It’s not the 1990s. India would have won the World Cup if… Gautam Gambhir wasn’t thrilled with Rahul’s batting in the championship match. India lost to Australia by six wickets in the World Cup final on Sunday, ending their hopes of winning a third championship.
Guests India entered the game as the favourites, not just because they had won all of their matches in the competition but also because they had seldom faced any opposition, including Australia in the first encounter between the two teams. Australia upset India in the final, even though they had lost the previous game by six wickets.
India had scored more than 350 in three of their previous four games prior to the final; their only other loss came against South Africa. In one game, they had scored 326 and won by an astounding 243 runs.
Nevertheless, Australia managed to chase it down in 43 overs after they were bowled out for just 240 runs in 50 overs during the final. India managed to smash just four fours and no sixes for the remainder of their innings, after having scored 80 runs in the opening ten overs.
According to former batsman Gautam Gambhir, it would have been preferable if India had attempted to smash more boundaries in the middle overs, with someone taking more chances.
It has two sharp edges. However, I’ve always maintained that the World Cup will be won by the team with the greatest bravery. While I recognize that forming a partnership takes time, 11 to 40 overs is an extremely long period. That risk had to have been taken by someone, Gambhir said to Sportskeeda.
Gambhir said, “Either we go for 150 all out or end up with 300.”
Gambhir acknowledged that India might have settled for a lower total if they had continued to be aggressive, but they still need to have made an effort to score more quickly. The former opener, who was crucial to India’s triumph in that World Cup final with a score of 97, claimed that reaching 240 should never have been possible.
Even if India had been all out for 150, I would have rather them to use their top 6-7 hitters in a more aggressive manner. I could have survived. However, you should not battle in the World Cup final if you believe you can defend 240. Either this way or that is how it is. We can either go 300 or 150 all out. India has fallen short in that area. That is the reason India hasn’t won any more ICC competitions. Even if I leave the game, we should still play aggressively, Rohit ought to have said before the match, he added.
Despite playing 109 balls together and putting up a strong fourth-wicket partnership, KL Rahul and Virat Kohli could only muster 67 runs. Even though Kohli did not hit many boundaries, he still had a good strike rate, but after he fell on 54 off 63, it was even harder for India to score.
According to Gambhir, Kohli was tasked with leading the innings and performed admirably throughout the competition. It would have been better for other hitters to try to play aggressively around him. Rahul, on the other hand, managed to score a mere 66 in 107 balls.
Kohli has contributed to the innings’ stability, but everyone else ought to have been more proactive. KL ought should have left. What damage could it have done? It would have been a 150-man field. However, if we had shown courage, we may have scored 310 and won the world cup with India. The 1990s are not here. 240 is by no means a decent score. You need more than 300 totals. Gambhir remarked, “India were not brave enough.”
