Former England captain Michael Vaughan and former Australia wicketkeeper-batter Adam Gilchrist launched a scathing attack on ICC for having special rules in the T20 World Cup 2024 for India. Vaughan, who has been quite vocal about his ‘ICC favouring India’ theory throughout the tournament, took his criticism a few notches higher before the India vs South Africa T20 World Cup final in Barbados by saying that the tournament has set up purely for India to win it.
Vaughan’s theory was based on two major points – 1) India knew that their semi-final (if they qualify) would be in Guyana irrespective of their standing in the Super Eight stage. 2) India is the only team in the tournament to play all their matches at the same time. To suit the viewers in India, all of their matches were day games, while the other teams had to huddle between day games and matches under lights.
Vaughan said the commercial interest getting preference is understandable in bilaterals but the ICC should have been fairer to other teams in a World Cup instead of having “sympathy” for one particular team just because their matches bring in better revenue.
“It’s their tournament isn’t it? Literally, it’s their tournament. They get to play whenever they want. They get to know exactly where their semifinal will be. They play every single game in the morning so people can watch them at night in India. I get that money is a big play in the world of cricket. And I get that in bilateral series but you would think that when you get to a World Cup, ICC should be a little fairer to everybody. And it shouldn’t just be India just because they bring a few quid in.
“Like I said, I completely get it in bilaterals but when you get to a World Cup, any kind of sympathy or any kind of sway towards one team. This tournament is purely set up for India as simple as that,” Vaughan said in the Club Praire Fire podcast.
Gilchrist said there are many Indian fans who are not “naive” to know that the game has been compromised to a certain to extent to favour their team.
“There are a lot of passionate Indian fans that are very much aware of that as well. They are in agreement that it (the game) has compromised to an extent and let’s say it again. India have been the best team. They are the most consistent team throughout. Maybe South Africa might claim that they have been too. India should win it and good on them if they do but you’re right. There are a lot of Indian supporters who are not naive and blind to that situation,” Gilchrist said.
Vaughan also pointed to the fact that the Guyana final had no reserve day. “The Indian supporters that I speak to, they agree that India, probably on paper, have got the best team. They don’t need to do anything. They can win a night match. They don’t need to know they are playing a semi-final in Guyana, where it rains and there were no reserve days but why? I have read the rules of the tournament and it states India in particular. This should not happen in a World Cup.”
An ICC spokesperson has already clarified the reason for not having a reserve day for the Guyana semi-final. Because it was a day game, ICC could use the extra 250 minutes (the same for the Trinidad semis and the Barbados final) on the same day. It was logistically a nightmare to ask the players to turn up for a reserve day a day before the final.
As per Vaughan and Gilchrist’s other argument about India being the only team to play all day games or knowing their semi-final venue beforehand, this is nothing new in World Cups. Seedings and home sides or the team with maximum interest getting the venue and time preference for their television viewers has been since the 1992 World Cup, where hosts Australia got the favourable venues and match timings. In fact, New Zealand, the co-hosts of the tournament, would have had to play their semi-final away from home if their opponents were Australia.
A recent example is Pakistan’s venue preference in the ODI World Cup in 2023. If they had qualified for the semi-final, it would have been in Kolkata, even if it was against India.
