England will not win the World Cup, unless...

By Cricket Buffet / Roar Guru

Hosts and favourites England came into this year’s event having seemingly covered all bases in their bid to capture their first 50-over crown.

They formulated a strategy that they had been nurturing over the last four years – bat the opposition out of the game. They did this by going hard at their opponents from ball one and were relentless until the end of their innings.

Starting from the top, their batting order was stacked with players who could execute on this strategy. Men such as Alex Hales, Jason Roy, Joe Root, Eoin Morgan, Jos Buttler, Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes and Moeen Ali were handpicked on their ability to cause maximum damage to the white orb over the course of their innings.

They were able to consistently post huge totals while batting first, which often proved insurmountable for the opposition but also proved equally adept at chasing down any target that they were faced with.

This tactic was so effective that it resulted in series wins against former, and current WC winners in India, Pakistan and Australia and a tied one against another former World Cup champion, the West Indies.

So successful were they in batting teams out of the contest that India’s skipper Virat Kohli jokingly remarked at the captains’ photo-shoot that some teams were in a hurry to reach Mt.500 (500 runs in an innings) faster than anyone else.

Virat Kohli of India (Photo by Henry Browne/Getty Images)

However, Eoin Morgan and his men realised that batting was only one piece of the puzzle. Bowling was the other major component they needed to quickly stock up to counter opposition batsmen who had the same idea.

All of their greatest threats – India, Australia, South Africa, had potent bowling attacks to combat the home team’s hard hitters. Even a resurgent West Indies were coming in hot, with some exciting new talent in their fast bowling armoury.

Their medium pacers Chris Woakes and Ben Stokes, with spinners Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid would be able to subdue smaller teams but against the bigger ones, they needed some real firepower.

Chris Wood was the only fast bowler in their ranks with real pace but that wasn’t going to be enough. They needed at least another fearsome bowler.

Action was required and the team management wasted no time in procuring the services of Jofra Archer and ensured that he would be part of their strike force at The World Cup.

It turned out to be a masterstroke as their attack, appearing thus far lacking in teeth, suddenly had a ‘bite’ that was as damaging as its batting one. Archer, with his electrifying pace has been the find of the tournament and has irrefutably been the difference to England’s bowling at the showpiece event.

Jofra Archer celebrates a wicket at the Cricket World Cup. (Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)

Finally, fielding, where England had been known to drop dollies and help opposition batsmen out with confidence and runs, was a constant cause of concern.

All that changed as we saw a sharp English unit take the field, diving to stop runs and taking brilliant catches, none more so than Ben Stokes’ stunning acrobatic effort in the tournament opener against South Africa, the flying Englishman pulling off the catch of the tournament thus far.

Everything seemed to be going like clockwork as the England juggernaut began to string together impressive wins. Even a loss to Pakistan in their second match was considered a blip on the radar as the hosts were soon back to their devastating best.

The England ‘bat’tering ram mowed down opponents with relative ease, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

In fact, so powerful and efficient was the English batting that even the suspension and subsequent withdrawal from the tournament of one its most destructive bats – Alex Hales, for use of recreational drugs – couldn’t dampen their spirits.

Even the several downpours during the tournament seemed like a mere sprinkle compared to the tempest that was The English cricket team. So comprehensive was their domination that it prompted former Three Lions player turned commentator Kevin Pietersen to quip, after yet another impressive English showing – “give them the cup”.

But just when everything seemed to be going according to plan, the hosts were jolted yet again, this time by an underwhelming and ordinary Sri Lankan side. A solitary loss early in the tournament to the ever unpredictable but talented Pakistanis is one thing but a second loss to a mediocre team, with tougher contests around the corner begged the question.

Are England really good enough to win the World Cup?

The answer is not just a simple yes or no. We need to take a deep dive into England’s history at cricket’s premier event to decode their problem.

England have been in three World Cup finals previously but have come up short each time. While they were blown away by an invincible West Indies in 1979, a ‘brain fade’ by Mike Gatting in the ’87 final when England were cruising, resulted in them snatching defeat when victory was theirs for the taking.

In ’92, the genius of Wasim Akram broke the back of their batting and the rest simply caved in. In the latter two finals, they were the firm favourites, yet they faltered in the summit clash.

Sorry Joe but a World Cup win is by no means a certainty. (Photo by Visionhaus/Corbis via Getty Images)

So what ails the English when it comes to the World Cup? The undeniable answer is “pressure”.

England’s inability to handle pressure is what has caused them so much heartbreak at ICC events.

The pressure is undoubtedly the greatest when chasing a challenging total in a knock-out match and that had been the scenario in every World Cup final that they had contested.

It seems to be their problem in this tournament as well (even though they aren’t KO matches).

Every time the hosts have batted first, they have amassed huge totals and all but batted teams out of the contest. But when chasing, the pressure has got to them.

While they put up a valiant effort in pursuit of the Pakistanis’ huge total of 348 albeit in vain, their defeat to the Lankans’ in a meagre chase of 232 clearly highlighted England’s woes when they’re up against.

It could definitely be said that a couple of losses are bound to happen in a long tournament and England are more than likely to get it right in the remainder of their matches. But it’s not so much as the losses that raise red flags as much as it’s the manner in which they have lost them.

First of all, both were relatively weaker opponents compared to this England side. Secondly, when Pakistan attacked their bowlers from the onset, the favourites got rattled, their fielding got shoddy as they dropped sitters (despite Woakes’ four catches) and there were misfields galore.

This was in sharp contrast to their electric fielding display in the previous match. Against the Lankans as well, batsmen after batsmen followed each other back to the pavilion, on the back of some really soft dismissals, when the need of the hour was just some common sense batting.

It was also the case in their loss to Bangladesh in the 2015 World Cup that knocked them out of the tournament.

However, they have shown themselves equally susceptible to pressure when they’re up against an opposition who refuse to be intimidated.

While Ireland’s Kevin O’Brien’s innings in the 2011 edition was out of this world, the loss to Bangladesh at the same event brought this inadequacy to the fore once again.

The players go into a “brain freeze” when they’re under the hammer, as was evident when India’s Yuvraj Singh went after Stuart Broad in that memorable 2007 T20 World Cup clash between their sides.

Six deliveries were bowled in the slot for the destructive left-hander to deposit each one of them into the stands. No variations in terms of slower balls or slower ball bouncers were even attempted.

It was again in evidence in the 2016 T20 World Cup final. With 19 runs needed, Stokes who had until then been immaculate with his yorkers in the tournament, all of a sudden found himself at the receiving end of Carlos Brathwaite’s massive blade.

Ball after ball of attempted yorkers went sailing into the night sky. As the West Indian used his long reach to get under balls that only missed their mark by a fraction, and send them soaring over the boundary, Stokes ‘froze’ and continued to dish out more of the same without any attempt to mix it up.

England ended up losing the match and trophy, a trophy which should have been theirs. The only notable exceptions in World Cups when The Three Lions bucked this trend was when they defeated arch rivals Australia to win their only world title to date and be crowned 2010 T20 World Champions, and then again in the 2011 World Cup when they managed to pip the South Africans at the post, winning by 6 runs.

But unfortunately they have ended up on the wrong side of the result more often than not.

As Al Pacino so famously stated to Keanu Reeves, a hotshot lawyer who couldn’t lose a case, in the movie The Devil’s Advocate – “Pressure, it changes everything. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”

England’s Jason Roy (David Davies/PA via AP)

England will not win the World Cup unless they cover this base as well – deal with the dreaded ‘P’ factor and conquer it.

They will have to contend with two kinds of pressure at the event. First – the external – from their opponents who will be gunning for them as well as the expectations of a nation to bring the cup home for the very first time.

The second – the internal – the expectations the players have from themselves, knowing that this could be their best chance to seal their legacies in immortality as World cup winners, while being fully aware that this opportunity may never come again in their playing careers.

For them to triumph, they will need to embrace pressure, look at it as a privilege rather than a burden and treat it as an ally instead of an enemy. There is a lesson to be learnt here for the hosts from the old enemy Australia.

The Aussies have mastered the art of handling pressure, which is clearly evident from their five World titles. All previous winners too have exemplified this trait on their way to the title.

It seems Kohli was right, when at the photo-shoot he continued to say, that even, scores of 250 odd will be challenging towards the later stages of the tournament when the ‘pressure’ will be dialled up and the team with the ability to handle that pressure the best, will put themselves in the prime position to win the trophy.

Therein lies the answer and solution to England’s problems. Talent and skill is a given at this level but can they handle the pressure when the heat is really on?

When squeezed, can they ‘focus’ or will they again ‘fold’? Can they summon their talent at will and when they need it the most? Can they deliver on the biggest stage of all?

Can they stay calm and sleep at night? In the end it is their ability to answer these questions in the affirmative that will ultimately determine whether the favourites finally cover themselves in glory or end yet another World Cup campaign in bitter disappointment.

The Crowd Says:

2019-06-26T01:49:13+00:00

deepoz

Roar Rookie


CB, some good points. So far England's focus seemed to be on their batting. Perhaps they took it for granted that their bowling will be good as they know their home conditions better than any one else. The evidence says something different. Yesterday's game against Aussies is an example. While Archer and Woakes were a tad unlucky in the first 10-15 overs, I thought they bowled far too short. I think all the teams are missing one thing. Movement in the air and off the wicket is more critical than bounce and speed in these conditions. It was Behrendorff, who made a difference yesterday; and when Starke starts swinging it a bit like yesterday its a different ball game. I reckon, England will benefit more from using Mark Wood to open as he can swing it more than Archer at a good pace.

2019-06-25T04:41:09+00:00

Neel

Roar Guru


That statement is summed up by your username. Ouch!

2019-06-25T04:40:33+00:00

Neel

Roar Guru


Paul, those points are so true. Especially about Wood. He has had a history of ankle injuries and other injuries. The fact he can’t finish his full quota of 10 overs more often than not is a massive concern for England.

2019-06-25T03:36:53+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


don't agree Rafiqul. Strike bowlers in this form of cricket can't be ONLY wicket takers or even mainly. As I pointed out, why have a guy take 3 wickets when he's comfortably the most expensive bowler on either side in a low scoring game? World cricket knows the rest of the England ODI attack is not great, so if Archer doesn't get wickets and leaks runs, as he's done badly in two losses, is he strength in the team or a liability?

2019-06-25T03:29:36+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


dat, who won the game? In the context of a low scoring match, Archer's figures are the worst by a bowler on either side. I don't care who scored the runs, the fact is England lost and Archer leaked runs as he did earlier against Pakistan. In other words, the two games he's failed to perform are the two England lost. You talk about Wood in a positive way, but the only time he's bowled his full quota was against Afghanistan. Granted he's taken wickets but it must be a concern he's not bowling out, especially with the games England has remaining.

2019-06-25T01:59:54+00:00

Tigerbill44

Roar Guru


While I agree with most of your points I don't like the idea of comparing between Stoinis and Archer. Archer, like most strike bowlers are in the team mainly to take wickets; and occasionally these bowlers can prove expensive. Starc (against Ind) or Chahal (against Pak) had their off days. The biggest problem with Zampa is not that he is being expensive; the problem is that he is not taking enough wickets.

2019-06-25T01:14:16+00:00

Ouch

Roar Rookie


unless...........the other teams forfeit.

2019-06-25T00:05:45+00:00

dat

Roar Rookie


I don’t think 52 is that expensive considering he took 3 wickets in that match. Most of those runs was scored by Fernando,who played some gorgeous shots and looked great till he threw his wicket away(he hit 3 4’s and 2 sixes off jofra in 2 overs, in the 1st powerplay). So far he has taken 3 wickets each in 5 of his 6 wc matches and sits on top of the leading wicket takers chart alongside Amir and Starc,though at a better avg and economy than the latter. The Pakistan match was the only one he didn’t perform in, which wasn’t too surprising as you kinda expect Pakistan to come in hard , in their next match,following a humiliating lose. Having faced him just recently, might have also benefited them,on a track both teams scored 300 plus. So far in the WC ,Woods has also been among the wickets(5th in the chart), and along with jofra makes an effective pace combo.(The 2 quickest deliveries this wc were also bowled by them).The rest of the English attack may looks iffy,with rashid’s form dipping,but those 2 will still pose a challenge to even the bigger teams in this tournament.Maybe not on reputation per se but on current form that attack and Australia’s are quite similar, in having 2 bowlers other teams will look to play of,while the other 30 overs likely being targeted.

2019-06-24T22:50:08+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


CB, you made one very interesting comment; "Therein lies the answer and solution to England’s problems. Talent and skill is a given at this level but can they handle the pressure when the heat is really on? " Talent & skill at this level is NOT a given. Guys have to have the technique to be able to execute, especially when they're under pressure. In the case of Sri Lanka, guys were executing shots that simply weren't necessary when chasing such a modest total. I question whether they would have the technique to bat in 4 day mode, which is what that situation called for? In my mind, with a couple of exceptions, the others lack the skill and technique to bat more patiently. You also reference Archer and co but they've been pitiful against Pakistan and Archer was expensive against Sri Lanka. In the first game, he gave up 79 runs and another 52 against Sri Lanka. If Stoinis gave up 131 runs off 20 overs, we'd call that rubbish bowling, yet nothing's been said about his expensive rpo, which went a log way to costing his team victory.

Read more at The Roar