Why can’t England win? It’s all in the head.

I managed to sit through an hour of England’s humiliating defeat to New Zealand, before deciding the inevitable steady procession of England wickets wasn’t worth bamboozling my body clock for.

At this point, I was expecting to wake up to find New Zealand had chased down a humble England total of 240 with six wickets and 6.2 overs to spare.

Instead, myself and the rest of the cricket following public were greeted by the news that England had mustered a paltry 123 all out, a total surpassed by the Kiwis in a frankly ridiculous 12.2 overs.

Former England all-rounder Ian Botham described it as “the worst performance in 40 years”, whilst Jonathan Agnew labelled it “the most one-sided one-day international between test-playing nations that I can remember seeing”.

Yet, despite the shocking nature of the defeat and the records broken (Tim Southee’s 7-33 were the best ODI figures ever for a NZ bowler and the third best in World Cup history, Brendon McCullum’s 54 off 18 balls was the quickest in WC history), there was something queasily familiar about England’s latest humiliation.

New Zealand’s Brendon McCullum cracks another boundary on his way to 77 off 25 balls.

Such defeats, especially at World Cup’s are now expected of the England cricket team, and competition after competition, they duly oblige. But why is this? Ally the technical ability of Moeen Ali and Joe Root with the boundary-hitting prowess of Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler, and England possess a batting line up capable of posting 300+ regularly. The bowling isn’t quite as strong but in Anderson, Broad, Finn and Woakes England possess a healthy enough blend of wicket-taking and run-stifling options.

The answer is psychological. English cricket carries an unshakable aura of defeatism, long established by regular early exits from international tournaments and countless hammerings (normally by the Aussies). Despite all the talk of being capable of beating anyone (not untrue), none of us really expect it to happen. We expect to lose, and so do the players. So they do.

To a certain extent, the same thing applies in football. There has always been enormous pressure on England team’s competing in World Cup’s and European Championships. In tournaments such as the World Cup of 1986 and the Euro’s of 1996, England were expected to succeed. So they did, to the limits of their ability and fortune. In recent years, the level of expectancy has plummeted. In 2014, England weren’t expected to do anything at the World Cup in Brazil. So they didn’t. These are two different forms of pressure. Pressure to succeed, pressure to fail – both fulfilled.

English defeatism isn’t exclusive to cricket.

In the case of cricket, this state of mind is even more damaging because so much of the game is played ‘in the head’. Confidence focuses concentration, a hugely important part of the game, especially when batting. This confidence in one’s ability to hit any ball for a boundary, or put any ball on a spot at pace, is evident in almost every Australian cricketer, and was violently evident in McCullum’s breathtaking innings on Friday.

English cricketers lack this unequivocal believe that they will succeed, and so generation after generation, tournament after tournament, team after team, they fail. In recent years, there has of course been one exception to this rule – Kevin Pietersen.

Pietersen possessed that deep-rooted confidence in his own ability, that he would succeed, that he could hit any ball for four, that he would win. In England, young cricketers grow up in an environment that does not instill this kind of unwavering belief in ones own ability. That’s not to say they’re not confident, many – Surrey’s Jason Roy being the first example to come to mind – possess a confidence that borders on arrogance. But it’s not the same thing. It is no coincidence that Pietersen grew up in South Africa, a country who’s bullish confidence when it comes to cricket puts them somewhat closer to Australia than England. And it’s no coincidence that Pietersen didn’t ‘fit in’ with the current England team.

Pietersen possessed a typically un-English believe in his own ability.

What is needed to curb this inferiority complex is hard to say. It’s not as if the last decade of English cricket has been without success. Far from it, since 2005 England have won four Ashes series (losing only two) and the T20 World Cup, their first ever triumph in an international tournament. But most of these successes were achieved with Andy Flower at the helm, a man who possessed the typically un-English believe and determination to win.

Perhaps this is what England need. The role of the coach can often be overstated in cricket, but a good one, the right one, can instill an unshakable belief in the team. If Flower was typically un-English, Peter Moores is every bit English, and it’s hard to see him giving the England team the deep-rooted belief they need.

It could be that what England need is an Australian at the helm. It’s hard to look beyond Jason Gillespie, the former fast-bowler who last seasoned led Yorkshire to their first County Championship win since 2001. He knows English cricket, and the recent flood of England cricketers coming out of Yorkshire is no coincidence.

Gillespie for England?

With Paul Downton, Managing Director of the England and Wales Cricket Board, recently labelling Moores “the coach of his generation”, a change seems unlikely anytime soon. So we might have to consider this World Cup (and maybe the next couple) a write-off, but if the ECB eventually see sense, it shouldn’t be too long before Australian Gillespie is given the chance to rediscover the belief in the English cricket.

Dry January: Financial Unfair Play and the dullest transfer window in recent memory

This January transfer window was a notable one. Not because there were many major moves, or any records smashed. It was notable because it was bloody boring.

The biggest deal of the entire window was Wilfred Bony’s £28m move from Swansea to Manchester City, whilst the only big money #DeadlineDay purchase by British clubs was Juan Cuadrado’s £26.1m transfer from Fiorentina to Chelsea.

Juan Cuadrado adds to the growing list of players who look like they’ve been made to move with a gun held to their head.

This was a rather drawn-out transfer which had seemed all-but confirmed the previous Saturday (taking away much of its #DeadlineDay drama), but seemed to rumble on until relatively late on the Monday as it became apparent that Chelsea were waiting to confirm Andre Schurrle’s departure to Wolfsburg.

For a club that had a net spend of over £200m in the first two seasons alone of Abramovich’s ownership, this was a curiously cautious tactic.

The reason for Chelsea’s, and many other clubs, caution in the last few transfer windows has been the need to ‘balance the books’ in mind of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.

The regulations were brought in for the 2011/12 season in an attempt to close the gap and theoretically increase competition between Europe’s mega-rich clubs and those operating on far less of a budget, by limiting the losses clubs were allowed to run up. In practice, a club like Chelsea would be unable to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on new players, without facing sanctions that include heavy fines and squad limitations.

FFP was meant as an attempt to level the playing field that clubs were competing on, but the truth is it has actually made it harder for poorer clubs to catch up with the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea.

The latter such clubs have spent the last few years stockpiling players and resources, providing them with vast assets which can be sold off when deemed expendable to fund new purchases. Chelsea executed this almost to perfection in the summer of 2014, using the sales of David Luiz, Romelu Lukaku and (from the previous January) Juan Mata to fund the signings of Diego Costa, Cesc Fabregas, Filipe Luis and Loic Remy for a net spend of only £11.1m.

£40m man David Luiz alongside PSG teammate Zlatan Ibrahimovic.

Whilst this is all well and good for the top clubs with vast reserves of talent (/assets), it is not so easy for the not so well stocked clubs, who can only buy as they sell with numbers far inferior to those exchanged by the bigger clubs. This ensures that clubs are self-sufficient and do not repeat the financial mistakes made by clubs such as Portsmouth, but what about the ambitious clubs with a bit of financial backing who can afford to run up losses in an attempt to break into the big time?

Roman Abramovich’s huge outlay upon purchasing Chelsea in 2003 was possible because he could afford the huge losses he was raking up as Chelsea owner. Through this, he transformed an ambitious club into a global superpower.

Under FFP, such an ascendance is no longer possible. Whilst many fans of clubs further down the league table might initially think of this as a good thing, what is has actually done is establish a status quo in which smaller, ambitious clubs are unable to break into the top-of-the-table domain reserved for the already mega rich clubs.

Even with significant investment, clubs such as Crystal Palace (for example) would be unable to significantly bolster their squad, even if they were taken over by a multi-billionaire oligarch tomorrow, because they do not possess the expendable assets to fund significant new signings, without acquiring considerable losses.

There are other ways to achieve this, of course. Southampton are currently enjoying a place normally reserved for the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur, due largely to a fantastic scouting network that allowed them to make a number of bargain deals last summer, but how long can it last? Can they continue to operate (a system that still relies on a fair degree of good fortune) season after season, transfer window after transfer window? It is too early to say.

Southampton summer signing Dusan Tadic was a relative bargain at £10.9m.

If they do, and they establish a sustainable model for growth that can be reproduced by clubs everywhere, then that is all for the better of football. And as the example of their close neighbours Portsmouth will testify, if FFP can prevent clubs going out of business, then it is surely for the best. It just needs tweaking a little.