ECB leave England in 50-over mire

By Scyld Berry
Last Updated: 12:23am BST 20/07/2008

Successful England teams: this is the objective of our governing body, the England and Wales Cricket Board. They used to want England to be No 1 in Test and one-day cricket by 2007, then by 2009; but those honourable intentions have been revised downwards to plain 'successful'. Still, that is no reason why England followers should be forced to accept second best. Or rather fifth best, which is what England were at the last World Cup.

Not since 1992, indeed, have England been one of the top four countries at a World Cup. Successful? A team who aren't an international embarrassment at 50-over cricket would be a start, and there is still no sign of that, England having been whopped 3-1 by New Zealand home and away.

Last week, when the ECB decided on a new domestic structure, the county chairmen last week had the opportunity to do something about the abysmal state of 50-over cricket in England - and did absolutely nothing. England are the only one of the eight major cricket-playing countries never to have won a global tournament (the World Cup or Champions Trophy) and the ECB, by their actions, are manifestly happy for it to stay that way. They want to line their pockets with two 20-over competitions. A successful England team at 50-over cricket? Empty words.

The first-class counties are free to play 20-over cricket until hell freezes over, and then to play 20-over cricket on the ice - provided they pay their own way. But they don't: even if/when new money pours in to the English Premier League, the counties will still rely for half their revenue on the £30?million generated by the England team. Yet the county chairmen call the tune.

A conscientious government would haul up the governing body of an under-performing sport who react to four World Cup embarrassments in a row by maintaining the status quo. It's no use arguing that 50-over is going to be wiped out by Twenty20. India will play 50-over internationals as long as there are a hundred advertisement breaks in every game.

England will play seven one-dayers in India in November, and you can already hear the breast-beating that will take place when England are overwhelmed, but now is the time to do something about it. World Cups until 2015 are integral to the International Cricket Council's broadcasting deal; and the 2019 tournament has been promised to England, so the ECB aren't going to look that gift horse in the mouth.

If the ECB staged a domestic 50-over competition in July and August, with time for the players to practise, England might have a chance of winning a World Cup. As it is, they don't.
Exploiting the 20 overs of powerplay is essential to a 'successful' 50-over team. But how can that be done on early-season pitches when survival has to be the aim, not power?

Match-winning spin is another essential if a World Cup is to be won, especially the next one in Asia. In this year's Friends Provident Trophy only two spinners have taken four wickets in an innings: both modest off-spinners born several thousand miles from Britain, Gareth Breese and Greg Lamb.

Was complacency the correct response last week? Or a 50-over competition played in high season on hard pitches, in place of the second 20-over competition, which could have unforeseen consequences. Younger players could get into bad habits by playing so much 20-over cricket. Spectators, too, could get hacked off.

The county chairmen have not done what is in the best interests of English cricket. The ECB should change their wording to read: "successful England teams - except in one-day internationals". By their fruit we shall know them - and it is fruit which has been designed, by self-interest, never to ripen. source: telegraph.co.uk

ICC changes Oval forfeiture to draw, England v Pakistan, The Oval, 2006

July 3, 2008, Darrell Hair awarded England five penalty runs in their second innings for ball tampering

The ICC has changed the result of the controversial Oval Test between England and Pakistan in 2006 from an English victory to a draw, following pressure from the Pakistan Cricket Board during the annual ICC meeting in Dubai.
"The board decided the result of the match should be altered. The change is from an England win as a result of Pakistan's refusal to play to the match being termed abandoned as a draw," the ICC said. "The board's decision is based on the view that in light of the unique set of circumstances the original result was felt to be inappropriate."
Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was Pakistan's captain during the Test, welcomed the ICC's decision. "I am very happy about it. This decision and the fact that we were cleared of ball-tampering charges proves that we were correct in our stance," he said. "This proves that what happened there was because of one man (Darrell Hair). It is sad that he is still there."
The Test was originally awarded to England by umpire Darrell Hair after Pakistan did not come out to field after tea on the fourth day, following accusations of ball-tampering.
Pakistan had, at the time, been in a strong position in the match, having secured a first-innings lead of 331 and removed four England batsmen second-time around. There was nothing at stake in the series, with England already leading 2-0 after wins at Headingley and Old Trafford, but the eventual forfeiture was the first in the history of Test cricket. The removal of England's win could affect their standing in the ICC Test Championship - they are currently third on 110 points, one ahead of their next opponents, South Africa, on 109.
The result had huge off-field ramifications as well. Hair went on to be suspended from the ICC elite panel, and though that decision was overturned last year when he took his employers to the High Court in London, the initial decision formed the basis of Pakistan's appeal for a rethink of the result.

source: www.circinfo.com