It's too easy sometimes to bag the ICC for the changes they make to the game but I feel their tweaked Champions Trophy, won on Monday by Australia, was a success.

In the past this has been a tournament hampered by poor organisation, too many teams and too many irrelevant, non-competitive games.

But this was a competition that showcased the best sides in the world, that was over quite succinctly and, most importantly, was one that the players wanted to win.

Jacket required: Watson and Ponting show off their winnings

I don't like to reduce tournaments to their pure monetary value but, with US $2m on offer to the winner, this time there was plenty of incentive for every team to go out there and win it.

In the current climate, the ICC had to offer something substantial to help international cricket keep pace with franchise cricket in terms of the rewards on offer.

I'm not too bothered about the other little gimmicks that were introduced, such as the golden bat and ball for example, except to say that I thought Australia looked smart in their white, winners' jackets.

It's a nice memento for the players to have, hang up in the wardrobe and show to their kids and grandchildren in future years.

Natural

On the downside it was disappointing that the ICC did not schedule a reserve day for matches affected by bad weather.

When a tournament is so short and there are so few games to decide who goes through to the next stage, then the players do deserve that extra opportunity.

Regular readers will know that I think 50-over cricket has an important role to play in the future of the game and that I'd like it governed by fewer rules and regulations.

I'm not a great fan of power-plays or placing too many restraints on captains in terms of how they deploy their bowlers or set their fields.

Other than stipulating that a team should use a minimum of five bowlers and a rule to stop captains putting everybody on the fence in the final few overs, I'd give the captains greater licence to do what they like.

I think a better and more natural game would result but I have to say that I seem to be in a minority of about three on this one! Most other people seem to believe that more regulation is the best way to improve the game.

People talk about the middle part of the innings being boring. Well, it's boring because batsmen feel that they have got to take advantage of the power-plays and therefore play risk-adverse cricket for the rest of the innings. To my mind, excessive rule-making only helps make the game more predictable and formulaic.

Method

Of course in the end we had predictable winners in the shape of Australia. There is plenty to admire in their pursuit of silverware, not least Shane Watson's displays at the top of the order as his back-to-back unbeaten centuries in the latter stages proved.

I said earlier this summer during the Ashes that I felt he is capable of becoming a long-term fixture at the top of Australia's order in Test as well as one-day international cricket because he strikes me as someone who has a fairly simple method.

That's not to say it's a bad method and certainly when you compare his technique with someone like Phillip Hughes you'd say that his method has more chance of success.

He plays straight, forward and has immense power. I wouldn't know his temperament from a bar of soap but he seems a straightforward guy who doesn't overcomplicate things, which is always a good thing.

Succeed

And what of England's campaign? Well, their victory over South Africa was the stand-out display. The win over Sri Lanka and defeat to New Zealand were largely conditions-dictated but they played South Africa on a pitch that didn't change, took the Proteas on and beat them at their own game on home turf.

That success, even though it was only one game, and the performances of Eoin Morgan, should give Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower hope for the future.

And nobody was more surprised than me to see Tim Bresnan perform so well in the semi-final because I see him as a work-a-day cricketer, someone who makes me think that if he is first-choice in our one-day team then we are not that good a one-day team.

But all credit to him because he seems to be taking his opportunity - he's not a star by any means - but one of those cricketers you need in your squad as back-up. If nothing else he, like the rest of the squad, now have a better idea of what it takes to succeed in South Africa.

back to top