A "Winning Formula" is not always sustainable

I have watched most of the matches of the ICC WC since 1983, and I am very clear in my mind that undoubtedly, the #Indian team for the ICC WC 2023 (#ICCWC2023) was the best and their performance until the semi-final was fantastic. This was a great opportunity to end the dry phase since 2011 and for many of the team members, this may have been their last chance to play in an ICC World Cup tournament again. Of course there were some flags up-to the run-up to the final, but the Indian team continued to follow a strategy as #Sunil Gavaskar had famously mentioned in one of his newspaper cricket column: A winning formula should not be changed. Luckily for #Shami and the Indian team, this formula was tweaked when all-rounder #Hardik Pandya was injured and had to leave the team. So instead of Hardik and Shardul Thakur, we got #SKY and Mohammed Shami. And until the semi-finals Shami had a fantastic run, whereas SKY did not get many chances. (Many years ago, after an international tournament match, in which the Indian Cricket team had changed its team composition during a crucial match and lost, Sunil Gavaskar had written in his newspaper column "A Winning Formula should not be changed.") #Rohit Sharma led the team as a very good leader and the team members too were all performing well and they had a great bonding with each other, which is very natural when everything is going on well. But that is no reason not to change or tweak the strategies including team composition. For me the lesson was: A 'winning formula' is not always sustainable. The formula should be dynamic, changing every time by being adapted to the situation, especially in today's era where one has many scientific and technological tools available for study and analysis. #Australia had specific strategy/tactic for every player whether it was batting, bowling or fielding. Most of the Indian batsmen got out exactly as per their plan. e.g. They knew Rohit's propensity for pull shots into the stands. They continued to bowl high pitched balls and placed fielders in those positions even if it meant some extra runs. Likewise, they knew #Virat Kohli and his tactic of taking cheeky singles by placing the ball near to the center and running for a run. So they kept on balling in such a way that they will get an inside edge and it happened, even if it was past his half century. The best check-mate was against #SKY - they knew that he uses the pace of the ball and hits them behind the stumps. They bowled only slow balls to him and placed a fielder even at the third man position. He was completely frustrated. They supplemented this bowling plan by superb fielding. The Australian team saved at least 10 fours with their superb fielding by players who could sprint 30-40 meters or more and were not shy in diving or throwing themselves at the bowl. In contrast our bowlers and fielders were not on the same page. Otherwise the very first ball of the 2nd innings (of Australia's batting,) could have been a wicket. Our sloppy fielding and inefficient fielding positions gave away many extra runs. Biggest gap in the strategy was to retain the same team in the final. And that too against Australia for whom it is well known that they are very tech savvy and analytical in their planning. (Not that we may not be having recourse to such resources, especially when we have #Rahul Dravid and team as coach.) So a surprise element as well team fortification by bringing in Prasidh Krishna (in place of SKY,) and #R Ashwin (in place of Siraj,) could have made a big difference. Australia's difficulty against spin was exposed in their matches against Afghanistan and SA, and that too when they were batting in the 2nd innings when there is dew problem. This was not exploited by India fully and instead chose to go by the skills and track record of #Bhumra and #Shami, the latter clearly overwhelmed by the pressure of the final.