Too Long For Its Own Good

Not much time to post this morning as I'm off to play cricket in the wilds of mid Devon, but it won't take long to point out that in the end the World Cup got the final it deserved - one-sided, interrupted by rain and too long for its own good. The farcical scenes at the end, when some of the finest cricketers in the world attempted to play in the dark when they needn't have been playing at all, just about summed up a tournament which has been too long and has lacked the type of verve and drama which used to be synonymous with one-day cricket and West Indian cricket.

It's all been said before about Australia and Adam Gilchrist, but it can, and will, be said again. After Gilchrist's century at Perth during the Ashes series I described him as the finest wicket-keeper-batsman of all time and then spent some time mulling over whether I'd gone too far. I now have no doubts at all.

And, in the end, Australia were just too good for anybody. It's now up to the rest to try to catch up.

End of the Road

So, after about seven weeks (I really can't be bothered to count) and goodness knows how many matches (ditto) it's all come down to Australia and Sri Lanka.

One of the few aspects of the tournament about which one can be unreservedly generous is that its best two sides have ended up in the final. And, if anyone stands a genuine chance of turning Australia over, Sri Lanka do.

That said, Australia are playing so well, are so motivated to win their third consecutive World Cup and to send Glenn McGrath, the competition's outstanding bowler, into retirement on the highest of highs, and are so collectively immune to pressure, that I'll be surprised if they fail to do so.

I hope they don't though, and I'll be backing Sanath, Mahela, Kumar, Murali and the rest all the way.

Staggering On

So, the World Cup staggers on.

Dull, rain-interrupted games; semi-deserted stadia; a schedule which stretches into the distance with little sign of conclusion, but which will probably just end with Australia winning.

While England's narrow defeat to Sri Lanka earlier in the week was an enjoyable exception - a taut and exciting game in front of what looked like a reasonable crowd, in which Ravi Bopara put his hand up as a potentially significant discovery for England - it's the exception which proves the rule.

Throughout the web and the written media, the ICC is taking some fearful stick. I can't find the piece which Cricinfo was carrying yesterday by a World Cup volunteer, but this by Tim de Lisle, will do just as well.

With the inquests continuing in India and Pakistan (and Chappell gone) the biggest and most-needed inquiry of all - into how this tournament became such a disaster thanks to the ICC's stupidity and greed - should start as soon as the competition has ended (if it ever does).

Things Can Only Get Better (Can They?)

Three weeks in (or is it longer?) and I'm still not totally sure what I think of the 2007 World Cup. Certain themes are starting to emerge, though, and it's hard to escape the feeling that the organisers should be a bit concerned about how things are going.

To start with, the coach of a major nation has been murdered. Hardly a great way for the tournament to get under way, and, despite the fact that the World Cup has continued (a decision I was completely in favour of, given that it's surely what Woolmer would have wanted), there can be little doubt that, ultimately, that is what the competition will be remembered for.

Also, two of the highest profile sides in the tournament were eliminated at the first hurdle. Okay, it was nobody's fault but their own, but the Super Eight would be looking a bit more interesting now if India and Pakistan were still around.

Then there's the weather. There's been a lot of rain around and this has detracted from the continuity of the tournament and the visual impression created by it. How many games so far have been played under blazing skies in front of packed houses? Not many.

Which brings me to the question of crowds. Hardly any of the matches - even those involving the West Indies - have been watched by large audiences and it's becoming clear from the media that a number of the decisions taken by the organisers, from building new stadiums in unsuitable locations downwards (coupled with the standard ICC over-regulation of spectators' habits) have created the impression that this is a competition which the people of the region aren't completely sold on. And unless the form of the West Indies improves pretty quickly, things aren't going to change.

On the field it's looking more and more as though Australia are the team to beat, with South Africa, Sri Lanka and especially New Zealand looking like the only sides that can stop them. Ireland and Bangladesh have surely come as far as they're going to, West Indies are staring down the barrel and England give the impression of limping along, untested, unproven and unconvincing, with their old nemesis Jayasuriya and friends awaiting them later this week. In some ways it's reassuring that normal service has been resumed in the one-day world - Australia on top, England faltering, and the rest somewhere in between - but it doesn't make the World Cup any more interesting.

One can only hope that things will get better.

They need to.