The Indian team celebrates its triumph in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup in Barbados on June 29, 2024.
| Photo Credit: K.R. Deepak
Perhaps it is a continuum — and the cricket team is merely a part of it. Is a sense of insecurity built into our system? A wariness about the few and the less powerful turning the tables on the many and the powerful? India, one of two finest all-format teams were in all three finals in the space of a year, losing two of them to the other top team, Australia.
Yet the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the most powerful body in the game, feels it necessary to provide artificial aid. Rohit Sharma and his fine band of men deserve better than this; they are good enough to win without the BCCI’s embarrassing help.
In the 50-over World Cup at home, the BCCI sailed close to the wind by changing the pitch ahead of the semifinal without the knowledge of the International Cricket Council, whose tournament it is. It was a “used surface” instead of a fresh one, as the New Zealand captain pointed out.
Mollycoddling
This was unnecessary. India don’t need to be mollycoddled so politicians can pump themselves up with self-importance and bask in their victory. In the last four World Cups (T20 and 50-over), India’s final games in the league have been against Namibia, Zimbabwe, Netherlands and Canada. Coincidence? Perhaps. But mighty useful if they needed to bolster their Net Run Rate.
That Pakistan must be in India’s group in all world tournaments, thus ensuring at least one meeting between the neighbours has become a given. It pleases television at a time when bilateral series between the two are off the table; yet it says something for the integrity of the draw.
India’s selectors have come in for much praise for picking three spinners, all of whom played in the eleven in the West Indies once the T20 World Cup moved there. India were the only team which knew before they left the country where they would be playing the semifinal if they qualified, and chose their side accordingly.
The match was scheduled to start at 10.30 a.m. (for television back home) and there was no reserve day unlike at the first semifinal in Barbados. It was pointed out that it rains on an average 23 days in June in Guyana — and had the match been washed out, India would have qualified for the final because they topped their group.
Most impressive
India were by far the most impressive team in the tournament; they didn’t need outside (or in this case, inside) assistance. In Jasprit Bumrah they had possibly the finest fast bowler to have played the white-ball game. Rohit is both an outstanding batter and a sound captain. Fortune, if not the national boards, favour the brave. Rohit might have delayed bringing on Bumrah in the final, but the great man delivered when he did come on, and Hardik Pandya rose to the occasion.
Cricket matches must be won and lost on the field of play; sometimes the best teams lose, as happened in Ahmedabad with the 50-over World Cup when India failed at the final hurdle. That is the nature of sport. And the earlier the BCCI realises this, the more seriously will they be taken as a sporting and not a political body.
That the three over-35s in the Indian squad, each of whom has served the country magnificently, decided to call it a day after the T20 final was inevitable.
Virat Kohli finished his career with a strike rate similar to that of Chris Gayle, once known as the Bradman of the T20 game, and better than that of Brendon McCullum. When he began his T20 career, his final 76 off 59 deliveries (strike rate: 129) might have been seen as a top innings at a fabulous strike rate. It is a measure of how far the format has come that today it is seen as a middling effort. He was at his best when he played his normal game; he might be the last of the greats in the format to do so.
The T20 team is in transition. The focus shifts to Zimbabwe where Shubman Gill leads a younger team. That is the future. Hopefully, one where the BCCI feels more secure and shows greater confidence in its team.
