Five Big Talking Points of the 2019 Cricket World Cup so far

The Bails That Don’t Come off

It’s hard work being a bowler these days. The batsmen are stronger, the boundaries often shorter and the bats heavier than in yesteryear.

The wickets being prepared seldom offer much assistance, either. So far, the pitches in England (and Wales) have generally been belters with seam bowlers rarely finding any bounce or swing in the wickets and spinners not finding any turn.

400 is the new 300, they say.

With all this in mind, the absolute minimum a bowler can expect is that when you have your man bowled, he stays bowled. Or to put it another way: that when the ball hits the stumps, whether directly or via deflection off bat, pad, glove or whatever else, the bails come off.

Except they don’t always. There have now been five incidents of the ball hitting the stumps and the bails not coming off. A few years back you’d be lucky to see that happen once a year in international cricket.

The problem is these new stumps. They look great with those flashing lights telling you exactly when a wicket-keeper removes the bails when executing a run-out by crashing the ball onto them, but there’s clearly something wrong with how they’re made.

The ‘job’ of these Zings stumps is for the bails to come off when any part of the stumps are hit. And that hasn’t always happened.

Most farcical of all was when Chris Gayle was given out against Australia caught behind. Yes, there was a noise but the noise was the ball hitting the stumps directly rather than a nick off the big Jamaican’s bat.

And yes, you guessed it. The ball deflecting off the stumps wasn’t enough to dislodge the bails, Gayle knew he hadn’t hit and was given not out on referral. The correct decision in that he hadn’t hit it but Gayle should have been bowled anyway.

So far it hasn’t happened in a game-changing situation so we’re thankful for that. But when it happens to Virat Kohli on nought and he goes on to make 100 in a match-winning knock, it’s a discussion that won’t go away.

The Weather

It sounds like a great idea to host the World Cup in England and Wales.

They have some of the most iconic grounds in world cricket, the infrastructures are excellent and the country isn’t that big, meaning cricket fans can travel from one city to another to watch as many games as they wish without having to incur particularly long journeys. In most cases, you don’t even need to board a plane.

Perhaps best of all, just about every country at the World Cup has a community living in England meaning the fans have World Cup games on their doorstep and the players can look forward to some support, whether you’re New Zealand or Afghanistan.

The problem with England, as ever, is the weather. So far two matches have been abandoned without the toss even being made and a third one was rained off with just a few overs played.

Take Pakistan for example. Fresh from a brilliant win over England, they went into their match against Sri Lanka as heavy favourites. With no play possible, the points were split and so their chances of making the semis were greatly reduced. Sri Lanka by the way, have now had two matches rained off.

Contrast that with New Zealand who have enjoyed fair weather on their own matchdays and have racked up three wins from three and are looking good for a place in the semis.

It’s bad enough when a game is affected by Duckworth-Lewis-Stern. But when it comes down to the luck of the draw based on when and where your game is to take place as to whether you even get a game and therefore a chance to pick up two points…that’s just not cricket.

Are England the Real Deal?

Bookmakers have been analysing the World Cup and still make England the 15/8 favourites to win it. They’re the Number 1 ranked side in the world, they’re at home and they have the most formidable batting line-up in the tournament, some would say…ever. A dead cert to go all the way?

Maybe not. It wasn’t a particularly well-kept secret that England’s bowling wasn’t all that even going into the tournament but when they conceded 348 against Pakistan when bowling first, we were reminded that their suspect bowling wasn’t just a rumour, it was a reality.

There was a theory that England could chase whatever target they were given; their batting was just that strong. But when falling 15 runs short against Pakistan they showed that they won’t always be able to chase mammoth targets. Just about everything will need to go to plan for that to happen and this being sport, it won’t always happen.

A few weeks ago, some England fans were suggesting Eoin Morgan and co pretty much just had to turn up to win the thing. The more objective cricket fan has realised by now that it’s far from being a done deal.

Smith’s Boos

You’ll rarely find an easier target than Steve Smith when it comes to a chance to boo an opposition player.

For starters, Australia aren’t exactly the neutral’s favourite at the best of times. So when their disgraced former skipper, banned for a year for being in charge of a side found guilty of ball-tampering, comes out to bat, the boos came out too.

Virat Kohli, the Indian skipper who himself isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, asked India fans not to do so. But was Kohli right?

Smith did the crime and Smith did the time. If the ICC have decided that he’s been punished enough then who are we to decide otherwise?

There’s another element to this. For all its faults- some of which have been highlighted here- cricket has never been a sport of violence, ill-feeling, animosity or lack of respect. We won’t mention the sports which do come under this category.

If you want Smith to get out to a golden duck, then fine. And there’s not much wrong with wildly celebrating his wicket, either. The same way as you would celebrate Kohli’s if you supported the side he was up against.

But it would be a shame for cricket to lower its standards entirely because of one bad error of judgement.

Afghanistan’s Struggles

Afghanistan are three from three. That’s three losses from three matches and in truth, in only one of them were they competitive. Unlike Australia, they probably are the neutrals’ favourites and we all want them to do well for plenty of reasons.

But consider this. They beat the likes of Ireland, Scotland and Zimbabwe to secure the final place at the World Cup courtesy of finishing runners-up at a special tournament organised last summer.

All those three countries just mentioned made a huge fuss about not being at the World Cup when the decision was taken by the ICC to reduce the number of teams. They said they couldn’t progress as teams if they were denied the chance to play against the world’s best on the biggest stages.

All well and good but the following is worth thinking about: if Afghanistan – who beat them all- can’t buy a win so far… then how would the others have fared?

Maybe the ICC was right all along.