CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

South Africans and Australians changed into tracksuits and went out to practise, but the players of England and West Indies had nothing to do but kill time until they departed the 1999 World Cup, posing sadly for amateur photographers and signing autographs.

Away went the failures of the tournament, who included some of the biggest names in the game.

Sanath Jayasuriya, the most valuable player in 1996, had a miserable tournament. The dashing Sri Lankan lefthander had a highest score of 39 against Kenya. The swinging white ball undid him, as it has many opening batsmen in the first three weeks of the tournament. Aravinda de Silva, man of the match in the last World Cup Final in Lahore, had one decent innings, 56 in a losing cause against India, but his other scores were 0, 1, 6 and 10. Captain of the failures must be the last man to hold the World Cup aloft - Sri Lankan Arjuna Ranatunga. By the standards of Jayasuriya and De Silva, he didn't bat badly, with three scores between 32 and 50, but his impressive impassivity as a winning captain cruising through crises was reduced to uninspiring inactivity in England.

The Flop XI: Sanath Jayasuriya (SL), Alec Stewart (Eng), Graeme Hick (Eng), Aravinda de Silva (SL), Brian Lara (WI), Arjuna Ranatunga (SL, captain), Andrew Flintoff (Eng), Adam Hollioake (SL), Robert Croft (Eng), Chaminda Vaas (SL) and Eric Upashanta (SL).

The Shining Stars (based on performances in the first round): Saurav Ganguly (Ind), Ridley Jacobs (WI), Rahul Dravid (Ind), Sachin Tendulkar (SL), Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak), Ricky Ponting (Aus), Lance Klusener (SA), Wasim Akram (Pak, captain), Shane Warne (Aus), Allan Donald (SA), Glenn McGrath (Aus). ARGUABLY the most instructive part of the South African 2003 World Cup fact-finding mission, led by United Cricket Board director of professional cricket Imtiaz Patel, will be at Old Trafford in Manchester tomorrow.

Not the famous cricket ground, where Jim Laker took 19 wickets in a match and Paul Winslow hit a six to post a Test century, but the football stadium, a five-minute walk away.

Patel, provincial chief executives, sponsors and marketing men are likely to have their eyes opened, and their imaginations stretched, when they attend a marketing presentation by Manchester United football club.

As marketers of sport, this single club has left the supposed might of the England and Wales Cricket Board and the World Cup organising committee floundering in its wake.

Marketing and the quality of sport are two different matters, however. Whatever its shortcomings as a ``carnival of cricket'', the World Cup has produced good cricket, and it is sure to get better.

It should be thrilling the connoisseurs, although I have encountered several Englishmen who sniffily dismiss any one-day cricket as a ``slog''. Try telling that to Hansie Cronjé, or the other captains who have had to negotiate through minefields of tricky pitches, weather conditions and tactical variations.

This has been a World Cup for thinking cricketers. Unlike Asia in 1996, where it was a case of he who batted best won, in perfect batting conditions there have been plots and sub-plots. And, even though the points system, which I praised last week, has been shown to have its flaws, it remains an exceedingly good way to decide the best one-day team.

It has allowed for the occasional poor performance, yet any one game can be a make-or-break affair. South Africa's defeat by Zimbabwe showed that a team could not afford to relax after winning their group.

There has been debate about whether it is fair that a side topping the log should go into the next round with fewer points than the team who finished third, but it has put a premium on playing well at all times.

David Lloyd, the England coach, put the apologists for his side in perspective when he acknowledged that England had failed when it mattered. For them, the penalty was elimination. They must rue their bad performance against South Africa and, perhaps, the number of overs it took them to beat Kenya. The combination of those two games, and their defeat in a crunch game by India, meant they missed out because of run rate.

Yet, it is a system which is forgiving. Already there is not a single unbeaten side. From now on, though, winning becomes ever more important. With the weather likely to change and pitches become more batsman-friendly, teams will need to refine their tactics and, perhaps, their teams.

Contributd by management (help@cricinfo.com)