The Cricket World Cup 2023, arguably the cricketing event of the year, has finally concluded. It is truly calming to wake up in a world where the Australians have silenced a fervent crowd of 130,000 at the Ahmedabad stadium, emerging victorious against a mountain of odds stacked against the now six-time champs.
In an alternate universe, had the Indians won, we would have to endure an endless parade of praises about their performance for the next four years.
A complete Bollywood treatment with movies, songs and even some reality television would have been expected.
Indian fans and commentators would probably have inundated us with discussions about their team's triumph, waxing lyrical about the prowess of their bowlers. The phrase "defending champions" would have become nauseatingly commonplace.
Alas, it was not to be.
Therefore, I am content that the Australians, rightfully on the day, defeated an Indian team that had played exceptionally for 45 days. That this "well-oiled" Indian victory machine froze and lost to Pat Cummins's team, which was infused with character, grit, and self-belief, adds something extra.
Typical Aussie unwavering self-confidence enabled them to overcome many challenges and silence the massive crowd to the extent that you could hear a pin drop in the middle of the stadium during the finale.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that if any attack could tame the formidable Indian batting, it was Pat Cummins and company. In particular, Stark's performance during the World Cup led me to don the hat of a modern-day Nostradamus and predict that Aussie bowlers could sufficiently challenge the Indian batting. This was despite the fact that they had somewhat underwhelmed in the first meeting between the sides during the tournament on October 8, when Australia were bowled out at 199. India easily assailed that score for the loss of four wickets with over eight overs to spare.
Finally, on November 19, the long-awaited final of this year's World Cup arrived. Charismatic Australian skipper Cummins stepped up and won the toss. Most expected that he would opt to bat, and we could see a somewhat repeat of October 8. But he surprised everyone by opting to bowl first.
Initially taken aback, I quickly realised the wisdom behind his decision to field first on such a sluggish-looking pitch.
By bowling first, Cummins planned to give his bowlers the advantage of the dry ball on that pitch before the onset of dew in the early evening. Cummins, perhaps, wanted to neutralise India's strength in chasing totals. His well-thought-out plan fully anticipated every Indian move and effectively countered it.
For me, how Cummins orchestrated Sharma's dismissal signalled the Aussies' determination to turn the game in their favour
Cricket, however, is never as straightforward as winning the toss and making the right strategic decisions. It is intricately beautiful and infinitely more intensive.
During the final, Australia always seemed to be on the brink of lifting the trophy. They did most things right, like handling pressure gracefully, nor did they crumble like a cookie with too little butter.
A lesser captain would have panicked when Rohit Sharma was in the middle of his power-play onslaught. However, Cummins maintained his composure. He took a look around his squad, mustered up the courage, and threw on Maxwell.
The double centurion hero of Wankhede Stadium, Maxwell delivered what his captain asked of him, delivering Sharma's crucial wicket. A miscued inside-out strike by the Indian skipper and a splendid catch taken by the miraculous Head was nothing short of a turning point.
Once again, the roaring crowd inside the packed Narendra Modi Stadium fell silent like a church mouse! I think, secretly, even Cummins believes that silencing such a passionate crowd is worth a trophy in itself.
For me, how Cummins orchestrated Sharma's dismissal signalled the Aussies' determination to turn the game in their favour.
Another pivotal moment was the dismissal of the in-form Shreyas Iyer. He had batted like a Ferrari on turbo mode during the tournament, but on Sunday, Cummins quickly dispatched him back to the pavillion for an early shower.
I believe his dismissal on the edge of the power play was of the keys to halting the Indian innings and transforming them into a less confident team.
KL Rahul's innings, devoid of intent and shackled by Australian bowlers, dashed any remaining hopes for India to post a mammoth total for Australia to chase.
He remained under shackles for a long time. The demands of rotating the strike from the Indian commentators far away in the commentator's box fell on deaf ears. That partnership, it seemed, lulled everyone in the stadium to sleep.
As KL Rahul and Virat attempted to resurrect the Indian innings, they did not attack at all. Consequently, it put more pressure on them and onall the others who had yet to follow.
When you compare Rahul and Virat's partnership to that of Head and Marnus, it becomes clear where the Indians lost the game.
In a big pressure final, such as Sunday's, when the hopes and dreams of nearly 1.4 billion people are pinned on you, sometimes a Pandya is what a captain needs
While the Aussies faced greater trouble at one point in time when they lost three wickets in the span of a few overs, Head and Marnus played their roles perfectly. Head attacked, even in tight situations, while Labuchange defended and took singles to rotate the strike. They never stopped playing the game. Their partnership was refreshing and showcased breathtaking intent and courage.
Ultimately, Australia won the World Cup through a combination of leadership, fabulous bowling by Stark, Cummins, and Hazelwood, and disciplined spinners executing a well-devised plan.
Every player played their part, and the Aussies were the deserving winners on the day.
I empathise with Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma, who almost steered their boat to shore, but KL Rahul's slow-paced innings let them down and eviscerated their plan of winning a World Cup on home soil.
Sharma, who had led his team beautifully throughout the event, maintaining an unfathomable unbeaten record until the final, seemed off his game as a captain when it mattered most. I think he also missed the services of his talisman Pandya, both as a sixth bowler and a batter.
In a big pressure final, such as Sunday's, when the hopes and dreams of nearly 1.4 billion people are pinned on you, sometimes a Pandya is what a captain needs rather than ainstead of KL Rahul.
Sharma's decision to reverse the roles of Siraj and Shami proved unnecessary. Perhaps his hand was forced because he was defending a low score.
His selection could have been more imaginative - he should opted for Ishan Kishan in the middle order instead of Surya Kumar Yadav, who is basically a T20 player and has proved to be largely unsuccessful in this format. I believe Yadav is overrated.
In the end, the team with more character and better man-management won. They endured the pressure from the thousands in the stadium and the hundreds of millions outside of it with consummate ease.
Bravo, Pat Cummins and troops. Its time to kick up and enjoy a cold one.