It has been three days since India lifted the ICC Champions Trophy by beating New Zealand by four wickets and with six deliveries remaining in the final in Dubai, and on the flight back from the UAE to India yesterday, I spent much of my time pondering these questions.
Was the tournament a success? Did it attract fans back to ODI cricket? Was the Champions Trophy an indication of where the 50-over game is headed? And why was the tournament brought back after eight years?
From an Indian perspective, the tournament was undoubtedly a resounding success because Rohit Sharma’s team went unbeaten across five matches to win the Champions Trophy, nine months after winning the T20 World Cup. This also spelt good news for the host broadcasters, who, prima facie, appear to be the driving force behind the tournament returning after eight years.
How else can you explain an eight-team tournament spanning 19 days with the Indian team having six days off between games and three days between the second semi-final and the final?
Of course, India needed this tournament to underline emphatically why it is a very sorted white-ball team, regardless of the fact that it failed to win the biggest ICC price on November 19, 2023, in Ahmedabad. Winning 23 out of 24 completed games across three limited-overs tournaments in the span of 20-odd months is an amazing achievement, and nine months after lifting the T20 World Cup in the Caribbean, where they won nine out of nine, to go unbeaten in this Champions Trophy shows how good this Indian team is.
Which is why Rohit, sitting next to the trophy after Sunday’s final, looked lovingly at it before turning back to answer an Indian reporter’s question on what this victory means after losing the ODI World Cup final and winning the T20 World Cup final, stressed on the fact that just winning a 50-over ICC prize takes a heck of an effort and means plenty to those who succeed in doing so.
Yes, Rohit’s team had an unfair advantage by being based in Dubai right through the tournament, but it is not the reason for its success. India beat all comers and remained unbeaten in the Champions Trophy because they are a superior ODI team, with terrific balance and a rich blend of experience and precocious talent. Make no mistake: Rohit and his men lifted the Champions Trophy on merit and skill, not because they did not have to travel outside of Dubai.
But on a larger level, keeping in mind the state of ODI cricket at the bilateral stage, outside of such ICC events and tournaments such as the Asia Cup, I am not sure if rebooting the Champions Trophy has proven a success. Or whether it is an accurate barometer of where the format is headed.
Did we really need another 50-over tournament – the ‘mini World Cup’ as it has been dubbed – squeezed in? Well, you can hear a hypothetical ‘ka-ching’ drop somewhere, if you listen closely.
Scheduling issues aside, since Covid-19 this is the seventh ICC men’s tournament across three formats, and in less than four months we will have an eighth, the World Test Championship final. In early 2026 is the fourth men’s T20 World Cup in under five years, and in 2027 is the men’s ODI World Cup.
Perhaps audience apathy has spoken. Be it in Pakistan or Dubai, stadiums were not always sold out. Pakistan hosted eight out of 15 matches in the tournament and the crowds were not as good as what the ICC and PCB had hoped for. Two complete washouts did not help, for sure, but something was amiss in those remaining matches played in Pakistan.
The Afghanistan team’s presence in Lahore, particularly, and Karachi drew big numbers whereas Pakistan’s two matches at home – the unprecedented rain in Rawalpindi was a factor – did not attract as many local fans as expected. India’s opener in Dubai against Bangladesh was barely half full in terms of occupancy, and their league game versus New Zealand, as well as the semi-final with Australia, were not 100% sellouts.
And then there was the level of skill on view. India and New Zealand were the best two teams at the Champions Trophy, this was plain to see weeks before the tournament began. India have virtually patented the ODI template, and the Black Caps are, as Rohit and Virat Kohli publicly outlined after the final, the most thoroughly planned and persistent team at ICC events. Australia were severely hampered by the loss of six first-choice players, casting the shadow of the upcoming IPL over this competition; South Africa welcomed back a few big names but their death overs bowling and big-match temperament once again stood out; and Afghanistan looked to this writer as semi-final material only to pay the price for a poor start before they were hit a no-result, after giving us the game of the tournament by beating England.
Speaking of whom, England under Jos Buttler have seemingly forgotten how to play one-day cricket and they limped out after two losses. That left Pakistan and Bangladesh, two poor ODI sides who ended up not winning a match.
Against this backdrop of a poor playing field, how much should India’s success be toasted? And did the return of the Champions Trophy vindicate the need for such a competition between ODI and T20 World Cups? Is it the solution to a slew of meaningless bilateral series?
As far as I am concerned, a tournament that spanned 19 days with just eight teams competing in it, of which not more than three were competitive, and with scheduling issues that divided opinion, rightfully, came with more problems than solutions.
