All good things must come to an end, they say. That they must implode so violently as to alert NASA’s black hole researchers, they do not.
England, though, are having a bloody good go anyway, yesterday’s drubbing at the hands of Sri Lanka a different kind of underwhelming to the three defeats in four matches that preceded it but contributing to the same tale of a sad, sudden decline.
And whatever there is to say about the four years of missteps and inevitable reprioritisation that, to some extent, set this team up to fail (spoiler: there’s plenty), it has been sudden. Coming into this Cricket World Cup few people had England down as its best team but absolutely no one had them down as its worst.
You could make a decent case now, though, only net-run-rate keeping Jos Buttler’s side ahead of Holland and off the foot of the table, with a tougher closing run of fixtures than the Dutch. The permutations may highlight avenues that remain open across those four matches, but the eye test tells you England’s World Cup is as dead as the dodo. Done, finished, kaput.
“It’s over now, I think,” head coach Matthew Mott conceded. “I’m not a mathematician, but with our net-run-rate and too many teams who are going to take games off each other.”
What is the appropriate level of dismay or outrage to feel, given the meek manner in which things have so dramatically unravelled? That is not immediately clear, the lines blurred by the knowledge of what came before and the unknown of what will follow.
This crop of players together remain the greatest 50-over team England has produced, the 2019 World Cup win one of the country’s great sporting achievements, and as grim as things could get over the next three weeks, that legacy, in the long run, remains secure. The future of the 50-over game is less so, hence why among the hefty criticism of England’s neglect of the format during this cycle, there has been no consensus on how they should approach the next.
From England’s position of peril, Joe Root’s timing was probably off when he chose this week to point out that “there’s talk of whether this format is relevant anymore anyway, in international cricket”. But he was not wrong.
What is clear is that this feels and probably ought to be the natural conclusion of something. Harry Brook’s omission from yesterday’s XI was the latest in a line of selection head-scratchers, but at least provided the neat symbolism of an England team comprised solely of players in their thirties for the first time in ODI cricket. Even before we knew what we know now there was talk of this World Cup as a last hurrah and of regeneration beyond. As abruptly as it has arrived, this was always earmarked as the end of an era.
But will it be, really? Only 48 hours before their Sri Lankan spanking, the ECB announced that every member of this squad bar David Willey has signed a central contract to last at least the next 12 months, suggesting all remain firmly in England’s plans. There is a T20 World Cup three-quarters of the way through that time and England, lest we forget, remain defending champions. Sure, it is tempting to say that on current white-ball form they will not be defending a thing, but if the past few weeks have taught us anything it is that the differences between 50- and 20-over cricket remain more pronounced than many recalled.
Some players may retire from the longer format but you are unlikely to notice: after a three-match series in the West Indies in December that the World Cup contingent have long been expected to swerve, England do not play another ODI until September 19 next year.
More urgently, this cannot be the end simply because England have four more group matches to play. Were this a football or rugby tournament, this would be time to look to the future, but a 15-man squad does not offer a great deal of choice and most of those who might benefit from a bit of World Cup experience — the Will Jacks and Rehan Ahmeds of this world — are watching from home.
There again, given the way things have played out, perhaps that is for the best.
