> > Try to keep up.
> > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for
> > but their batting clearly is.
> Wouldnt the batting performance depend a lot on the quality of bowling too?
> I am sure, 270+ by Aus is vastly different than 270+ by Eng.
I'm not so sure what you mean.
if 270 is the target set, 270 is the score you have to reach to win the game,
the number of wickets lost is irrelevent.
You might feel that your bowlers should've restricted the opposition to a lesser
total (if, for example it's a low scoring pitch) and the batsmen have a harder
job to reach the total than they might've expected, but given the chancey nature
of odo cricket, there will be times when the batting side scores a lot against
you, and times when you'll catch all the half chances and the nicks just short
of a fielder will carry so you'll get them out cheaply.
> Aus has far
> superior bowling both quality wise and options wise to defend that total. I
> am sure Gangers and Sehwag would have found McGrath, Gillespie and Lee to
> tough to handle.
You'd not give India a chance at making 270 against Aus?
> By the same token, if India manages 300, the Aus batting has to only contend
> with the likes of Khan, Nehra, Kumble and Bhajji.
> Advantage Australia.
Umm,depends on the track.
In this trophy, if India makes 300 against Aus (or anyone), I'd say they are in
an extremely strong position to win that match
> > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........
> That I agree with.