It’s now three days since England came so close to winning a second World T20 title, and the press have had their say and moved on.  Ben Stokes has received a lot of scrutiny over that final over, most of it sympathetic, some of it much less so, particularly in the immediate aftermatch, to the point where the concerns about him being the latest journalistic punchbag post Pietersen have resurfaced, specifically a Daily Express headline writer who decided to go with “Choker” as the headline, doubtless to the fury of the journalistic staff.

Over the last couple of years the Daily Telegraph has largely supplanted the Guardian as the broadsheet newspaper which delivers some of the most thoughtful comment.  That’s not to say the old Telegraph of blazers and public schoolboys (although to be fair, there’s a lot of that in the Guardian too, they just tend not to revel in it) has disappeared, for Simon Heffer wrote in the aftermath of the tournament a protest against the way it is supplanting both championship and Test cricket.  His article actually makes a number of very good points, though the opening line of “Along with thousands of other MCC members” is always going to raise a smile.  Still, it’s rare enough that someone in the media references Death of a Gentleman to be worth checking out, and while some of the issues, such as the question of T20 franchise cricket are not open and shut, Heffer argues his case with passion, which is welcome.

Almost all the Telegraph coverage focuses on the players and the match itself.  Paul Hayward is one who retains sympathy for Stokes in print.  Hayward doesn’t tend to get universal praise for his writing, but his opening line is a potent one:

“If you think Ben Stokes’s bowling was to blame, try hitting four consecutive sixes in front of a global television audience, in the final over, to win a world title when all seems lost.”

By focusing on the brilliance of Brathwaite instead of the pain of Stokes, he followed the line that the Telegraph has maintained since the game finished.  Jonathan Liew’s initial match report had remained sympathetic throughout, merely hoping that Stokes would be able to forgive himself, while Michael Vaughan follows pretty much the same line.  Vaughan does go on to say that it was the best tournament he had seen, and gave it 10 out of 10, which is a curiously shallow view of it.  For certain, many of the matches were exciting, and one semi-final and the final itself were thrilling, but 10 out of 10 when the ticketing was a shambles?  When the Associates were more or less ignored at the start?  From the perspective of looking only at the TV spectacle, yes you could see why that might be a view, but surely there are wider issues to look at.

In contrast, the Guardian decided to go big on Andrew Strauss, Vic Marks in the build up writing an homage to Strauss’s achievements.  It is always curious how the players themselves seem to be secondary in some eyes to those above, for while Strauss does deserve some note for his decisions, retaining Eoin Morgan as captain was unquestionably slightly surprising, to then focus only on all good things as being the work of the Director, Cricket is nonsensical.  As for the media being “hoodwinked” over the choice of Bayliss as coach, when all expected it to go to Jason Gillespie, well maybe they were, but this blog queried the likelihood of him getting it at the time, specifically because of how much the media were going on about it, and the ECB’s talent for not telling them the truth.  Choosing Bayliss was a good call, but praising Strauss for everything, while quietly ignoring some of the less glorious episodes, and indeed the players is bizarre.  Even when Nasser Hussain invoked Strauss, he did make the point of saying the players deserve it most of all.  It’s a very English thing though, the suits are the ones who get the praise, but so rarely the criticism as we’ve been all too aware of over the last couple of years.

Marks did focus on the players, or more specifically Stokes himself, when writing after the final, following suit with most others about how he will deal with what happened, but Mike Selvey manages to go through all sorts of hoops when writing about the dysfunctional relationship with Caribbean cricket to avoid even referring to the wider issues about the world game.  It’s quite impressive in a way, for while the relations between the players and the board in the West Indies are indeed shambolic, at least part of the problem is down to the West Indies very much being in the bracket of the have-nots of the international game, something that Selvey has studiously avoided ever considering.  If he’d ever bothered to watch Death of a Gentleman, he might grasp some of the problems that afflict countries outside the Big Three, but presumably even daring to do so would bring down the wrath of his friends in high places amongst English cricket’s hierarchy.

Over in the Mail, Paul Newman got a bit carried away, writing a tear stained love letter to Stokes of the kind that he used to do for his one time ghost-writing subject Kevin Pietersen.  It’s all rather lovely, but we have seen how he can turn.  He also decided to take the opportunity to talk about Strauss, going so far as to describe the Champions Trophy as one that Strauss “will be desperate to win” which is just odd.

When reading through the various articles about this, it’s quite striking how little comment there is.  The Times might well have plenty, but since it’s hidden behind a paywall it’s going to get ignored.  The press did give coverage to the match reports, which is useful given most of the public didn’t see the final, but subsequently?  Not so much.  It’s a bit thin, and although there are the specialist sites such as Cricinfo, which are so frequently excellent with Jarrod Kimber excelling himself, and Ed Smith being, well Ed Smith.  But for general newspapers, the days of in depth analysis seem to be largely behind us. A shame.

Spare a thought this evening for Ben Stokes, a player for whom most things have gone right the last 18 months or so.  With England needing to restrict the West Indies to fewer than 18 runs off the final over, and with Marlon Samuels marooned at the non-strikers end, confidence must have been high.  Four consecutive sixes to win the match with two balls to spare probably wasn’t figuring in many worst nightmares for the England team, and yet that’s exactly what happened.

And you’ve got to laugh.  Not because the England players remotely deserve the pain they are going through in any way whatsoever – but because sport can be magnificent sometimes, no matter how much administrators try to ruin it.  And make no mistake, that was magnificent.  West Indies were if not quite dead and buried then certainly on life support, England on the verge of victory.  And yet, there’s always the slight possibility in any sporting encounter for the extraordinary to happen.  It doesn’t very often, for if it did the exceptional would become the mundane, but when it does it is enough to make any viewer apart from the most partisan and one eyed stand and applaud.  The essence of joy in sport is to chuckle delightedly at special achievements.

The incredible finish doesn’t alter the truth that England could and should have posted a much better score than they did; some dismissals were unfortunate, some a little careless, albeit within the confines of a format where a high risk approach is a necessity and often highly rewarded.   It is difficult and unreasonable to criticise players for doing the same thing that gains them success when on occasion it leads to failure, unless that failure is evidence of failing to learn.  Equally, safety first is never a profitable means of playing 20 over cricket, but a fair few England players will look on their final with regret.  England’s disastrous start in reaching 23-3 was one they never entirely recovered from, although Joe Root once again did his best, and David Willey in the closing overs got England up to some kind of score.

One of the key arts of captaincy is for decisions and gambles to come off, and in attempting to defend a moderate total, opening the bowling from one end with Joe Root was definitely a gamble, but one that did indeed come off, removing both Gayle and Charles in his opening over. From there the West Indies were struggling to catch up, and the required rate began to rise.  Marlon Samuels received a life when initially given out caught behind only to be reprieved by the TV umpire.  This is as unsatisfactory as it always is.  It’s been demonstrated on so many occasions that foreshortening makes the ball look like it touched the ground when it didn’t, to the point where the late Tony Greig showed a ball several inches off the ground appearing to be grassed.  Did it carry?  Who knows.  Television is a poor means of examination precisely because it is fundamentally misleading.  Those saying it touched the ground are doing so on the same flawed evidence in the first place – it is simply impossible to know.  The umpires need to take control here and make decisions, and onlookers need to accept their judgement as being based on better evidence than the television can provide, that of seeing the action in three dimensions.

Willey was the pick of the bowlers, alongside Adil Rashid, as their ability to restrict the batsmen first tilted the game towards England, and then seemingly had it won.

The fall out from the tournament will undoubtedly continue over the next few days.  Darren Sammy had plenty to say at the presentation, not holding back in his criticism of the WICB and stating his uncertainty about whether the team would play together again. There’s no doubt at all that cricket in the Caribbean is in serious trouble; where the primary responsibility lies is open to debate, but if this victory concentrates minds in a region where cricket remains a passion, then perhaps it will be worthwhile.  The problem is that we’ve been here before, and it made little difference.  There are no signs it will this time either, for a disconnect between administrators and players and supporters are hardly the sole prerogative of the English.

If there’s one thing to act as a saving grace in England’s defeat, it’s that it has stopped some of the more predictable sources from gloating about how the ECB have handled things perfectly over the last couple of years and how a win would have justified it all.  It clearly doesn’t, in the same way that defeat doesn’t make those criticisms correct either.  But the desire from some to cheerlead the actions of a board that’s demonstrably untrustworthy remains as downright peculiar as it ever was.  With 19 required off the final over, the suspicion that “Who needs Kevin Pietersen?” tweets and articles were about to be sent out is a strong one.  And here’s the point, that argument is valid win or lose, it’s just that it tends not to appear when England lose.  For those it will not present a problem, for they will doubtless pop up again next time the players on the pitch perform well, the obsession is peculiar from those who profess not to care.

And the England team?  They’ve performed well in this tournament, probably significantly above expectations.  Eoin Morgan has not had the best time with the bat, but has led the team well.  The bowlers improved by the game, while the batsmen were explosive, and reasonably consistent, notably the outstanding Root.  Those players will be crushed by the loss, and particularly the way it happened, and exhortations to be proud of themselves will fall on deaf ears.  That’s the nature of elite sportsmen and women – second is nowhere.  But England do have a collection of highly talented cricketers, and despite the ructions above have been a credit to themselves and the shirt they wear.

The tournament itself is a testament to the belief that less is more, for by going straight to semi-finals rather than quarters, each group match became critical.  The main competition was short and sharp, entertaining and often nail biting.  The continuing disdain for the Associate nations and the way they were kept out of sight before the entry of the Test playing countries remains as contemptible as it appeared a month ago.  In 50 over cricket, the ICC have gone for the ultimate – making the tournament long and boring and excluding the outsiders to peering through the gates at the party within. There isn’t so much wrong with cricket that it couldn’t be improved by exiling the sport’s bureaucrats and power hungry businessmen to a remote island somewhere.

As for the media, there will doubtless be much wailing about the outcome here, but the reality of T20 is being wise after the event to explain wins or losses only makes sense where a team is clearly off the pace.  England could have won today, but didn’t.  It’s just sport – trying to find explanations in a very tight match is merely speculative.  There was a huge amount wrong with how England played the game for about a decade, the way they are playing it now is exactly how they should play, and the antithesis of how many in the ECB establishment allowed them to play for a long time.  And when that basic concept has been corrected, to the credit of players, captain and coach, it is a bit much for those who stood in the way all that time to try to claim the credit.  Some you win, some you lose – but play the right way and the opportunities to win are much greater.

Well done the West Indies, both men and women.  The party tonight will be good.