2023 ODI World Cup: Verdict on India, a cricketing giant out of ICC tournament excuses
Disclaimer: This is a long and difficult read for India fans so plan accordingly :)
The time has come to dust ourselves off and try again, and by us I mean all India fans.
Pain has been the name of the game for the past decade with 10 straight ICC events now without coming away with the trophy. If 2019 was a whole body feeling empty, 2023 is a body no longer feeling whole. The lights are on but no one is home, life has its distractions until it doesn’t. At some point, though, you have to pick up the pieces.
This was supposed to be India’s crowning achievement. Our boys in blue had never been this dominant at a World Cup. 10 straight wins, a 302-run win over Sri Lanka, a 243-run win over the group phase’s second-best team South Africa, the highest ever score in an ICC knockout match of 397 in the semifinal to exorcise the Kiwi ghosts of 2019, Virat Kohli’s 50th century and the most runs ever scored in a single World Cup, Mohammed Shami’s third-highest ever wicket tally at a single World Cup despite missing four matches, Rohit Sharma’s blazing starts, Jasprit Bumrah’s miserly opening spells.
When you asked what more could one want, KL Rahul wicket-kept like he was a full-time keeper first and a batter second, then batted like he was born for the middle-order and not the top of the order. Shreyas Iyer came into his own and made a crucial World Cup semifinal hundred, Kuldeep Yadav and Ravindra Jadeja were in form. Seriously, what more could you possibly want?
This was the tournament that was supposed to put India in the category of the 1975 and ‘79 West Indies teams as well as the 2003 and ‘07 Australians. Those teams didn’t lose a single match en route to the trophy and here was India on the doorstep. I didn’t just want India to beat Australia, I wanted India to bludgeon them into submission. Instead, outside of the first 10 overs of each innings, it was they who did the bludgeoning. With us on home turf. Imagine someone entering your house, leaving alone the expensive electronics, not caring for your car, but instead grabbing your child. Australia said India can have all the bilateral series and money it wants but they’ll gladly take what money can’t buy, over and over again.
A sixth ODI World Cup title right now feels insurmountable when considering the biggest threat to their win rate is the death of the format itself. That was my dream and possibly many others when India won in 2011 that MS Dhoni’s winning touch would be an inspiration that spurred more winning, not an anomaly. Standing at two trophies to Australia’s four and the manner in which India’s talent was growing, I thought the men in yellow could be knocked off their perch. Now, India would have to win the next two World Cups just to return to that same 2011 deficit.
Let’s get to that hard part. I have watched pretty much every reaction possible to the final at this point, and paid special attention to what Australian outlets/media personalities/former players have had to say. If you can’t beat them, join ‘em, and so perhaps to beat Australia, India have to learn to be more Australian. What are the lessons India must take from this final to win a World Cup?
BECOME MENTALITY MONSTERS
The toss at Ahmedabad was always going to be crucial but Ricky Ponting’s advice to the Australian team before the match sums up the required mentality in big matches perfectly:
“Some of the Australian players were worried about the surface, but I said to them, ‘Don’t worry about the surface. It’s a cricket pitch, it’s 22 yards long, just go out there and play your best game and you’ll win the game.’”
Of course, it can absolutely be argued that those words would have mattered little if Australia had in fact lost the toss and been put into bat instead of the other way around. Cummins was very clear about their plans, though, that they knew they needed around 300 if they batted first and fancied their chances of chasing down that many as well.
It was really disappointing to hear from Sanjay Manjrekar that some of India’s senior players reacted quite negatively upon hearing Cummins had elected to bowl. Why? You are the most dominant side of this tournament and playing at home. Sure, the task got tougher, but you had to genuinely believe your world class batting lineup could get the 280-plus needed to really make a match of this, especially with the bowling quality on hand.
The saying goes that a team is only as strong as its weakest link, and it should be remembered that an individual or team’s mentality is only as strong as it is in the face of adversity. There were great signs when India recovered from 2/3 against Australia in pursuit of 200 in the opening match all the way through to showing tremendous intent and posting 397 in the semifinal against New Zealand. When the pressure was biggest, there was an overreaction to the toss.
I think back to Kapil Dev making his team believe that 183 was enough at the halfway stage in 1983, and even MS Dhoni warning his team that God would not be coming to save them with rain when tasked with defending 129 in the 2013 Champions Trophy final, that they were the best team in the world and they would find a way. Rohit Sharma did the right thing lying at the toss (it’s my own belief that he lied, this was a bowl first pitch) and saying India were looking to bat anyway and his batting showed the way, but I would love to know who those others were that lost some faith because of a flip of a coin.
CULTURAL SHIFT IN PRIORITIES
Brett Sprigg of ABC Sport (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) called Rahul’s 66 off 107 the worst half-century in World Cup final history when speaking on BBC’s cricket podcast Stumped. The Grade Cricketer was puzzled by his innings. Others like Aaron Finch, Wasim Akram, and Gautam Gambhir have all questioned the lack of intent from Rahul when Kohli — the clear anchor — was going at a strike rate of 90.
Rahul was tremendous for India throughout this tournament and played crucial innings both attacking at the back end and stabilizing early. I wonder if he adopted too much of the approach he used against Australia the first time these two sides squared off in the group stage. In that match, India were reeling at 2/3 and Kohli’s advice to him was that they were faced with a Test match scenario and needed to bat accordlingly. The benefit, of course, was that they knew they only required 200 for victory and so time was always going to be on their side.
India always needed to bat in this final with 280 as a “target” but that seemed to get lost during the middle phase of the innings, all the more unbelievable when 80 had already been provided off the first 10 overs. Literally five runs an over from there should have seen them hit that target.
Knowing you can go hard late can be both a blessing and a curse. In Rahul’s case, fresh off making the fastest World Cup hundred by an Indian and then a terrific cameo of 39 off 20 in the semis, he must have believed that as long as he made it to the 40th over he could get back whatever balls he wasted, that he simply couldn’t afford to get out because of five full-time bowlers in the XI. That method puts such a ridiculously high price on one’s own wicket, though, and that’s how balls go waste. He played out 35 dot balls during his partnership with Kohli, that’s virtually six maidens just by himself while Kohli was ticking along at the other end.
Let’s say even 12-15 of those dots were singles instead, that’s an additional 12-15 balls for Kohli to face, too. You’re looking at another 25-30 runs added to the score. Does Kohli get out with that type of momentum on their side? Does Suryakumar Yadav come to bat instead of Jadeja at the fall of Kohli’s wicket if it’s now 175/4 instead of 148/4 in the 29th over? It’s hard to envision India not getting 280 from there. These are the moments where matches are won and lost.
I don’t want to call Rahul selfish because he has sacrificed for the team by taking up wicket-keeping and batting in the middle-order. There is an individualistic mindset, though, that I feel has hurt not just the national team at times but also his IPL teams. We have seen how both the Kings XI Punjab and Lucknow Super Giants have made complete messes of chases in his presence.
When he batted masterfully in India’s first match against Australia, his six to finish the match should have been an exclamation point on what was then the pinnacle of his career: winning a World Cup match against mighty Australia. Instead, we saw him fall to his knees that he missed out on a hundred. Even against Pakistan, Rahul slowed down so that Shreyas Iyer could get to a half-century and captain Sharma looked visibly frustrated.
Against Bangladesh, he was the one who urged Kohli to chase a hundred despite Kohli reminding him that it was a World Cup match and it wouldn’t look right. I’ll put some of this on Kohli as well as he has a big enough personality to just flat out say that’s not how he wants to go about his business. Imagine the message that would have sent Rahul, that even in the face of the biggest record in ODI cricket, nothing was bigger than winning the game and playing the right way. What would Australia do? India need to stop viewing these things as awkward elephant in the room subjects that can’t be discussed and nip it in the bud.
IMPROVE TACTICAL PLANNING UNDER PRESSURE
If India weren’t willing to back Suryakumar Yadav at No. 6 with just over 20 overs remaining in the innings, how much did they really trust his batting?
Considering how much India’s innings had slowed, this was an opportunity to be brave and ask SKY to play a trademark innings that could get them back on track. By bringing him in later with only the tail behind him, there was no way India were going to get vintage SKY. You get his best when he can bat freely with others to pick up the pieces if he doesn’t come off, not when he has to manage a tail.
I can fully understand Rohit turning to Shami with two left-handed openers. Entering the final, Shami had taken an astonishing 8 wickets in 52 balls when bowling to left-handers. It was also clear by the end of the first over that he was struggling to control the new ball. Shami had got the reward of David Warner’s wicket, Sharma’s gamble had paid off, did he really need to persist with him beyond that? I can even understand a second over on the back of taking a wicket in the first, but at 2-0-23-1, the gig was up.
As Shami continued to bowl, Siraj was increasingly rendered useless as his primary skills are with the new ball. He opened the bowling all tournament, why move so far off it in the final? If this was the plan all along, why not play Ravichandran Ashwin just like you played him in the group stage match against Australia? Some of you may even remember Ashwin opened the bowling against Australia in Ahmedabad in the 2011 World Cup quarterfinal. He would have provided additional batting depth, too.
I think back to Cummins at one stage bowling six different bowlers in a seven-over stretch. He dotted every possible i and crossed every possible t, Rohit was given a mountainous challenge in matching him and had his first bad day of the tournament. In 2019, Kohli preserved Dhoni and sent each of Dinesh Karthik, Rishabh Pant, and Hardik Pandya ahead of him. India has to learn to make better decisions under duress.
All this to say, Rohit has done a very good job overall but in planning for 2027, now is the time to get a new captain in and give him as much experience as possible in the role. We know Rohit is not going to be fit enough for 2027 as a 40-year-old. Hardik Pandya and Jasprit Bumrah are too injury prone, I have concerns about Rahul considering what I’ve just written about him above, it may be too soon for Shubman Gill, and we don’t know what type of player Rishabh Pant is going to be post-accident. It’s funny, if Rohit had been the captain from the time Dhoni had left the picture, it may have been Kohli who would have been best suited for the role now with his refreshed approach and having just released himself of the pressure of Sachin’s ODI record. Of course, we know now that his time has come and gone.
GAIN OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE
Ravichandran Ashwin’s breakdown of the final and especially Australia’s tactical brilliance on his YouTube channel shows the value of the IPL to these foreign players. I mean, just look at these comments from former Australia captain and current chief selector George Bailey when Ashwin asked him why Australia chose to go against their philosophy of batting first and instead bowl in this final:
“We have played IPL for many years, toured here for bilateral series. As per our experience in India, red soil disintegrates but black soil becomes better to bat under lights. It is tough [to bat] in red soil under lights, too.
In Lucknow against South Africa, the pitch was a red soil one. Under lights, the ball not just seamed but also spun. Even dew does not have much impact on red soil whereas on black soil, the ball turns in the afternoon but becomes patta (flat) like concrete [under lights]. That is our experience.”
Three out of four matches in Ahmedabad during the tournament were won by the chasing side, the lone exception being England’s failure to haul down Australia’s 286 by 33 runs. The last two IPL finals have been played in Ahmedabad and both of those were won by the chasing side as well. The last four ODI World Cup finals and the last four T20 World Cup finals have all been won by the chasing side. The mantra of bat first and get runs on the board is dead.
If the BCCI continues to limit Indian players playing franchise cricket only in the IPL, say goodbye to winning major tournaments in other countries while also welcoming a much more difficult challenge in home conditions as everyone feels at home. Indian players need to know conditions abroad just as well as Australians, South Africans, and New Zealanders now know India.
Finally, yes, the pitch curators in Ahmedabad did a dreadful job in making conditions so favourable for the team that chased. When dew is guaranteed to be a factor, red soil should be a no-brainer to minimize its impact.
PRIORITIZE COMPLETE CRICKETERS
Why is there no like-for-like replacement for Hardik Pandya? Why is Ravichandran Ashwin the only bowler who can genuinely be trusted with the bat? Why is Virat Kohli’s wrong-footed in-swingers the only viable bowling option among the batters?
Australia could throw the ball to Travis Head and Mitchell Marsh. Among seam/medium pace all-round options they have between Mitchell Marsh, Marcus Stoinis, and Cameron Green to choose from. Pat Cummins played two invaluable knocks in this tournament, Mitchell Starc stood up with 28 and 27 in the first two matches against India and South Africa when none of the batters did and then helped finish the job against South Africa in the semis. Adam Zampa played a crucial 29 off 19 against England to take Australia from 247/8 to 285/9 in a match Australia won by 33 runs.
Despite Glenn Maxwell’s brilliance, would Australia have beaten Afghanistan if Cummins, Starc, and Zampa were Shami, Bumrah, and Yadav? How much more tense would that Australia-South Africa semifinal have felt if it was Bumrah and Shami at the crease instead of Cummins and Starc. Starc came in with 39 to get while Cummins came in with 20 still required.
I haven’t even mentioned their fielding. Cummins, Starc, and Zampa are all plus fielders and have taken big catches over the course of the tournament. Cummins’ diving effort at short midwicket against Pakistan to dismiss Babar Azam at a crucial time comes to mind, as does Starc’s diving catch at short fine leg against New Zealand to get rid of Devon Conway. Zampa took a beauty of a diving catch at deep fine leg against England to dismiss David Willey and effectively end the contest.
I think the Impact Sub in the IPL is going to do serious damage to India’s all-round depth and I would personally get rid of it because of how much it adds value to specialists. Kids will grow up with an added focus on only one element of their cricket. Look across the board and you’ll see players who fall below the genuine all-rounder tier being released left, right, and centre. Shardul Thakur, Harshal Patel, Dasun Shanaka, Chris Jordan, and Wanindu Hasaranga are among the players cast aside and left to find a new home. Be good enough to make the side on one skill alone and only then will your other skills be considered a bonus is the message Impact Sub sends to future generations.
Unless the Impact Sub gets introduced to ICC events, India are staring at a long-term disaster of their own doing.
That’s all I have for you in terms of assessing all the teams, thanks again for reading.
I will have one final World Cup post on my Team of the Tournament and then it will be back to regularly scheduled programming from there.