CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

Whatever happens tomorrow, it is certain that the 1999 World Cup final will be played at a higher level of intensity, and to a higher standard, than the last one staged at Lord's. This is not because Viv Richards, Michael Holding, Sunil Gavaskar or Kapil Dev were in any way inferior in talent to Wasim Akram, Shoaib Akhtar, Steve Waugh and Shane Warne, but because since 1983 the one-day game has mutated out of all recognition.

In Lahore three years ago Omar Kureishi, the veteran Pakistani commentator, observed that ``what we are seeing now is the element of science coming into one-day cricket. The game is evolving and it is now being played as much in the mind as on the field.'' The contrast between this World Cup and the batting feast staged in Asia in 1996 confirms the argument. English conditions have demanded tactical ingenuity, and it is telling that the English showed themselves less adept than others at exploiting them.

The one-day game is a relative newcomer among global sports and its technical and dramatic possibilities are still being explored. Of course, it has placed a premium on power, speed and fitness, and in that regard has had an impact in the Test arena as well. But it has also demanded, increasingly, strategic vision and tactical flair.

It could be argued that one-day captaincy now requires greater intensity and continuity of focus than Test captaincy, because there is little room for experiment and none for error. Has any captain in any form of the game had to concentrate harder or think faster than Steve Waugh did at Edgbaston on Thursday?

The best matches in this World Cup have demonstrated that in one-day cricket, 50 overs can be a very long time indeed. The shifts in tempo, the sudden reversals of fortune, even the wild mood swings of committed partisans have proved absorbing to all those cricket lovers who stayed tuned after England's demise.

The presence in number of Asian supporters has set the tone for this World Cup. Without them, it would have been immeasurably poorer as a spectacle and as a social event. It will be intriguing to see what effect Lord's and the Pakistani fans have on each other tomorrow.

In any case, surely there can no longer be any doubt that the commitment to cricket among Britain's Asian communities is the game's greatest untapped resource in the land of its birth, perhaps the key to a revival of the game across the country as a whole. But to reach out effectively to these communities will require a stiff dose of self-criticism on the part of the game's authorities. The Racism Study Group set up by the ECB bears a heavy burden. Anything less than a radical response to a deep-rooted problem could cost cricket in this country dear.

The triumphs of this World Cup have been the cricket and the crowds. The organisers emerge with less credit. The failure to attract a full complement of sponsors means that despite packed houses, profits will be less than projected and counties will feel the squeeze. Given the ECB's determination to run cricket like a business, the failure to maximise revenue must raise questions about both the competence of those implementing the strategy, and the strategy itself.

Too much effort was expended on desperate promotional gimmicks and too little on the comfort and pleasure of ordinary paying customers (the ones who never see the inside of a hospitality box or media centre). At most venues, the queues for drinks were endless; the food was overpriced and sometimes inedible. Entry to the smaller grounds was time consuming.

Communication with spectators, either before or during the matches, was perfunctory at best. In the absence of scorecards, ticket-holders were expected to fork out an additional £3 (£4 at the semi-finals) for a glossy programme. In the tense final overs of the semi-final at Edgbaston, neither the public address nor the replay screen were used to inform spectators how a place in the final would be awarded in the case of a tie.

Cricket fans are a hardened breed, and rarely complain about what are frequently second-rate facilities and second-class treatment. Perhaps a more demanding attitude from them would force the authorities to think again.

The most important lesson of this World Cup is that English cricket has nothing to fear and everything to gain by embracing influences from abroad. Certainly there can be no going back to the blanket ban on banners, flags, placards and musical instruments. And the notion that the standard of cricket will rise by excluding overseas players from domestic competitions is surely now exposed as risible. Those who insist on a patriotic appointee to

succeed David Lloyd are arguing for inward-looking stasis in a rapidly changing world order. For what it's worth, my vote goes to Duncan Fletcher.

The ECB should also look at other ways of upgrading England's inter-action with the rest of the cricketing world. England do not play enough in the subcontinent - one Test tour in a decade is both insulting and self-defeating. Why not send a crop of young players out to Asia every year to learn about conditions and styles of play in what is now the epicentre of global cricket? When they find themselves up against the likes of Anil Kumble at some future World Cup, they might not look so out of depth.