Does Andrew Strauss remember the days after the Sydney Test? Of course he does. He said then that his team were not the sort to squander an Ashes victory, as previous England sides had done, because they were committed to becoming world No 1. How simple life seemed then.
It is not easy to explain England’s showing at this World Cup — happily trading blows with the big boys; fearful against the minnows — but failure to keep that aim in mind is a good starting point.
England have never been comfortable playing teams they are expected to beat. At the past three World Cups, they have laboured to defeat smaller nations, and this time they have messed up twice in Group B against Ireland and Bangladesh. They prefer being underdogs, which is no route to global domination. Look at how Australia win World Cups. In 2003, Ricky Ponting’s team not only lifted the trophy but won all 11 games. They repeated the feat in 2007.
It is England’s misfortune that World Cups have followed Ashes tours. Traipsing around the subcontinent is exhausting; the players are tired and fed up. Nor is it true to say others face similar challenges. All too soon England will be embarking on an 18-week international home season.
Advertisement
Tempers are shorter than Jimmy Anderson’s bowling. Kevin Pietersen, injured again, has sent himself home. Disgruntled at being made to bowl with a wet ball on Friday, Graeme Swann delivered a foul-mouthed commentary for which he was fined 10% of his match fee. Dead on his feet, Anderson is beyond expletives.
A team who approached perfection in the Ashes have failed to put in one “complete” performance in five matches here. England being England, the need to beat West Indies on Thursday might yet make toothless tigers fight like cornered ones. The vibes should be good: they have defeated West Indies in their past four meetings and not lost to them in a World Cup since 1979. Nor will they give a damn for the illogicality of seeing off opponents who dismissed Bangladesh, England’s vanquishers, for 58. Perversity is as good a way as any of showing how hacked off you are.
England cannot just blame fatigue. In Chittagong, Ajmal Shahzad, well though he bowled at times, delivered five wides and Ravi Bopara three. Bopara fumbled a crucial chance to run out Shakib Al Hasan, who survived for a further eight overs. These two players should be fresh.
The whole team look edgy, as though lacking belief in their plans and knowing that when they come under fire in the field they do not have the resources to maintain control. Players who won the Ashes through grim efficiency lose the plot when faced with an Irish slogger or a Bangladeshi tailender. The more unlikely the source, the greater their disarray. They got out of jail against South Africa only because they came up against a team more afraid of losing than they were.
Advertisement
The juggling of personnel also betrays uncertainty. Is Matt Prior an opener? Does the management have faith in Paul Collingwood and Michael Yardy? And what are Luke Wright and James Tredwell doing in the squad if they are not going to play?
The only way Bangladesh would be prevented from chasing down 226 was if England bowled them out, yet Strauss was reluctant to post a slip, even when Tim Bresnan requested one in the closing stages with only two wickets needed. As South Africa showed yesterday, the best way to stifle scoring is to take wickets. At the 2003 World Cup, Australia claimed 102 wickets out of a possible 110; in 2007, 104 out of 110. England managed six wickets against the Dutch, seven against the Irish and eight against Bangladesh.
Even if they beat West Indies, England will probably be waiting on the outcome of Saturday’s match between Bangladesh and South Africa in Mirpur. They need Bangladesh to lose (assuming the Tigers beat Holland tomorrow).
England face some tough decisions. Having lost Stuart Broad — who might have finished off Bangladesh as he did South Africa — they will be reluctant to jettison Anderson, but his woeful figures brook no argument. Dropping him for Chris Tremlett would be an act of mercy. While England were unlucky to have to bowl with such a wet ball — what a ridiculous decision to stage a day-nighter in Chittagong — the fact is that Shahzad, a not dissimilar bowler to Anderson, performed far better. If Anderson had produced even one of the jaffas that Shahzad did, England would probably have won.
Advertisement
There are no excuses for the batsmen. They have been dismissed twice inside 50 overs for sub-par scores on slow surfaces requiring good footwork, sharp singles and inventive minds. Yet, twinkle-toed Eoin Morgan apart, they have been reluctant to leave the crease for anything but a drinks break.
With Bangladesh morale low, England could have killed them off with a dominant start. Instead they crept to 53 for three off 17 overs as they allowed spinners who were not turning the ball to dictate. Jonathan Trott scored three off 19 balls from Abdul Razzak, Ian Bell one from 12. In fairness to Trott, he scored an even slower half-century against South Africa that led to victory. Had Morgan not fallen two overs before the batting power-play, England might have gathered the extra 30 runs they needed.
Strauss may insist that his men can still lift the World Cup, but few will consider them a genuine threat even if they make the knockout stage. The real question is whether they themselves still believe it.
