Cricket: England go back to basic instincts

Stephen Brenkley finds the game's traditional virtues are in fashion again

IT IS a revolutionary idea, stunning in its simplicity. Months, perhaps years, have been spent seeking the formula and England may have found it. To play international one-day cricket it helps if you play proper cricket.

Nobody has yet emerged from the dressing-room yelling "Eureka!" (what Neil Fairbrother might have shouted when his hamstring tweaked on Friday night was probably something vaguely similar) but the position almost demands it. Whether England go on from here to win the Carlton and United series they are beginning to resemble a team with self-belief. The next stage is to take that into the World Cup and be confident of seizing the advantage playing in familiar conditions will give them.

The strong feeling is that England started the series with yet another new squad of 16 and no clear vision of how they should set about their tasks. In form terms they did not know if their glass was half full or half empty but whichever it was, it had certainly been clouded, largely by the heady victory in Sharjah in late 1997.

They have hardly stopped experimenting since and while at times it has seemed they were on a mission to ensure every professional could put "and England" after his name they also wanted to be sure that no potential pearl was unopened. In pursuing this course, they could have done with a few more matches, daft as that sounds since they could end up playing 13 in this tournament.

As England had barely pinned down their men it was understandable that they had not pinned down their plan, mainly, but not wholly, to be concerned with how most wisely to use the first 15 overs of an innings, whether batting or bowling. They have responded admirably and if the invention has been limited it is a rare commodity in England sides.

There have been disappointments. The huge loss to Australia by nine wickets in the third game was a significant aberration. Alec Stewart described it as a bad day at the office though at the time it seemed like an application to join the dole queue. Last week they lost their heads as Sri Lanka chased 303 for victory.

But there have been some stirling performances, achieved with a balanced side. The openers have not gone hell for leather, and the middle order have played sensible cricket. In the field they have usually performed tigerishly and have been prepared to attack when it might have appeared easier to defend. They won a couple of close matches at the outset and doubtless this stoked their competitive edge. Friday night's performance in Perth when they were twice in apparently losing positions was an example of a solid, determined team effort, evidence that one-day cricket can be rapidly turned round with correct application of cricketing principles.

David Graveney, the team's manager, said it was the most emotional match in which he had been involved. The dramatic events leading up to it helped, but the match itself must have confirmed the feeling. England were 38 for 4 after nine overs which in this sort of stuff is up the creek minus the paddle. The last two recognised batsmen hauled them out of it with orthodox use of the bat and one-day running.

If 227 seemed competitive Sri Lanka made it appear less so. Sanath Jayasuriya was beginning to mangle the bowling and at 65 for 1 Sri Lanka were cruising. But England broke through and knew that if they persuaded the Sri Lankans to keep attacking they might be there for the taking.

The plan may need to be flexible but the team is now going to be jolly hard to break into. Unless somebody has another revolutionary idea.