Team India out, but not down; let’s not forget to see the positives

The objective of any sport is to entertain. But, it is often an irony that it has the potential to cause as much excruciating pain as it can provide profound joy. Sporting success at the international level is often a matter of national pride and for India, which has been a one-sport nation for a good part of the last few decades, its national cricket team’s performances invite absolute ecstasy or utter despair.

As irrational as it may sound, the Men in Blue have an average sports-loving Indian’s pride invested in them at all times. And a wound caused by an unexpected setback at the world’s biggest stage will take time to heal. It will take a while for Indians to forget the image of Martin Guptill’s throw illuminating the bails, with Dhoni falling short by a few inches. A seventh heaven moment for one, but has a devastating impact on the other. But, that’s the beauty of sport, isn’t it?

I love my country and my team, as much as I love the game of cricket, but I cannot afford to fret beyond this point. One of the challenges writing a weekly column presents, I reckon. It’s a fact that emotions hit you a lot harder when you are younger and the impact of your favourite team losing a close match takes longer to leave you. There have been moments that have left me with a disturbed mind for days together—Javagal Srinath’s last ball heave and a drop catch by Steve Waugh being insufficient to prevent India going down to Australia by one run in the 1992 World Cup; Sachin Tendulkar limping off the Chepauk pitch after his 136 had taken his country tantalisingly close to a victory against Pakistan in the historic 1999 Test series; India falling short, despite a scintillating 175 by the little master again, chasing a mammoth Australian score of 350 in an ODI in Visakhapatnam in 2009—some wounds never heal completely.

With the ICC opting for a format that was used only once before—in the 1992 edition—there is a striking similarity in terms of the points table, too. What New Zealand were in 1992, India were in this edition. The Kiwis had lost only one match in the round robin stage 27 years ago, and so did India this time.

So, were the Men in Blue the best side of the tournament? Well, that is debatable, but the results show they were. There were talks of our batting being “top-heavy” and a vulnerable middle order, even before the start of the tournament. I remember getting into a friendly argument with a celebrated sports journalist, weeks before the start of the World Cup, when he opined, “Kohli batting at No 3 is a definite recipe for disaster”.

I had always felt that this Indian batting order would find it difficult to recover from a 30 for 3 position. And, there they were, 5 for 3 in the semifinal, against a Kiwi bowling attack that started to perform to its potential in helpful conditions, and 240, all of a sudden, started to look like the Mount Everest. India could not set a thing right till the brilliant partnership between the Chennai Super Kings mates re-kindled a billion hopes.

When we do a post-mortem and raise serious questions about the team management, from issues ranging from some baffling choice of players to the batting order in the semifinal, let us not forget to see the positives. Yes, success in a tournament like this means winning the trophy eventually, but one should not take anything away from Team India’s 80 per cent win record in the matches it played in the tournament.

A good sales professional will tell you that making a good presentation to a prospective customer is of no use unless you ‘close’ the deal. And ‘closing’ has been a problem with Indian sport for long. I have often felt that we, as a sporting nation, have been quite content and happy to “give a good fight” and not necessarily win. From P.T. Usha’s ‘one-hundredth of a second medal miss’ to Vijay Amritraj losing a match to Jimmy Connors after leading by two sets in the Wimbledon quarterfinals, we have numerous instances.

“Not closing the gate after the cows are in the corral,” noted the late Arthur Ashe about Vijay Amritraj’s tendency to lose matches from winning positions. Former India hockey player and coach Vasudevan Baskaran shared with me the other day his memories of how Poland, a lesser force in world hockey, stalled India’s progress to the semifinal with an equaliser with just over a minute left on the clock, in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

In fact, failing to ‘close’ has been a typical Indian thing when it comes to sports. This is where Virat and his boys have been different. They have been clinical on most occasions and even when they were not, they found a way to win. Even in the semifinal, when they looked down and out, Dhoni and Jadeja managed to stitch together a partnership and take the game deep. Despite the shaky middle order, it would have been a different story had one of the top three Indian batsmen managed to get his eye in, but not to be. In our sheer disappointment and pain, let us not forget to see the brighter side of India’s world cup campaign.

Finally, a word about New Zealand. It has always been one of my favourite sides in world cricket. They have always been a team made up of some very good cricketers and mostly devoid of superstars. It is hard to find a ‘loud’ New Zealand cricketer. Humility is their watchword and you hardly find a reason to detest them. The final is going to be a clash between two amazing captains, too. When Kane Williamson has been brilliant for New Zealand, Eoin Morgan has been largely responsible for transforming England from an average side to a formidable force. It is heartening to see England play a brand of attacking cricket and Morgan’s influence has been the catalyst.

The final will be interesting and we will have a brand new champion. England might have their noses slightly ahead playing at home and also the experience of three world cup finals backing them as opposed to New Zealand’s one appearance in the final. When my head says England, my heart says New Zealand!

Sreeduth is a sports broadcaster, management consultant, quiz show host, columnist and a noted percussionist as well.