Triumph of mind game (19 June 1999)
Whatever happens tomorrow, it is certain that the 1999 World Cup final will be played at a higher level of intensity, and to a higher standard, than the last one staged at Lord's
19-Jun-1999
19 June 1999
Triumph of mind game
Mark Marqusee
Whatever happens tomorrow, it is certain that the 1999 World Cup
final will be played at a higher level of intensity, and to a higher
standard, than the last one staged at Lord's. This is not because Viv
Richards, Michael Holding, Sunil Gavaskar or Kapil Dev were in any
way inferior in talent to Wasim Akram, Shoaib Akhtar, Steve Waugh and
Shane Warne, but because since 1983 the one-day game has mutated out
of all recognition.
In Lahore three years ago Omar Kureishi, the veteran Pakistani
commentator, observed that "what we are seeing now is the element of
science coming into one-day cricket. The game is evolving and it is
now being played as much in the mind as on the field." The contrast
between this World Cup and the batting feast staged in Asia in 1996
confirms the argument. English conditions have demanded tactical
ingenuity, and it is telling that the English showed themselves less
adept than others at exploiting them.
The one-day game is a relative newcomer among global sports and its
technical and dramatic possibilities are still being explored. Of
course, it has placed a premium on power, speed and fitness, and in
that regard has had an impact in the Test arena as well. But it has
also demanded, increasingly, strategic vision and tactical flair.
It could be argued that one-day captaincy now requires greater
intensity and continuity of focus than Test captaincy, because there
is little room for experiment and none for error. Has any captain in
any form of the game had to concentrate harder or think faster than
Steve Waugh did at Edgbaston on Thursday?
The best matches in this World Cup have demonstrated that in one-day
cricket, 50 overs can be a very long time indeed. The shifts in
tempo, the sudden reversals of fortune, even the wild mood swings of
committed partisans have proved absorbing to all those cricket lovers
who stayed tuned after England's demise.
The presence in number of Asian supporters has set the tone for this
World Cup. Without them, it would have been immeasurably poorer as a
spectacle and as a social event. It will be intriguing to see what
effect Lord's and the Pakistani fans have on each other tomorrow.
In any case, surely there can no longer be any doubt that the
commitment to cricket among Britain's Asian communities is the game's
greatest untapped resource in the land of its birth, perhaps the key
to a revival of the game across the country as a whole. But to reach
out effectively to these communities will require a stiff dose of
self-criticism on the part of the game's authorities. The Racism
Study Group set up by the ECB bears a heavy burden. Anything less
than a radical response to a deep-rooted problem could cost cricket
in this country dear.
The triumphs of this World Cup have been the cricket and the crowds.
The organisers emerge with less credit. The failure to attract a full
complement of sponsors means that despite packed houses, profits will
be less than projected and counties will feel the squeeze. Given the
ECB's determination to run cricket like a business, the failure to
maximise revenue must raise questions about both the competence of
those implementing the strategy, and the strategy itself.
Too much effort was expended on desperate promotional gimmicks and
too little on the comfort and pleasure of ordinary paying customers
(the ones who never see the inside of a hospitality box or media
centre). At most venues, the queues for drinks were endless; the food
was overpriced and sometimes inedible. Entry to the smaller grounds
was time consuming.
Communication with spectators, either before or during the matches,
was perfunctory at best. In the absence of scorecards, ticket-holders
were expected to fork out an additional £3 (£4 at the semi-finals)
for a glossy programme. In the tense final overs of the semi-final at
Edgbaston, neither the public address nor the replay screen were used
to inform spectators how a place in the final would be awarded in the
case of a tie.
Cricket fans are a hardened breed, and rarely complain about what are
frequently second-rate facilities and second-class treatment. Perhaps
a more demanding attitude from them would force the authorities to
think again.
The most important lesson of this World Cup is that English cricket
has nothing to fear and everything to gain by embracing influences
from abroad. Certainly there can be no going back to the blanket ban
on banners, flags, placards and musical instruments. And the notion
that the standard of cricket will rise by excluding overseas players
from domestic competitions is surely now exposed as risible. Those
who insist on a patriotic appointee to
succeed David Lloyd are arguing for inward-looking stasis in a
rapidly changing world order. For what it's worth, my vote goes to
Duncan Fletcher.
The ECB should also look at other ways of upgrading England's
inter-action with the rest of the cricketing world. England do not
play enough in the subcontinent - one Test tour in a decade is both
insulting and self-defeating. Why not send a crop of young players
out to Asia every year to learn about conditions and styles of play
in what is now the epicentre of global cricket? When they find
themselves up against the likes of Anil Kumble at some future World
Cup, they might not look so out of depth.
Source :: The Electronic Telegraph