Australia were cold and calculating, almost emotionless. And they played the big moments better. That is what Federer does, producing the great backhand on break point; that is what Woods does on the back nine hitting the greens when challengers start thinking the course is made of bunkers and water bodies. Everytime Australia were threatened, they raised their game. It wasn’t just Ponting and Lee and Hussey but Hopes taking a great catch, Hauritz batting like a veteran when 20 were needed, White looking like a seasoned number four, Paine flying to his left to catch a ball... there were many moments. Australia might be vulnerable on the odd day but over 50 overs in a championship, the world still has some catching to do.

It could be argued that the Aussies were match fit, that India and South Africa were coming off a break. Anything can be argued. Reasons are not difficult to find if the conclusion is pre-determined. The reality is that India are always slow off the blocks when coming out of a break. It suggests a deficient work ethic. Is that then a national trait? That we rarely stretch until we are pushed? It is a question, funnily, that those that demand a break in the calendar need to look at!

But eventually the Champions Trophy was as much about which team won as about whether or not the format still works. I am afraid we produced a stalemate. We learnt nothing about one-day cricket that we didn’t already know; that it meanders in the middle overs, that bowlers need to be taken off in the middle of a good spell, that captains are happy to cease fire by mutual consent till the power plays begin again. We knew it all but we also knew that 50 overs cricket allows you to concede a moment in pursuit of a larger goal; that with good cricket, as with anger, a little pause is not always bad. And we knew that teams need to be versatile. The best team showed that. On the same surface, against England, Australia’s batsman attacked relentlessly and won the match well before the last ball was bowled. Against New Zealand in the final, they showed another basket of skills. They gave the ball some respect and won it over later. I must confess I have returned from South Africa having enjoyed the different passages of play, the different demands placed on cricketers, the exhibition of a variety of skills. It didn’t send the box office into a tizzy but it satisfied. There is life left in it.

Yes, the question of the middle overs remains unresolved but let us ask ourselves if the status quo isn’t an alternative. One-day cricket, like T20, has its own pace and rhythm and if we change that we change our product offering. I wonder sometimes if we tinker too much. The lion must hunt and the lion must sleep, you can’t make him hunt all the time. So too with fifty overs cricket. By requiring players to bash around all the time, we try and produce a longer version of the twenty over game. But we already have a twenty over game! If we seek to produce three products for three different markets then each must have a unique offering; which it currently has. I’m beginning to believe that the solution could well lie in modifying the frequency than in modifying the format. But that thought is still a work in progress.