Manjrekar Slams India’s Pitch Choice in 2023 World Cup Final
Sanjay Manjrekar, former Indian international batsman and outspoken cricket analyst, has reignited debate over India’s strategic decisions in the 2023 ICC Cricket World Cup final, branding the team’s pitch selection for the title match as a “blunder” that ultimately cost them the trophy. Speaking on the sports show Rise of Champions, Manjrekar criticised the India leadership particularly Rohit Sharma and Rahul Dravid for over-engineering conditions that did not play to India’s strengths, but instead neutralised them against a ready Australian side.
India’s campaign in the 2023 World Cup had been dominant up to the final, with powerhouse batting, aggressive intent, and home advantage combining to make them tournament favourites. Yet on November 19, 2023, at the Narendra Modi Stadium, Ahmedabad, India posted a modest 240/10 after batting first well below what many expected from a team stacked with batting firepower. Australia, placed in early trouble at 47/3, counter-attacked with seasoned performers, including centurion Travis Head, to chase down the target and lift their sixth World Cup crown.
Manjrekar’s key criticism centres on India’s decision to prepare a slow, low-pace pitch for the final. He argued this surface removed the advantage for India’s aggressive batters especially someone like Suryakumar Yadav, whose T20I-style power-hitting thrives on pace and bounce. On the slower deck, Manjrekar suggested, batters were less comfortable, losing timing and momentum at a crucial stage. "I was very proud of that Indian team that played in the 2023 ODI World Cup because it looked like the best team in the world. India, with Rohit Sharma and Rahul Dravid, tried to control things off the field a little too much. The pitch they chose was a blunder. We saw that batters like Suryakumar Yadav are not the same when the pace is taken off on a slow pitch,"
Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar also praised Rohit Sharma’s leadership, remarking, “India got off to flying starts with Rohit Sharma scoring most of the runs. He set an example for others to play in that way and keep the scoreboard moving.”
Supporters of India’s leadership, including former captain Sunil Gavaskar, offered a more balanced view. Gavaskar acknowledged Rohit Sharma’s leadership and batting form; he finished second in the tournament run-scoring charts with 597 runs at an average of 54.27 and a strike rate above 125 but did not echo Manjrekar’s harsh pitch critique. While praising the overall campaign, he stressed that finals bring unpredictable pressures and performances on the day matter most.
Harbhajan Singh, another former India great, also weighed in, attributing the loss to “expectation and pressure” that might have shifted India’s focus away from crisp execution on match day. Meanwhile, Australian commentator Matthew Hayden underscored the reality that sport is competitive and planning even with home advantage doesn’t guarantee success.
Beyond the tactical debate, Manjrekar’s remarks feed into a broader conversation about strategy development in elite cricket: how much should a team tailor conditions to its strengths versus preparing to adapt to universal competitive scenarios? Critics of pitch-customisation argue that conditions should be fair and balanced, giving both teams a neutral platform, particularly in finals and marquee events. Others counter that home teams must maximise all allowable advantages, provided they abide by governing standards.
Ultimately, while the pitch did influence play, many analysts and former players also highlight India's inability to build big partnerships beyond top order and capitalize on strong starting positions as equally critical factors. Rohit himself, in post-match comments at the time, refused to blame the pitch and instead stressed that India simply didn’t bat well enough on the day.
Manjrekar’s blunt assessment will continue to fuel discussions among fans and experts alike, raising important questions about preparation, leadership decisions, and tactical balance in world-class cricket arenas.
India’s campaign in the 2023 World Cup had been dominant up to the final, with powerhouse batting, aggressive intent, and home advantage combining to make them tournament favourites. Yet on November 19, 2023, at the Narendra Modi Stadium, Ahmedabad, India posted a modest 240/10 after batting first well below what many expected from a team stacked with batting firepower. Australia, placed in early trouble at 47/3, counter-attacked with seasoned performers, including centurion Travis Head, to chase down the target and lift their sixth World Cup crown.
Manjrekar’s key criticism centres on India’s decision to prepare a slow, low-pace pitch for the final. He argued this surface removed the advantage for India’s aggressive batters especially someone like Suryakumar Yadav, whose T20I-style power-hitting thrives on pace and bounce. On the slower deck, Manjrekar suggested, batters were less comfortable, losing timing and momentum at a crucial stage. "I was very proud of that Indian team that played in the 2023 ODI World Cup because it looked like the best team in the world. India, with Rohit Sharma and Rahul Dravid, tried to control things off the field a little too much. The pitch they chose was a blunder. We saw that batters like Suryakumar Yadav are not the same when the pace is taken off on a slow pitch,"
Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar also praised Rohit Sharma’s leadership, remarking, “India got off to flying starts with Rohit Sharma scoring most of the runs. He set an example for others to play in that way and keep the scoreboard moving.”
Supporters of India’s leadership, including former captain Sunil Gavaskar, offered a more balanced view. Gavaskar acknowledged Rohit Sharma’s leadership and batting form; he finished second in the tournament run-scoring charts with 597 runs at an average of 54.27 and a strike rate above 125 but did not echo Manjrekar’s harsh pitch critique. While praising the overall campaign, he stressed that finals bring unpredictable pressures and performances on the day matter most.
You may also like
RBI's Sovereign Gold Bond due for premature redemption priced at Rs 13,563 per gram
Talks of peace, reality of drones: Ukraine war's two-track moment
IANS Year Ender 2025: How CM Sharma redefined Rajasthan's bureaucracy
NIA court extends custody of two accused in Red Fort Blast Case- Vaishnaw steals Karnataka's success by taking credit for state's achievements: Siddaramaiah
Harbhajan Singh, another former India great, also weighed in, attributing the loss to “expectation and pressure” that might have shifted India’s focus away from crisp execution on match day. Meanwhile, Australian commentator Matthew Hayden underscored the reality that sport is competitive and planning even with home advantage doesn’t guarantee success.
Beyond the tactical debate, Manjrekar’s remarks feed into a broader conversation about strategy development in elite cricket: how much should a team tailor conditions to its strengths versus preparing to adapt to universal competitive scenarios? Critics of pitch-customisation argue that conditions should be fair and balanced, giving both teams a neutral platform, particularly in finals and marquee events. Others counter that home teams must maximise all allowable advantages, provided they abide by governing standards.
Ultimately, while the pitch did influence play, many analysts and former players also highlight India's inability to build big partnerships beyond top order and capitalize on strong starting positions as equally critical factors. Rohit himself, in post-match comments at the time, refused to blame the pitch and instead stressed that India simply didn’t bat well enough on the day.
Manjrekar’s blunt assessment will continue to fuel discussions among fans and experts alike, raising important questions about preparation, leadership decisions, and tactical balance in world-class cricket arenas.
More from our partners
Loving Newspoint? Download the app now
