CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

The best-kept secret in sport will at last be disclosed later this week, as this country prepares to stage the seventh and biggest cricket World Cup. It promises to be a wonderful tournament because never before have so many teams well-suited to the one-day game been brought together.

At least it should be wonderful, so long as the public wakes up to the fact that it is taking place. Recognition of the event so far is woefully sketchy.

That ignorance may have something to do with the time of year. In May, summer is still a month away, and the football season is winding down - or up.

Football is now such a swaggering, bullying adjunct of showbiz, waited on hand and foot by an army of lickspittles and hangers-on, that it has come to speak for all sports. The best definition of a snob these days is probably somebody who does not think that football is the greatest thing in the world.

But the low profile of the World Cup may also have something to do with cricket's inability to reach out beyond its natural constituency. England are not a successful side over five days or one, and the players, with the notable exception of Darren Gough, give little impression of enjoying what they do.

The recent brouhaha with the England and Wales Cricket Board concerning World Cup fees did not earn them much sympathy. If they won a few more games, people reckon, they might be worth some of the money they are asking for.

As far as England are concerned, therefore, this is a competition of immense significance. One-day cricket may only be a genetically modified form of the game, with many more poor matches than good ones, but the World Cup - the first to be staged in this country for 16 years - provides a showcase for these players to remind people, particularly young ones, why cricket is a game worth playing and watching.

Certainly, if the tournament matches up to the bizarre sequence of events that have preceded it, it will be impossible to ignore. In the past fortnight alone Carl Hooper, the West Indies batsman, has retired from international cricket at just the time he is most needed; Javed Miandad has resigned as the Pakistan coach in circumstances that have yet to be explained; Makhaya Ntini, South Africa's solitary black player, has been found guilty of rape; and Australia's cricketers have been pelted with bottles in the Caribbean. What does it all portend?

The domestic background to the competition is also perplexing. The ECB is four sponsors light, so the projected profit of £15 million will now work out closer to £11 million. The loss of revenue means that the counties have had to re-jig their budgets to accommodate a 10 per cent reduction in their annual subsidy, so there are some angry people in the shires.

Tim Lamb, the board's chief executive, is wise to what people are thinking, if not saying, though he feels the picture is not as black as it has been painted. Ticket sales have gone well (a healthy 85 per cent) and, granted half-decent weather and exciting cricket at 21 venues, including Edinburgh, Dublin and Amsterdam, the tournament should gather momentum.

''We want to appeal to everybody,'' says Lamb, stressing that the cup has been promoted deliberately as a 'carnival' of cricket. ''Unless we appeal to a wider constituency then we are always going to suffer from the image that we are a game existing for middle-aged men. There is an opportunity here to leave a legacy, and that is what we intend to do. We want a bit of the fun of the fair at these matches.''

Whether the sense of adventure infects England's performance is another matter. Runners-up three times in previous competitions, they will have to play above expectations to reach the last four of this one.

To qualify for the second stage they must edge out one of Sri Lanka, South Africa and India, which makes the opening game, against the Sri Lankans, the cup-holders, one they must win.

For England to fulfil their ambitions three players are crucial. Graeme Hick must bat like an emperor, not a courtier; Darren Gough must perform like the great fast bowler he wants to be; and Andrew Flintoff must declare himself, boldly, without hesitation.

If these three conjoin, if Graham Thorpe retains his fitness, and if Neil Fairbrother continues to milk useful runs, then a sliver of optimism is permissible. Only a sliver, though. There are too many good teams to mark England down as winners.

For one thing, too much has been made of their familiarity with conditions that are commonly supposed to favour them. It is certainly true that an attack of Gough, Alan Mullally and either Angus Fraser or Ian Austin should do well on English pitches.

It is equally true that Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock, of South Africa, will exploit any dampness or tinge of green. It would be surprising if the Australian pair of Glenn McGrath and Damien Fleming did not excel, or Javagal Srinath and Venkatesh Prasad, the impressive Indians. Then there are Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose, who each have a decade of experience in these conditions. Local knowledge counts for only so much.

For another, they simply do not have the depth of specialist talent available to other teams. Nasser Hussain's presence as the spare batsman in the party is an admission of that, brilliant fielder though he is. Why, Australia cannot find room in their party for someone as brilliant as Michael Slater!

It goes without saying that Alec Stewart could do with a few runs. Suddenly he is looking every one of his 36 years, and no wonder. The burdens of the past year were never designed to do him any favours.

It is time to come off the fence. Sachin Tendulkar will be the batsman of the tournament, and Pollock will be its best bowler. Ricky Ponting, the electric Tasmanian, will be the star fielder (yes, ahead even of Jonty Rhodes). Australia will be the winners, the dark horses are India, and New Zealand will be the most likely slayers of giants.

Why Australia, and not South Africa, who have approached this tournament with the diligence of marathon runners? In Donald and Pollock they have match-winners. They have outstanding batsmen in Kallis, Cullinan and Cronje, they field superbly close to the bat and in the deep, and the roving eye of Bob Woolmer, their outgoing coach, will spot anything the players might miss.

Everything they have done since the last World Cup has been directed towards winning this one, and they arrive here in rude health. Australia, though, can match their talent in every discipline and do not bend the knee to any foe. They were clearly distracted towards the end in the West Indies, but they will be ready by the time they step out at Worcester on May 16.

There is a rod of steel and class running straight through the side: Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Shane Warne, McGrath. There are runs aplenty in Adam Gilchrist, Ponting, Darren Lehmann and Michael Bevan. Finally, there is the knowledge that, last time, having played magnificent cricket to reach the final, they were trumped by Sri Lanka. Dog-tired they may be, after an autumn, winter and spring of relentless cricket, but they remain the team to beat.

Set against the riches that Australia, South Africa and Pakistan will bring to the table, England are in danger of being guests at their own feast. But this is no time for taking a narrow view. If England make progress, good. If they are found out, there will still be plenty to enjoy. It is, after all, a World Cup. Wakey, wakey, everybody!