Cautious and conservative in their outlook, English cricketauthorities have taken to innovations like night cricket, whiteballs and coloured clothing rather late. In keeping with thisorthodox approach, a tri-series competition was introduced inEngland some 20 years after it first made its debut in Australiain the immediate post-Packer period and well after othercountries adopted it.
The first such tournament was held in 1998 involving Sri Lanka,South Africa and the hosts. Sri Lanka, then in the midst of theirgreat period following their World Cup triumph in 1996, duly wonthe event defeating England in the final.The competition was not held in 1999 with the World Cup inEngland holding centre-stage. In 2000, England won thetournament, defeating Zimbabwe in the final; the West Indies werethe third team in the fray. Last year, England did not even makethe final, contested between Australia and Pakistan. And yetEngland have been listed as favourites by the bookies for thisyear’s competition, involving Sri Lanka and India.Sri Lanka, despite the fact that are obviously weary at the endof their tour, are listed second favourites while the Indians,freshly arrived in England, have been adjudged as outsiders.A close look at the squads suggests that the bookies might havegot it all wrong. For, on paper, the Indians would seem to have alot of things going in their favour. A formidable batting lineup, an attack based on seam bowling – always favourable inEnglish conditions – and two fine spin bowlers to exploitwhatever turn they can from the pitch.Certainly, both England and Sri Lanka would be hard pressed tooffer a batting line-up as attractive as the one made up byGanguly, Tendulkar, Mongia, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kaif andYuvraj Singh. This array of stroke-playing batsmen looks capableof running up totals that could be well beyond the reach of boththeir opponents. Even granting the fact that they may beweaknesses in bowling and fielding, it would appear that thebatting is so strong that it can cover up for any deficiency inother departments.But the bookies obviously have done their cricketing homework.They are convinced that the Indian team does not do well abroad,something admitted even by coach John Wright. This isparticularly so in England.The heady days of the World Cup triumph are now almost twodecades ago. The 2-0 victory in the Texaco Trophy series in 1990is a 12-year-old story. Since then, the Indians lost rather badlyin the one-day series to England in 1996 and three years laterjust about made it to the Super Six stage where their challengefizzled out.Of course, it could also be pointed out with some justificationthat neither England nor Sri Lanka even made the Super Six stagein the competition. But there is no denying that the overall formof both these teams is far more consistent in recent times.Evidence of this is seen in the various one-day ratings that haveSri Lanka ahead of both India and England, who are bunchedtogether in the middle. Few would argue against this, even aftertaking into account India’s triumph in the rain-affected limitedovers series in the West Indies.
Only some six months ago, England came back from a 1-3 deficit todraw a six-match series in India and that should stand them invery good stead for the competition that commences on Thursday.The hosts have retained most of their players, who did so well inIndia, and have added the experience of Alec Stewart, the flairof the in-form Ronnie Irani, the promise of James Kirtley aswell as the bubbling enthusiasm of Alex Tudor.Besides, their established stars have all been among the runs andthe wickets during the season and the emphatic Test seriesvictory over Sri Lanka should have boosted their confidence noend. Even though they will miss the injured Mark Butcher, abatting line-up that has Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight, Stewart,Graham Thorpe, Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and AndrewFlintoff has to be respected.The bowling, however, may pose problems for Hussain. The injuredAndy Caddick is already out of the reckoning and there are doubtsabout Darren Gough’s availability. If the pace spearhead is notable to pass the fitness test, almost everything would depend onMatthew Hoggard, Ashley Giles, Tudor and Flintoff. In Englishconditions, the quartet could still prove to be a force to reckonwith. Hussain, it has to be remembered, has proved to be aplayer’s captain besides being a shrewd tactician.The withdrawal of Muthiah Muralitharan due to injury willundoubtedly affect Sri Lanka’s chances. But the prospects ofSanath Jayasuriya’s team cannot be written off. In Murali’sabsence, the bowling does look a bit handicapped but then theexperience of Chandana and Samaraweera is bound to come in handy.It is true that the seam bowlers did not exactly come off in theTest series but then the limited overs game is very differentfrom Test cricket and the NatWest series gives Chaminda Vaas andcompany the opportunity to show that they still have a trick ortwo up their sleeve.The batting, even if it fell from their lofty standards in theTest series, was seen in better light than the bowling and aline-up that has the always dangerous captain, Marvan Atapattu,Russel Arnold, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara, AvishaGunawardene and Romesh Kaluwitharana cannot be dismissedlightly.
However, it must be admitted that the recent form displayed byall the contestants has been rather patchy, symbolised by Englandlosing to Wales on Monday. On the same day, the Indians went downto Kent while the Sri Lankans haven’t exactly been on a winningspree on the current tour.In my book, the strengths and weaknesses of the competing teamsare clearly marked. I normally love sticking my neck out butunlike the bookies, who don’t have an option anyway, I will notdo so this time. The competition is too close to call. About theonly prediction I will make is that it is going to be a scorcherof a NatWest series.