India’s cricket-crazy nation witnessed a roller-coaster of emotions on Sunday as their dreams of clinching a third World Cup title were shattered by Australia. The hosts, touted as favourites, entered the final with an impeccable record, having triumphed in every match of the tournament. However, the grand finale saw Australia emerge victorious, turning the tables on India.
Before the showdown, India had showcased dominance, scoring over 350 in three of their last four games. However, their impressive run hit a roadblock in the final, as they were all out for just 240 runs in 50 overs.
Former batter Gautam Gambhir, a crucial figure in India’s 2011 World Cup victory, expressed his thoughts on the final. He believed India should have taken more risks in the middle overs to ensure a challenging total for Australia.
Gambhir emphasized the need for courage. He suggested that despite the risk, someone should have taken the initiative to score more boundaries in the crucial middle overs.
“It’s a double-edged sword. But I have always said this: the most courageous team will go on to win the World Cup. I can understand that you need time to build a partnership, but 11 to 40 overs is a very, very long time. Someone should have taken that risk,” Gambhir told Sportskeeda.
While acknowledging the double-edged nature of aggression, Gambhir stressed that India’s approach lacked the necessary bravery. He believed that a score of 240 should never have been considered acceptable in a World Cup final.
Gambhir argued that India should have been more aggressive, even if it meant getting all out for a lesser score. He believed that a bold strategy, aiming for either 150 all out or 300, was crucial for success in ICC tournaments.
“I would have actually liked India going really aggressive with their top 6-7 batters even if they had been all out for 150. I would have been fine. But if you feel you can defend 240 in a World Cup final…that is not where you fight. It is either this way or that. Either we go 150 all out or 300. That is where India have lacked. That is why India have not gone on to win ICC tournaments. Rohit should have sent the message before the game that even if I get out, we should go aggressive,” he said.
Fact Check: The Truth Behind The Viral Video Of Shakib Al Hasan’s Incident At Airport
Gambhir pointed out the role assigned to Virat Kohli as an anchor and lauded his performance throughout the tournament. However, he criticized the lack of aggression from other batters, particularly KL Rahul, who scored 66 in 107 balls. Gambhir asserted that India needed to embrace a braver approach, even if it resulted in a lower total. He believed that playing aggressively, attempting a 300-plus score, was the path to securing World Cup glory.
“Kohli has played a role of anchoring the innings, but the rest all should have been aggressive. KL should have gone. What harm would it have caused? We would have been 150 all out. But had we been brave, we could have scored 310, and India would have been world champions. This is not the 1990s. 240 is not a good score at all. You need 300-plus totals. India were not brave enough,” said Gambhir.