The issue of whether India benefited from knowing the location of their T20 World Cup 2024 semi-final has ignited differing opinions. India captain Rohit Sharma dismissed the idea, while former India batter Sanjay Manjrekar believed otherwise.
Manjrekar argued that India did have an advantage. He explained that although Rohit couldn't publicly admit it, India's selection of four spinners indicated their preparation for Guyana's conditions. Manjrekar suggested that India’s strategic planning was influenced by their past struggles in semi-finals and finals.
Former England batter Nick Knight agreed with Manjrekar, stating that it seemed unfair for India to know their semi-final venue in advance. Knight’s perspective was supported by his former teammate Michael Vaughan, who criticised the arrangement on the Club Prairie Fire podcast. Vaughan contended that the tournament appeared to be designed to favour India, allowing them to play at times convenient for Indian TV audiences and ensuring they knew their semi-final location.
Vaughan recognised India’s financial influence in cricket but highlighted that World Cup tournaments should be fair to all teams. He argued that preferential treatment undermines the competition's integrity. Knight also questioned the ICC's decision-making, highlighting the inconsistency in semi-final rules. The Afghanistan-South Africa semi-final had a reserve day, while the India-England match allowed only a 250-minute extension with no reserve day. Knight also criticised scheduling the final on a Saturday, suggesting that a Sunday final would give teams more travel time.
Manjrekar called for the ICC to prioritise fairness over commercial interests. He argued that focusing solely on market demands compromises the sport's quality. Manjrekar stressed that ensuring high-quality competition should come before catering to commercial interests, advocating for a balanced approach that maintains the sport's integrity.