As the cricketing world came to terms with India’s unexpected defeat in the World Cup final against Australia, former batter Gautam Gambhir shared his perspective on what might have gone wrong. Aiming for a third World Cup title, India had dominated the tournament, winning every game until the final. However, their dreams were shattered as Australia claimed victory by six wickets. Gambhir believes a more aggressive approach, especially during the middle overs, could have altered the outcome.
Before the final showdown, India’s batting prowess had been on full display, with scores exceeding 350 in three of their previous four games. The only exception was against South Africa, where they scored 326 and secured a resounding victory by 243 runs. However, in the final, their batting faltered, and they were restricted to 240 runs in 50 overs. Gambhir points out that despite a solid start of 80 runs in the first 10 overs, India managed to hit only four fours and no sixes for the rest of their innings, signaling a lack of aggression in the crucial middle overs.
Gambhir emphasizes the need for a balance between building partnerships and taking risks, especially between the 11th and 40th overs. He suggests that someone should have stepped up to the challenge, taken risks, and aimed for more boundaries during this period. In his view, the most courageous team is likely to emerge victorious in a World Cup, and this courage involves taking calculated risks, even if it means being aggressive and potentially falling for a lower score.
“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.
Acknowledging the potential downside of an aggressive approach leading to a lower total, Gambhir argues that it’s a risk worth taking. He states that he would have preferred India going all out for 150 with an aggressive mindset rather than settling for 240, which he deems an unacceptable scenario for a World Cup final. Drawing on his own experience in the 2011 World Cup final, where he scored 97 and played a crucial role in India’s victory, Gambhir highlights the importance of setting an aggressive tone from the top order.
“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 where 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.
Gambhir singles out the partnership between KL Rahul and Virat Kohli, where they played 109 balls but managed to score only 67 runs. While Kohli maintained a decent strike rate, Rahul’s slow innings put additional pressure on the team. Gambhir argues that Kohli’s role as an anchor was well-defined throughout the tournament, and the other batsmen should have taken on the responsibility of playing aggressively around him. Instead, the cautious approach resulted in a below-par total.
“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.
Also read:- David Warner Rested for T20I Series against India Post World Cup Triumph