Inevitable but unpredictable, India and Australia have been two trains on a collision course،
Nothing is inevitable in sport, and that is its appeal. The tension, the knots in the stomach, the anticipation, the hope and foreboding, and the final euphoria or heartbreak, all come from a deep desire for an outcome but not knowing if it will happen. There can be no spoilers in sport; no match is over until it is over.
It could be said, in hindsight, that this World Cup final bowed to the inevitable by bringing together the two pre-tournament favorites in the summit clash. In this, it is a break with the norm. Since 1983, when India defied a 66-1 scoreline to dethrone the West Indies, the World Cup finals have been a joyous deviation from the script: Sri Lanka has reached three finals and won once, the New -Zealand at two, and Australia and Pakistan were eliminated. far from being the favorites when they won in 1987 and 1992. This year, apart from the fact that India and Australia were the strongest bets for the final at the start of the tournament, very little on their journey here were predictable.
It feels like a lifetime has passed since their first meeting in this tournament. Having called this match a final before it was played, I was feeling sheepish in a week as Australia, after two resounding defeats, looked underprepared and undercooked and unsure of their best XI. By the second match, they had abandoned their first-choice keeper-batsman; their main partner, on whom enormous intermediary responsibilities rested, seemed lost; two of their versatile players, the ones who gave the team the appearance of great depth, seemed mostly incapable of buying a run all year; their decisive opener was still recovering from injury; and their captain felt like the weakest link in their bowling attack.
Even when they were on a winning streak, their power play remained remarkably flabby, their mid-set hitting wasn’t particularly commanding, and without a shockingly bizarre inning, their qualification for the semi-final The final would have been decided down to the wire. .
It was the fringe elements against South Africa – half-chances, line calls – that allowed them to qualify for the final. In its lack of swagger, pomp and certainty, it was not the typical Australian march to yet another World Cup final, but it was one in its bloody spirit, in the way they seized the vital moments and by their winning know-how. .
For India, as dynamic and well-oiled a team as they seemed to be in the early going, even the most fervent optimist would not have predicted a waltz like this. Not since the Australians in 2007 has a team gone through a tournament with so much punch and aura. In batting, they won by an average of 175 runs, the highest ever by a team in World Cup history; their chase margin averaged 6.4 wickets and 64.4 balls, the best by any team in this World Cup.
With bat and ball, they have dominated the powerplays with such authority – they have been No.1 by far on all parameters: batting rate, batting average, bowling economy and bowling average – that most of the opponents played the rest of the rounds. in recovery mode; India’s batters were tested only twice, and only New Zealand forced them to dig deep while bowling. Their lower-order batting, their only weak link, was exposed only once, and even a debilitating injury setback for their main fast-bowling all-rounder only seemed to make them stronger: each of their five bowlers has been so good that the absence of the sixth option has felt like a blessing.
No team has so far managed to dismiss Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli cheaply in the same match, and in the only match, the semi-final against New Zealand, in which Jasprit Bumrah’s radar faltered, Mohammed Shami caught up in spectacular fashion. Most daunting for Australia is that India has no player with two successive failures, a remarkable feat in a tournament as long and arduous as this one has been, which suggests a team at the top of their collective prowess, one in synchronization and harmony within and in their response to the demands of each situation.
6:59 a.m.
Moody: Being cautious and conservative won’t work against Rohit
Australia depends on top-order batting, who will struggle against Indian quicks, says Anil Kumble
In a way, the contrasting paths taken by these two teams to the final reflect the situation of their leaders.
Rohit led with swagger with the bat, sacrificing his personal runs in favor of setting a ferocious tempo for his team and easing the path for the batters following him. He displayed tactical acumen acquired over many years at the helm of the IPL, during which he combined meticulous planning with situational awareness. He learned to respect data, but not at the expense of intuition.
Pat Cummins, meanwhile, had to learn on the job, having had no real experience as a white-ball captain, and like his team, he improved as his side went deeper in the tournament. He had the unequivocal support and respect of his teammates in his favor. Australia under his leadership are no longer the fractious warmongers of old, which disappoints some of the Australian cricket community, but they are, by all accounts, more united than many of their formidable teams in the recent past. And while Rohit laid the foundation for many Indian victories with some of the fastest innings of the tournament, Cummins helped close out games with some of the slowest, played with composure and awareness of the game.
What they have in common is how they have fostered an environment of trust and transparency, built through communication and honesty. No Indian player on this team, including those on the bench – and perhaps especially those – questioned his status and role. Cummins won his team over by publicly taking a stand in their favor after the rancorous departure of Justin Langer, whose ferocious intensity as coach wasn’t for everyone. The value of a happy closet is intangible to most of us but invaluable to those in it.
2:34
Cummins: we must be courageous in the face of variations in India
The Australian captain is ready to take on whatever India throws at him in the World Cup final.
Neither played the last World Cup match between their teams at the site of their next match. Rohit narrowly missed out on making the 2011 World Cup squad, and Cummins would not make his Australian debut until later that year. The Motera ground looked much more modest than its mammoth successor, but it was here that India ended Australia’s 12-year reign as ODI world champions by beating them for the first time in a knockout match.
So here we are at last, a tournament which tested endurance and determination as much as skill and ability, and which, except for the first few days, saw vibrant crowds on the field and record audiences, is now ready for a proper tournament. outcome. At times it seemed too long and arduous, but it is precisely for this reason, because of its scale and the physical and mental challenges it posed, that winning it will bring an immense sense of fulfillment to the players and leave lasting memories for fans.
India and Australia, two vastly contrasting nations, two of cricket’s powerhouses, who have built the fiercest, most competitive and most captivating rivalry of this century, which has produced some of the greatest matches in recent memory and are, just as crucially, the most teams that have been successful at the ODI World Cup over time feel like the most worthy contenders for this edition’s prize. India have looked invincible so far, but winning titles is part of Australia’s DNA. World Cup finals haven’t always been the biggest competitions, but given the teams involved in this one, we’re right to expect one that will last a long time.
Sport wouldn’t be what it is if it had to follow predictable scenarios. And we wouldn’t be sports lovers if we stopped dreaming. It would be a miracle if, in terms of drama and twists, this year’s highlight was a redux of 2019. But we’d happily settle for second place if tomorrow comes any closer.
