In 2019, the ICC World Cup Final delivered as close a contest as you could possibly imagine, and it was the home nation, England, which managed to come out on top. Four years on, and it was the hosts who again were hot favourites. However, the Bollywood scriptwriters were absent and, instead of the predicted coronation of Rohit Sharma’s men as champions, the 120,000-odd spectators at Ahmedabad were stunned by a determined Australia, and the outstanding performance of Travis Head.
On paper, this tournament was the property of the ICC but in practice it felt like it was owned by Narendra Modi, the autocratic Prime Minister of India, after whom the final’s magnificent stadium is named. As India cruised through the group stages unbeaten, he must have been convinced that the trophy was in his hands, too.
India undoubtedly looked the most complete team. From skipper Rohit Sharma’s blistering starts down to Jasprit Bumrah’s ideosyncratic pace bowling, they had all bases covered. And they had Virat Kohli. 2023 hasn’t been a vintage year for the former captain but he retains the faith of a billion cricket fans, and with good reason. He was by far the leading scorer and when he was dismissed in the final for a mere 54, the silence was deafening. The ovation for his record-breaking fiftieth career ODI century, against New Zealand in the Mumbai semi-final reverberated around the globe, as befits such an imperious batter.
Looking back, New Zealand were quickest out of the traps. They achieved some sort of revenge for the 2019 defeat by destroying England emphatically. Devon Conway and Rachin Ravindra each made tons and shared what was to prove the highest partnership of the tournament, an unbeaten 273. For the losers, it created an unwanted foundation for a disastrous defence of the trophy. However, Jos Buttler tried to spin it, there were no positives whatsoever, but more on that another time.
The Black Caps eased to four successive wins against relatively unfancied opposition, while Australia fell to both India and South Africa. However, when the Aussies withstood a late Neesham onslaught to beat their neighbours thrillingly by five runs at Dharamsala, the tables were turning. Meanwhile, South Africa were also looking ominous. In his final World Cup, Quinton de Kock was scoring centuries for fun, and their 428-5 against Sri Lanka, featuring a trio of tons, was awe-inspiring.
However, as the weeks passed, the top four seemed to be separating themselves from the rest. Going into the final few rounds, Kane Williamson’s side started to look vulnerable to a possible late charge from Pakistan and even Afghanistan, who won a lot of friends in this competition. Had it not been for Glenn Maxwell’s phenomenal one-legged slogfest, they would have finished the group with five victories and a slender chance of breaking into the knockouts.
It didn’t happen, of course, and the perennial bridesmaids NZ and SA almost inevitably fell victims to India and Australia, respectively. They are not – repeat NOT – chokers. It’s just that they are never quite the best in the business. History has nowt to do with it. If it did, the West Indies would still be whupping everyone’s arses at the World Cup instead of sitting on their own arses in the Caribbean.
Fans of T20 and the horrible Hundred have criticised the 50-over format for producing too few close contests in this World Cup. Yes, there have been some one-sided affairs but that happens in all tournaments in all sports. It’s just that many people have attention spans too short to appreciate a proper game of cricket. If I have a beef with the World Cup, it is the ten-team, all-plays-all group format, leaving only two knockout fixtures plus the final. Why not have twelve teams, two groups of six and a quarter-final stage? I know the answer, of course: money. Had this been adopted in 2023, India would have played a minimum of six games, not ten (assuming they qualified from their group), with the resulting reduction in revenue. Furthermore, the uncertainty of knockout cricket has the potential of an early upset.
For fans like me, it would have the advantage of springing surprises, disrupting the status quo, which is anathema to the bodies who effectively run world cricket. Past tourneys have been memorable for the triumphs of Kenya, Ireland and the Netherlands. I love it when the likes of Bas de Leede and Ibrahim Zadran can demonstrate their talents on the highest stage.
I have no idea what the ICC will do next time. However, I suspect that the 2027 affair will see a new batch of stars. Will the current cabal of mid-thirty-somethings still be around? Surely, the Aussies will need a new group of quicks to replace Pat Cummins and co. David Warner was leaping around the field like a spring chicken but he will be pushing forty. So will, for heaven’s sake, Virat Kohli! Somehow, I fancy that he will postpone his retirement, as did Tendulkar, for one last hurrah and a chance to hold this still significant trophy. I hope so.
Mike’s
Team of the Tournament: De Kock (SA, +),
Sharma (Ind), Ravindra (NZ), Kohli (Ind), Mitchell (NZ), Maxwell (Aus), Jadeja
(Ind), Zampa (Aus), Shami (Ind), Bumrah (Ind), Coetzee (SA).
Honourable mentions: Warner (Aus), Ibrahim Zadran (Afg), Iyer (ind), Madushanka (SL)
