The International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup’s hangover still lingers, well past the mandatory 24 hours. Such were the infinite thrills and nerve-shredding tension that rippled through the glorious final at Lord’s on July 14, which has been subsequently anointed as the greatest summit clash of the quadrennial cricketing tournament since its inception in 1975.
Debates are still raging about a one-day international that pitted England against New Zealand and twice concluded in a tie, be it the full-duration (241 runs apiece) or the super-over (15 each). In a utopian setting, both outfits would have been declared joint winners and all the subsequent hand-wringing could have been avoided. But we live in times where the quest for a singular winner overrides everything else.
The championship rules stipulate that in the event of a double-tie in a knockout game, the number of cumulative boundaries scored by each team through the contest and the super-over would be used to break the deadlock. England with 26 strikes across the ropes went past New Zealand (17). It was not an ideal solution because in reality both teams did not suffer a loss. Yet, through a technical point, England prevailed and Eoin Morgan’s men were ecstatic while the rivals, led by Kane Williamson, suffered a night of soul-crushing anguish.
Mutual respect
The post-final moments at Lord’s were high on mutual respect while a Sunday night waned. “New Zealand was incredible through the tournament. I guess we got the rub of the green our way today,” Morgan said. Williamson, a gentleman-cricketer, quipped: “We don’t grudge England its success but yes we are gutted. And it is [the rules] what it is.” Later, the skippers tried to understand the ingredients of a classic face-off over beer. The impeccable conduct of Morgan and Williamson, who refused to be either bombastic victors or sore losers, was a welcome change from the past, when an overload of verbal barbs caused disrepute to the willow game.
A sport needs its heroes, and though the last pivotal game of cricket’s premier tournament had its share of stars dishing out excellence, none did it better than England all-rounder Ben Stokes, who hammered an unbeaten 84 and kept his side in the hunt. Yes, there was a sliver of luck when a throw from Martin Guptill bounced off his bat and raced to the boundary and umpire Kumar Dharmasena awarded a six (an all-run two and the four overthrow) during the concluding over bowled by Trent Boult.
A five would have sufficed since when Guptill unleashed the throw, Stokes and his partner Adil Rashid had not crossed over and as per the law only one run should have been considered as complete and with which the overthrown four had to be added. In the heat of the moment and with anxiety mounting by the second, the on-field umpires failed to consult the TV umpire. On such slender threads do matches turn and it did as England stayed ahead. Stokes believed that his team would win the cup and his premonition was similar to Yuvraj Singh’s unerring faith about India’s victory in the 2011 World Cup.
Morgan and his men’s moment of splendid sporting delight augurs well for cricket, especially in England, the sport’s birthplace, where sadly it has lost its relevance. Currently, football reigns over the United Kingdom, and there is more buzz around Manchester United than what is evident when a cricket match is held. Even the World Cup lacked the factors of publicity, emotional investment and fan indulgence, traits we take for granted in India. Despite this, if there was a raucous atmosphere in some venues it was thanks to the diaspora from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. When cricket correspondents trooped into quaint pubs after a hard day’s work of filing despatches against stiff deadlines, it was an eye-opener to watch television channels dwelling upon the English Premier League’s imminent games rather than a World Cup in their backyard.
For all the surround-sound that cricket generates in India and its neighbourhood, the truth is that it is a sport played by a minuscule number of countries, unlike football, which has universal appeal. “The Beautiful Game”, as Brazilian legend Pele described football, has appeal far and wide while cricket remains a vestige of a British colonial past that lingers in pockets of the Commonwealth.
Centuries ago, the game originated in Old Blighty when bored shepherds sliced a piece of wood, probably a clunky branch, and took a mighty swipe against a rag-tag ball made of wood and tape. Gradually, the primitive endeavour that took place near grazing sheep on rolling hills and pastures acquired a set of rules and an added languid air thanks to intermissions for water breaks, lunch and tea.
Spread in subcontinent
Just as England sailed the high seas in its quest for land and wealth, a reverse symbiosis happened. Colonialism spread, and while it propped up that old cliche of the Empire where the sun never set, cricket spread across the corners of the empire, ranging from Antigua to Sydney. Reportedly, the first formal game in India was played at Thalassery in north Kerala when England soldiers and local fishermen indulged in a face-off on a ground a stone’s throw away from the Arabian Sea. Whether the locals defeated the rulers, as it happened in Aamir Khan’s Lagaan , remains a matter of conjecture, but a start was made and soon the sound of red leather thudding into willow echoed across the Indian subcontinent, be it Lahore, Bombay, Madras or Dhaka. India’s World Cup triumph at Lord’s in 1983 changed the game forever. England remains cricket’s spiritual home but its pulsating commercial heart moved to India and the sociologist Ashis Nandy presciently wrote: “Cricket is an Indian game accidentally discovered by the British.” Cut to the present, specifically in the aftermath of the World Cup’s 12th edition, it is a fact that even if the ICC is trying its best to spread the game with evangelical zeal, the vast majority of the common populace still root for football all over the globe. It does not help that many cricketing teams have suffered free fall over the last two decades, notably the West Indies, which was once a squad that offered unbridled joy to its followers.
For now, England, India and Australia constitute the big three, be it through excellence on the field or support structures beyond the turf. South Africa has tripped owing to its quota system that reserves places for non-whites. Quota systems in sport tend to boomerang as sport is an endeavour that thrives on sweat and impeccable merit. In its bid to reverse the ills of a racist past, Cricket South Africa has put in place a diktat which mandates that from the base age-group cricket, every playing eleven should have a minimum of four players from non-white races. The practice has skewed the playing dynamics, and many cricketers, cutting across the racial divide, are seemingly turning rogue and seeking lucrative deals in other countries.
Among others, New Zealand has maintained its cricketing zeal although it is a nation that loves its rugby. Sri Lanka is in the throes of an extended transition and Pakistan is a mercurial unit wavering between an adrenaline rush and despondency. Bangladesh, on the other hand, has a clutch of fine players headlined by Shakib al Hasan, who scored 606 runs and grabbed 11 wickets in the latest World Cup.
Afghanistan, which scraped the league table’s bottom, has to be judged not just on its performance but also on the manner in which it has used cricket as a self-healing balm. Most of Gulbadin Naib’s men owe their cricket to what was learnt at the refugee camps at Peshawar in Pakistan. When the Taliban was running amok in Afghanistan, hope and distraction were gleaned from cricket outside their tented camps near Peshawar. It is cricket’s feel-good story, one that is high on redemption, and reiterates the power of sport to go beyond stifling circumstances and the scourge of terrorism.
When it came to pure performance, India remained the form-team, topping the league with 15 points. Rohit Sharma (648 runs, five hundreds) and Jasprit Bumrah (18 wickets) were its leading aces. The Men in Blue eventually succumbed to New Zealand in the semi-final at Manchester’s Old Trafford while Australia, another contender, lost to old foe England in the other semi-final at Birmingham’s Edgbaston.
A 10-team joust with just a handful playing to potential is poor advertisement for a sport aspiring to spread its wings. Still, as the event, which commenced on May 30, tumbled into July, it had its share of close tussles. The World Cup offered a mirror to the myriad hues that shape the willow game, be it in terms of sport or as a character study of competing players. Empathy was in abundance, be it the way Morgan supported Williamson after the final or the manner in which Indian captain Virat Kohli requested fans to desist from booing Aussie Steve Smith, who came back after last year’s ball-tampering crisis in South Africa.
That sport cannot exist in a vacuum was a point constantly driven home through the World Cup. History and geography have their considerable influences and that became blindingly obvious. Global warming and its overwhelming implications were on view as unseasonal rains during a fickle summer washed out four games and the ICC even issued a press release comparing the present rains with the sparse ones seen in the previous years.
Politics, too, found a stage. A plane that flew with banner messages attached to its tail over Headingley at Leeds shifted the focus upon the subcontinent’s simmering cauldron, be it Balochistan, Kashmir or mob lynchings. The ICC tried to do damage control while the Yorkshire police leaned towards the right to freedom of expression. There was some needless theatre in the initial stages too when M.S. Dhoni sported an Indian Army insignia on his wicketkeeping gloves. The ICC stepped in, a few television anchors in Delhi and Mumbai lost their heads, but the situation did not get worse when the former Indian captain complied with the ICC diktat.
Many summers ago, the Indian tennis star Sania Mirza said: “There are so many of us.” This demographic dividend was on full display during the six weeks of the World Cup as matches featuring India saw full houses, with more than 90 per cent of the audience being Indian. Stands were a sea of blue as most fans donned the Indian team jersey. Australian captain Aaron Finch even said: “Even in Australia we are used to playing in grounds with a strong Indian presence. We like it as they add colour and they do support good cricket.”
England’s maiden World Cup triumph, New Zealand’s resilience, Williamson’s grace and India’s bull run while it lasted and, above all, a final for the ages will be the tropes quoted repeatedly when nostalgia’s eye reverts its gaze upon the 2019 edition. Cricket needs to strengthen its core, but there is no denying its charms. Like other athletic initiatives, it is a zone where grown men enjoy their extended childhood and there are enough moments that reiterate that idea. The West Indian veteran Chris Gayle doing impromptu push-ups, his teammate Sheldon Cottrell’s exaggerated salute after dismissing a batsman, and Afghanistan captain Naib flexing his muscles with a cheeky grin after scalping a wicket, are all droll images that will lure a smile. This truly was a World Cup of many layers.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE