Team India retain the relevance of Champions Trophy

To say that Rohit Sharma and his band rescued the ninth edition of the Champions Trophy from devolving into a tournament of little context and relevance might be an overstatement. But there is no denying the fact that the profile of the tournament was lifted by India’s unbeaten charge to an unprecedented third title, no matter that the usual finger-pointing from teams that were not even in the running has assumed ridiculous proportions.

In a way, the 2025 edition of the Champions Trophy was an underwhelming one because of the hybrid model it was forced to adopt once the Indian government refused permission for its national team to travel to Pakistan, who were awarded the staging rights by the International Cricket Council in 2021. It’s worth reiterating that neither the Board of Control for Cricket in India, nor India’s players themselves, expressed reservations about playing in Pakistan. They were merely toeing the government line, conveniently overlooked by those who kept harping about the advantage conferred on the Indian team because they played all their matches in Dubai, they knew when they would play the semifinal and where they would contest the final, should they get to those stages.

Overlooked in all this hoopla was the quality of cricket India played throughout the competition. India lost all five tosses, again a conveniently ignored reality, yet towered head and shoulders above the rest of the field. They were without the best all-format bowler in the world, and Jasprit Bumrah was barely missed as a four-pronged spin attack and comeback hero Mohammed Shami ensured a deep and powerful batting line-up didn’t have to chase humongous totals which the slow turners at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium precluded in any case.

This isn’t the kind of comeback the Champions Trophy was aiming for. Originally conceived in 1998 as a snappy knockout tournament involving the eight best teams in the world, it has stumbled for relevance. It moved into a league-cum-knockout event from 2002, diluting its status as the mini-World Cup. In 2004 in England, United States played in cricket’s Champions Trophy. Well…

Put on hold after the 2017 edition which Pakistan clinched at India’s expense, the tournament was revived in its now stable new avatar. The hybrid model wasn’t ideal – those who have ranted about India’s advantage haven’t offered even a half-alternative given the circumstances – but there was no option once the Indian government stepped in. The schedule for the tournament was announced on December 24; it wasn’t until India won two matches in Dubai, on February 20 and 23 against Bangladesh and Pakistan respectively, that the pundits began to sing the ‘unfair advantage’ song.

England, of all people, should have had little reason to complain, yet they complained the loudest, as one would expect. For all their so-called commitment to attacking cricket, they have lost six ODI games in a row in Asia in the last month and a bit. Maybe if they focused less on others and worked to set their own house in order, they might re-emerge as a strong force in limited-overs cricket. But that’s really up to them, isn’t it? Maybe this is just the easier option, clambering on to the moral high horse because apparently, clambering up the cricketing ladder is a little beyond them at the moment?

The next Champions Trophy isn’t until another four years away, which means there is plenty of time for the ICC to ponder over what it aims to achieve with this competition. The initial objectives entailed staging it in offshore venues and using the funds generated to boost cricketing infrastructure in the ‘lesser nations’, which is why the first edition was held in Bangladesh (who had yet to attain Test status in 1998) and the second in Nairobi (2000). Since then, it has moved to the traditional pockets – Sri Lanka, England, India, South Africa, England again (twice more on the bounce) and now Pakistan, with Dubai as a satellite centre. Fans didn’t exactly pack the stadiums in Pakistan even for matches involving the home side while in Dubai, even though the tickets were exorbitantly priced to cash in on the popularity of the Indian team, there were huge crowds but the usual buzz was missing for some strange reason.

A global 50-over event every two years in these current formats and climate might appear unsustainable from a playing and spectator perspective. Expecting to put bums on the seats for ‘neutral’ games is a laudable concept but reasonably unrealistic at a time when 50-over cricket is quickly losing its sheen. Broadcaster compulsions might dictate otherwise, but perhaps it is time for the Champions Trophy to revert to its original form and re-become a knockout tournament without any second chances. That will add drama and context to every game; if the possibility of, say, watching India or Australia play just once in the tournament doesn’t appeal to fans and draw them to the grounds, then nothing else will.

A global 50-over event every two years in these current formats and climate might appear unsustainable from a playing and spectator perspective. Expecting to put bums on the seats for ‘neutral’ games is a laudable concept but reasonably unrealistic at a time when 50-over cricket is quickly losing its sheen. Broadcaster compulsions might dictate otherwise, but perhaps it is time for the Champions Trophy to revert to its original form and re-become a knockout tournament without any second chances. That will add drama and context to every game; if the possibility of, say, watching India or Australia play just once in the tournament doesn’t appeal to fans and draw them to the grounds, then nothing else will.