WORLD CUP IN RETROSPECT

Raghunath Rau*

---

It was not exactly the hero’s welcome that had been anticipated and planned for a victorious team. At the same time there were no boos and brickbats, which also comes so naturally to us, for a side which failed to live up to the highest expectations.

By Indian standards of going to extremes, the reception which Sourav Ganguly and his fellow players got on return from their World Cup campaign in South Africa was low-key and yet warm and affectionate. It reflected genuine appreciation of the good fight they had put up, and acceptance of the fact that ultimately they had lost to a better side, and that there was no disgrace in that.

What a far cry from the scenes at the start of the six-week campaign, when things were not going too well for the squad. The defeat in just the second match, and by the same Australian side they met up against in the final, had led to threatening calls to the players’ families and some of their houses being vandalized. Sourav Ganguly’s own brother led a mock "funeral" procession and cremation of Indian cricket, leading to fears for the safety of the players on their return.

While such behaviour can never be justified, there can be no denying the fact that the universal revulsion against the team’s poor start had a salutary effect on the players. The kick on the backside they received then was powerful enough to bring about a sea-change in their approach and attitude for the rest of the tournament.

There was a world of a difference in the team which lost the second match and the side which lost the final, though the margins of defeat were large in both cases. For, by the time they reached the final India were oozing with so much confidence that sponsors and fans were falling over each other to offer the players fantastic incentives for coming back with the cup. It was another matter that at the last hurdle they ran up against an Australian side who played well above even their own very high standards to live up to the tag of being the cricket side ever in the history of the game.

In a sense, it was just as well perhaps that the extravagant goodies being offered to the Indian players in the event of a cup triumph finally had to be kept under wraps. For, it looked as if this business of commercialization of the game was getting out of hand. Indeed, there was something tasteless about the whole thing.

As a media person, I found it particularly regrettable that a television news channel started asking for contributions to the players, with the promise of the donors’ names being flashed on the screen. The channel itself kicked off the fund-raising drive by putting up Rs 1 crore.

It was as if India’s cricketers were cyclone, flood or earthquake victims! They might create such situations with their game, but they are in no need for any such hand-outs. Fortunately, the grant of the sum was conditional on their winning the trophy, and the money was later returned to the donors.

Then there was the case of a private industrial group offering luxury flats to the players near Mumbai. In fact, the players sported brand name on their shirt sleeves, thus neatly side-stepping the ban on the group as the sponsors of the side. But the luxurious ambience of the promised El Dorado stays outside the reach of the players, unless they cough up the money themselves for the flats, which some of them will surely be able to with their earnings from the Cup.

There were many other instances of the cricketers being granted undue favours incuding tax concessions, for which the Finance Minister was criticized in many quarters. Because of such favours the anger against the players was compounded notwithstanding their poor showing initially.

Be that as it may, India’s game improved steadily with each encounter after the initial defeat by Australia in the league phase. First, England were consumed, and then the win over Pakistan was just the morale-booster which the team and the whole country had been looking for.

With each match Sachin Tendulkar reaffirmed his status as the world’s best batsman. Wasim Akram’s outburst at the fielder who dropped a catch off Sachin in the match against Pakistan – "Do you realize whom you have let off?" spoken in Punjabi – said it all.

And it was not just Sachin. The skipper had an indifferent start to the tournament, but steadily picked up steam. With that his confidence also grew, and by the end he was leading from up front, something which he had quite often failed to do in the past.

Virender Sehwag and Mohammed Kaif also came good at various stages. Rahul Dravid, belying fears that the additional burden of keeping wickets would tell on his batting, was solidity personified. In fact, the most impressive aspect of the Indian team was the depth of its batting.

That, however, led to a bit of controversy of its own. Many critics felt that there was no need for Ganguly to pack the side with as many as seven batsmen, while a fifth specialist bowler may have been of more use. The most trenchant critic was our own Sandeep Patil, who was speaking as coach of the Kenya team, which he had steered surprisingly to the semi-finals.

Patil felt that the seven batsmen in the side reflected a defeatist mentality on the part of Ganguly. As he put it, if six batsmen cannot deliver the goods what use is a seventh one going to be of?

That feeling was particularly evident in the final, when an experienced bowler like Anil Kumble could have worked in tandem with Harbhajan, who took both the Australian wickets to fall. Ganguly compounded the problem by asking Australia to bat after winning the toss. Even after his return, Ganguly continued to insist that his decision was right because of the moisture in the pitch, and that it was the medium-pacers who had an off day.

But many people still feel that this was yet another example of Ganguly’s defensive approach. With such a strong batting line-up at his command, why did he not bat first and put as many runs on the board as possible? Or were the Indians scared of facing McGrath and Bret Lee straight off, especially after their experience in the first match?

Cricket buffs will debate such questions for a long time. Yet, there can be no denying the fact that Ricky Ponting simply brooked no stopping that day, and that no amount of shuffling of the attack could have helped. Ponting’s murderous mood as he raced to his century can only be compared to Sachin Tendulkar at his best, and that is high praise indeed.

Ganguly was right in saying that 359 was simply too big a score to bat against. And to make matters worse Sachin fell in the first over. Dravid and Sehwag tried bravely to repair the damage of the early loss of wickets, but the task was well nigh impossible.

The failure in the final did not prevent Sachin Tendulkar from being named the Man of the Tournament. He had put his stamp on the show well before that as the highest scorer among all teams.

A revelation from the Indian point of view was the emergence of Zaheer Khan and Ashish Nehra as pace bowlers of a fair degree of class, though they, too, had an off day in the final. With Javagal Srinath likely to announce his retirement soon, it is good that India have two youngsters who can perform the job as well and, more important, be around for some time to come.

As for Australia, no praise can be too high for them. They had a disastrous start to the campaign when Shane Warne had to return home in disgrace after being tested positive for drugs without playing a single match. Thereafter a key strike bowler like Jason Gillespie was injured during a crucial period of the tournament.

And yet, Australia showed that they are not called "Invincibles" for nothing. Not only this is their second World Cup in succession, they have now an unbeaten 17 victories in one-day internationals, something unique considering that the shortened version of the game is always regarded as some sort of a roulette where predictions can go haywire any day.

This is apart from the fact that Australia are supreme in Test match arena as well. Their Test captain Steve Waugh, with a unique record there, is still considered to be not good enough for one-day internationals! That is true depth of talent for you.

The word "Invincibles" was first used for Don Bradman’s 1948 squad. But even the Don, had he been around today, would have acknowledged that Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting have stolen a march over him in terms of the team.

All in all, this was a wonderful World Cup. Acrimony was kept to a minimum, and there was not even a hint of match-fixing or any other form of corruption. Not even when Kenya were beating three Test playing countries. The game is truly becoming universal.(PIB Features)