Ed Hawkins: Are Swann and Vaughan right to damn England as World Cup wallies?

Ed Hawkins
26 August 2014

Swann rubbished England's chances in the 2015 World Cup

Join

View market

Twitter

Facebook

Our cricket correspondent argues that Alastair Cook's side have their best chance of lifting the trophy since 1992, and, most importantly, the odds aren't bad, either...

"So calamitous have English World Cup campaigns been since the early flush of relative success (they were runners-up in three of the first five) that such brutal dissection of their ills seem poorly timed."

'England cannot win the World Cup'. Not my words. The words of Graeme Swann and Michael Vaughan, who, it could be argued, might know a little bit more than this correspondent. The pair spent the day bashing the one-day side as rain hammered spirits at Bristol.

It was as gloomy a prediction as the weather. And not an altogether original one. England have never won the World Cup and haven't even sniffed a semi-final since 1992. Only West Indies of the big nations have a worse record since.

Swann was particularly cutting. "I don't think we've got a cat in hell's chance of winning the World Cup." The odds disagree. England are 10.519/2 for glory in Australia and New Zealand from February which is slightly shorter, one suspects, than discovering a moggy in eternal damnation.

It is still a long old poke, however. There are six sides ahead of England in the betting (Australia 3.55/2, South Africa 5.95/1, India 6.611/2, Sri Lanka 7.87/1, Pakistan 8.615/2 and New Zealand 9.617/2) while West Indies are closing in at 11.521/2.

Yet why is it hard not to reckon that Swann and Vaughan were being a little pessimistic? Sure, the team has poor recent form and selectors guilty of short-termism but there is actually rather a lot in their favour.

The respective administrators of Australia and England got together to tweak the scheduling of the Ashes series Down Under to allow both teams more of a break before a World Cup. Historically, England have been hugely hampered.

After slogging - and getting flogged - around Australia for weeks, invariably they would have only a few days off before the showpiece began.

A perfect example was 2010-11. England began the Tests against Australia on November 25 and it wasn't until January 16, with limited-overs matches completed, that they put their feet up. Just over a month later, the World Cup began. In India.

Conditions have played a modest part in World Cups for pretty much everyone bar England. Although unsurprisingly for the last edition, India, the winners, Sri Lanka and Pakistan took up three of the four semi-final spots. Their knowledge of the wickets in the sub-continent proved vital.

England, of course, found them alien and they managed to lose to Ireland and Bangladesh, who tied them in obscure and complex knots which even the most ardent boy scout could not decipher. The story was similar in 1996 in Pakistan when the only teams they beat were the UAE and Holland.

The slow and low surfaces in West Indies for the 2007 competition did not aid a limited side while in 2003, players became political pawns in the row over Zimbabwe in one of the most turbulent campaigns.

So really, there have been plenty of times when England have not had a hope. Even in 1999, when they hosted, they were considered to be likely also-rans and a dreadful collection of players proved it as they put more energy into rowing with the board over money than competing.

Indeed, so calamitous have English World Cup campaigns been since the early flush of relative success (they were runners-up in three of the first five) that such brutal dissection of their ills seem poorly timed.

If it is difficult to agree with Swann, it is easy to agree with Alastair Cook, who says his team have a "very good chance". That is because he is right. There can be no doubt that England have their best shot at lifting the trophy since 1992. Perhaps that is not a huge swank considering the litany of disasters.

They have administrators to thank, however. First of all, as we have said, the guiding hands at the ECB for rescheduling the Ashes. The mysterious folk in the shadows who decide which country will be host are next to take a bow and those who have tweaked the rules to suit their style of play are also spiffing chaps.

That the tournament will be played in Australia and New Zealand is a blessing. The wickets will be similar to those in England, offering much-needed seam and swing for fast men who have usually suffered neck ache in foreign climes on flat or slow surfaces as they watch the ball sail over their heads.

Perhaps most important is the rule change which means that two new balls will be used, one from each end. This was done to attempt to redress the balance between the hitherto dominant bat and cowed ball. It has probably gone too far but England will not be complaining.

There is a strong possibility that James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Steven Finn, now he is on the brink of returning to the side, will have a moving ball for at least 20 overs.

They could wreak havoc in their first game of Pool A against Australia at the bowler-friendly MCG, in their second against the Kiwis in Wellington and their third against the Sri Lankans, who as part of the sub-continental triumvirate will surely slump on unfamiliar wickets, at the same venue.

Perversely, this regulation probably helps England's batsmen more than any other top eight nation. For yonks, England have been criticised for not packing their top order with players who can blast them off to rapid starts. Every other team has a plethora. But they won't be very effective if the ball is bending.

With qualification almost guaranteed (the top four from two groups of seven qualify for the last 16), will they really fear one from (probable) South Africa, India, West Indies or Pakistan? Of course not. And in a semi-final they could be half the price they are now.

It is price that is king, of course. Regardless of the scheduling, conditions and rule changes, if England were as slim as a Sri Lanka or Pakistan, we probably wouldn't touch them. That is why they are not fancied in the current series against India. The price, simply, is wrong.

But so is their World Cup one. Beautifully (hopefully) they could lengthen. Before the action begins they will play a seven-match series in Sri Lanka where we would expect them to have learnt little from previous sub-continental struggles and slide to a comprehensive defeat. It won't be relevant. Nor will the no doubt fresh complaints from Messrs Swann and Vaughan.