World Cup takeaways #2: England v Pakistan

Wherever Pakistan go, they are followed by this cliche of them as an unpredictable team. Certainly England would have expected to win this match, having just beaten them 4-0 in the series before the World Cup and then watching their batting line up crumble in their opening match against the West Indies. It had been Pakistan's eleventh straight defeat in ODIs. So really, all the signs before the match pointed England's way. But I think the thing with Pakistan really is that they can often just be slow starters in tournaments. Certainly they're a team with a lot more talent than the eleven defeats would suggest, and that streak had to end at some point. Unfortunately for England, that day was today. Pakistan had been many people's tips for a semi-final place before the tournament began, predictions that were hastily revised after their first match but will probably be hastily revised now again.

Embed from Getty Images

Where England's fielding was so excellent last Thursday, it wasn't so hot today. It's not to say they didn't have their moments - good catches did come in the deep from Woakes and Bairstow - but there were many more moments that seemed to stand out as opportunities for runs to be saved, a far cry from match one where it felt like nothing would get past them. There were overthrows, a dropped high skyer from Roy, and other moments where their ground fielding was lacking. Not many matches in this cup have yet been decided by fine margins - but this one was, and so these were moments England were made to rue.

England scored two centuries, by Root and Buttler, but still couldn't get over the line today. There aren't many times that will happen, so it's a big credit to Pakistan and their bowlers that they were able to contain them enough, and prevent that final acceleration that has so often taken England to their best scores. It was especially pleasing to see the bowling of Shadab Khan, returning to the side after missing the previous ODI series with illness and taking two wickets - and unluckily missing out on a third with a dropped catch/stumping chance. Two more men who missed that ODI series, Mohammad Amir and Wahab Riaz (the latter returning from a two year absence), also shared five wickets between them - four crucially coming at the death.

Embed from Getty Images

It was a time ripe for a lower order cameo or two. Four wickets fell in the first 22 overs, so something would likely be needed even with Root and Buttler making it to three figures. Chris Woakes did chip in, his 21 runs coming from 14 balls. It would have been a great opportunity though for Moeen Ali, once England's opener, now coming in at number seven, but whose form has lately been a concern. He hasn't really made many meaningful knocks for a while now, and the talk of the strength of England's lower order doesn't always feel so true. I'd love to see Moeen in the runs again, he's one of those wonderfully likeable players both in terms of character and in that effortless style he exudes when he's doing well. Even with his three wickets today though I worry that he might be one looking over his shoulder when the tournament ends.

So England were defeated, Pakistan deservedly victorious. In this long round robin format, it won't cause England too much concern - over nine matches you would still expect them to come first or second. They remain a brilliant batting side, coming close to pulling off a World Cup record chase - and the sort of chase we've seen them make before. But they can't chase it down every time, and need to tighten up again to not give themselves so much work to do.

England, match two: Pakistan win by 14 runs

World Cup takeaways #1: England v South Africa

So today is the day! The day it all begins! Four years ago England crashed out of the World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, after a string of performances best described as, well, dismal. And now here they are, favourites to win the thing this time round. To part of me it doesn't all seem quite real.

So here are some thoughts on their very first match, some takeaways from the day...

Embed from Getty Images

England didn't go into this tournament changing their plans at the last minute. Sure, Archer came in late on, and there was the switch between Dawson and Denly, but it's not felt like a sign of panic - more an extra opportunity to improve. In the past it's often felt more of a question of 'well who do we pick?' rather than 'who do we leave out?'. In 2015 England brought Gary Ballance into the team for the first match, for some reason moving James Taylor down the order after he'd looked a good man for the role. They chopped and changed when things got a bit desperate, and were at no stage convincing. This time around, it's only really injury that will change that top six/seven, with maybe the odd switch around according to the match situation. With the bowlers, there's a chance for rotation and rest, and a bit of positive competition for places.

In the past, an opener getting a golden duck to only the second ball of the tournament may have been cause for panic. Today Roy and Root just got on with the job. It might not have been quite as explosive as we've seen recently for England, but it was what they needed to do. Roy, Root, Morgan, and Stokes all went past fifty, Stokes topping the lot with 89 from 79. The pundits kept saying how England should have got more, and sure, maybe they should. But it was a measure of England's recent success that a score of 311 felt that way.

Embed from Getty Images

Then it was Archer. The latecomer to the squad, the man whose detractors seemed to think would disrupt the team (he hardly seems the type, does he?). I think those worries will have gone now. He was bowling fast, picking up two wickets in the first ten and also delivering a nasty bouncer into the helmet of Amla (he was later cleared to resume his innings). He grabbed a third, of van der Dussen after a fifty, at a point when the slide had begun for South Africa, triggered by Plunkett's dismissal of de Kock. Archer might only have played four matches now for England, but he's already become the guy that you turn to for a breakthrough.

Ben Stokes took a catch. If you look at the scorecard, that's all you'll see, just a c Stokes b Rashid. No further comment. Oh, but what a catch. To make a comment means having to find the words. It was going over his head, he was diving towards the boundary, one handed in the air. It was going for six, wasn't it? What an absolute freak of nature, being able to take a catch like that. It's not even the first blinder he's taken for England. It was the highlight of an excellent fielding display, with Jason Roy a man nothing was getting past either.

Stokes then took two wickets in two balls to finish off the match, because who else would it be today. If we go back to 2015 one last time, Stokes had a shocker in the months before and didn't even make the squad - probably making him a rare England player to come back with some credit. So this was his entry to World Cup cricket. His presence has already been felt.

England, match one: England win by 104 runs

In defence of the associates

We're at the business end of the World Cup now, with only the semi finals and the final left to be played. So this post might seem a little late - the associates are out and only four teams left, after all. But it's still something I want to say. The associate teams have helped to light up this tournament, with their matches, their players, and their stories. It's disgraceful that their presence should be limited in the future.

I'm not sure if it was even a surprise when the ICC announced the plan for a ten team cup, giving some nonsense about making it more competitive. There's so many holes you can pick in that it's ridiculous. You can point to the example of Ireland, who beat test nations more regularly than England do in World Cups (four wins for England across 2007, 2011, and 2015; five for Ireland). You can point to the example of other sports - look at football, with 32 teams and just a handful with a serious chance of winning. You can point to the massive victory margins in games between test sides here: a lot of the games England have played; West Indies/Pakistan; India/South Africa; South Africa/West Indies being examples.

It's a flawed argument, one that just looks like an excuse. Does the ICC care about the growth of the game, or about protecting the interests of the 'big three' who provide it with the money? But then, what do we expect? I don't know, it just seems obvious to me - we have a great sport, one that's loved by millions and millions across the globe - why would you not want to expand? To have more people playing the sport, watching and enjoying it. What can be so bad about that?

But that's not how the ICC works. India were knocked out of the 2007 World Cup in the group stages, and rather than the achievement of Bangladesh being celebrated, there was the disappointment that India's exit would mean less spectators, less television viewers. Rather than the upset being applauded, the commercial impact was commiserated. And the format duly changed - bigger groups so you can pump more money out of the big guns, try and guarantee the top eight a knockout space (which also, obviously, hasn't worked out well for them).

And even if they still haven't found a format that works for the competition, it doesn't mean it should be restricted further to just ten teams. The associates have provided some of the best thrills of this tournament. Look at Ireland, beating West Indies fairly comfortably in their first game, then Zimbabwe in a thriller before ultimately falling short of a knockout place. UAE vs Ireland, one of the best matches of the cup, and the cult status of UAE's 43 year old captain Khurram Khan. The story of Afghanistan - who would have thought fifteen years ago that they'd be playing in a global tournament, making a name for themselves on a world stage? And their fast bowlers - Hamid Hassan's warpaint and celebrations, Shapoor Zadran's run up, long enough to probably make a cup of tea before he reaches you; and both just bowling fast. Kyle Coetzer's 156 for Scotland, the highest individual score from a current non-test nation in the World Cup. Yes, there have been bad shows in between - there have been from all nations really - but who couldn't be charmed by these moments?

I meant to write this to celebrate the part of the associates in the cup, it looks like my rage at the ICC took over. But then again it's justified. The full members - the 'big three' and 'top eight' especially - are being protected at all costs, whilst the others are barely being given a chance. Even though in theory teams like Ireland and Afghanistan could qualify directly if they had a really good four years in between - would they ever be given the chance to play regular ODI cricket against the full members? So much more can be done to raise the associate game - more ODI or Twenty20 cricket against full members; first class 'test' matches against 'A' teams; more international tours to experience new conditions - pitches in Asia being a world away from those in Ireland and Scotland, Australia a world away from the experiences of Afghanistan and UAE, for example.

But how likely is that to happen? The response at the top to associate success seems to be to do everything to stop any more, to stop it from happening again. Through no fault of their own, their chances are being taken away. This is not a good thing for the game.

A World Cup Disaster

England won their second game of the World Cup today, but their only reward was a plane ride home. Their World Cup campaign has been nothing short of a disaster, and once again we're left having to pick up the pieces at the end of a series. With every tournament comes the same story, repeating itself again and again.

So much went wrong that it's difficult to know where to begin. In the media there are some blaming the players, some blaming the coaching staff. Really, they're all to blame. The players haven't put in the performances that they have the ability to do. And the management have been far from inspiring. So here's me trying to put into some words the many areas where this tournament went wrong for England.

The signs were there from the start. Confusion, panic. England played their warm up series against India with their full World Cup squad, playing Bopara in the side and Taylor up at number three, and Chris Woakes opening the bowling rather than Stuart Broad. For the first match this suddenly changed. Sure, Bopara's performances weren't really justifying his place in the side, but all it did was give an image of confusion and fear to their first opponents, Australia. England had months of preparation, playing nothing but ODI cricket in the build up to the cup, and still managed to go into their first match not knowing their best eleven. Was this in part a legacy of their demolition at the hands of Mitchell Johnson the previous winter? Well this time it was a different group of players and mostly a different Mitchell, but Australia still inflicted the damage. One match down and England were already battered and bruised, the tone of the cup was set. It was only going to get worse when they faced New Zealand in the next match.

I feel like I've written a lot on this blog about the experienced players letting England down. It happened again here, with the bat and with the ball. Ian Bell continued with his cardinal sin of never going on and making the big score after making a start. His stats don't look bad on the face of it: an average of 52.40, England's top scorer with 262 runs from six innings. But it doesn't tell the full story: three fifties, no centuries; a strike rate of 77; England team totals of 231, 123, 260 - and even on the two occasions they made it to 300 they should have got far more. And, with Bell getting himself in, he should have got the big score that could have made that difference. Instead he took up time at the crease with not enough end result. Though at least he got runs: Morgan made 90 runs across five innings, and half of those came in one innings. Both now have uncertain futures in the England side: Bell may well not play ODIs again, whilst Morgan's form over the past year and even further back as not been good enough to deserve a place. I thought captaincy might spur him back to his best, but after a century in the first game of the tri-series, he's been as bad as ever.

And it's a similar story with the bowlers. James Anderson averaged 49, Stuart Broad 63.50. Those two bowlers with the most experience, supposed to be leading the attack, could only take nine wickets between them. It was, admittedly, a struggle all round for the bowlers - and perhaps the biggest casualty of all was Steven Finn. Finn is another whose stats don't look bad on the surface - England's leading wicket taker with an average of 25, and a hat trick to boot - but these just don't tell the real story. He's been in and out of the side more times than you'd think possible, and it looks like another spell out of the team is going to come again. He's just not the bowler he could be, and who knows when he will.

But it's just as much a matter of mentality. The modern game has left England behind. Players full of creativity at their counties look stunted on the international stage, thinking too much about the numbers and 'par scores' rather than focusing on the game in front of them. There is no such thing as a 'par score' any more, and this World Cup has shown that as scores well in excess of 300, 350 have been scored like never before. But from England and Peter Moores we get statements like 'we’ll have to look at the data' when they fail to chase down 275. Stop playing to the numbers and let the players express themselves and enjoy their cricket, then they might score the runs they're capable of. Stop thinking of 300 as being a good score, why not dream big and go for at least fifty more?

Somehow we went into this tournament with a fraction of hope. But it should have been more than a fraction. The Ashes were moved, we got a solid, ODI-only schedule in the months leading up to the tournament - and then this happened. Our aim became just to reach the quarter finals. And we didn't even do that. George Dobell has put this into better words than I can, writing after the defeat to Sri Lanka:

The Ashes were moved for that? England have built for four years for that? They have played six months of nothing but ODI cricket for that? Players and coaches were sacked in the hope of reaching a quarter-final? Never in the history of England cricket has the bar been set so low.

It sums up a lot of my thoughts really. We have a home World Cup in 2019, and we have to give ourselves a chance. Does this mean a change in management? Quite possibly. Certainly there'll be a change in personnel for the team, questionable futures lying ahead for many and with others waiting in the wings for their chance in the side. There is a core of good young players in the team, who with four years extra experience, should be able to pose a threat. What we don't want is a repeat of this time round - a year out and a large chunk of the team disappears, for many reasons, and a change in captain on the eve of the tournament. The rebuilding stage starts again. It. Must. Be. Better.

Crashing out again

There was a sad inevitability about England's loss to Bangladesh today. It was the pressure match, the one they needed to win to progress to the quarter finals, and instead they find themselves already knocked out with a match still to play, against Afghanistan. They have lost all their matches against test nations, their sole victory being against Scotland, and really it's obvious to see that they don't deserve to be in the next round.

And who couldn't be happy for Bangladesh? It was a well deserved victory, a performance with both bat and ball. Mahmudullah scored Bangladesh's first ever world cup century, coming in with the team under pressure at 10/2. Mushfiqur Rahim nearly scored the country's second, scoring 89 before falling in the closing overs. And the bowling was even better - Rubel Hossain took four wickets and was the fastest bowler of the match; Mortaza and Taskin Ahmed took two apiece; the spinners held England back. And the celebrations were brilliant for what became one of Bangladesh's biggest and best days of international cricket.

But it was yet another tale of woe for England. Their bowling was better - incision at the start with two wickets, and more at the end to restrict Bangladesh in the last five overs. The result was a total of 276 runs to be chasing down - certainly gettable (and especially by the standards of this tournament), but also enough for the nerves to kick in if the wickets were to fall. Which, of course, they did. But at least they mixed it up - rather than collapsing in the middle overs to spin, they did it to pace instead for this match. What a treat. Several batsmen made starts but didn't go on, some just didn't get in at all - Morgan, again. Bell made it to 63, once again getting a start but not going on - an all too common theme in his career, and an especially bad problem for a senior player in a struggling team.

It was another case where the batsmen in the lower order were left with too much to do. Buttler is one of the leading lights of the team but he can't do the whole job by himself - and really, for him to have the full impact he could have, he should be higher up the order. He made 65 from 52, and Woakes was left stranded on 42*. They did a good job, but the top order let them down, left too much to do with too few overs and too few wickets. Like a bad dream, happening again and again and again and again.

England have simply been substandard throughout the whole tournament. With the bat there have been too many collapses, and the general mentality has been so far behind the other teams. With the ball, they've let themselves down as well: the big names of Broad and Anderson not living up to their reputations; Finn took wickets but more backward steps; bowlers generally just averaging around fifty or more. In the field, they've not been at their best. And the captaincy has turned out as conservative and disappointing as it was before.

And to think, we went in to the World Cup with a slither of optimism. They'd given us some hope, some signs of promise in the tri-series beforehand that gave us some cause for belief that they might, might just surprise us. But then it was more of the same. Another World Cup, another failure. Better luck next time.

Caution is the winner

So England's first win of the World Cup came at last, a win by 119 runs over Scotland. It was what was expected, in spite of everyone's (justified) extreme pessimism over England's prospects and Scotland's hopes (rightly) being raised. It was the win that England desperately needed: runs for the openers and a few for the captain after the traumatic collapses of the past two games, and the wickets being spread among the bowlers after the battering they received at the hands of Brendon McCullum. Yet it was not a fluent, emphatic display despite what the margin of victory may tell you; it was more a case of caution and conservatism winning the day.

Moeen Ali's innings was brilliant to watch. 128 runs from 107 balls with twelve fours and five sixes, he gave England a fantastic start - and exactly the confidence boost they needed after such dismal displays against Australia and New Zealand. Ian Bell's was the other kind of innings. He got a good run out, a good chance to get some runs under his belt...but it was all too cautious really, too careful. I totally understand why he played like he did, yet against Scotland it really should have been something more attacking - aim for 350+ rather than 300. Bell however, with 54 from 85 deliveries, seemed to be stuck in that classic English mentality of 'if I bat the fifty overs, I will have 100 runs'. England needed to restore confidence, sure. Just maybe with a bit more adventure.

And as it does with England, a collapse did duly come. It wasn't so disastrous after an opening stand of 172 and compared to previous matches, this was a mild, miniature version; but it's still an example of England not taking advantage of a strong position they put themselves in. After Bell and Ali were dismissed, cameos from Morgan (46 from 42) and Buttler (24 from 14) helped carry England through to 300, and eight wickets fell in the last twenty overs. Ballance went for 10 (his fourth score of 10 in five ODIs, the sort of consistency you only dream of, if the score wasn't 10), Root for 1, Taylor 17 before being stumped. The batting powerplay hurt England again, and it had you wondering - why not take it when Bell and Ali were well established at the crease?

I don't know. On paper, it was a good win. They got 300 - the standard for ODI cricket these days, and what has been the standard for this World Cup in particular. And the bowlers finished off the job, and after the battering they've received, it was what they needed - especially for Steven Finn, the pick with figures of 3/26 from nine. The match was just what the doctor ordered. And yet we still wanted more. A bit of attack, a bit more invention. When you're 172 without loss, why not throw someone like Morgan, Buttler, Taylor up to number three, get creative and go on the attack? It's the kind of conservatism and caution we're used to seeing from England. The score was 303/8 - a good total, but it felt like it should have been greater.

Scotland put up a good fight, despite the constant focus on England's failings (myself included). The bowlers must take credit for putting the pressure back on England, and some of the fielding and catching was brilliant. The stumping of Taylor by Cross was a standout, his feet and hands so quick to get the ball to a stumps after a wide. Who knows how things might have been different had an early chance from Moeen Ali been taken, if the fielder had been a yard closer.

The associates have done a good job in this tournament, in spite of the best efforts of the ICC to push them out. Really, that's probably why they want them out - not because they're 'uncompetitive', but because they challenge the cosy club of teams like England. But I see it this way - it's a sport so many of us love, so why would you not want your flagship tournament to promote the game and encourage its spread? And there has to be a fight to keep them in. A petition has been set up, asking the ICC to reverse the decision to limit the next World Cup to ten teams, and I would encourage you to sign. Just click here.

A New Low

Today, England plunged to their greatest depth yet. I feel like I've said it before, that surely they can't get any worse, but today they proved me wrong again. All out for 123. Target chased down in 12.2 overs. As a student, I'm used to the odd match being just over by he time I wake up at around eight; I'm not used to waking up at half six and finding the match already long, long over. It seems like every time they give me some hope - and despite everything, the tri-series did give me some hope - they then produce something to knock it right out of me again, just to prove I'm being silly. It's like going in for a hug and getting a punch in the face. And today's show was the worst of the lot. 

I don't like having to write about England's losses, having to write criticising the team in one way or another, but what else is there for me to do? The first two matches of this World Cup have been nothing short of a disaster. They lost the first match by 111 runs, and even that was a lot less than it might have been. Today, in a day night match, they didn't even make it to the floodlights coming on. There are fifty overs a side in an ODI, this match lasted 45. The batsmen fell from 104/3 to 123 all out, destroyed by the excellent swing bowling of Tim Southee. There was little that the bowlers could do, but enough time to be destroyed by Brendon McCullum - a 25 ball innings piling on 77 runs, strike rate 308, 8 fours and 7 sixes. Finn suffered most of all: two overs, 49 runs conceded. In the meantime, the ICC are cutting back the next World Cup, taking away associates for not being 'competitive'. Well, what about the full members? You look at the results, and England have been the least competitive team of them all...

Normally in a defeat, and especially in England defeats, there's a post match quest to take 'the positives'. This time, they'll have one hell of a search. Post match, Eoin Morgan said, 'Collectively we are going to have to get tighter as a group and produce the collective performances we have been searching for'. What exactly does that mean? But then again, what can he say?  

Chances are though, England will still reach the quarter finals, fulfilling their minimum target for the tournament. On paper, at least, they should, but then, on paper they shouldn't be losing *quite* so badly to Australia and New Zealand. Even if these were matches they might not have expected to win, they should at least have been competitive, have done at least something to worry the other side. Taylor was the one to put up a fight last time, today there was no one at all, bar perhaps Joe Root (who looked close to crying, much like us all). Abysmal has never been a better description. 

New cup, same story

So it began, with a 111-run defeat on the very first day. A lot of things went wrong for England, right from the very beginning where Finch was dropped on zero, to the end where dubious umpiring denied James Taylor of a maiden international century. All in all, it was far from the start to the tournament they would have hoped for.

Aaron Finch was dropped for nought in the very first over. 36 overs and 135 runs later, it was a mistake England were sorely regretting. It wasn't just Finch causing the damage either, Bailey playing second fiddle in the pair's 146 run partnership with an innings of 55; Maxwell hurting England once again with 66 from 40 balls; Haddin as ever popping up to inflict further pain with 31 from 14. As ever, much of the damage came at the death for England, but really, they'd been damaged long before. At the end of the innings, Finn found himself with five wickets and a hat trick to boot; but it was a hat trick full of slogs, not really one to cherish. England were left with 343 runs to chase.

Then a batting collapse cost England, as it always seems to do. Too many wickets in the middle order falling too cheaply, I'm tired of saying it. Today 66/2 became 92/6; in recent matches we've also seen 135/2 become 184/6, 40/1 become 66/5, 253/2 become 303/8, as well as tragic positions such as 136/6, 126/6, 123/6, etc. after failures from the very start. There's a pattern, and it's eternally frustrating. Like an episode of Eastenders, the Mitchells caused the problems for England today, a trio of Starc, Johnson, and Marsh. It was the most unlikely of the three who did the best, Mitch Marsh picking up his first five wicket haul in ODIs, doing the damage by taking out Ballance, then Bell, then Root, then Morgan, then Buttler to leave England's innings in tatters. Mitchells Starc and Johnson picked up two wickets apiece, and with a run out as well, the job was done for Australia.

But along the way, Australia let it slip for a while. Though the result was never really in doubt after England fell to 92/6, too many wickets down and too high a run rate to keep up with (although the worms weren't ever that far apart), Australia didn't seal the deal in the way you might have expected. Taylor was dropped by Finch on 20, the fielding wasn't as sharp as it should have been, and at last the runs were coming along for England. Woakes and Taylor shared a partnership of 92, the only trouble was that it was ultimately too late. But Taylor's innings in particular was a ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak match for England. His 98* was full of invention, and though he had a somewhat scratchy start, he showed fight and played some lovely attacking cricket. He's had a long time waiting on the sidelines, waiting for a chance in the side, and I am so happy that he's seizing the opportunity in the way he is.

Taylor should have had a century. He deserved it. But the first day of the World Cup was already the time for the first umpiring farce of the tournament. An LBW appeal was given out, and slightly afterwards the stumps were broken and Anderson was run out - though by this time it had become a dead ball. Taylor's LBW dismissal was overturned by DRS, but the run out decision was given. It wasn't right, even though the LBW was ultimately rightly deemed incorrect, it should have remained a dead ball. The ICC have admitted as much, but as it was, the umpires got it wrong. Even if ultimately, it meant very little, it was a great shame to see Taylor denied a century. And who knows if net run rate will later come back to haunt England.

But umpiring woes shouldn't disguise the fact that England had a shocker. Though this may not have been a match they would have expected to win in the grand scheme of things, such a heavy defeat really was the worst possible way to start a World Cup. And the focus is finding its way back to the captain once again - Morgan's last four innings have read 0, 2, 0, 0. The failings can't be masked for too much longer. England's next match comes on Friday against the other team with home advantage, New Zealand. It'll be far from easy, but they have to improve. Win or not, it has to be better next time.

Here comes the World Cup

The World Cup is finally upon us! The first matches come tonight/today/tomorrow (delete as appropriate), the first games of a six-week long competition, concluding on 29th March. For all the ICC's attempts after the last tournament to 'slim down' the 2015 edition, the format has stayed the same as in 2011: fourteen teams - the ten full members and four associates. It's the last time out for this format before the new, 'streamlined' format for 2019: ten teams only, giving less chance for associate teams on the big stage. Personally, and like many others, I'm not a fan of such a change: even if the tournament is rather long, and associates don't have a great chance of winning the whole thing, why would you not want the sport's flagship tournament to help expand the game further and give a chance to some more teams? And associates have provided some fantastic moments in recent tournaments - the performances of Ireland, winning against teams like England and Pakistan, come straight to mind - as well as some of the great stories, like Afghanistan's first appearance at the Cup now in 2015. I'm no cricket administrator, but it just seems a shame to me.

But on to the present, and it's a tournament that looks close to call. South Africa to me look like the best team, particularly after that stunning century of AB De Villiers just a few weeks ago, but memories of previous tournaments would tell you otherwise. I'm not saying they'll choke again, but you never know what will happen to them once they're in the knockout stages. It's always something that you have to watch. The co-hosts, Australia and New Zealand, look to be the other immediate front runners for the tournament. New Zealand's knockout record may be largely similar to that of South Africa's, but they seem to have got away with it by having the underdog label at previous tournaments. Now though, they've found form at a good time and, with a good line up and a home advantage, should be well in the mix at the end.

Then there are the teams that you just don't know what to expect to happen. Pakistan always look like they could do anything; England always get my hopes up with one brilliant match, a few tense finishes, and then a middle order collapse for a total under 200; Sri Lanka and India certainly have the talent but not necessarily the form or the conditions. If they can get some form together, they should all be in with a chance. Drama looks to have doomed West Indies again and it didn't look good for them in the warm ups - a terrible batting display against England and a very close victory over Scotland - but even so, Chris Gayle always has the potential to destroy a team on any given day.

I don't want to get my hopes up too much over England, for they always have such a great potential to disappoint. But I have noticed a new sense of optimism in the past few weeks, even in the media. They didn't perform terribly in the tri-series beforehand, though they did have a pretty horrible defeat in the final. But they are improving. The batting lineup has been settled which is always a boost, the batsmen now having their roles and not the constant pressure that comes with being in and out of the team - though Bopara will be under a lot of pressure to get some runs in the opening group stages with Ballance waiting in the wings. Their strength though looks like the new ball bowling, something that should be helped by the conditions, and especially what they'll find in New Zealand. Two new balls is a bonus in this respect, meaning there should be swing for longer. They should be able to make it past the group stages at least, then who knows what could happen in the knockout rounds. Or they could be knocked out in their last group match against Afghanistan, they're that kind of team. I'll stay optimistic.

Really, we are just entering a prelude. There are 42 matches before the knockouts begin, a month of cricket ahead, which - whilst by no means unimportant - makes it easy to see why casual observers and even cricket fans would see the whole thing as rather bloated. It's a constant battle for the best format that will go on for a long time. And in any case it's going to be tough to watch as much as I want to anyway, the battle against timezones being the eternal struggle of any cricket fan. But I'll do my best. I'll stay in it for the long haul, because there should be an interesting tournament along the way.