England vs the rest of the world

Well, you have come a long way baby. As the whizz-bang hoopla of the cricket World Cup strides into view at the Oval, take a look back nearly 50 years to the very first limited overs international played in 1971. It was between Australia and England in Melbourne; 40 eight-ball overs a side, on what would have been the last day of a Test that had been rained off. Australia won with six overs to spare. The names on the team sheet are not those you would associate with breathless one-day hitting: Boycott, Edrich, Fletcher, Lawry and Stackpole. The run rate was pretty painful: England scored at below four an over and Ian Chappell hit the solitary six for Australia. England managed a grand total of just eight fours. Happy days.

I don’t think anyone watching realised what a revolution was under way. International 50-over cricket has become a compelling spectacle, arguably the best format. More concise than Test cricket of course, but not so concise that it eliminates ebb and flow, which is T20’s main shortcoming. Mourn the decline of Test cricket by all means, but don’t make out it’s the death of cricket.

Now the rarity of England going into any global tournament as favourites sets the heart a-pumping straight off. This is a team that can make 350 batting first, seemingly without breaking sweat, and have no trouble chasing down that total. The fielding is sensational: Jonny Bairstow’s catch on the boundary in the desultory warm-up against Afghanistan where he flicked up the ball before crossing and recrossing the rope to regain his balance has become almost routine. And Bairstow is by trade a wicket-keeper.

The bowling attack is exceptionally well balanced: wily, leggie Adil Rashid, Plunkett solid in the middle overs, proper pace in Archer and Wood, and steely death bowling from Stokes and Woakes (if only Foakes was there for poetic purposes).