Cricket Betting: England's One Day Woe

Bat and ball / Andrew Hughes / 31 August 2009 / Leave a Comment

Ian Botham bowling in the 1992 World Cup

"However, for the most part, our limited overs campaigns since 1992 have been characterised by repeated false dawns, a turnover of players that would embarrass Real Madrid and one thumping defeat after another."

The 1992 World Cup was notable for many things. Dismally unimaginative coloured clothing, bizarre rain-delay calculations, Ian Botham and David Boon competing for the title of the world's portliest cricketer and the emergence of a talented young Pakistan team. With hindsight we can also say that it was the last time that England could be considered a force in international limited overs cricket. We reached the final in 1992 and were widely touted as favourites to win the trophy. It is hard to imagine either of those two things happening again.

There have been brief flourishes since, such as the temporary blooming at Sharjah in 1997 and the unexpected victory down under ten years later. However, for the most part, our limited overs campaigns since 1992 have been characterised by repeated false dawns, a turnover of players that would embarrass Real Madrid and one thumping defeat after another.

So why should this be? It can't be that we aren't playing enough of it; after all our domestic fixture list is crammed full of the stuff. Have we have simply become genetically unsuited to shorter versions of cricket? Is Gordon Brown to blame? Are our bats the wrong shape? Over the last seventeen years, England pundits have come up with many reasons to explain our inadequacy. Three theories in particular seem to recur. Two of them are probably right and one is probably wrong.

Fear of Pinch-Hitting

Yer average Britisher, it is often said, is slow to change, distrusting of all that is new fangled. We may invent a format, but within a few years, other countries take it to new heights. Back in 1992, if you hit 250 batting first in a fifty over game, you probably had the match sewn up. These days, 300 is a minimum and teams have been known to exceed 400. However, we haven't been slow to embrace change. We've tried everything, from pinch hitters to part-time captains. The counties are full of highly qualified coaches champing at the bit to try out the latest limited overs theory. What holds us back is not our fear of innovation, but two influences that are rather more prosaic.

It's the Climate, Stupid

Though dampness is sometimes our friend, particularly when it chooses to fall on the heads of prematurely celebrating tourists, our dingy little island is not the most hospitable of places in which to play the great game. Our cricket takes place, for the most part, on pudding-like pitches upon which it has either just finished raining or is just about to rain. The name of the game in English limited overs cricket is to make sure you bat out your overs. These conditions are hardly conducive to the kind of fearless stroke play that is de rigueur on the international circuit.

The Elephant in the Pavilion

We have too many first class teams. Sure, India has more, twenty-seven to our eighteen, but then their population is sixteen times larger than ours is and cricket is their national pastime. What has this to do with one-day cricket? Well, with so many teams relative to the size of our cricket playing population, the talent is spread very thin. When an England international or a potential England international plays for his county, he knows that it is paramount for him not to lose his wicket lest the remaining collection of green youngsters, arthritic veterans and mediocre timeservers collapse in a heap. So daring stroke play is abandoned in favour of the kind of nudging and nursling that simply doesn't cut the mustard internationally any longer. With neither climate nor county system likely to change, it is hard to see England becoming a consistent force in one-day international cricket for the foreseeable future.

Still, it isn't all doom and gloom. As we look ahead to the one day series against Australia, it is worth noting that England are a marginally better one day team at home than away and in recent years have done rather well in these end of term affairs, beating both India and South Africa. Australia are [1.51] to win the seven match series but if you think the Aussies might struggle on the damp, tired September pitches, then you might be interested in the [3.2] about an England series win.