England bowler Mark Wood said during their ODI series against Pakistan three weeks ago that his side were eyeing up making 500 in a match and that “400 is easily gettable”.
These brash comments smacked of overconfidence among this English team, and hinted at a lack of respect for their opponents, Pakistan in particular.
This boldness has been echoed in the British media, with even the respected Guardian newspaper writing on the eve of this week’s match – in which Pakistan upset England – about the prospect of 500 being scored in that World Cup fixture.
Clearly the implication was not that Pakistan would be the team making such a historic score, as indicated by the headline: “England chase more ODI records after being handed same Trent Bridge strip”. As it turned out, 500 was not in danger, with the home side making 9-334 in defeat.
Now, obviously The Guardian and the British media as a whole are separate to the cricket team. But can these kinds of audacious headlines seep into the minds of the players?
The Australian team for years was famous for its cockiness, best embodied by pace legend Glenn McGrath’s 5-0 Ashes predictions and his pre-series targeting of opposition captains.
(Photo by Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
This arrogance earned Australia a lot of detractors and placed extra pressure on the team. But, for the most part, they managed to handle that stress, as evidenced by a long era of Test dominance and winning four of the last five World Cups.
They talked the talk and then walked the walk.
The difference with this England team is that they are yet to achieve anything of similarly lasting significance.
Alongside India, they have been the equal-best ODI team in the world over the past four years. But they have nothing to show for that apart from a good win-loss record. In 50-over cricket, all that has ever really mattered is winning the tournaments – the Champions Trophy and, above all, the World Cup.
South Africa were a commanding team for 20 years from the mid-90s through to the last World Cup. During that period, their record of 2.1 wins per loss was only a shade behind Australia’s (2.3 wins) and miles ahead of the third-best-performed team, Sri Lanka (1.3 wins).
Yet those Proteas teams are remembered far more for their inability to convert this dominance into trophies than for their consistent excellence in bilateral series.
England’s ODI team has been sensational in bilateral series but failed the one time it truly mattered. Against an unfancied Pakistan side, in their only knockout tournament match over the past four years – the 2017 Champions League semi-final – they were trounced by eight wickets after flopping with both bat and ball.
The fact of the matter is that England are unproven in huge matches.
This, of course, is partly a byproduct of the curious nature of the format, which is made up almost entirely of largely-meaningless series, during which many sides experiment with tactics and personnel. The only time teams are properly tested under pressure is during the World Cup and Champions Trophy.
That is why the legacy of this English team will be defined, to a large extent, by how they perform over the next six weeks. England’s attack-at-all-costs batting was a roaring success in those lower-profile series, but the jury is out on whether it will stand up under real pressure.
No team has ever won a World Cup by consistently trying to flog the bowlers from overs one to fifty. Even the awesome Australian batting line-ups of yesteryear were adaptable, changing their approach and tempo based on conditions and opponents. That’s because they had a Test-match pedigree to back up their limited-overs flair – they were proven runmakers in tough conditions and under immense pressure.
England, by comparison, have only one proven Test batsman in their line-up, in Joe Root.
Joe Root (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Their batting unit brims with players who have one main mode – hyper-aggression. England have become so used to churning out big totals on roads that there’s a risk they could forget how different it is to make runs on bowler-friendly pitches or under the genuine pressure of a crucial tournament match.
Virat Kohli certainly seems to think England have got ahead of themselves. Just days after Wood’s pompous comments about scoring 400 being a cakewalk for his side, the Indian captain reminded everyone that making runs under tournament pressure was a completely different challenge.
“England seem obsessed with getting to 500 before anyone else and there is a lot of talk about someone doing it at this tournament,” Kohli told media.
“But at a World Cup things are totally different. As the tournament goes on scoring will become harder and pitches will deteriorate.
“If a side bats first and gets 260 or 270 then that will be hard to chase. I promise you, you will see 250 defended in this tournament.”
Of course, England may make a mockery of such logic and of this article by blitz-batting their way to their first World Cup trophy. They have one of the most skilful and effective batting line-ups ever seen.
But if they are to break their World Cup drought they may need to rein themselves in a touch, to focus less on breaking meaningless batting records and more on methods that will hold up under crushing pressure.
Because crushing pressure is just what they will face should they qualify for the upcoming knockout stages.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Your point about Test pedigree translating to limited overs form is really good, Ronan. At the beginning of the tournament, I tipped Joe Root to be the key player for England rather than Buttler or Bairstow or Roy, because, put simply, he's England's best batsman. No frills, no gimmicks, just a good bat. I don't expect that to change. The rest are just too inconsistent. I still find it amusing that my favourite T20 player of all-time is Ricky Ponting. Will never forget his front-foot pull for 6 in his 98* against NZ in the first ever IT20 match. Goes to show that it isn't just about power. Timing is the key.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
Yes, there is something to this. In 2005, a peak audience of 8.2 million watched the Ashes series on Channel 4 but since 2006, all cricket has been put behind a subscription paywall. The numbers are there, ever since cricket went exclusively on Sky, less people are aware of it and so don’t play it or follow it. Kids are not going to get into cricket if they don’t know what it is because they can’t watch it on BBC One, for example. I think the biggest downfall of these Sky broadcasting deal is the fact that Sky will not let any FTA broadcasters show any World Cup games live despite it being a home tournament. Highlights packages are being shown after midnight on Channel 4 (Sky One are showing highlights earlier at 8pm but you do still need a basic Sky or Virgin Media subscription for that). On Saturday, BT Sport made the Champions League final between Liverpool and Tottenham free to watch for everyone (as they do every year). Millions tuned in but it is unlikely that Sky Sports will follow their example with World Cup matches should England progress to the final. There is a new broadcasting deal coming into place from next season where some live games will be broadcast on the BBC so we’ll have to see if that changes anything.
Neel
Roar Guru
Their batting wasn’t bad but their fielding was horrible. Like goodness gracious the misfields and dropped chances cost them dearly against Pakistan.
Ouch
Roar Rookie
How have England failed to walk the walk? They have won nothing. The Champions Trophy was in their backyard. They had everything in their favour and still failed. Poms take a good game but rarely deliver.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
That's the price we pay for free to air coverage I'm afraid. Unashamed cross promotion of their own shows seems to be a thing with all the commercial networks atm. It's very annoying but that's why we have mute buttons.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I sometimes check out the BBC Have Your Say articles and there's hardly ever one where someone doesn't complain about pay per view subscription coverage. A few even blame it for crickets decline in popularity in England. Would you say there's anything to that or are the BBC readers not representative of the larger population about this?
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Very interesting. It's as though the rest of the world has been conspiring to lull the poms into a false sense of security. It's obviously not that straightforward (injuries and the spelling paddock account for most of it) but regardless of the intent the result is still the same. The poms have been making hay against a series of weakened sides and when they came up against a full strength WI they struggled a bit. That IS interesting.
jamesb
Roar Guru
I actually liked that old tri series format. I didn't mind watching the neutral game that didn't involve Australia. There was variety.
Partyhat
Roar Rookie
And?
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
The Sky Sports Cricket channel in the UK, launched two years ago, is purely designed for cricket fans - the way it should be. It's proved to be successful as it allows cricket fans to just watch cricket, not have to trawl through the back passages of subscription sports channels to find what they want. The SS Cricket channel follows the success of SS F1, which has been broadcasting fantastically for seven years. It's a shame to hear that you do not have this luxury in Australia (FYI we have Sky Sports Premier League, Sky Sports Football, Sky Sports Cricket, Sky Sports Golf, Sky Sports F1 and four general Sky Sports channels broadcasting the other sports).
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
How have England failed to walk the walk? Two matches so far: a win against South Africa by 104 runs and a loss to Pakistan by 14 runs (but they did a great job trying to chase down the target of 349). You cannot evaluate a team's performance after two of nine group stage matches. The Champions Trophy was 2 years ago and England have only got better since, in my opinion. They achieved world number one status last year - we will evaluate whether they deserve this after the World Cup has concluded on July 14th, I'm sure.
JimboJones
Guest
But so did Adam Goodes .
BarmyFarmer
Guest
The logic only exists if England had actually been hit or miss...they've scored over 300 in the last 6 innings straight which equals Australia in 2007 and it is the first time (last match) that they have lost a home ODI when chasing since 2015. Sounds pretty consistent with the bat to me. I don't really buy into the whole 'they've not won the world cup yet'. I would argue their approach with the bat over the last 4 years has made them by a considerable margin the best team in the world.
Partyhat
Roar Rookie
Mark Taylor as well , ha ha
Partyhat
Roar Rookie
Ha ha ,wow, a classic , very witty. Although didn’t Steve Waugh win Australian of the year? Literally the highest achieving/most outstanding contribution to the world in that year was......Steve Waugh ????
Ouch
Roar Rookie
'Everyone' isn't having a bash at England. Simply pointing out for all the crowing coming from the English fans and media they've won nada/zip/nothing of note. They had a chance in the CL and failed. If the team with possibly the barest trophy cabinet in cricket starts boasting about how there gonna do this and gonna do that then they should expect some flak. They can talk the talk alright but so far, they have failed to walk the walk.
George
Guest
Ronan's been itching to draw from his "I hate England" template. Never fails to, unless England are winning, and then he doesn't even mention those matches/series.
Paul
Roar Guru
I got the impression SA didn't have a bowling leader, someone to turn to for advice or rethinking if plans were going astray. I agree Steyn would have made a huge difference if fit for both his bowling & leadership role, but as it was, that attack was way below par against England. Perhaps others were also carrying more serious injuries than was released?
Paul
Roar Guru
I don't know if it was planned that way but it seems to me Australia only started to build for the World Cup once the Sri Lanka Tests were finished in January. It's almost as though the CA hierarchy said "let's focus on the India/Sri Lanka Tests, get through the BBL, then we'll think about the Cup". The SA results, to me, fall into the category of "why are holding this tournament now?". We had lots of guys coming back from injury and the timing meant it was "3 games in a week, okay, that's out of the road, now lets get on with the main business, the Tests". I don't doubt the guys didn't want to win, but in terms of using this as a build up for the WC, it was more like a nuisance than a help. Australia brought the current squad together extremely quickly, certainly in less than 2 months, whereas England has had a squad of about 20 for the best part of 3 years ( Archer is obviously the exception). India has likewise had a fairly settled team for a few years and has only tinkered with a few guys. I'm guessing one of these teams will lift the Cup, so it will be interesting to see which method works best.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yes the international coverage is good, except when they have Michael Clarke, who talks drivel. Or Graeme Smith, who does Darrell Eastlake impressions, talking ten times louder than necessary. Just hope they don’t use Kevin Pietersen.