Two of cricket's greatest rivalries - India vs Pakistan and Australia vs England - were played in a 24-hour period during the 2024 T20 World Cup.
While these fierce rivalries still generate great excitement, the Australia vs England bout fell short of expectations, with Australia winning the T20 match comfortably. India versus Pakistan always creates hysteria and once again this was the case even in New York as there are plenty of expats from both countries living in the USA.
Going into the heavyweight bout India had only lost one World Cup contest to Pakistan and that was in the T20 format in 2021.
This imbalance was partly explained years ago by a decorated Indian cricketer: "Pakistan tries to impress India," he explained, "while we are only interested in having an impact on the West."
Pakistan cricket's previous history may also help explain India's stranglehold in their World Cup encounters. In early 1973 the Pakistan team were described as "Panikstan" because of the suicidal nature of their 92-run loss to Australia at the MCG. They then confirmed their newly acquired nickname by losing the third Test at the SCG by 52 runs despite only chasing a moderate target of 159.
The "Panikstan" moniker was to the fore again in the 2024 World Cup as Pakistan lost a crucial contest to India in New York. After manoeuvring into a strong position where they were predicted to win, Pakistan capitulated and lost a low-scoring encounter by six runs.
This was yet another typical big-brother-over-little-brother victory and that syndrome has weighed heavily on Pakistan in World Cup encounters.
Yet in Toronto in 1996 the two teams mixed amicably in a series at the suitably named Toronto Cricket, Skating and Curling Club. The five-match series was tied at two-all when one Indian player hilariously noted: "The soldiers are lined up at the border armed with rocks but they don't know which way to throw them."
So well did India and Pakistan get on that I asked a mixed group of players, "Why do the two countries fight wars when the players socialise comfortably?"
The answer was revealing and yet concerning. "We understand each other and eat similar food," said an Indian player, "and the people generally get on well but the politicians of each country like to keep the aggro simmering."
The pitches in the USA again generated controversy, particularly the New York venue, which attracted a lot of negative publicity and proved to be difficult for batters. In many cases a score just exceeding 100 proved to be a match-winner.
The USA reputation for providing dodgy pitches isn't a recent one. In September 1999, I covered an India A vs Australia A five-match series in Los Angeles, where the respective skippers were VVS Laxman and Adam Gilchrist, both of whom went on to enjoy illustrious international careers.
The pitches on that occasion could only be described as "ropey", especially when genuine pacemen like Brett Lee operated. Dodgy pitches were accepted with a shrug of the shoulders in 1999 but, with the USA team qualifying for the Super Eight and being promoted as a viable cricket nation, this is not good enough. Mind you, USA cricket has long been wracked by organisational turmoil and this could be yet another example of the chaos that exists among their administration.
While T20 pitches should never totally favour batters, there's no excuse for surfaces that are considered dangerous.
There's a highly competitive cricket rivalry still to be played in the Super Eight - India vs Australia. This has become a blockbuster contest in recent years.
Even if these two teams provide yet another exciting contest, it shouldn't camouflage the USA problem. If cricket wants to make headway in the USA it has to vastly improve the administration and their pitches, while also convincing locally born players it's a game worth playing.