• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would Australia have won if they batted first?

Would Australia have won the final if they batted first?

  • Total voters
    32
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maxwell would have made another 40-ball ton, perfect conditions for him. Coming in after Trav's 150. The Aussies would have made a truly a mammoth 1st innings score that India wouldn't have got close to even if they did survive the initial burst (which they wouldn't anyway)
 
Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Regular
I have said yes because of the body language Australia displayed but this is a bit of a pointless exercise because Australia prepared for the final with bowling first in mind, so we would be talking about a different set of tactics, different game all together..
Who knows what would have happened and India have some of the greatest chasers ODI cricket has ever seen.
 
Sunil1z

Sunil1z

International Regular
Aus were also slightly unlucky in 1996 WC Final due to dew . And so Karma rewarded them for their consistent good cricket in 2023 .Maybe if we also consistently play good cricket , we might get rewarded in 2027/2031/2035 .
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
PlayerComparisons said:
Did they just get lucky with conditions or were they the better team
Click to expand...
Part of being a good cricket team is good pre-planning and recognising that an opportunity to get an advantage is there, and that you should ignore conventional wisdom and instincts, despite the fact that you know you're going to cop all sorts of **** if it doesn't come off - even if the reasons it doesn't come off don't have anything to do with the decision itself (bowlers have an off day, batters give away wickets cheaply later etc).

You can look back at the thread and see that the vast majority of people here did not agree with the bowl-first decision at the time at all, and even some of those who got the logic thought it was still a bad idea (p21-23 of the thread if you want to read back). I was personally calling it Nasser-esque about five overs in. Being lucky is worthless if you aren't good or brave enough to take advantage of that luck.

I think Australia would have won regardless tbh. They just felt absolutely "on" from minute one, just absolutely keyed in mentally at the start of the game - the way they fielded had nothing at all to do with conditions - and with the level of talent in that squad that meant they played at such a high level they'll beat most teams in most conditions. Maybe not India at their best, but then India seemed to be a little more affected by the occasion and the pressure of it all than Australia did.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Spark said:
Part of being a good cricket team is good pre-planning and recognising that an opportunity to get an advantage is there, and that you should ignore conventional wisdom and instincts, despite the fact that you know you're going to cop all sorts of **** if it doesn't come off - even if the reasons it doesn't come off don't have anything to do with the decision itself (bowlers have an off day, batters give away wickets cheaply later etc).

You can look back at the thread and see that the vast majority of people here did not agree with the bowl-first decision at the time at all, and even some of those who got the logic thought it was still a bad idea. I was personally calling it Nasser-esque about five overs in. Being lucky is worthless if you aren't good or brave enough to take advantage of that luck.
Click to expand...
I said it would be a non factor at the start (I am a genius tbf) and I probably would still stand by it if there was no reverse.

With the reverse present I do think Australia ended up with the marginally better conditions.

Ultimately I think there’s a whole list of things I’d point to before we get to conditions though.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Daemon said:
It’s true. Unfortunately of the 50 cameras on the ground that day, 20 were on Kohli and the remainder on celebrities and Jay Shah so they didn’t get caught.
Click to expand...
Interesting you don’t think Jay Shah is a celebrity.
 
Sunil1z

Sunil1z

International Regular
Daemon said:
I said it would be a non factor at the start (I am a genius tbf) and I probably would still stand by it if there was no reverse.

With the reverse present I do think Australia ended up with the marginally better conditions.

Ultimately I think there’s a whole list of things I’d point to before we get to conditions though.
Click to expand...
Rohit knew that there might be reverse . That is why he wanted India to be at 90 around 10 overs mark . So , that even if India’s middle order struggled they could get 200 in last 40 overs and India’s total could be around 290 . What he didn’t expect is that all of Iyer , Rahul, Sky and Jadeja to play such timidly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top