While it’s being said that India are at an advantage for playing all games in Dubai, critics must realise that this alone doesn’t guarantee them the title
India players walk out to field against Pakistan in Dubai on Sunday. Pic/Getty Images
There is a debate in the media whether the Champions Trophy has been laid out perfectly for Team India, be it by accident or design. Playing all their matches at one venue with minimum travel, a long gap between Game Two and Game Three in the league phase, semi-final and the final (if they make it) at the same venue where they have played their earlier games — India could not have asked for anything better. Their rivals, on the other hand, have been or will be hopping between Pakistan and the UAE, be it hosts Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Zealand, or their prospective rivals in the knockout phase.
ADVERTISEMENT
Geopolitical tension
It can all be attributed to the geopolitical relations between India and Pakistan. The irony of the whole thing is that despite the deep chasm due to political reasons, neither can afford not to play the other in an ICC tournament. Thus, a compromise had been worked out.
Playing ICC events in multiple countries is nothing new, but it is probably the first time that one team has been given preferential treatment. It has rankled a few teams, but they have made only guarded remarks against it. However, former England captain Michael Atherton was quite blatant when he told Nasser Hussain on Sky Sports Podcast: “To me, it’s a hard-to-quantify advantage, but an undeniable advantage. They’re playing at just one venue. Therefore, the selection, you know, can focus in on the conditions in Dubai. And obviously, they know where they’re playing their semi-final and the final when they get through to that. That seems to me to be an undeniable advantage, but, you know, kind of hard to quantify how big an advantage.”
The strongest criticism came from former England fast bowler Jonathan Agnew. “I feel very uncomfortable about the way that India is being treated at the moment,” Agnew told ABC Sport. “This is wrong. If you’re going to play an international tournament, you can’t pick and choose where you play and where you’re not going to play.”
But the fact remains that in the past there have been ICC tournaments played in a single country, and very rarely have the hosts gone on to win the crown despite being in sync with the conditions. England hosted the first three ODI World Cups in 1975, 1979 and 1983, yet they could not win any of them. After winning the title in 1983 at Lord’s, India exited at the semi-final stage at home in 1987. There are numerous such instances over the years where the hosts have found the going too hot. Thus, winning and losing have more to do with how strong the teams are at that time and how well they are performing before the big event.
India’s NZ challenge
As we have known in cricket, just appearing at the venue does not guarantee a win. India are bound to face a big challenge when they take on New Zealand in the last league match on Sunday, especially after the way the Kiwis had outplayed India in the Test series back home last year on spinning tracks. There is no guarantee that India will go on to win the semi-final despite having the so-called advantage of playing in Dubai. Shreyas Iyer was candid when asked about Dubai being an advantage for India. After the victory over Pakistan, he said: “At the end of the day, it’s a neutral venue, it’s a challenge for both the teams. We don’t come and play in Dubai much either.”
The fact of the matter is that India are a powerhouse in cricket, both in terms of the strength of the team and the revenue generated by them for the International Cricket Council coffers. Thus, whenever an ICC event is to be staged either in India or Pakistan, a compromise will have to be worked out even if it gives one of them an advantage. Pakistan have already told the ICC that they will not play their tournament matches in India and a compromise must be worked out with their venues being either in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.
