India, Australia and a World Cup final of complete contrast

India entered the 2023 ODI World Cup final as the all-conquering, seemingly invincible machine, having won every single game up until that point. Parallels, in fact, were drawn with how Australia had similarly dominated the 2003 edition in South Africa, where they eventually beat India in Johannesburg to lift the title.

That was not all. Australia, like India had done in 2003, had won eight on the spin to get to the summit clash. They had lost to the Men In Blue in a round-robin game and were facing a team that seemed to have no weaknesses.

The hosts, thus, were the irresistible force coming into the final, akin to Australia in 2003. Australia, being Australia, were this immovable object, hoping to stop a juggernaut and carve their own piece of cricketing history.

Plenty of similarities then. The only contrast, though, was that the irresistible force triumphed in 2003. And the immovable object refused to budge in 2023. These two defeats will now haunt two generations of Indian fans and just go on to reiterate that there is nothing quite like Australia in World Cup games that have everything at stake.

It all began at the toss…

Australia’s World Cup started against the hosts, back in October in Chennai. On that afternoon, Pat Cummins did win the toss, and elected to bat first on a crumbly surface that would provide Kuldeep Yadav, Ravichandran Ashwin, and Ravindra Jadeja plenty of turn.

The five-time winners could not cross 200 in Chennai, and batting became easier as the lights took over, meaning that Australia could not capitalize despite taking three very early wickets.

So, there was some precedent to back up Cummins’ decision to bowl first in the final. Yes, the pitch seemed very abrasive and was very likely to break up. But he also knew that batting under lights in Ahmedabad might be a better idea, even if it meant tackling that tricky twilight period when the new ball would hoop around.

In the end, it paid off.

Cummins, though, might have gotten his wish anyway, if Rohit Sharma’s words at the toss were anything to by. He mentioned that they would have batted first had they won the toss, and wanted runs on the board.

India wanted to set up the game for their bowlers later; Australia wanted their batters to bear more of the pressure. Intriguing but contrasting. Which brings us to…

The manner in which both teams batted.

India hit just four boundaries after the first powerplay

The hosts raced out of the traps, courtesy of their captain. Once he fell, though, they soon found themselves 81-3 inside 11 overs. The run rate was still healthy and the two-time champions, had they been proactive, might have been able to transfer pressure after Australia’s two-wicket salvo.

Instead, they went into their shell completely, hitting just four boundaries after the powerplay, two of which were hit by Mohammed Shami and Mohammed Siraj. KL Rahul and Virat Kohli stuck around for 109 balls, but those balls yielded just 67 runs.

Rebuilding was perhaps the need of the hour but a bit more intent would not have hurt India, at least from one of the batters. If anything, it would have asked a new question of Australia, and disabled them from controlling the middle overs and the death overs as they did.

Contrast that to Australia. Yes, they knew exactly how many they needed to win, but they were still 47-3 in seven overs, with David Warner, Mitchell Marsh, and Steve Smith being back in the hut.

After an initial lull, Travis Head took matters into his own hands and punished the bowlers whenever they erred in lines and lengths. The intent he showed also forced India into doing things they would have ordinarily not done.

Rather than bowling accurately and building pressure, which Australia did superbly in the afternoon by denying batters width, India felt the urge to go searching for wickets. And that inevitably led to more mistakes and boundary-scoring opportunities.

Of course, there can be countless hours of discussion on how Australia got the better of the conditions, but the bare fact remains that they were braver, more courageous, and backed their game much more than India did in a high-pressure contest.

Marnus Labuschagne’s role must not be understated either. He soaked up all the pressure and frustrated the hosts. If you look at the raw numbers, though, his strike rate was lower than that of Rahul. But he had someone at the other end willing to take risks, which allowed Labuschagne the luxury to just stay at the crease and not really worry about the scoring rate.

This, in many ways, was why Labuschagne was picked to fill that final middle-order batting spot. To avert collapses and bring a bit of calm to pressure situations.

Interestingly, the batter India decided to add to their middle order after Hardik Pandya was ruled out, and found himself doing, well, something that would not have been at the top of his wish list. Not in terms of having to finish the innings, but the fact that he had to curb his natural instincts initially, and play a bit of a waiting game.

Support was not forthcoming from elsewhere either, and Suryakumar Yadav did not help himself with the way he farmed strike alongside lower-order batters.

All of this just shows how contrasting the World Cup final was for India and Australia. And how one team fashioned the situation of their choices, and the other was left ruing the circumstances they found themselves in, ultimately being unable to find a riposte.

Prior to the match, the entire narrative was about India shedding their 10-year ICC trophy baggage and giving a billion fans something special to tell generations about. Instead, it became about how Australia, almost always, find a way, especially in the games that really matter.

India, after showcasing fearlessness throughout the group stages and the semi-final, just seemed bereft of ideas with the bat. Australia, despite a shaky beginning, peaked at the moment when they needed to, even overcoming a batting scare at the very start, much like India did when these sides met in Chennai six weeks ago.

Both nations will look back at this World Cup fondly, of that there is little doubt. India made more than a billion people believe. They did almost everything right up until then. Like Australia had done in 2003, and in 2007. Undefeated. Across 10 matches, and extraordinarily dominant.

But they could not replicate what Australia are masters at - winning the final game of the World Cup. And for now, it is that contrast that will hurt India and their fans, and it will take a while (or something absurdly special) in the next few weeks to completely get over.