It took me sometime to collect my thoughts after the utterly disappointing World Cup final on Sunday. I needed this break to objectively wrap my head around what might have happened and also listen to the analyses from various sources before writing this piece. Within the last week, I've seen several experts claim that a slow track was intentionally prepared to provide an outside advantage to India with that strategy ultimately backfiring on the hosts. I don't know how true these allegations are but more than the pitch I single out the team's performance as the primary reason we lost that day. Here are three things which our team could have done better.
1. Firstly, we did not read the pitch as well as the Australian team did. Rohit Sharma revealed that he would have batted first had he won the toss on a surface which played better in the second innings. Considering the fact that we played more international matches than any other team at the venue we should have had a better handle on the conditions that could upset the scales.
2. Secondly, we were too rigid with our team composition. True, the combination of six batters, one all-rounder and four specialist bowlers worked brilliantly for us since it came together in the middle of the league stage. But, we always had the risk of not having an option when the bowlers had a bad day. The batters too had to play with extra caution once wickets fell at the top knowing too well that India's tail (unlike the Australian tail) doesn't account for much. Forget the tail, Suryakumar Yadav at number 6 contributed only 106 runs which makes me question why we didn't rejig our playing XI earlier. Our inflexible combinations often fail the stress test in high pressure matches where the extra cushion of a batting allrounder is sorely felt.
3. Thirdly, predetermined roles assigned to the batting order didn't work when conditions turned out radically different in the final. When plans worked well, Rohit Sharma went hard in the beginning while Shubman and Shreyas kept up the aggressive tempo that was set. Virat and Rahul played the role of an accumulator with Suryakumar Yadav and Ravindra Jadeja assisting with the final blitz. In the final, we were left with the two accumulators (Virat and Rahul) in the middle who could only put on 67 runs in about 18 overs. If at least one of them got a move-on earlier we would have had the chance to set-up a somewhat challenging total. Suryakumar Yadav too made a puzzling 18(28) (despite being the sole specialist batter left after Ravindra Jadeja's dismissal) refusing to either push on the accelerator or farm the strike. Intent as exhibited by Rohit Sharma is a top-down approach. Once the intent disappeared in the middle overs we were always looking at only a middling total.
Finally, none of the above points are meant to slight India's achievement of winning 10 games in a row before making it to the final. I had to point out that we are amazing front-runners but once the tide turns in high-pressure situations we just don't do enough to tilt the result in our favor. We need some streetwise players who can assess the conditions on-the-fly and adjust their temperament to combat the opposition. Until that time, our big names will continue to falter when challenged by those who are better at adapting to the situations than us.
There was a time when we only won only one out of 14 ODI finals under Sourav Ganguly's captaincy. Just as we came out of that drought with two world cup victories in 2007 and 2011, this ICC tournament drought will end someday too. It's just that we were so close this time around.
Until Next Time,
Your dejected Indian cricket fan,
Chaitanya J.J.
Comments
Post a Comment