Dear Editor,
Reference is made to “Another Stacked deck” (July 3). Contrary to what the editor contends, the deck was not stacked in favour of India in any match. And yes, it was a hugely successful tournament – world cricket brought to USA and after a decade to West Indies; it also brought in a lot of revenue, the most financially rewarding for ICC in terms of sponsors and viewership. 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. 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, 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 favour 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 follows 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.
India pulled off 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-Caribbean 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-Caribbean would have supported India. One Indo-Caribbean parliamentarian in Trinidad expressed a comment of pride that India won.
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.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
