It’s scary when a side barely gets out of second gear yet walk off 100-run victors. But that’s exactly what England did to South Africa in the World Cup opener.
On a slow deck at the Oval, the hosts scraped past 300 – once the ODI gold standard, now a bare minimum. There were murmurs an upset could be brewing, the perpetually glass-half-empty English fans not yet convinced by two years of 50-over dominance.
But the brew went cold quickly, as England’s bowlers made South Africa’s batsmen look second rate. Perhaps they are, but perhaps England are just very good.
The bowler that best exposed South Africa’s top order was the newest member of the squad: Jofra Archer.
A short ball that clattered into grill of Hashim Amla was testament to this, sending the accomplished opener back to the rooms for treatment. While he finished with 3-27, it may as well have been four given the lasting impact the blow had on Amla.
If not for Stokes’ incredible individual performance, Archer would have sewn up man-of-the-match honours in what was his first World Cup game, and just his fourth ODI. Digest that for a moment.
What makes his immediate impact on the international arena more impressive is the rollercoaster few months he’s had, keeping in mind the Sussex seamer is still only 24.
Archer only qualified to play for England in March after the ECB brought forward eligibility rules by four years. He wasn’t selected in the initial World Cup squad, but after a stunning first few games, his impending selection became obvious.
But soon after he was being questioned by all quarters, through no fault of his own.
Some English players and pundits questioned Archer’s right to be in the England World Cup squad. Team-mate Chris Woakes even asked whether his selection would be “morally fair”, while others said his inclusion could disrupt a settled side.
The ensuing debate among some English cricket scribes on both sides of the fence then became touchy, with The Independent‘s chief sports writer Jonathan Liew even suggesting there were double standards at play for Archer, a player of colour.
Where was the outrage with similar selection dilemmas with players born outside of England in the past like Boyd Rankin, Gary Ballance, Keaton Jennings and Tom Curran, the writer asked.
Among this, however, Archer has remained calm – a word used by chief selector Ed Smith to described the languid quick. Now the World Cup is underway, he can get to work and put everything else behind him. His uncharacteristically hearty celebration after taking the wicket of Faf du Plessis was perhaps a release of the pressure valve.
(Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)
From the outside, it appears bowling comes easy for Archer. Annoyingly easy. A profession that takes enormous toll on most bodies, the 182cm paceman seemingly jogs in and unleashes, hurrying batsmen in a way that few can.
And it’s this ability with the ball that England were searching for in their tilt at a first World Cup title. Sure, Adil Rashid provides X-factor, possessing a skill set that troubles batsmen the world over. Similarly, Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler provide a rare ability to change games in short periods of time.
But despite their ODI dominance in the last few years, the World Cup hosts have never really had an edge with their seamers.
Sure Liam Plunkett has played a superb role in the middle overs, while Chris Woakes consistently does the job with the new ball. Mark Wood has shown glimpses, but frequent injuries and dips in form make him unreliable.
But in Archer, England top-up their already surplus supply of X-factor. His equal ability between overs 1-10 and 40-50 make him an invaluable asset for an already-strong side.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
"Who cares about ODI cricket anyway." Clearly you do, as you're reading an article about the ODI World Cup!
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
They already have, mate. Renshaw is an eligible POM.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
playing for England with.....a South African and 2 Pakistanis.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
How good is it seeing bowlers like Archer, Cummins & Bumrah? As long as they don't get too short too often on these stupidly small Pommy grounds they can make inroads for games becoming contests again.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Fair enough. It's a cosmopolitan world these days and there are some great Australians who weren't born here either. I'm worried about his bowling, not his providence.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Archer is the perfect player at exactly the right time for England. If there was a fault with England most pointed the finger at the bowling as the weak link. Archer has almost plugged that gap single handedly. He gets pace from seemingly nowhere with no apparent effort and also seems to have a true fast bowlers brain as evidenced by his man handling of Amla the other day. It's great news for England fans but not so much for the rest of us. .. I'll admit to hoping he would fail miserably but that doesn't look to be a possibility now. I've got nothing against him, he seems a nice sort of bloke, it's just that I don't want England to win the CWC. I won't be devastated if they do but I much rather it was us.
Ashley R
Guest
I love the hypocritical attitude of some, and totally a minority, of Australians to Archers inclusion. England, primarily because of their imperial past, have many people who are from different countries who are eligible to play for them. Also nowadays with management staff being from different countries and coaching international teams i think the idea of player x being a product of a single country is a little silly. Of the eight coaches the West Indian team has, three are Australians and i doubt most other nations are any different. Plus its ignorant to discount the influence of parents in coaching, they are who coach us from early on and who is to say that Archer and his dad didnt watch Coronation Street every evening. Absolutely there are players who play for a country they dont love but most dont and we have no evidence that Archer doesnt love England as much as Smith loves Australia. He is half English, coached by people from all over the world and has lived in England for the last three years and has commited his entire career to playing for the country in which he lives, how is that not enough?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Your right. The ECB is a pillar of virtue. At no point have they been by far and away the worst offenders at picking players from other countries.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
“England can always smile at the fact we’ve won 5 of the last 8 Ashes Series” And England have been beaten 11-3 across the last three Ashes – they’re slipping!
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
He moved to England in 2014 when he was 19, so five years or less, not 8 or 9. The previous ECB rules said that if you hadn’t lived in England up to age 18, you had to wait seven years to quality for England selection. That was a sensible rule which they tore up through greed.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
You wrote “But soon after he was being questioned by all quarters, through no fault of his own.” You mentioned some of the reasons why it was being questioned, but you overlooked a key issue among the reasons his inclusion was being questioned - whether deliberately, through ignorance or just reasons of space. The West Indies Board made it clear they were unhappy with England’s approach a couple of years back. So the word “overlooked” is perfectly apt in this context. It’s not accusing you of a major crime, just saying you left out something that I (and others) think is important in this context.
James Butcher
Guest
Dave, I know that we live in an age when language has lost all meaning and words like racist, fascist and such like are thrown around like confetti but what I wrote wasn’t racist, I’d appreciate it if you took it back but I suspect that’s wishful thinking on my part. I referred to the Australian rugby team not because of the numerous players born overseas per se, but the systematic recruitment drive of Super Rugby players who qualify through plying their trade in Australia such as the endless supply of Fijian wingers. Now I don’t have a problem with it as such, it is what it is and as the rules stand it’s perfectly ok. However, the hypocrisy and holier than thou attitude of some Aussies on the matter is laughable. And before you ask what’s Rugby got to do with Cricket...if Australia had the chance to recruit a player to play for Australia that would make them better they would absolutely do it, no doubt whatsoever. They’ve done it in the past and they would certainly do it again. So how about we all climb down from our high horses and enjoy the cricket?!
Samuel Honywill
Roar Pro
Yeah, the ECB changed the rules so that they were in line with the ICC's rules. It's not like the entire laws of the country were changed to rush through a leggie's qualification...
David Schout
Expert
It's a good discussion point, Ronan. I can see sides playing cautiously against him, much like they do with Bumrah.
David Schout
Expert
I actually haven't overlooked anything. This piece is about Jofra Archer's worth on the cricket field, not a discussion on the validity of England's eligibility criteria.
English twizz
Guest
England changed there rules to be in line with ICC rules
Uk_OzPat
Guest
Who cares about ODI cricket anyway. England can always smile at the fact we've won 5 of the last 8 Ashes Series :) (Would have been 6 if not for sandpaper!)
Uk_OzPat
Guest
Best not mention how the Aussies tried to rush through the citizenship of Fawad Ahmed when they realised he was a decent lrg spinner!!
BarmyFarmer
Guest
He has an English passport, his dad is English and he's lived here for the last 8/9 years. It's hardly like he's just jumped on a plane from Barbados, popped his boots on and had a bowl.
Rellum
Roar Guru
He still had the advantage of the ECB changing the rules to bring him in. The ICC should be making the rules on how you are eligible to represent a nation. It should not be left up to the individual nations as England may just take it further and further. It is a ral shame for the game as a whole not to see Archer lining up for the Windies.