Indian captain Rohit Sharma, who led from the front in maybe his last cricket World Cup, appeared as though he was trying to restrain tears, while Mohammed Siraj couldn’t hold back his tears. KL Rahul sank to his knees, Virat Kohli concealed his face in his cap, and the man with the golden arm Mohammed Shami walked back dejected.
The pain is palpable, especially for those who won’t participate in the next World Cup. The next day is bound to be even more challenging. Fortunately, they have their families by their side. There’s a reminder that life extends beyond the World Cup, a sentiment they’ll need come the next morning when there’s no training to attend. For those without family around, their teammates must step in to provide support.
This is the harsh reality of a league-knockout hybrid format. For India, the hurt is deeper than for any team eliminated earlier in the tournament. Such is the cost of pursuing the greatest joy—the risk of enduring the most profound heartbreak. The pain for them surpasses what outsiders can comprehend.
All the runs and wickets achieved feel empty, much like the seats vacated by spectators who moved on to more routine concerns well before the final ball was bowled. The jubilation and cheers they revelled in for a month and a half suddenly faded into a hollow murmur. Rohit amassed more runs than any captain in a single tournament, and Kohli outscored any batsman. Shami claimed the most wickets despite missing four matches. Yet, these achievements mean nothing in the current moment.
In a cricket world marked by professionalism and where the top three sides have equal access to resources, it remains rare to conquer the ever-changing conditions. In the league match against Australia, India found themselves on the right side of conditions. However, in the final, they succumbed to the conditions.
An illustration of the pitch’s transformation is how frequently Marnus Labuschagne gently nudged the ball behind square for singles—easy singles that weren’t available to India. The pitch, slow in the afternoon, added risk to manipulating the bat face for singles once the field spread out. Kohli fell victim to this, inside-edging Pat Cummins onto his stumps.
If Rohit’s words at the toss, expressing a preference to bat first, truly reflected the team management’s sentiments, then it’s fair to say India misjudged the conditions. However, Australia won the toss and played a different game.
India anticipated the pitch to slow down and offer more turn, as it did in the Kolkata semi-final. They hoped to capitalize on Australia’s vulnerability in chasing. Australia, relying on recent trends, banked on the batting becoming easier under the Ahmedabad lights. They expected a drier-than-usual pitch to be most challenging in the afternoon, aiming to exploit India’s struggles on slow pitches.
Rohit played the final like any other game, scoring quickly in the powerplay as he had throughout the tournament. Kohli, after seeing Shubman Gill’s early dismissal, abandoned the risk-free approach and took calculated chances. Despite early success with the ball, India faced challenges as the pitch quickened up, reminiscent of the New Zealand-England encounter.
Once Australia weathered the initial storm, only a brilliant delivery from Bumrah secured a wicket. The rest unfolded as in many Indian chases. Would dew have influenced the outcome, as it did in the Wankhede 12 years ago?
A team review is inevitable. Could Rahul have been more assertive in the middle overs? Kohli, with a game to maintain a strike rate of 80-90 without boundaries, succumbed to a rising delivery. Others need to take risks, yet India’s batting depth is shallow. The coaching staff’s confidence in the top seven was not reflected on the field.
With just nine boundary attempts in 180 legal balls in the middle overs, India might question if this was sufficient. They scored only four boundaries outside the powerplay, the joint-lowest in any ODI since 2005. On a slower pitch, could they have pressured the bowlers more?
The absence of batting depth lower down wasn’t a selection error, but a strategic choice. The challenge is that none of India’s first-choice bowlers bat as well as their Australian counterparts. The fast bowlers might have utilized more cutters, spinners could have varied their pace, and trusting Suryakumar Yadav more might have been beneficial.
Yet, these are marginal concerns. The change in conditions from afternoon to evening played the most significant role. It doesn’t diminish their strength or courage. They’ve played enough cricket to understand they must adapt. Nevertheless, it remains the toughest task for them. Despite having experienced this feeling before, it never gets easier. This time, they came closer than ever since 2011, a poignant reminder that pursuing the greatest joy entails risking the most profound heartbreak.
(With inputs from agencies)
Newsinsight 
Excellent analysis my friend : )