On the morning after the champagne super over which sparked England’s maiden World Cup triumph, nobody could deny the excitement and efforts of both the winners and New Zealand to roll with it through the many twists and turns of the climactic contest.
But, in the bigger picture, was the tournament a success? Perhaps, keeping the Oasis link going, the answer is “Definitely, Maybe.”
On a positive note, the competition ramped up several notches once we had reached the knock-out stages. The fashion in which the Black Caps edged past India was a nerve-shredding affair, one which reminded anybody who doubted it about the resolve and resilience of Kane Williamson and his Kiwi cohorts.
They performed with the same intensity in the final itself and England were pushed to the very brink of defeat before Ben Stokes – the glue in their line-up – joined Jos Buttler and their century stand transformed their fortunes.
Even then, the tussle was littered with extraordinary incidents. Trent Boult stepped on to the boundary rope while taking a catch – which brought England a six – then the ball ricocheted off Stokes’ bat as he ran a couple and veered away for four fluky runs. It was impossible to divert your eyes from every single delivery.
But, if this was sport of the highest quality, we shouldn’t forget how long it took for the World Cup to come to the boil. The event actually started in May and seemed to drag on relentlessly during the round-robin format which, regardless of the spin the ICC puts on it, led to a plethora of largely redundant fixtures.
After all, there were just 10 participating countries and at least four of them, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and the Windies, never looked likely to reach the semis, or not after the latter had skittled out Pakistan in their opening match. It was just the latest false dawn in the history of the Caribbean game.
On Sunday evening, all the focus was correctly on the pyrotechnics served up by the finalists and Eoin Morgan and his teammates were gracious in recognising the immense contribution made by New Zealand to the showpiece denouement at Lord’s.
The English have transformed their style and unearthed all manner of players with a true Wow factor, from Morgan, Stokes, Buttler and Jason Roy to the emerging Jofra Archer.
Yet the authorities need to wake up and appreciate they were bailed out by these sides and the displays of India, Australia and – belatedly – Pakistan in the previous fortnight. Other sports are quite rightly expanding their horizons and seeking out new audiences. Not cricket, or not in its showpiece tournament.
The Super Over was an exceptional piece of theatre, and it was a smart decision by Sky to make the final free to air by screening it on Channel 4, but I’m not convinced by the arguments of those who claim cricket has suffered from moving its elite action to the satellite station.
After all, suppose the BBC had secured the rights to this event. Where would they have found a slot for it, while broadcasting the Women’s World Cup and Wimbledon? Would ITV really have ditched Eamonn and Ruth and Loose Women to show cricket every day for seven weeks? Of course not!
England deserve all the celebrations and have been on course to become Kings of the World for the last two years. But let’s not pretend this solves all the game’s problems.
Not without the ICC’s acceptance that 10 teams is far too few and they act accordingly in the future.
