England's 1% chance of winning the World Cup
Plus, mind-boggling stats from the Australia-India series
Andy Zaltzman
15-Jan-2015

"Come on lads, Mel Brooks has written the script for this one, so it's bound to turn out well" • Getty Images
I am delighted to announce that, after a four-month sabbatical, which involved watching a harrowingly, unhealthily small amount of cricket, The Confectionery Stall is back. The World Cup is just one month away, and Test cricket has been locked in its cage for a few months to think about its career goals and ambitions for the future, in an age when a top-level cricket match has increasingly become an evening's entertainment rather than a week's obsession.
The T20 juggernaut jaunts along with characteristic pizzazz, but the stage will soon be clear for the 50-over game to state its case for continued relevance. The knockout stages will be gripping; the month of shuffle to reach them may test the patience of the uncommitted. The quarter-finalists in 2011 could have been predicted at least 20 years before the tournament started (although England selflessly tried to enliven the tournament's early stages with their barking-mad campaign of dramatic wins, startling losses and a pulsating tie with India in Bangalore). Four more years of T20 entrenchment could result in a public less tolerant of the elongated preamble of a predictable group stage.
England have played oddly little cricket since September - no Tests, and a one-day series in completely different conditions to the ones they will face in the World Cup - but played it sufficiently poorly to lose a captain.
Thus, their plans for the World Cup are going exactly according to plan. Having realised that they had no prospect of winning it by conventional means, they have devoted themselves to concocting the perfect plot for a Hollywood sports movie about a team that had been written off, with seemingly no chance of success, defying the odds and surging from the depths of hopelessness to clinch a dramatic triumph.
The narrative has been perfectly structured - the team in disarray, with its captain, for whom the star player was sacrificed and in whom four years of planning for the tournament was invested, now himself despatched, and supplanted by an out-of-form replacement whose own struggles indirectly contributed to the sacking of his predecessor, and who must now coax the best from a team of largely untested greenhorns plus a couple of stalwarts returning from injury. The team will have to defy not only horrible recent form but also two decades of gloriously unalloyed uselessness at World Cups. All overseen by an opinion-splitting coach still unproven in his second incarnation. In the country where the team suffered one of its greatest ever humiliations a little over a year previously. With the shadow of the aforementioned sacked player still pootling around in the background. MGM must be frothing at the mouth with excitement, ready to cast Daniel Craig as Man of the Tournament James Tredwell.
The level of planning that has gone into making this fairy-tale ending so outlandish as to render it inevitable is truly astonishing, and those involved deserve considerable credit. The only potential fly in England's ointment is that, of the hundreds of similarly plotted sporting campaigns in which glory was supposed to emerge from chaos and disarray, around 99% end in failure. Not even heroic failure. Abject failure. The kind of failure you would expect to emerge from chaos and disarray.
However, England's chances of being among the 1% are, as these things go, good. The plots for such movies often take licenses with history in order to make their outcome seem even more unlikely. In England's case, they can point to the reunion of Stuart Broad and James Anderson for the first time in ODIs since they spearheaded a very-nearly-successful Champions Trophy campaign 18 months ago. They have match-winners with bat and ball (although not as many as the leading contenders do). They will be unburdened by public expectations. And, above all, they will be emboldened by the format of the tournament, which requires not the consistent performance of hardened winners but a two-phase campaign involving (1) a month of not screwing up too disastrously, followed by (2) a ten-day, three-game microstreak of form and luck. Admittedly, successfully completing phase one is not a certainty, the seven other teams in phase two will also be one hot streak away from unstoppability, and the consistent performance of hardened winners is generally a useful asset when trying to pull off a three-game microstreak of form and luck. But the point stands. England could win it.
Confectionery Stall England Prediction: Quarter-Final exit.
After the World Cup, the rest of England's 2015 stretches out like the idiotically planned festival of excessive cricket that it is - they will play 17 Tests in the nine and a half months from mid-April this year until January 2016. Miraculously, only a measly five of those matches will be against Australia (I assume whichever fool failed to book in a second Ashes series this year has been rightly fired). It is as if England are embarking on a sponsored one-nation Test marathon to preserve the primacy of the five-day game by playing so much of it that it becomes diminished and devalued - thereby reminding its distressed fans why it is so special and must be protected at all costs from the ravenous gullet of the international schedule. Whatever happens, at least 2015 will probably involve less upheaval and fewer provocative autobiographies than 2014. And hopefully it will involve a large amount of Moeen Ali batting.
And now, some stats emerging from Australia's comfortable, run-drenched series win over India, which featured a record seven centuries by captains, and suggested that India's next win outside Asia could possibly happen at some point within the next 100 years. The expansion of this site, and the cricket media in general, has made finding stats that have not already been found by others increasingly challenging. But that is a challenge I am more than willing to embrace. Albeit at some cost to my social life and mental equilibrium.
- There were 44 scores of 50 or more in the four Tests. At 11 half-centuries per Test, this series broke the all-time series record for most 50-plus scores per match, previously held by the batsman-overfriendly Gooch-and-Azharuddin-inspired runfest between England and India in 1990 (32 fifties in three Tests, at 10.66 per match). Only six previous series have featured more than 44 fifties (three of which were six matches long, the other three were five-game series).
And finally, some complete irrelevancies:
- The Sydney Test provided the first ever instances of both teams' Nos. 2 and 4 all scoring first-innings centuries (Warner and Smith; Rahul and Kohli).
Will 2015 throw up a trio of stats as unstoppably meaningless as those? Watch this space. Please.
Coming up in The Confectionery Stall in the next few weeks: A team-by-team guide to the World Cup. If you have any specific queries about your team you would like me to answer, please tweet them to @ZaltzCricket.
Andy Zaltzman is a stand-up comedian, a regular on BBC Radio 4, and a writer