FOR all the efforts of the organisers, the World Cup 2003 in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya is not likely to be remembered as one of the great tournaments.

Besides the obvious political problems and drug scandals, there were far too few games that sent spectators to the edges of their seats. Australia's triumph was all rather predictable. Even Kenya's brave effort to reach the semi-finals, which at least helped to give spectators an underdog to get behind, has drawn criticism, not so much of their contribution but whether the format of the tournament was right to allow a side of their quality to get so far. Matt Hayden commented: "Kenya's semi-final against India was a dreadful spectacle and will not have done the image of the game any good..." He has a reasonable point in that matches of the latter stages of any competition should be the most exciting, with plenty riding on the outcome, and when matches are so one-sided there is little to get wild about. However, many of the matches that Australia played in this tournament were equally dull, one-sided and predictable. Granted, the Australians were playing cricket at a different level of skill and intensity to everyone else - which is a spectacle in its own right - but of all their wins in the competition, only one, against England at Port Elizabeth, could be regarded as gripping to watch. As for Kenya's success, one shouldn't underestimate the encouragement that this will have given to them and to all the developing cricketing nations around the world. The Kenyan cricket team had a tiny player and support base within their country before this World Cup, but their achievement has lifted the players to hero status and the sport into the nation's consciousness. For cricket as a global game, their contribution to this tournament has been very important. The format of the tournament has been largely blamed for the anomaly of Kenya getting so far. As I have said before, I think that the format is actually rather good though the dynamics have been spoiled by the forfeiting of matches in Zimbabwe and Kenya by England and New Zealand respectively. Hopefully the group format will not change much, but it would be a good idea to reduce the time-span of the tournament. More than six weeks is a long time to hold the attention of the sporting world at the best of times, let alone with the current distractions. One less team per group would help, but these days the World Cup is seen as a major moneymaking scheme and the ICC will always try to bleed it dry. HAVING said all that, the 2003 World Cup was a great success logistically, with good facilities available for players, press and spectators alike. South Africa's failure to qualify from the group stages prevented it becoming the fillip for the nation that South Africa's success in the 1995 rugby World Cup had been. But, nevertheless, tourists and supporters poured in from all round the globe, piling money into African economies and enjoying all that is available in that part of the world. Much of the cricket was exceptional too. Sachin Tendulkar deservedly won the Player of the Tournament award for his incredible aggregate of 673 runs in 11 innings - a tournament record and over two hundred runs more than his nearest rival on this occasion. His innings of 98 against Pakistan at Centurion in that highly charged atmosphere was the batting of the tournament in my eyes, though Ricky Ponting's wonderful 140 in the final will be remembered for longer. The bowling records will show that Chaminda Vaas was the leading wicket-taker with 23, including an extraordinary hat-trick from the first three balls of the match against Bangladesh. There were also fantastic performances by Glenn McGrath (7-15 against Namibia), Andy Bichel (7-20 against England), Shane Bond (6-23 against Australia) and Ashish Nehra (6-23, also versus England). However, the bowler of the tournament for me was Brett Lee. Although he never got a Man of the Match award, he was consistently the biggest threat to batsmen. With the new ball or with the old one, his extreme pace, accuracy, hostility and aggression meant that he could turn a match in a few deliveries, which he often did. Without Shane Warne, all the Aussie bowlers put their hands up to fill the gap, but no one more so than Lee.

But, for all the excellent performances by teams and individuals, I will remember this tournament for the actions of Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, whose stance mourning the 'death of democracy' in Zimbabwe by wearing black armbands in their first match of the World Cup revealed untold courage. Neither will be welcome back in the country (Olonga is wanted to answer accusations of treason, the sentence for being found guilty being death) and have to rebuild their lives outside their home nation. Before the competition started, all the debate was about whether England should play there or not and the cricket itself was largely ignored. The England players made a brave and, in terms of the tournament, a costly decision not to, and Flower and Olonga have made a considerably greater sacrifice. The Mugabe regime is a terrible one, but it would be tragic if the British government and the Commonwealth ignored these tokens of defiance. The sportsmen have taken the lead; now the politicians must follow it up.