England didn't play well throughout the tournament, and it never seemed likely to change when facing the Sri Lankans in their own back yard.
To win big games like this, big performers have to stand up and be counted.
But England's big-time players, who would have relished an occasion like this, were sat at home.
The likes of Stuart Broad and Kevin Pietersen were sorely missed as England went out with a whimper.
They limped through the group stages despite defeats to minnows Ireland and Bangladesh, never once showing how good they can be with bat and ball combined.
The players were clearly jaded from an awfully long winter, with the majority of the squad having left for Australia in early-November and only spending less than a week at home since.
The one-day series in Australia should have been cut to three games at the most to allow players to recuperate in time for the World Cup, but once again the organisers have been left with egg on their faces.
Not only were the players too tired to play in a major tournament, but the sheer amount of cricket had led to critical injuries.
The likes of Broad, Pietersen and then Ajmal Shazhad during the tournament had simply been away from home too long, clocked up too many air miles and played too much cricket.
Michael Yardy's withdrawal with depression said it all.
Yes, the players are paid handsomely to do a job they love.
But being away from your family for months on end must be terribly difficult and that, coupled with the mental exhaustion which came with winning the Ashes, led to an under-motivated squad who couldn't wait to get home.
A lot of people have laid some blame with Jonathan Trott's slow batting style for England's defeat.
But Trott had to play this way due to the incompetence of his fellow batsmen.
He knew he had to bat through innings to ensure England got some sort of total on the board, and without him, it could have been complete embarrassment with England consistently bowled out for around 150.
He was the main reason England made it out of the group stage and is one of the players who can be proud of himself: he overcame the mental exhaustion and kept churning out the runs.
In truth, England are a poor one-day side in comparison to test cricket.
But there have been some great improvements in the last year or two, with the showings in the pre-tournament series against Australia and World Cup not a true reflection of how good they are.
2009's Champions Trophy showed how good England can be.
They showed a new brand of attacking cricket, alien to most England-watchers.
Eoin Morgan, in particular, took the attack to the opposition and the bowling unit worked well together as England reached the semi-finals.
But the tiredness of the players and injuries to key men curtailed any chance England had of replicating such performances.
Andrew Strauss, in particular, looked clueless at times. And who can blame him having captained England through the mentally-draining five-test Ashes series?
His indecisiveness and lack of ideas quickly spread to the bowlers, who seemed to have no plan, especially against Sri Lanka, of how to get the batsmen out.
This also spread to the batsmen, who got gradually poorer as the tournament went on and were only bailed out by Trott and, at times, Morgan.
England had a lot of luck on their side in the group stage, for instance in their improbable defending of low totals against South Africa and the West Indies, but ran out of luck against Sri Lanka.
They never troubled their batsmen once and looked like rabbits caught in the headlights when batting.
Credit must go, however, to Sri Lanka, as they look an excellent side.
The superb bowling talents of Muttiah Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis would trouble any batsmen, while the likes of Mahela Jayawardene in the middle order are imperious in full flow.
But their batting performance against England was all about two men: Tillakaratne Dilshan and Upul Tharanga, who both scored unbeaten centuries as they coasted to a ten-wicket victory.
Both, particularly Dilshan, are truly world-class batsmen.
Dilshan first came to prominence in England fans' eyes at the ICC World T20 in England in 2009, where he was the player of the tournament.
He has developed into a top drawer performer and surely strikes fear into any bowling attack now.
Both bamboozled the England bowlers and never looked in any sort of trouble.
Chris Tremlett was perhaps the poorest of the bowlers.
He doesn't seem suited to the limited overs game and the selectors should only consider him for test matches in future.
His style is easy to attack and he has failed to perform in both his matches at this World Cup.
As for the batting line-up, it was foolish of the selectors not to pick Alastair Cook.
He was on the back of a superb performance in the Ashes and could have lit up this tournament.
All the time they were fumbling around looking for someone to open with Strauss, Cook was sitting at home, with his talents wasted.
England should build both the test and one-day team around him as he is a true talent, who showed last year in county cricket for Essex how effective he can be in the shorter forms of the game.
As for captain Strauss, he proved his value as a one-day batsman in this tournament and it would be a shame if he was to retire from that form of the game.
He did lack ideas in the field, though, and so the time may be right for him to give up the one-day captaincy to concentrate on batting.
This may undermine his position as test captain, which he should definitely keep, but England need Strauss still in one-day cricket as he is one of only a few players capable of scoring centuries.
Alistair Cook has been mentioned as a possible captaincy replacement for Strauss, but the selectors don't seem to see him as a one-day player so it will be interesting to see which way they go.
Someone like Stuart Broad would be an interesting choice but it is debatable whether he could keep his temperament in check to lead the side.
Cook is the obvious choice but first the selectors must admit they made a mistake in not taking him to the World Cup.
For the tournament, England's defeat will come as a major blow.
They have been great value as the side has been so unpredictable, with a great win over South Africa and thrilling tie with India going alongside surprising defeats to Ireland and Bangladesh.
All their matches, with the exception of the Sri Lanka game, were very close and they will be missed in the rest of the tournament.
The tournament really is wide open now.
India perhaps have the strongest side on paper, and have home advantage, so must be viewed as the favourites.
But they must beat Pakistan in the semi-final and that won't be an easy task.
They have been very impressive in this tournament and if Shahid Afridi can produce another magic spell of bowling or two, this World Cup could be Pakistan's.
Sri Lanka are also genuine contenders, with a great mix between youth and experience, batting and bowling.
India-Sri Lanka would be the perfect final for the tournament organisers, as they were the main two host nations.
If Sri Lanka do make it to Mumbai, they could struggle as they have only played under Sri Lankan conditions in this World Cup and would suddenly find the whole stadium against them.
As for England, this will go down as an opportunity missed.
With South Africa and Australia out, this tournament was up for grabs but they were just too tired and in truth not good enough to go all the way.
But it is not the fact they lost that will stick in fans' throats, it is the way they lost.
They went down without a fight and clueless, similarly to the England football team in the 2010 World Cup against Germany.
They must pick themselves up quickly and learn from this experience to improve as a team.
It really is a case of back to the drawing board.
No comments:
Post a Comment