India has experienced two significant setbacks—first against New Zealand and now against Australia. However, amidst this adversity, there exists a silver lining, often referred to as 'positives' by teams.

One notable advantage arising from these defeats is the initiation of a candid dialogue regarding Indian cricket, its organizational framework, player dynamics, and team culture. In the aftermath of these dual setbacks, there is a collective introspection, with many expressing their discontent.

The fact that challenging questions are being raised following the Border-Gavaskar Trophy loss is indeed a positive development. For the first time, the harsh truths are being acknowledged rather than concealed. The atmosphere has shifted from politeness to direct and incisive criticism, conveying a clear message that no individual is above scrutiny. Furthermore, this time, the outrage is widespread, with fans, analysts, and critics uniting in their sentiments, echoing what an irate Gautam Gambhir reportedly expressed in the dressing room: “this is too much.”

Social media platforms are inundated with strong opinions, ranging from the reasonable to the absurd, much of it fueled by emotion and a profound sense of disappointment. While some of this can be dismissed, it underscores the fact that cricket fans are vital stakeholders, possessing both a voice and a platform to express their views.

Indian cricket's elite players are now under scrutiny, having previously enjoyed a shield from criticism due to their adoring fanbase. This protection has dissipated following the recent Border-Gavaskar Trophy, signaling a necessary shift away from the prevailing 'superstar culture.' In the wake of India's disappointing performance in Australia, the time has come to reconsider the privileges afforded to these pampered athletes.

The dismal showing of India's top players in Australia marks the conclusion of an era. Captain Rohit Sharma's performance was notably poor, with his total runs (31) falling short of the wickets taken by Jasprit Bumrah (32). Virat Kohli's esteemed reputation has also suffered, as his recent Test statistics align more closely with those of players like Zak Crawley, KL Rahul, or Shubman Gill over the past five years.

The backlash against these star players stems not only from their lack of runs but also from a perceived breach of trust. While it is common for batsmen to experience fluctuations in form, the public's frustration is directed at these superstars for seemingly taking their elevated status for granted, opting out of matches, and neglecting domestic cricket.

Legitimate inquiries regarding accountability and commitment are warranted, as cricket is fundamentally a team sport where all eleven players are theoretically equal. Although some players have earned their privileged status through past achievements, performance must ultimately dictate standing. While top players may deserve certain benefits, no one should possess an unlimited entitlement that lasts indefinitely. Even mobile devices require periodic recharging.

The pressing question remains: how many failures are acceptable—five, ten, or fifteen? While it is reasonable to extend leniency in exceptional circumstances, there comes a point when decisive action must be taken.

It is noteworthy that following the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (BGT), even former legends are expressing their discontent. This is not merely background noise that can be ignored, as prominent figures such as Sunil Gavaskar, Harbhajan Singh, Irfan Pathan, and Sanjay Manjrekar are advocating for an end to the 'superstar culture' that undermines Indian cricket, while also calling for greater dedication from the players.

Another positive outcome amidst the aftermath of the BGT is the recognition that domestic cricket warrants increased attention and respect. A crucial initial step in this regard would be the return of elite players to the Ranji Trophy, rather than fabricating excuses to avoid the four-day red-ball format. The absence of these players diminishes the value of the sport, resulting in a scenario where successful domestic players, such as Abhimanyu Easwaran and Sarfaraz Khan, are selected yet deemed inadequate for international competition. Additionally, the tendency of players to prioritize the Indian Premier League (IPL) over the Ranji Trophy raises concerns, alongside issues related to workload management and the recurring injuries faced by fast bowlers.

Furthermore, there exists a broader inquiry into team culture, its principles, and the style of cricket being played. Is Virat Kohli intentionally engaging in what Sam Konstas might consider normal gamesmanship and acceptable aggression? Or does this behavior cross the line into unacceptable conduct, given that cricket traditionally allows no room for physical confrontation?

In conclusion, cricket holds a significant place in our national identity and is deeply embedded in our lives. We rightfully celebrate the achievements of our sporting icons, take pleasure in Virat’s exquisite cover drive, and admire Rohit Sharma’s front foot pull that sails over midwicket. However, our fervent passion often leads us to prioritize the players over the sport itself.

The biggest positive post BGT is to be realistic about success in sport and tone down expectations. At the same time, players must not take stardom for granted. After Australia, a line has been drawn in the sand, and when anyone, however big, crosses it, a shrill alarm will go off to signal a no-ball.

HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE? CHOOSE YOUR EMOTICON!