in the morning.
These guys are supposed to be professional sportsmen.
A player such as Wasim Akram averaged 49 days of International cricket a year over 18 years. That is hardly a hell of a lot.
Fair enough - but how do you account for the results then? The English guys who have been on tour since November (with the exception of Trott) have been inconsistent at best in the last month or so. I accept that I might be falling into a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy here - but I fail to see much in the way of evidence to suggest that it isn’t a factor.
Also - I dislike the term excuse. It’s a reason.
Wasim did 49 days of International Cricket a year for 18 years. Great, good for him. Wasim also did it in an era where fitness regimes in cricket were relatively unheard of and players got plenty of rest from the game because the players weren’t looking at computer analyses of themselves and their opponents. I don’t think that the problem for much of the England team is physical - it’s mental. Witness the appalling display against Holland where they failed to have enough guys in the circle and lost a Broad yorker as a result. I contend that these players need some time away from the game just to recharge their batteries.
I do think there is such a thing as too much cricket though. We didn’t need a 7 match series against the Aussies. A “best of three” would suffice and give the team time to catch a break to mentally replenish themselves.
I can’t speak for teams of a bygone era but it is a truth in all sports that it is difficult to peak at the right time. Very difficult to peak twice in quick succession and very difficult to do it over a consistent four month period.
And before you do Cicero, don’t hold up the Waugh era Aussie team. They were exceptional and represent what is theoretically possible, not what is normal.
Fair enough, and I wasn’t making a case against England specifically. I recall that when the powerful Australian team of the mid 2000’ was in decline there were stories of how they were tired. Beside the story was a picture of Hayden surfing in Barbados (or some WI island).
And Novelty Bubble, I referred to the Windies side of the 80’s which was one of the best I have seen. They had no trouble peaking- and they were playing in the days before neutral referees which made their task pretty difficult.
I agree that the 7 ODI matches in Australia should have been trimmed. They are pretty meaningless and everyone quickly forgets results.
With England, I believe that one can find other reasons for the strange results. Strauss is strangely one dimensional as a captain, the fielding is not great, and the bowling has been patchy. To the credit of the team though, they have shown a lot of resilience.
At the end of this ramble I think very good teams peak without worrying about workload. Relatively good teams search for reasons.
You forgot to mention all the dodgy shots getting batsmen out. Anyway, all of these can ultimately be attributed to mental tiredness. Teams nowadays play far more one-day cricket than in the 90s or 80s.
The poor shots could be attributed to crap batting as well.
Of course teams play far more one day games than they did 30 years ago- and far more than they did in the 1920’s.
They played far more first class games way back when.
Re Wasim Akram. Till at least the late 90’s (unlike today) the majority of cricket that Wasim Akram played would not have been internationals matches, but also county and domestic matches, with the former being his main source of income. He would literally have to play the entire calender year and I recall in his autobiography that once during a tour of England, he played in a Test Match which went on into the last session and he was exhausted and yet the next day he and Michael Atherton appeared in a match for Lancashire. And he was diabetic to boot.
Meanwhile Bangladesh have a big chase in front of them. They’ve never chased more than 221 to win and only two sides have chased over 200 at this ground.
