Re: Re: Re: Re: The man who saw it comming a light year away!!
marc71178 said:
So they bowled well in the first game against Australia (when they were smashed for 128 in 22 overs?)
And conceding 273 to Pakistan was good was it?
They bowled well in some games, but at other times their performances weren't up to scratch in all honesty.
My term was "well above ordinary(in fact brilliant at times)".
1. The league match against Aus. The batting screwed up royally and the bowlers didn't have much of a chance to make anything happen. That was one of the bad days for the bowlers, definitely, but it was a worse one for the batsmen.
2. Against Pakistan, Zaheer 2-46 and Srinath 1-41 bowled really well. Nehra was the only
main bowler who got really pummelled that day, he still took two crucial wickets(2-74). Even Kumble who bowled badly that day gave away only 51 runs in 10 overs which is not too bad in a high scoring match. so, it was not as if the bowling machinery completely broke down on that day.
The final was the really the first time in the tournament that the bowling totally screwed up the match for India, so collectively that was their first off day.
Whatever adjectives you attribute to the Indian bowling in the WC, they were the second best bowling attack in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in this WC and as such, Bazza's comment that they were ordinary based on the final performance and totally discounting all the good work they had done on the way there was biased and prejudiced.