Cautious and conservative in their outlook, English cricket
authorities have taken to innovations like night cricket, white
balls and coloured clothing rather late. In keeping with this
orthodox approach, a tri-series competition was introduced in
England some 20 years after it first made its debut in Australia
in the immediate post-Packer period and well after other
countries adopted it.

© CricInfo |
The first such tournament was held in 1998 involving Sri Lanka,
South Africa and the hosts. Sri Lanka, then in the midst of their
great period following their World Cup triumph in 1996, duly won
the event defeating England in the final.
The competition was not held in 1999 with the World Cup in
England holding centre-stage. In 2000, England won the
tournament, defeating Zimbabwe in the final; the West Indies were
the third team in the fray. Last year, England did not even make
the final, contested between Australia and Pakistan. And yet
England have been listed as favourites by the bookies for this
year's competition, involving Sri Lanka and India.
Sri Lanka, despite the fact that are obviously weary at the end
of their tour, are listed second favourites while the Indians,
freshly arrived in England, have been adjudged as outsiders.
A close look at the squads suggests that the bookies might have
got it all wrong. For, on paper, the Indians would seem to have a
lot of things going in their favour. A formidable batting lineup, an attack based on seam bowling - always favourable in
English conditions - and two fine spin bowlers to exploit
whatever turn they can from the pitch.
Certainly, both England and Sri Lanka would be hard pressed to
offer a batting line-up as attractive as the one made up by
Ganguly, Tendulkar, Mongia, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Kaif and
Yuvraj Singh. This array of stroke-playing batsmen looks capable
of running up totals that could be well beyond the reach of both
their opponents. Even granting the fact that they may be
weaknesses in bowling and fielding, it would appear that the
batting is so strong that it can cover up for any deficiency in
other departments.
But the bookies obviously have done their cricketing homework.
They are convinced that the Indian team does not do well abroad,
something admitted even by coach John Wright. This is
particularly so in England.
The heady days of the World Cup triumph are now almost two
decades ago. The 2-0 victory in the Texaco Trophy series in 1990
is a 12-year-old story. Since then, the Indians lost rather badly
in the one-day series to England in 1996 and three years later
just about made it to the Super Six stage where their challenge
fizzled out.
Of course, it could also be pointed out with some justification
that neither England nor Sri Lanka even made the Super Six stage
in the competition. But there is no denying that the overall form
of both these teams is far more consistent in recent times.
Evidence of this is seen in the various one-day ratings that have
Sri Lanka ahead of both India and England, who are bunched
together in the middle. Few would argue against this, even after
taking into account India's triumph in the rain-affected limited
overs series in the West Indies.

© CricInfo |
Only some six months ago, England came back from a 1-3 deficit to
draw a six-match series in India and that should stand them in
very good stead for the competition that commences on Thursday.
The hosts have retained most of their players, who did so well in
India, and have added the experience of Alec Stewart, the flair
of the in-form Ronnie Irani, the promise of James Kirtley as
well as the bubbling enthusiasm of Alex Tudor.
Besides, their established stars have all been among the runs and
the wickets during the season and the emphatic Test series
victory over Sri Lanka should have boosted their confidence no
end. Even though they will miss the injured Mark Butcher, a
batting line-up that has Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight, Stewart,
Graham Thorpe, Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan and Andrew
Flintoff has to be respected.
The bowling, however, may pose problems for Hussain. The injured
Andy Caddick is already out of the reckoning and there are doubts
about Darren Gough's availability. If the pace spearhead is not
able to pass the fitness test, almost everything would depend on
Matthew Hoggard, Ashley Giles, Tudor and Flintoff. In English
conditions, the quartet could still prove to be a force to reckon
with. Hussain, it has to be remembered, has proved to be a
player's captain besides being a shrewd tactician.
The withdrawal of Muthiah Muralitharan due to injury will
undoubtedly affect Sri Lanka's chances. But the prospects of
Sanath Jayasuriya's team cannot be written off. In Murali's
absence, the bowling does look a bit handicapped but then the
experience of Chandana and Samaraweera is bound to come in handy.
It is true that the seam bowlers did not exactly come off in the
Test series but then the limited overs game is very different
from Test cricket and the NatWest series gives Chaminda Vaas and
company the opportunity to show that they still have a trick or
two up their sleeve.
The batting, even if it fell from their lofty standards in the
Test series, was seen in better light than the bowling and a
line-up that has the always dangerous captain, Marvan Atapattu,
Russel Arnold, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara, Avisha
Gunawardene and Romesh Kaluwitharana cannot be dismissed
lightly.

© CricInfo |
However, it must be admitted that the recent form displayed by
all the contestants has been rather patchy, symbolised by England
losing to Wales on Monday. On the same day, the Indians went down
to Kent while the Sri Lankans haven't exactly been on a winning
spree on the current tour.
In my book, the strengths and weaknesses of the competing teams
are clearly marked. I normally love sticking my neck out but
unlike the bookies, who don't have an option anyway, I will not
do so this time. The competition is too close to call. About the
only prediction I will make is that it is going to be a scorcher
of a NatWest series.