Dear Cricket, You’re Welcome, Love, India

Everyone loves the story of an underdog. 

It’s a story that resonates across cultures and generations - a tale of people rising against the odds to claim their place among the best, and then becoming better.

It might be hard to remember or even comprehend today, but the Indian cricket team was once reaching for the bottom rung of the ladder where the game’s absolute titans stood. For now, I want to focus on India's one day cricket history and how it has evolved into what it is today. Not because we haven't achieved glory in test cricket, but it would take many more words than I'm able to conjure at the moment. 

One day international cricket matches, ODIs for short, were alien to India. So much so that the BCCI even rejected the offer from cricketing superpower England to participate in the first edition of the world cup. But mounting pressure from the ICC and the MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) forced their hand into participating with a team which had never played an ODI before. It should come as no great surprise that we lost all three group matches and were out of the tournament.

The next World Cup was in 1979, and India's performance was no different. The winner of the earlier world cup, West Indies, completely ran roughshod over all teams, and, unsurprisingly, us too. At the risk of sounding reductive, we were a timid and reticent people, and that was reflected in our cricket. In contrast, the West Indies were bold, brash, and supremely confident. 

The BCCI had no funding and relied on donations from wealthy patrons.

Not to forget, The BCCI had the lightest coffers in the world and mostly relied on donations to keep itself alive. Players not getting paid wasn't the exception, it was the norm. It is well known that the BCCI could barely afford to send players abroad for matches and had to decline many invitations from other richer nations for this reason.

The '83

After suffering humiliating exits in the past two editions, the need for a more aggressive brand of cricket was widely acknowledged both in the press and the people's court. Another area was fitness - Indian cricketers were one of the most unfit players taking the field, this also needed to be addressed. I won't delve into what happened during the 1983 world cup because anyone with a passing interest in cricket knows about it. 

We beat the West Indies in the final of the tourney to become champions. The West Indians were the same dominant force that played in the last two editions. There was no lack of bold, brash, and confident cricket. But they were no match for the Best Indians on the day. Terrible wordplay aside, let's continue.

There was one particular incident which most of the cricketing fraternity have forgotten, which is especially relevant today in the aftermath of allegations against the ICT (Indian Cricket Team). The incident involved the then BCCI President, NKP Salve being refused tickets by England to the finals. This was for no other reason than that the MCC had 'strict ticketing policies' and was looking to enforce it. 

I fail to understand why, because England wasn't playing, so I would deduce there'd be a lot of empty seats, but I digress. Many people felt the MCC were being childish and petulant because England didn't make it to the finals unlike the last two times. So I guess, essentially, MCC felt that it was beaten by WI AND India, which is quite a reach, but gratifying.

The MCC

The MCC back then was the sole owner of cricket or acted as much. It is another discussion that even when they had complete control, they still never won anything apart from the occasional bilateral series with Australia. Then they had to hype up this bilateral with a story about someone burning a cricket ball or bail, I forget. At least some things don't change, eh?

On paper, the ICC decided where the tournament was held but it was the MCC's call.

While on paper the ICC is the one who decides where the tournament was held, the hand inside the sock puppet belonged to MCC. One of their reasons was 'Limited global interest in ODI cricket at the time meant other countries were not ready to host.' If you believe that, I've got a Taj Mahal to sell you, for cheap. Anyway, this meant that 3 world cups over a decade were exclusively held in England. At the behest of the ICC, of course, not the MCC, of course not. 

But after the snub at the '83 world cup, India and others pushed for the event to be held at other venues apart. Ever since then, the WC has moved to different countries giving everyone a chance to play host.

The Champions

So why am I taking you through all this history? Do I have a point, or am I just filling your screen with cricket drivel on a random weekday? Well, I’m glad you asked. I wanted to set the stage - to show how cricket, for decades, was held hostage by a handful of stiff-lipped, high-brow ‘lords’ perched in their ivory MCC towers, dictating terms to the rest of the world. And now, ironically, we’re being accused of doing the same.

After the conclusion of this year's Champions Trophy, which India won, there was a lot of chatter. Most of this centered around India having an advantage and how we 'bullied' other teams to winning the tournament. For better but mostly worse, I'm on Reddit. The meltdown over there is real, unreal, or surreal depending on your vocabulary. The number of people being salty that India won has to be seen to be believed. 

One of the loudest of these, for the lack of a more apt word, delulu-sions is the fact that India benefits from not having to travel AND has a 'home' advantage. Let's dismantle these claims the best way possible - with copious amounts of sarcasm and hyperbole.

The Advantage(s)

Australia, England, Pakistan, and South Africa are all complaining about this mystical 'advantage' India has had throughout the tournament. Honestly, I expected England, Australia, and Pakistan to do this. England and Pakistan because their own teams are, to put it kindly, struggling. Australia because, well, it’s the Australian press. I’ve heard everything from England/Australia’s 'ICC owned by BCCI' to Pakistan’s 'Zionists of cricket won,' which is hilarious. I mean, if you’re talking about human rights violations, maybe look out the window.

But really, I want to know what travel or home ground advantage the Indian team had. The modern cricketer is expected to travel. The ICT were the proverbial Traveling Salesman Problem for the 2023 World Cup, hosted by us. We traveled more than all the other teams in the tournament during the World Cup. India's travel burdens were close to 15,000 kilometers compared to the next closest, 8,000 that the English did. The counter argument the average cricket expert makes is that just winning or losing despite travel doesn't mean an advantage does not exist. So, teams also require skill to win? Thanks for proving my point I guess? 

A funny aside to the traveling argument here is that England traveled all those kilometers in the WC 23 to lose to sides like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. I guess that's what happens when you win a world cup off overthrows from the back of a bat. 

Whinging about travel is the least productive thing you can do in a tournament. One South African cricketer who was so frustrated with their travel plans he pledged his support to New Zealand in the finals. Another fragile, diva cricketer withholding support is utterly meaningless to a team like India who's second-string team could put his team out of the tournament. Also, considering SA's pitiful record for choking in all ICC tourneys, this 'support' might have even jinxed NZ, just saying.

Also, there's this open secret that people don't talk about these days. People are ostriching around this fact so much that I don't even hear it stated explicitly from foreign reporters. This fact is that today's Indian team just can't play spin for nuts. There, I said it. From complete dominance against anything flighted above the eye level to our best getting leg-before-d by a super-average offie, the pendulum has swung for the ICT. 

The reason I bring this to the fore, is to emphasize the fact the slow turning tracks of Dubai had nothing to offer our batsmen. In fact, on a quicker wicket, there would be even more complaints from the opposition about excess traveling, only this time it would be from fetching balls from the boundary.

The Takeaway

I know I sound arrogant. But you would too if you were raised on a steady diet of 'not being good enough' to where we are now. I remember our team being slapped around by other teams for fun, on the ground and off it. The other teams were more talented, fitter, and generally more used to winning than us. After the sole high point of 1983, for nearly three decades people switched off the TV when that one wicket fell, until 2011 when our faith was renewed. 

And the defeats weren’t the worst part—it was what came with them. Sometimes, even wins didn’t change that. Things like reading a placard that read "FUCK YOU CURRY EATERS" on TV when you're 13 years old and wondering what about it felt wrong. And it even happens today.

So you can see what fuels our cricket culture. 

It’s not arrogance - it’s defiance. It is decades of being told we weren’t good enough, only to put the world's best in their place. And yes, we celebrate loudly, sometimes obnoxiously, because we’ve earned the right to. 

But our contribution to cricket goes beyond just winning. Wherever we go, we bring stadiums to life, turning matches into thronging spectacles. Our cricketers have redefined the game with their genius, making cricket not just a sport but an art form. The IPL revolutionized the game, bringing in glitz, glamour, and a global audience. Cricket wouldn’t be what it is today without us. Love or hate us, that is the truth.

I want to finish this with KL Rahul’s homage to Kanye West’s iconic line from the post-match interview: ‘Everybody wants to know what I would do if I didn’t win… I guess we’ll never know.’

Everyone loves the story of the underdog - until they become the fucking giants.