For India a run a ball seems to be enough

Posted by
< 1 minute read

The players, the coaches, the fans and the media told England that they needed to be making 350-plus scores to do well in this tournament. The 2015 World Cup wasn’t just going to be about run-scoring; it was going to be about phenomenal, unimaginable run-scoring. Look at what India are doing! Batsmen are making double hundreds EVERY DAY.

India, for what it’s worth, have reached the semi-finals of the tournament despite a top score of 307. None of their batsmen rank particularly highly in the list of top run-scorers. However, they have bowled out the opposition in each of their seven matches and they have won every game.

India, of course, have conviction. They don’t mimic other nations. They do what they feel they need to do to win one-day cricket matches. More on this as well as a valuation of the damnation of tinkers over at the Mumbai Mirror.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. This made me think about England’s way.

    Others have pointed out that England’s ODI style has not progressed in the last 25-30 years.

    But that got me thinking. 25-30 years ago, England really was one of the best, if not the best ODI sides around. We got to three out of the first five finals and were unlucky not to lift the cup at least once out of those three big ones.

    So surely it is entirely logical that England’s own way should be the style of 25-30 years ago when we were achievers in this format.

    It really isn’t our fault that other (lesser) nations have undermined the game with format changes, gimmicks and flat pitches.

    We should persevere with our strategy until we are back in our rightful, pre-eminent place, nearly but not quite winning finals on a regular basis.

    All else would be “followership”, not leadership.

    1. Cook has been using his voice to do the talking recently though, with predictably poor results. To reverse the metaphor, if his voice had been doing the batting it would have been out hit wicket first ball.

  2. They said his ‘bat [did] the taking’, not talking…
    Did he use it to ‘steal the strike’ I wonder?

    1. Well spotted. And it still says that, several hours later. Maybe his bat really did do the taking.

    2. This is the Grauniad we’re taking about. There are certain standards to be upheld.

  3. Are we going to get a(nother) Shahid Afridi ODI In Memoriam piece yer maj?

    I might miss him more than I’m going to miss Jayawardene or Sanga which is a bit unfair on them really.

Comments are closed.