Sri Lanka's players deserve better than current rotten leadership

Like a wealth management fund, the International Cricket Council have invested in Australia, England and India – more than half of the ICC’s financial distribution used to go to the three countries which, some might say, need it least – and their investment has been rewarded. The big three have qualified already for the World Cup semi-finals and only New Zealand of the poorer brethren have stayed with them.

New Zealand have competed because they not only possess Kane Williamson, who was nursing three big bruises after his match-winning century against South Africa, but by far the best administration of any cricket-playing country. And if New Zealand come at one end of this scale, Sri Lanka come at the other, with the results to match: one victory in this World Cup, against Afghanistan, and only one other one-day international win against a major country since last September.

Sri Lanka is the one country where a person can get killed for being caught up in match-fixing, according to sources in the ICC’s anti-corruption unit.

A person has already been killed for being involved in match-fixing, according to more than one news organisation in Sri Lanka.

Rottenness extends right to the top: of the Sri Lankan cricketers recently banned by the ICC, the most famous is Sanath Jayasuriya. The player who revolutionised their 50-over game – has been banned from all cricket activity for two years.

Too much was allowed to fester for far too long. India had their report into match-fixing by their Central Bureau of Investigation at the turn of this century, Pakistan had their Qayyum report. Sri Lanka did nothing.

Sri Lanka still does not have a cogent first-class structure after becoming a full member, or Test-playing nation, in 1982. It was a tribute to their players that they won the 1996 World Cup, and the World T20 finals of 2012, not their system.

That Sri Lanka have a small chance of defeating England at Headingley is mainly the result of their school system, which still produces batsmen who are skilled and tough, and little to do with their board. At least one has been properly constituted at last, in conformity with ICC guidelines, after years of political interference, whereas when England toured Sri Lanka last autumn nobody seemed to be in charge.

Just as New Zealand’s success in global tournaments - always in the semi-finals or thereabouts - flows from the top, so does Sri Lanka’s failure, except for when another of their great cricketers, Mahela Jayawardene or Kumar Sangakkara, has propelled them.

The current side deserve better: even if their bowling is mundane, their batting retains a quality all its own, combining the orthodoxy instilled by their school coaches with South Asian wristiness. Sri Lanka’s opening stand of 115, between their captain Dimuth Karunaratne and Kusal Perera, threatened Australia at the Oval and was an illustration of what might have been.