Menu

Why Michael Atherton Is Wrong About India vs Pakistan

Review |

Cric888Wizard 4mo ago
Why Michael Atherton Is Wrong About India vs Pakistan

Recently, Michael Atherton wrote a column about the ongoing T20 Worldcup calling the India–Pakistan match at the 2026 T20 World Cup a “miserable, toxic spectacle.” He argued that the game has become too political, too one-sided, and mostly about money — so much so that he would rather cover smaller matches like Italy vs Nepal.

At first glance, some of this sounds reasonable. Politics does hover around India–Pakistan cricket, and the ICC does make a lot of money from it. But Atherton’s argument misses the bigger picture.

This rivalry keeps cricket alive

The truth is simple: cricket’s global popularity today is largely driven by India. Indian fans bring massive viewership, sponsorship, and broadcast money. That money doesn’t just help India — it supports the entire cricket ecosystem, including associate nations like Nepal and Italy.

Calling this “just minting money” ignores the fact that this revenue is what allows smaller teams to play on the world stage at all.

One-sided results happen in every era

Atherton complains that India has been winning too often. But dominance is part of sport. England and Australia have had long dominant phases too — and no one called those matches “toxic” back then.

What has really changed is who holds power in cricket. The centre of the game has moved from Lord’s to South Asia. That shift makes some in the old cricket world uncomfortable, even if they don’t say it directly.

This feels like nostalgia, not analysis

Atherton’s preference for “simple” underdog stories sounds nice, but it also feels like nostalgia for a time when England mattered more in global cricket. Today, no rivalry draws attention like India vs Pakistan — even in neutral venues.

For fans, players, and broadcasters, this match is intense, emotional, and meaningful — not miserable.

The bottom line

India vs Pakistan has always been political. It has always been emotional. That is not a flaw — it’s why people care.

Instead of dismissing the game, it’s better to accept reality: this rivalry is the heartbeat of modern cricket. Without it, many of the beautiful stories Atherton prefers might never get the spotlight at all.

Comments (1)

Newest
  • EidTru02 2026-02-15
    Honestly, this pattern is getting hard to ignore. First Nasser Hussain, then Butcher, and now Atherton — different words, same energy. Whenever England isn’t at the centre, suddenly the cricket is “toxic,” “meaningless,” or “too political.” When others dominate, especially India, the game itself becomes the problem. It just sounds like jealousy mixed with nostalgia. England used to be the centre of the cricket world — now it isn’t. Instead of accepting that shift, some voices would rather dismiss what billions of fans actually care about. Cricket didn’t lose its soul. It just moved on — and some people never did.