2007-10-21 06:00:03 · 16 answers · asked by Indian wizard 2 in Sports ➔ Cricket
India Vs. Australia
CRICKET MATCHES
2007-10-21 06:00:55 · update #1
sprinters need not be good marathon rummers
2007-10-21 06:07:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you're wondering why India lost the ODIs and won the one-off T20 game, it's because Australia are just too good in Tests and ODIs. Somehow Australia have not got the hang of 20/20s, India however are suited for that format of cricket.
2007-10-22 01:16:57 · answer #2 · answered by Lestat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ur question was hard to understand, but i did. The problem is that india doesnt have to potential to bat/bowl/field (they cant do that in 20/20 either) in a 50 over game. 20/20 is a new format that most teams (except india) didnt understand, or are still learning this system. we cant forget that india has young players whereas australia doesnt in 20/20. but winning against a country like australia is unbeleivable and winning both 20/20 matches against them is not luck.
we would have to wait for the answer to see why india is good at 20/20 and sucks in ODI
2007-10-21 13:50:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a very limited over session, the luck is very important factor for this type of match. That was with India and that is why in spite of many capacities were there in other country players, India could win the final. I do not accept this type of matches. The limited overs should not be reduced to Twenty , that is my view. What is your opinion about this 20/20, Yours
vrvrao
2007-10-21 13:10:46 · answer #4 · answered by Raghavendra R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason for the defeat is simple ,Australians were too good.I think India should more often then play 20 cricket where there more chance of a good winning record and less stamina.
2007-10-21 14:18:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ODI and t20 are entirely different format. In T20 a bowler can bowl maximum of 4 overs only and batsmen can get only 20 overs to bat. Hence batsmen can afford to start hitting from the first ball in T20, whereas in ODI if batsmen start hitting from the first ball, the entire team will be out within 20 overs. Indian batsmen appears to be very good for short duration than plahying long innings.
2007-10-22 07:37:08 · answer #6 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
20-20 is about skill and talent. India has these more than any other country.
ODIs and Tests are about planning, method and persistence.i.e. professional playing. Australia does that better than anyone else.
2007-10-22 05:51:52 · answer #7 · answered by Rajinder K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Indians are always known to be good players except under sustained pressure.They also lose concentration easily.
In T20,there is little to think.You just go and play the without much of worry.Only when they start to think(cautious) they buckle.
This suits the Indians with no time to think.
2007-10-22 06:53:32 · answer #8 · answered by karikalan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dont go for reasons what ever happened so happened in favour of our country - Just Say Sada pranam - Maa thuje Salaam & Jai Hind & Chak de India
2007-10-22 04:13:42 · answer #9 · answered by Rama Krishna 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe the indian team has got the hang of 20/20 and they are yet to learn the 50/50's
2007-10-21 13:03:35 · answer #10 · answered by jojokiki 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of bad performance of Dravid , fast bowler like Sreesanth, RP singh ,aggeration by the bowlers & some blame should also come to captain Dhoni.
2007-10-21 13:16:40 · answer #11 · answered by ron 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋