Why does India have such a poor ODI record in Australia against the hosts?

[Tillu]

The Aussies seem to play with a lot more intensity against us than other teams. They always have a point to prove that even though BCCI is the richest cricket board, they will always be the better team.

[tapandrun]

1 minute ago, Tillu said:

The Aussies seem to play with a lot more intensity against us than other teams. They always have a point to prove that even though BCCI is the richest cricket board, they will always be the better team.

Most teams and players plays with more intensity vs Ind, performing vs Ind can get a good Ipl contract, even 1 good outing can be life changing. 

 

 

[Gollum]

4 hours ago, deathmonger said:

Home I think it is more solid.

 

2017 series. 2020 series.

Yes but even there, they have bagged a couple of series wins in the last 6 years.

 

2019 was important bevause they came back from 0-2 down to win 3-2, against our full strength side, before the WC. Kuldeep and Chahal were invincible before that but their confidence got shaken up just before the big event.

 

Then the 2023 final, soul crushing.

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, Tillu said:

The Aussies seem to play with a lot more intensity against us than other teams. They always have a point to prove that even though BCCI is the richest cricket board, they will always be the better team.

I notice the contrary. Aussies play with less intensity against us post IPL taking off. I mean they are still super competitive but their aggression has toned down in the last 10 years or so. We are the team which seems more pumped up, and overperform. 

Edited October 24, 2025 by Gollum

[New guy]

1 hour ago, tapandrun said:

Most teams and players plays with more intensity vs Ind, performing vs Ind can get a good Ipl contract, even 1 good outing can be life changing. 

 

 

As Gollum said, it's the opposite. We won way more matches in Australia, both in tests and ODIs after IPL. Pre IPL they played with more intensity 

[Tillu]

13 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I notice the contrary. Aussies play with less intensity against us post IPL taking off. I mean they are still super competitive but their aggression has toned down in the last 10 years or so. We are the team which seems more pumped up, and overperform. 

 

No they play with the same intensity if not more. They completely toned down sledging after the sandpaper gate which might make the matches appear less intense. Now they have a lot more incentive to play well against india as that will fetch them good money in the IPL.

[Nikhil_cric]

To make a larger point, this is not just about poor record vs OZ in OZ

 

It's generally about what makes Australia a ridiculously strong ODI side.

 

They have 7 batsmen who can take the game away from you whenever they play. And that's been the case throughout their ODI history.

 

They had Mitch Owen blasting us while batting at #7.

 

And we had friggin Washi.

 

Batting strength will always matter more than bowling strength in ODIs and we are always focussed on 5th and 6th bowlers.

 

The one time we played with 7 match winning batsmen from Sehwag at #1 to Raina at #7, we won the World Cup. 

 

 

[tapandrun]

33 minutes ago, New guy said:

As Gollum said, it's the opposite. We won way more matches in Australia, both in tests and ODIs after IPL. Pre IPL they played with more intensity 

Ind has won 5  test before 2008 in Aus vs Aus  and 5 test after. Ind has won 7 odi matches before 2008 and 7 Odi after that in Aus vs Aus.

 

Pre IPL i.e. before 2008 they were a super-team for 10 years or so and Ind only started winning recently. There is no "way-more" wins post IPL its just 5 test either side of 2008 and 7 Odi either sides of 2008. 

Pre IPL there was nothing like creating bench as there was no franchise cricket so they played top 11 every time, but intensity vs Ind by any team/player is way high compared to other teams. Yes they are not as rowdy as they were under wagh or ponting but alot has changed not just in cricket.

 

Edited October 24, 2025 by tapandrun

[Sooda]

10 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

To make a larger point, this is not just about poor record vs OZ in OZ

 

It's generally about what makes Australia a ridiculously strong ODI side.

 

They have 7 batsmen who can take the game away from you whenever they play. And that's been the case throughout their ODI history.

 

They had Mitch Owen blasting us while batting at #7.

 

And we had friggin Washi.

 

Batting strength will always matter more than bowling strength in ODIs and we are always focussed on 5th and 6th bowlers.

 

The one time we played with 7 match winning batsmen from Sehwag at #1 to Raina at #7, we won the World Cup. 

 

 

 

And the reason Aussies can do that is because their batting line up is stacked with guys who can bowl, just as we had Yuvraj and Raina at least back then. Look down their current line up and literally they can all bowl.. some are actually good part timers or batting all rounders, others just tidy but useful. 

 

This is the key , grooming batting AR, not bits of pieces , or bowlers who can bat. I think Washington could be a good ODI AR but most certainly not at no 7 or 8

Edited October 24, 2025 by Sooda

[tapandrun]

53 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I notice the contrary. Aussies play with less intensity against us post IPL taking off. I mean they are still super competitive but their aggression has toned down in the last 10 years or so. We are the team which seems more pumped up, and overperform. 

Yes agression is down, they are not rowdy any more , some of it has to do with Ipl contracts and alot do with overall cultural changes globally and sm.

 

Intensity is not equal to aggression or rowdies. Plus previously Aus knew they can build pressure that way and can make Ind player commit some mistake as Ind players were unable to channel that into aiming to perform better but it changed with Kolhi and they stoped or reduced doing it.

 

rowdiness and aggression has gone down overall in cricket apart frm ind team where it has increased a bit

 

Edited October 24, 2025 by tapandrun

[Nikhil_cric]

31 minutes ago, Sooda said:

 

And the reason Aussies can do that is because their batting line up is stacked with guys who can bowl, just as we had Yuvraj and Raina at least back then. Look down their current line up and literally they can all bowl.. some are actually good part timers or batting all rounders, others just tidy but useful. 

 

This is the key , grooming batting AR, not bits of pieces , or bowlers who can bat. I think Washington could be a good ODI AR but most certainly not at no 7 or 8

Thing is they are batsmen first.  They don't care about the quality of their 5th and 6th bowlers. 

 

Mitch Owen is barely a bowler but he won't be dropped as long as he bats well at #7..

 

Post 2013, ageing stars like Dhoni blamed our losses on the lack of a genuine 5th bowling option when he should have been upping his flagging strike rate.

 

I already posted elsewhere, Australia won the 2015 World Cup in the 2 new ball era with Maxwell and Shane Watson as their 5th and 6th bowlers

 

Maxwell averaged 36 at 5.73 economy. 

Watson averages 85 at 6.57 economy 

 

Indian fans' and analysts' brains would explode if India's 5th and 6th bowlers had such numbers.

 

It's amazing how all and sundry are impressed by Australia's multi-generational ODI dominance but  rarely tried to copy their template ourselves. 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2025 by Nikhil_cric

[Suhaan]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

I notice the contrary. Aussies play with less intensity against us post IPL taking off. I mean they are still super competitive but their aggression has toned down in the last 10 years or so. We are the team which seems more pumped up, and overperform. 

You are absolutely wrong ,their aggression has gone due to that famous sandpaper incident,their were many articles published how Aus needs to tone down on aggression

Even Starc mentioned it

[tapandrun]

15 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Thing is they are batsmen first.  They don't care about the quality of their 5th and 6th bowlers. 

 

Mitch Owen is barely a bowler but he won't be dropped as long as he bats well at #7..

 

Post 2013, ageing stars like Dhoni blamed our losses on the lack of a genuine 5th bowling option when he should have been upping his flagging strike rate.

 

I already posted elsewhere, Australia won the 2015 World Cup in the 2 new ball era with Maxwell and Shane Watson as their 5th and 6th bowlers

 

Maxwell averaged 36 at 5.73 economy. 

Watson averages 85 at 6.57 economy 

 

Indian fans' and analysts' brains would explode if India's 5th and 6th bowlers had such numbers.

 

It's amazing how all and sundry are impressed by Australia's multi-generational ODI dominance but  rarely tried to copy their template ourselves. 

 

 

 

Aus cricketing knowledge is way better than any other cricketing system. player we are calling allrounders are batter's first. Watson, maxwell, symonds etc .. all were batters who can bowl. They hardly call a bowler who can bat an allrounder , cummins - they would never call him an allrounder. He will always be a bowler who can bat.

 

They knew how to use high pace bowlers in icc events vs lower ranked teams so that there is no upset. They would use high pace vs loer mo and lower order batter to clean up tail. 

They are not focused or fixated on who played what shot better (or better looking shot), for them a batter should have both off and leg side game should be able to hit 4/6 and able to handle both pace and spin. The funda has been simple Strong batters who could bowl and 3-4 v.good bowlers in playing 11.

 

As now they are seeing that the trio may not be available for t20i wc and Odi wc and they do not have good bowling reserves (or what it seems like rt. now) they have strengthen their batting with big hitter and hoping to out-bat opp. No other team thinks so clearly like that  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said:

To make a larger point, this is not just about poor record vs OZ in OZ

 

It's generally about what makes Australia a ridiculously strong ODI side.

 

They have 7 batsmen who can take the game away from you whenever they play. And that's been the case throughout their ODI history.

 

They had Mitch Owen blasting us while batting at #7.

 

And we had friggin Washi.

 

Batting strength will always matter more than bowling strength in ODIs and we are always focussed on 5th and 6th bowlers.

 

The one time we played with 7 match winning batsmen from Sehwag at #1 to Raina at #7, we won the World Cup. 

 

 

Yea that 2000s side was an absolute bitch to dismiss. Guys like Harvey and Hogg could all bat too and very well at that. Symonds played perhaps the ATG ODI innings against Pak in 2003. 

[rollingstoned]

14 minutes ago, tapandrun said:

 

Aus cricketing knowledge is way better than any other cricketing system. player we are calling allrounders are batter's first. Watson, maxwell, symonds etc .. all were batters who can bowl. They hardly call a bowler who can bat an allrounder , cummins - they would never call him an allrounder. He will always be a bowler who can bat.

 

They knew how to use high pace bowlers in icc events vs lower ranked teams so that there is no upset. They would use high pace vs loer mo and lower order batter to clean up tail. 

They are not focused or fixated on who played what shot better (or better looking shot), for them a batter should have both off and leg side game should be able to hit 4/6 and able to handle both pace and spin. The funda has been simple Strong batters who could bowl and 3-4 v.good bowlers in playing 11.

 

As now they are seeing that the trio may not be available for t20i wc and Odi wc and they do not have good bowling reserves (or what it seems like rt. now) they have strengthen their batting with big hitter and hoping to out-bat opp. No other team thinks so clearly like that  

 

 

 

 

 

 

They pick these multi faceted cricketers for white ball, their template is not like English or Saf template in red ball where they are very particular about specialists and go for more 'traditional' combinations. You won't see them play bits and pieces cricketers for batting depth ever.

[tapandrun]

11 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

They pick these multi faceted cricketers for white ball, their template is not like English or Saf template in red ball where they are very particular about specialists and go for more 'traditional' combinations. You won't see them play bits and pieces cricketers for batting depth ever.

Yes, no bits and pieces player. Plus they wont play players like Gangully or Raina with obvious weaknesses.

Can not say or plan like bowl this line or length for particular batter and can take wkt or stop run flow. A batter needs to be a solid batter who can get runs vs top bowlers.

Eng till v.recently will pick defensive players for white-ball. It only changed with Flintoff and KP and with Morgan they went next level in no time.

Edited October 24, 2025 by tapandrun

[LordPrabhzy]

when you turn up to Aus a week before the first ODI with majority of the players being used to flat slow pitches of SC for many months prior how on earth they are going to acclimatise so quickly.. rather than arranging some friendly 50 over games obv there is no time because other commitments took over.

 

Why didnt Kohli and Rohit play in Aus in friendly sides even in Aus grade cricket whch is a very good standard- is it beneath them?.. well keep getting out for 0s and embarrassing your own legacy because practice and preparation is beneath you

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, New guy said:

As Gollum said, it's the opposite. We won way more matches in Australia, both in tests and ODIs after IPL. Pre IPL they played with more intensity 

More disrespect , more disdain perhaps. 

[Gollum]

Psychologically also I feel we have a problem against them in ODIs. I remember TVS tri-series post 03 WC in India, where Aus and NZ were the other teams. Aussies had a very weak bowling attack but still dominated us. In the final (Eden Gardens) we couldn't chase down 230 against Bracken, Bichel, Brad Williams, Harvey, Clarke and dew had set in big time. Next year was platinum jubilee match against Pak in the same venue and Pak easily chased 290+ against us and we simply couldn't bowl with so much dew. 

 

In tests, we have fought them like tigers since 2001 BGT, no other nation comes close. 

Edited October 24, 2025 by Gollum

[New guy]

8 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Psychologically also I feel we have a problem against them in ODIs. I remember TVS tri-series post 03 WC in India, where Aus and NZ were the other teams. Aussies had a very weak bowling attack but still dominated us. In the final (Eden Gardens) we couldn't chase down 230 against Bracken, Bichel, Brad Williams, Harvey, Clarke and dew had set in big time. Next year was platinum jubilee match against Pak in the same venue and Pak easily chased 290+ against us and we simply couldn't bowl with so much dew. 

 

In tests, we have fought them like tigers since 2001 BGT, no other nation comes close. 

If we had DRS before, we would have won couple of test series there for sure