Cricket: Cup managed to shine, but still needs polish

By ANGUS FRASER in JOHANNESBURG

It started with a stunning century from Brian Lara, finished with an even better one from Ricky Ponting, and was dominated in the middle by the best batsman in the world, Sachin Tendulkar.

Shoaib Akhtar broke the 100mph (160km/h) barrier for the first time, Brett Lee and Shane Bond moved on from exciting prospects to become stars of the game, and Muttiah Muralitharan's twiddlers were too good for most.

In many ways the organisers could not have asked for more from the 2003 World Cup. All the stars turned up - even if one went home early because of something his mum gave him - and most performed at some stage.

However, reflecting on what took place during the six weeks, one could not help but feel there had been something missing from the tournament.

There were some good games - but not enough - the odd surprise and plenty of world-class performances, but even in South Africa it never really took off.

It was not the fault of the South Africans, who were admirable hosts.

The grounds looked immaculate. The practice facilities were first-class and the match pitches ideal for producing good games of cricket.

The organisation was good and everything appeared to have run smoothly following a difficult first week of the tournament, dominated by the issue of Zimbabwe.

This dilemma soured its start and the fact that the host nation, and England, went out in the first round did not help the World Cup gain momentum. Neither did the format and this was the responsibility of the International Cricket Council, which did not have the best of events.

Having announced a tournament profit of £121 million ($345 million), the governing body will feel the 2003 World Cup has been an overwhelming success.

It has not, and this is largely down to the intransigence of the ICC and its inability to put common sense ahead of contractual obligations.

Money is vital for every sport, but what it - as well as the England and Wales Cricket Board - seemed to forget is that cricket is about the players and spectators, not lawyers haggling over the minutiae of contracts.

The first round of matches worked well, but they were seen as a warm-up for bigger and better things to come.

There were some excellent performances from the most unlikely teams. Who would have thought that John Davison, from Canada, would score the fastest World Cup hundred, in just 67 balls, that J. B. Burger would take Namibia to the brink of an unexpected victory over England, and that Collins Obuya, of Kenya, would be the best leg-spinner of the tournament.

However, the pyramid stayed rectangular when Kenya and Zimbabwe qualified for the Super Six stage. In the eyes of the organisers, this was when the tournament was meant to get serious and the matches sexy. It did not.

A tournament should not give any side an advantage, but its aim should be that the best players in the world play against each other in the later rounds.

This is how the competition was sold to sponsors and television companies, but it was not the case as abandoned matches and a schedule that did not allow for rain days meant two unfancied and unglamorous sides went through to the Super Sixes.

The qualification of Kenya and Zimbabwe meant five of the nine Super Six matches contained one of these two and, sadly, they do not put bums on seats.

Nowhere was this more apparent than at Bloemfontein, where about 300 people turned up to watch two African sides compete for a semifinal place.

The points system was also too complicated for most to understand, even if it was brought in for the right reasons - to avoid dead games and potential match-fixing.

From matches in the first round, four, two, one and half a point could be taken through to the Super Sixes, depending on who you beat.

Because of this, Kenya would have qualified for the semifinals even if they had lost all three of their Super Six games. This cannot be right.

The length of the tournament needs to be looked at, too. Six weeks is far too long to keep the players motivated, let alone the people watching.

When one considers the soccer World Cup had over twice as many countries competing in it but lasted two weeks less, this is obviously an area which can be improved upon.

The ICC needs to organise the fixture list and not be dictated to by television companies who desire to cover every game.

Now all this may sound like a whinge from a sour Englishman whose side were knocked out early. It is not. What we want is a World Cup that promotes cricket and encourages more and more people to be involved in the game.

There is no better stage for doing this than the World Cup - and cricket needs to get it right.

* Legendary former Pakistan captain Imran Khan, in his column in the Times of India, heaped praise on Australia.

"Such was their depth and bench-strength that I feel if Australia had sent another team to the World Cup, the final could well have been between two Australian teams," Imran wrote.

He said it was a tribute to the Australian team's greatness that they had retained the title without Steve Waugh, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie.


- INDEPENDENT


World Cup schedule

Points table