Would Australia have won if they batted first?

[Molehill]

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.

I think it was an excellent decision at the toss, but if you look back at the Eng/NZ game, one that made total sense. Root said after that game that conditions changed massively between the innings and it came on much better under the lights. Now he may have been slightly bitter after a bit of a thrashing, but I think he's been around long enough to recognise when there's an advantage. It's an opinion that I suspect Cummins and Co would respect too and they jumped on the chance to bowl first.

Who knows if they'd have won had they batted first, but unlike India who would have batted anyway, they worked out that there was an advantage to putting the other team in and they reaped the rewards.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

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.

Even then had Shami been more accurate in his opening spell, Ind would have had a chance to win. See Aus might have marginally had the better conditions, but all of Gill, Iyer and Shami choked at least

 

[Sunil1z]

Even then had Shami been more accurate in his opening spell, Ind would have had a chance to win. See Aus might have marginally had the better conditions, but all of Gill, Iyer and Shami choked at least

Shami wasn’t accurate because he was trying for magic balls as he had very low total to defend. This is why India needed minimum 290 runs.
He was trying that Stokes over ( league match against Eng ) , but such overs don’t happen if you are under stress .

 

[Redbacks]

I think we would have won. It was our day

 

[Gob]

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.

Reverse happened around 38th over was it not. Even then it wasn't the hooping unplayable reverse. India should have been 220 when the reverse started. Rohit, Gill and Iyer should have played better and have no conditions excuses.

Regardless, India only needed one wicket after Smith fell to break the game open. They bowled poorly with the new ball

But we don't even have to come to any of this. With the form they were in and the context they were playing, they should beat Australia with or without the toss

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, conditions helped them but I think Australia were planned and prepared enough to have choked our batting into submission even if there was no reverse. Its not a point that was decisive IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia would have beaten Indian even worse. They would have scored around 280/300 and India would have collapsed in the power play.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shami wasn’t accurate because he was trying for magic balls as he had very low total to defend. This is why India needed minimum 290 runs.
He was trying that Stokes over ( league match against Eng ) , but such overs don’t happen if you are under stress .

The Aus top order mostly got out to loose balls anyway so I'm not sure bowling better in that first 10 overs would have helped. Travis Head would probably have just played and missed them all and Aus might have been 0 or 1-25 instead instead of 3-47.

Of course if things went India's way they could have been like 5-30 so who knows

Biggest piece of luck Australia has was Head not getting out in that first spell when he had no idea. Probably should have been out a couple times

 

[Burgey]

yeah if he lasts 20-25 balls he just ****s you up til he gets himself out. Weirdest player. Like a switch gets flicked. He was 10 off 23 ffs

 

[Daemon]

Reverse happened around 38th over was it not. Even then it wasn't the hooping unplayable reverse. India should have been 220 when the reverse started. Rohit, Gill and Iyer should have played better and have no conditions excuses.

Which is why I said it wasn’t a major factor and any condition advantage Australia enjoyed was marginal.

 

[Daemon]

Rohit knew that there might be reverse . That is why he wanted India to be at 90 around 10 overs mark .

Didn’t know you had mind reading abilities. He played how he’s been playing all tournament whether there’s reverse swing or not.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This sunil1z seems a bit deranged.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Shami wasn’t accurate because he was trying for magic balls as he had very low total to defend. This is why India needed minimum 290 runs.
He was trying that Stokes over ( league match against Eng ) , but such overs don’t happen if you are under stress .

It was hopping way too much. It required somewhat more accuracy. He didn’t need to a lot from his side. One or two of his balls nipped back sharply as hell. The fact that he gave so many extras was evident of that

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

But this is the most pointless thread on CW

 

[Burgey]

But this is the most pointless thread on CW

There’s a pretty decent field of contenders tbf

 

[cnerd123]

Did they just get lucky with conditions or were they the better team

neither. India choked / are chokers.

 

[Daemon]

Interesting you don’t think Jay Shah is a celebrity.

Would you call Mahatma Gandhi a celebrity?

 

[Burgey]

Would you call Mahatma Gandhi a celebrity?

Yeah for sure.

 

[Nintendo]

Don't think so, honestly. If India got through the first 10 overs chasing without getting the same treatment SA got I reckon they chase whatever AUS set.

Also not a fan of putting the win down to luck. Australia still had to exploit the conditions bowling first and get through that new ball burst under lights. Bumrah aside india didn't really use the conditions that well upfront either. Under similiar circumstances in the group stage starc and haze bowled much better, same vs SA in the semi when the conditions where there.

 

[Socerer 01]

Would you call Mahatma Gandhi a celebrity?

if both walk down the street Gandhi is getting far more recognition from the average person than Shah