Guyana’s Stabroek News described attributed India’s brilliant performance in World Cup 2024 to what it described as a “Stacked deck” (July 3). Contrary to what the editorial contends, the deck was not stacked in favor of India in any match and certainly not in the final. India put in superior performance over others. India is loaded with a blockbuster batting line-up, comprising of three allrounders and a bowling department comprising of five, three of who are top class batsmen with first class centuries – a team of 11 with nine batsmen and inclusive of six who can bowl and who have the capability to change a game. The composition of the team made a difference in being undefeated in the tournament, not a stacked dice as the editorial argued.
And yes, the World Cup was a hugely successful tournament – world cricket brought to USA and after a decade to West Indies; it also brought in a lot of revenues, the most financially rewarding for ICC in terms of sponsors and viewership. It brought in viewership from places that didn’t pay much attention to the game. Young guns made a mark on the international stage. The veterans were at their last games. And aside from revenues, some of the matches showcased top-notch cricketing skills and performances of newcomers and old timers, the latter seen for the last time in world format. The final and a few other matches also were most unpredictable, mesmerizing, and thrilling encounters in recent championship games.
The editorial should not take away from the fact that the final was a great, nail-biting match. Spectators waited till the last ball was bowled. Viewers and listeners waited for the last delivery. It was a match for the ages. The spectators were very thrilled, excited and fortunate to have witnessed such a great match. Spectators waited till the last ball was bowled. Viewers and listeners waited for the last delivery. Both teams — India and South Africa — played exceptionally well and were undefeated going into the final. It was a hard-fought match that could have gone either way.
India pulled off an incredible victory that had nothing to do with a stacked deck. India played consistently well throughout the tournament. The editorial should not have discredited India’s miraculous win when the match slipped away at the end of the 15th over.
One critique of the editorial is that matches were scheduled to give India an advantage and India enjoyed respite or rest time ahead of big matches. Assuming that was the case, and was it so, did India enjoy any advantage of rest time over Australia or England? Didn’t South Africa have a day more rest time over India? Clearly, India the advantage of more rest time did not apply to the final if indeed factual for other games. Others should conduct an analysis of rest time between matches for the various teams. Rest time does not favor any team; if anything, too much rest may disorient players, placing them off track from their game rendering them out of form. The schedulers don’t know who will play the last eight and remain among the last four or play in the semi-finals or final. When cricket is ongoing, no one can manipulate the result. Cricket is a game of skill and strategy and India applied themselves accordingly to make it to final and win the championship.
Sports today are played for prime time audience. Organizers of leagues and global championships schedule timings to maximize income. Matches of all sports are not played in daytime in America except on weekends. Ditto all over Europe. And it is no different in Asia and Africa. The West Indies follow the same practice.
Matches are played in prime time to attract spectators and TV audience as well as for radio listeners (yes people still listen to commentary in South Asia and Africa) and for social media. The biggest draw for cricket is India with a population of over 1.4 billion with Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Oman adding another half a billion. India is the main draw and most of cricket’s finances come from India; at one time it used to be England, Australia, and New Zealand that had the big money. India overtook them a decade and a half ago and India calls the shots on timing of matches that India plays. And why not? If West Indies can fund the game, then WI should be empowered to call the shots. Ditto, any other country! India’s viewership is twice the size of the rest of the cricketing world combined. India is 9.5 hours ahead of the Caribbean and USA; matches are played to attract viewership in South Asia, Middle East, and Africa.
Scheduling time of play does not necessarily give a team an advantage. The editorial did not give an analysis of multiple matches and rest time for one to form a definitive conclusion. Teams that had significant and more rest time than a competitor lost. Australia had more rest time between matches and lost to Afghanistan. England had more rest time than India and lost. America and Canada had equal rest time and the former lost.
The 10:30 (8 PM India time) timing of Indian matches was to capture Indian TV viewership and not to give any undue advantage to the Indian players. If anything, Indian players were disadvantaged. In starting the match at 10:30, Indian players had less time to loosen up and practice in the morning. Indian players also had less rest time between games. Teams that played in the late afternoon or evening had more rest time and the entire day to loosen up and practice, key workout that is needed ahead of a match. Also, India had less rest time than South Africa to prepare for the final. Then SA should have the advantage and win. Instead, India pull off a victory from the jaws of defeat. India had players who have the ability to change the course of a game single-handedly. And that is what happened in the final. India held their nerves. The tactical acumen and leadership skills of Rohit Sharma with advice from Kohli and guidance from the dressing room to bring on Bumrah at the right time changed the direction of the match. SA suffered collective agony; it was heartbreaking to come so close and lost because of a spectacular catch. That catch from Yadav was among the best ever taken and it shifted the game towards India.
There is one take away from the matches not mentioned in the editorial – ethnic support for Team India. India’s performance has inspired Indians around the diaspora and in all of its matches in America as well in the Caribbean. There was a huge Indian turnout not only from Asian Indians but Indo-Caribbeans as well. India was followed closely from around the globe.
The passionate Indian fan base cheered India, an advantage not enjoyed by other teams. Indo-Caribbeans who did not make it as live spectators supported India on TV for every match; they wanted India to win. Even if West Indies was in the final, Indo-Caribbeans would have supported India. One Indo-Caribbean parliamentarian in Trinidad expressed a comment of pride that India won.
There was divided loyalties of support. Almost every Indian American supported India. Some Indians supported USA and Canada. Indian Guyanese and Indian Trini supported India. Almost every South African Indian supported South Africa as opposed to India. Almost every British Indian supported England. Indian Kiwis supported New Zealand. Indian Australians supported Australia. Indians from Oman supported their team. Ditto Indians from Uganda! Pakistani Americans supported Pakistan. Sri Lankan Americans supported their country’s team. Bangladeshi Americans supported Bangladesh. The small Bangladeshi community in Guyana supported Bangladesh and not the West Indies. Guyanese Canadians supported Canada. Indo-Surinamese supported Holland while Asian Dutch (from India) supported India. Punjabis from Netherland supported Holland. Indians, including Punjabis from Ireland and Scotland, supported their national teams.
Scheduling and spectator cheers may or may not give a team an advantage. But in the end, it was the competitive spirit and cricketing prowess of both sides that played the final that made it a great game that no one who saw it will ever forget. Hats off to all the cricketers for a month of sports entertainment.
Yours sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
