If it can be classed as a fitting end when the best side win a tournament, then the World Cup delivered just that.
Australia, in the final reckoning, proved to be the market leading all-round outfit with – and this was the decisive factor – the most incisive bowling attack.
For all the talk of the bat taking over, there is still life left in the bowlers out there.
With a format that wasn’t created to necessarily reward consistency – West Indies were three wins away, remember, from the title despite an underwhelming group campaign – it was pleasing to see the top four sides in the semi-finals, the top two progress and, ultimately, the strongest prevail.
And a thought now that the tournament has been put to bed for another four years until a resurgent England (don’t bite!) welcome everyone in 2019: if 50-over cricket is dead then I must have been dreaming.
Many a sporting obituary has been penned with undue haste and the one-day international, if the knockers were to have been believed, has been tantamount to a dead man walking for a while.
The unchecked proliferation of the Twenty20 game and the economic forces they drive have provided many a kick in the teeth for its longer limited-overs cousin, but from what I’ve witnessed over the past few weeks, there is life in the elder of the two yet.
And I, for one, am not buying the criticism that the game has gone too far in favour of the batting side. The so-called ‘boring middle overs’ have been negated to a large degree, and the result has been scoring on another level. Ironically enough, T20 is the direct cause of this.
You can’t get rid of one and then bemoan the arrival of the other, and while a return to one ball might not be the daftest idea, if only to encourage reverse swing, the fielding restrictions need to stay as they are.
Throughout the history of the one-day game, teams have found ways to counter the batting side and the same will come to pass.
Australia, and to a slightly lesser extent New Zealand, have shown that aggressive, full-pitched, quick bowling will still gain rewards, regardless of how gung-ho the opposition.
And if it means the end of the gentle medium-pacer then administrators will have achieved something worthwhile for a change. Enough pointless tinkering has been done in the past and now that a relevance for the format has been found it should cease.
With regards to the tournament itself, and the final to some degree, the accusation of too many one-sided contests is nonsense.
‘Only one of the quarter-finals was a decent game’, or ‘the final was a bit of a let down’ for example just aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on or the web space they occupy.
It appears to be all too easy to forget that it’s actually a sporting competition and games occasionally are dominated by one of the protagonists.
Those who tuned into the recent rugby league World Club Challenge tie between St Helens and South Sydney will have anticipated a tightly-fought battle, yet it turned out to be anything but. So what?
That’s how it is and how it will always be, so please spare me the whinging for the sake of it.
As an aside, it was somewhat apt that Michael Clarke was able to finish his yellow-clothed career in style.
Looking on from a distance, I’ve never been able to understand the criticism directed at him, and even his decision to announce his retirement a day before the final (honestly, what does it matter?) offered the cynics fuel for their ire.
But to lead his side to the trophy in his last appearance while producing his most fluent batting for a while – surely not a coincidence – must have given him cause for a satisfied smirk and a couple of the beers that Shane Warne was encouraging all and sundry to consume.
Now Michael, if you wouldn’t mind pulling that hamstring again just before July …
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
For my part, I can't agree that there's any such thing as a meaningless cricket match - certainly not as far as the teams are concerned, at any rate. Some people watch the World Cup and little else, and fair enough, but I can't get enough of the game, whatever the format, whatever the series, and as an Aussie fan the way they're playing at the moment is pretty spectacular to watch any day of the week.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
"And I, for one, am not buying the criticism that the game has gone too far in favour of the batting side." Me neither. Mitch Starc, anyone? The strong bowling teams, like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and even India in the World Cup (didn't they turn themselves around well?), showed that good strategy and good execution can stop a team going on an absolute rampage and getting 120+ runs off the last 10. Bowlers like Starc and Boult and Steyn never look like going for 10 an over. I got into Test cricket before anything else, and when I first watched an ODI I thought, "What's this rubbish?" (I thought T20 was barely better than nothing.) But the limited-overs formats have grown on me. Each format is unique, you can't watch them all in the same way. You watch the toss at a Test match knowing full well that you'll be dedicating half of your waking hours for the next 5 days to an epic battle, for better or for worse. Like watching a Hobbit + Lord of the Rings marathon. T20 is pretty much the opposite, you flip the TV for your evening's entertainment, hoping for a fast 70 from your favourite player, a couple of clean-bowleds, a Steve Smith specky and a funny run-out, plus the win. ODIs have their own charms - the tactics of limited overs are different to Tests but equally interesting and important, and 100 overs leaves more scope than T20 for the drama and momentum shifts and fight-backs that made me fall in love with Test cricket in the first place.
felix
Guest
I still feel like I missed out on the best batsman vs the best bowler in ODI cricket,AB vs Starc would of been a joy to watch,oh well maybe next time. ;-)
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic.
offsider
Guest
Except when touring teams send second rate teams to Australia
MACDUB
Guest
Yes, unfortunately ODI's in between World Cups really don't mean all too much. Compare that with rugby tests - each game means a helluva lot. There is no "meaningless" game in international rugby.
fp11
Guest
Hear, hear!
Freighter
Guest
Scrap international T20- make it a domestic competition over the world- strip international play back to tests and ODI but only minimal amount
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
Too much international cricket. Don't get me wrong I enjoy cricket, but it goes on all year round and it's just too much. Rep teams shouldn't play 100 matches over a year and this (to me) takes away how special it is watching your country play. Especially when a lot of the games mean nothing.
fp11
Guest
I agree with pretty much everything you said Alec, especially the part about the final game being 'boring'. You're spot on there. From where I sat the final was the one of the best games ever! Go Aussies!
Johnno
Guest
The problem I look at ODI cricket like track and field, and swimming. It's only exciting every 4 years. The regular fan only cares about discuss,shot put, javelin,pole vault, long jump, once every 4 years it seems exciting on TV, not all the time, same with swimming races. In World Cups, ODI cricket when you get to the finals stage anyway has this ability to be a combination of all 3 formats of the game (ODI'S,T20,Test Cricket) all woven into 1. It's an exciting product. But outside of that it's boring, 50 overs of just 1 teams innings really is torture in a best of 7-ODI series. But in the 80's and 90's,it was fun the aussies triangular tournament. And in the 70's 60 overs was fun too. In fact I remember on the 93 Ashes tour for someone they played 60 over ODI'S. But yep I have thought about this since the WC has ended, how am I gonna get back into ODI'S, outside of the WC. But the ODI WC itself, has been the most enjoyable cricket I've watched for pure adrenaline and excitement. The Aussie V Pakistan Q/F, the semi at Eden Park, and the final, were as exciting as it gets for any cricket I have ever watched ever. I was more pumped in that Eden Park semi, and the final, than I ever got for the 2005 Ashes or any of the calypso series e.g. like 92/93 or 95 series, or India 2001. This WC has more excitement for me.
BBA
Guest
Agree 100% the issue with ODI is solely that there are too many irrelevant games that dont mean anything. The CWC was so good because the games did mean something to the fans and the players.
melbourneterrace
Guest
The CWC is a once every 4 year break in ODI's irrelevance. Personally i like the format as T20 is garbage but there are just so many games like these silly "Tri Series" played after a Long test series resulting in people just not caring. I note after this years 5 game Ashes series (which is also getting played far these days too much i might add), Cricket Australia are determined to bore us to death with a 5 ODI series. If the ICC really wanted to make the most of reducing the size of the WC to 10, they'd make a full qualifying system where the top 16 teams all play each other in some fashion over the next 3 and a bit years to ensure every game matters instead of just boring us with garbage like the "Champions Trophy".