WTC Final 2023: The 3-match conundrum

and, b) Whether the final does not deserve more than just a one-off contest.

There is, of course, great merit in both discussions. Like now, England hosted the final of the 2021 edition (the first time the tournament was played), contested by New Zealand and India in Southampton. The final was originally scheduled for Lord’s but had to be moved to the Rose Bowl because Southampton boasts a five-star hotel inside the stadium premises and therefore eliminated any risk involved with even short-distance travel at the time when the second wave of the pandemic very much held the world to ransom.

Also read: WTC Final: Amid top order failure, Ajinkya Rahane gives India some chance with gritty knock

Why England is hosting an India-Australia tournament, again

England haven’t qualified for either final, so it looks a little odd that they should be hosting these games. But that’s almost inevitable if the WTC continues to play out in its current calendar. England is the only place where cricket can be played without the fear of interruption from rain – inasmuch as that is a guarantee in that country – in early- to mid-June. Given that it is the southern hemisphere winter, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe are ruled out as potential venues; rain threat leaves the Asian subcontinent pretty much a non-starter and the extreme heat will be a deterrent in the UAE. Perhaps, therefore, there is a case for the WTC to be held in a January-December two-year cycle so that many more countries are in the fray to play hosts because, like the 60-over World Cup was until 1983, the WTC final simply can’t be the monopoly of one nation.

Also read:  WTC Final: Post Oval, there are priorities Indian cricket must set for itself

One-match showdown vs three-match series

While some experts have advocated taking the final beyond England, others have questioned the commitment of the International Cricket Council towards maintaining the primacy of Test cricket by wondering how the final of the World Test Championship could be a one-match showdown. They are of the view that the final should be a three-match series, perhaps possible in an ideal world but definitely a bit of a stretch at a time when a game as massively significant as this began a little over a week after the conclusion of the Indian Premier League.

The charm of a cup final lies in the demands it makes in the present of its protagonists. In how it tests the composure and decision-making skills of the players involved in a high-pressure situation. In how it challenges the players to rise above the ordinary, using the no-second-chance conundrum to inspire themselves to greater heights rather than be cowed down by the fear of failure and the inevitable attendant self-doubt and leaden feet that it brings with it.

That’s why, historically and across sport, cup finals are standalone events. Let’s take the UEFA Champions League football tournament, for instance. For more than eight months, clubs from across Europe battle through various stages, and once the knockout phase is reached, they face off on a home-and-away basis till the two finalists are spotted.

Contrary to the ‘safety net’ of a second chance in the earlier stages, the final is a strict one-off; it’s not a three-match or best-of-three affair. A stalemate leads to extra time and then potentially penalty shootouts until someone blinks and someone else is crowned champion. That’s where the beauty of a final lies, even if it might seem absurd to compare a club football final, lasting 90 minutes, with a Test championship final, of five days’ duration.

Two years back, days after India went down to New Zealand in the inaugural WTC final, Virat Kohli, the then skipper, had called for future editions to be decided in a series comprising a minimum of three Tests.

"I am not in absolute agreement of deciding the best Test side in the world over the course of one game," Kohli had said after the eight-wicket defeat. "If it is a Test series, it has to be a test of character over three Tests - which team has the ability to come back in the series, or totally blow away the other team. It can't just be pressure applied over two days of good cricket and then suddenly you are not a good Test side anymore. I don't believe in it."

It's an interesting take, because teams aren’t unaccustomed to playing one-off series, which is exactly what the WTC final is. Indeed, Kohli himself was at the helm when India hosted Bangladesh for a one-off Test in Hyderabad in early 2017, and took a break from a similar game, which was Afghanistan’s Test debut in Bengaluru the following year.

A Test match, spanning five days, isn’t decided by one magical over or one great innings; it’s an examination of character over the duration of the game, and it offers the scope for stunning revivals and comebacks. It’s anything but a lottery, not when the game is scheduled for 450 overs, long enough to identify a winner on merit and not through fortune.

The demand for a three-match series must be balanced by the lack of space in a packed calendar. This year, the two finalists of the WTC weren’t spotted until the penultimate match of the cycle, in mid-March. Against that backdrop, how can a three-match series be finalized in advance, not knowing which teams will get to the summit clash? Will it not terribly disrupt the existing order? And, most importantly, even if all other irritants are patted down, will it not steal the contest of the inherent appeal and magic and tension and pulls of a tournament final? One’s fun!