Contrasting World Cups

The World Cup has started, and for a month the rest of the sporting world struggles for the crumbs of coverage that football allows it. The nation maybe absorbed by the state of Wayne Rooney’s foot, but for the Morning Star reader looking for something a little deeper when following sport, there are the great clashes, where politics is played out by twenty-two footballers on an level playing field. Consider, for example, the rare opportunity that Angola had to take on the old colonial-masters Portugal. And whilst the draw makes it unlikely, the US playing Iran would be some prospect.

The World Cup is the biggest global sporting event. Up until the latter stages of the nineteenth century, though, cricket was the most popular spectator sport in England. By the century’s close it had been surpassed by football. In a familiar story, cricket had failed to adapt to society’s changing conditions and became increasingly associated with exclusiveness.

When the trade unions won the half-day on Saturday many workers took up playing and watching sport. But it was to football rather than cricket that the majority turned. Workers didn’t go to sporting events for quiet and decorum but to support their local side. Football gave them the opportunity to do this vocally, cricket did not.

The Test series against Pakistan begins after the final of the World Cup. The one-day internationals will be up against the football. Some may argue that this is the only format in which cricket can compete, and I’m sure that all the games will be played in front of capacity crowds.

Yet, in contrast with football, I don’t believe that the England team knows which direction it is heading. Injuries have deprived them of at least five players who would be considered as starters in next March’s cricket World Cup and a further six have been dropped from the squad who lost heavily to India earlier this year. Six newcomers have never played international one-day cricket, and Tim Bresnan and Glen Chapple took all but the clairvoyant by surprise.

England’s Four-Year Plan to win the World Cup has been redrafted more times than David Cameron’s thesis on modern-day Conservatism. This suggests that the one-day game is the inferior cousin of the Test match. I have no problem with this, except that the World Cup does provide the spotlight that cricket needs as it competes with the Premiership’s millions. An English early exit, unlike the tournament in Germany, will lead to a lack of interest.

Then there is the format of the World Cup. Football’s version has teams from every continent, and whilst we can predict the handful from which the winner will emerge, it is fascinating to watch the different styles and frequent surprises. Cricket’s version is all about witling the numbers down to the eight teams who have the resources to play professional cricket on a full-time basis. The ICC includes over 100 members representing all continents. A truly world event would raise cricket’s profile. This will not happen under the current format that rewards the strong over the weak. A level-playing playing field makes sport more interesting. The football World Cup in Japan and South Korea in 2002 threw out the form-book and made every game unpredictable. The Twenty20 format could do the same for cricket.