Heart-Breaking Champions Trophy Loss Is Lesson To England

England appeared to be on the cusp of an unlikely Champions Trophy victory on home soil. They were placed at 110-4 with more than two overs remaining and with Ravi Bopara and Eoin Morgan at the crease, batting well and already having posted a 64-run partnership.

It truly looked like England's long wait for a first ever 50-over international trophy was over. Ishant Sharma was bowling and had just been dispensed for a six by a Morgan who looked like he was just finding his stride.

Then what Morgan scooped a slower ball bouncer to mid wicket. It was a poor shot and a poor decision. However, it still felt only like a mini hiccup. The talented Jos Buttler came to the crease, and this is a team with a later order that includes some useful bats in Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad and James Tredwell. Not to mention that Bopara had been looking imperious on 30 not out.

Next ball banished that comfortable feeling in an instant. Bopara - slightly unfortunately - nailed Sharma straight to square leg. Suddenly, India felt that they were back in the game and England looked on seriously shaky ground.

The next over confirmed most people's fears when Buttler fell first ball played an ugly shot and missing Ravindra Jadeja. Bresnan was then inexplicably run out and at 113-8, it always looked like there was a little too much for the remaining bats to do. Broad and Tredwell managed to add 11 runs. England had lost by five runs.

Alastair Cook expressed the team's devastation in post-match interviews. There's no doubt that this loss is a significant blow to an ODI team that is trying to develop ahead of the 2015 World Cup and a significant blow to England ahead of the summer's Ashes series.

It should be remembered of course that this was a strange tournament for England in many ways. They struggled earlier in the summer against New Zealand. However, victories over New Zealand and Australia in the group stages assured them of qualification for the semi-final stage.

A difficult match-up against South Africa was negated by a superb bowling and fielding effort led by James Anderson and Tredwell. They held the Proteas to a weak total and chased it down comfortably.

Against all the odds, England were somehow in the final against the team most consider to be by far the best ODI outfit in the world: India.

Things didn't go well initially. Rain delayed the start of play and reduced the game to 20 overs per side. With a top order featuring Cook, Ian Bell, Jonathan Trott and Joe Root, England were hardly perfectly prepared for a shortened game. However, they bowled and fielded well to restrict India to just 129 off their overs.

The fact is that winning big tournaments is very much about dealing with pressure and playing well in tight situations. England may have been fortunate to get where they did. However, they were in perfect position to seal a confidence boosting Champions Trophy triumph.

In future tournaments, this England core will need to utilize the lessons learned at Edgbaston on Sunday. If they do, then they've shown that they are figuring out how to be successful in ODI cricket.

Ashes 2013: Australian Discipline Problems Continue

Every single Ashes series between England and Australia is intense, every single series is hyped and valuable. It's possible that the 2013 Ashes will be the least hyped in recent memory. That has perhaps been best revealed in recent weeks where the biggest story-lines have circulated around ill-discipline and off the field issues, rather than being focused on the match-up.

It's perhaps a little surprising that this series isn't receiving more media attention. England have shown signs of fragility in their past series drawing with an inexperienced New Zealand during the winter and then beating them this spring, but showing signs of significant weakness as well.

Still, there simply isn't a lot of belief that the young Australian team can upset expectations. England have won three of the past four series including a remarkable whitewash in Australia in 2010/11. In many ways Australia have only become weakened as a team since that series with many of the country's great players departing including Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey.

The Australian line-up is full of inexperience, it isn't necessarily especially inspirational with unlimited levels of talent and for most of the touring party, this will be their first ever test match series in England.

Perhaps the discipline discussions are reflective of the dismissal of this Australian team as a serious threat in the upcoming test series. Australia pioneered the transformation of international cricket into a highly professional and disciplined professional sport. They were able to dominate for more than a decade thanks to the development of talent, the grittiness to the line-up and the ability of the cricket board's organisation to drive through and absolutely maximize the talent at their disposal.

Incidents like the one that occurred this week when David Warner was accused of punching an England player (believed to be Joe Root) in the face during a night out in Birmingham. Warner was dropped for the Champions Trophy match against New Zealand and faces a disciplinary hearing.

This isn't the first problem with discipline that Australia have had. Vice-captain Shane Watson and a group of other players were suspended for a test match during the recent test series in India after failing to complete a piece of 'homework'. The concept of completing homework as an international cricketer may seem ridiculous, but the incident absolutely reflected the breakdown in this team.

The 2013 Australian Ashes squad has a lot of talent. They have some world class players including the currently injury plagued captain Michael Clarke, who has arguably been the best batsman in the world over the past two seasons. England have also shown themselves very capable of 'losing' a series. However, people can perhaps be forgiven for not hyping up this series right now considering the disarray in the Australian camp.

(sports) Cricket:Twenty20 World Cup Pay Difference Highlights Gender Inequality

It only received very brief headlines, but the recent controversy over the living allowance disparity between male and female cricketers at the twenty20 world cup highlights some continuing worrying trends in the world of sport as a whole.

England captain Charlotte Edwards started the ‘controversy’ when she suggested that World Twenty20 chiefs would need to review the pay divide in the daily living allowance offered to women and men. Female cricketers at the 2012 Twenty20 world cup in Sri Lanka receive a daily allowance of £37 per day. Male cricketers at the 2012 Twenty20 world cup in the same country playing in an event organised by the same governing body have been receiving a daily living allowance of £61 per day. It was also noted that female cricketers were flown out to the subcontinent in economy class, while male cricketers travelled business class.

The first striking thing about these numbers might actually be the sheer quantity of money that cricketers receive for a living allowance. £259 per week isn’t a small amount when all of your basic expenses are handled for you. Male cricketers at the Twenty20 world cup have over £400 per week to spend on food and for entertainment purposes. That isn’t a bad perk for an already very good job.

It should also be mentioned that female cricketers are probably not overly concerned about having to survive off of ‘only’ £37 per day. Edwards was quick to state that ‘Our focus is on the cricket at the moment and not on how much money we get’. Of course there is more to playing cricket for your country then how much money you make. 

However, there are also some pretty clear principles that it would be pretty sensible to follow. There is absolutely no reason that men would need a living allowance worth £24 more per day than women. It can be argued that the discrepancy in the prize money is a result of their simply being a lot more money in the men’s game in general (the winning men’s team takes home £616,000, while the women’s winner collect £40,000). That is still a questionable issue, but a more complex one at least. The difference in daily living allowances at the Twenty20 world cup can only be put down to sexual discrimination. Logistically speaking it might actually have been a lot easier to split the money up more evenly.

 So, what’s the point? A difference in living allowances doesn’t seem to be a major issue compared to some of the other problems of sexism in sport, which are present at both a professional and recreational level, and start at a very young age.

Neither will simply evening up the living allowances fix these bigger problems. The point is rather that this difference is symptomatic and representative of the wider problems. It really shows a complete disregard for the equality that the sport should be striving for. If the game’s own governing bodies have sat down and produced a difference in budgeting that is a complete insult to the idea of equality, then what hope is there for improved gender equality in cricket in general?

Cricket isn’t the only sport that has this problem. Women’s football is the third largest team sport in the UK, but this is not at all represented in terms of sponsorship deals or in terms of television rights. Surveys including both genders suggest that the publicising of women’s sport via television is something that the majority of people would welcome.

The evidence from the few sports that have offered stronger support to the women’s game is that this is correct. At Wimbledon, the prize money for women and men is the same. Women’s tennis draws in comparable sized audiences both in the stands and on television to the men’s game. Does this mean that sexism is absent from tennis? Of course not, there are still problems with the perception of female tennis stars and with the general culture surrounding the sport. But the sport’s governing bodies do at least seem to be taking the issue of improving gender equality seriously.

Another example is women’s basketball in the United States. The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) runs its league throughout the summer and receives prime television time on ESPN. While there are still some serious issues with the size of contracts, especially compared with the staggering figures made by NBA players, the WNBA has forged itself as an independent and effective sports league. It is widely recognised as such and generally popular. This is mirrored in college basketball, where the women’s tournament takes place alongside the men’s tournament and is a key component in helping the period maintain its name ‘March Madness’.

The daily living allowance handed out at the Twenty20 world cup may seem like a minor micro issue that just needs to be fixed behind closed doors, but the reality is that it is a part of some far larger institutional problems. The claim here is not that the problems with gender equality in sports can be magically fixed, or that there are models of gender equality that need to be followed.

There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done to improve this situation, and a lot of it will need to be ‘bottom up’. However, it is also incredibly important that the top governing bodies take the issue of gender equality seriously, and engage with it. It’s very hard to find the evidence to suggest that they have done that so far and the difference in the daily living allowance at the Twenty20 world cup, and in fact the complete lack of real scandal surrounding it, are just further proof that serious engagement is just not happening at this time.