Those of you who very sensibly decided to ignore all cricket after Ashes might not know that England lost to Australia again today. This time we couldn’t even defend 333. When the batsmen fire, the bowlers fold. When the bowlers fire, the batsmen fold. It has been the story of the VB series.
The simple truth is this: Australia are currently better than England at one-day cricket. Why anyone needs seven matches to come to this conclusion is beyond us. Yes, England have got a few injuries at the moment, but so have the Aussies. In fact, the Parrot Greens are missing their two best batsmen (Punter and Mr Cricket).
Australia proved they are better than us after three matches. The remaining four (yes, bloody four) ODIs are therefore just a tortuous irrelevance. When England proved they were streets ahead of Australia in test cricket, a five match series sufficed.
After England’s Ashes triumph at the SCG, the Aussies were beaten and demoralised. If there had been another two tests, England would have won the series 5-1 … which is probably going to be final score line in the CB series.
We’re not seriously advocating that the Ashes should have been extended, but at least it wouldn’t have been so bad if England were doing the thrashing – rather than being thrashed!
Basically, the schedulers need to get this into their heads fast: nobody wants seven match series. They’re too long. The quality and intensity of the cricket declines, and the fans begin to suffer from burn out. And the cricketers themselves certainly don’t want seven match series – especially when they’ve already been away from home for three and a half months.
It will be a relief when this godforsaken leg of the tour is over. Then our players can finally go home … for a few days. The World Cup starts on 19th February. If England get to the final on April 2nd – which we admit is about as likely as Tony Blair admitting the Iraq War was a mistake – then our players will be away from their wives and children for another seven or eight weeks. How ridiculous.