Rain Helped India!

[_sid_]

The Aussies are still strong side in ODIs. Add to fact some Pakistani players will be resting means Australia win.

[CricketGirl]

Your pessimistic approach means to give up before trying...not acceptable

its not a case of being pessimistic but really, padosis arent gonna do us any favours, aussies have just lost the ashes so they need to beat pakistan to stay in the CT so the aussies will put up a damn good fight tommorrow and as for the padosis, they're already thru so win or lose makes no difference to them! given our bowling is so incredibly weak at the moment plus the fact that we need to achieve a pathetically impossible net run rate i dont really have my money on India! on a more positive note, its not the end of the world its just a phase that india will pass thru and once we do we'll be back with a damn vengence!! :icflove: tommorrows another day guys chin up!!

[diegovegaz]

if rain wanted to help india, it would have stopped and given india the target of 166 in 20 overs

[CricketGirl]

:dito:

[riya]

if rain wanted to help india' date=' it would have stopped and given india the target of 166 in 20 overs[/quote'] This.

[Params7]

Did nature do this too? http://www.cricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/current/story/427284.html Michael Clark going back home due to injury.

[Jersey #10]

I think australia would have got 280 at most. They only had White (big hitter) and in form, had we taken his wicket, next guy was Hopes and Johnson. We might have chased 280.

doubt that! Hopes and Johnson both have turned out to be big hitters in last couple of years. Do you not realize why Johnson is sent at number 8 instead of 11 now? He has proven that he can bat. at least 280 was on the cards and there was no way India could have chased that with only 6 batsmen. Rain saved our as$

[yoda]

doubt that! Hopes and Johnson both have turned out to be big hitters in last couple of years. Do you not realize why Johnson is sent at number 8 instead of 11 now? He has proven that he can bat. at least 280 was on the cards and there was no way India could have chased that with only 6 batsmen. Rain saved our as$

i agree we most likely wouldn't have chased 280/300, but we could have chased a reduced target in 20 overs though.

[Jersey #10]

if rain wanted to help india' date=' it would have stopped and given india the target of 166 in 20 overs[/quote'] 166 in 20 overs after rain...not possible dude...the out field would have been very slow after being wet. hence very hard to hit boundaries. Ball would have become soapy and heavier from water on the ground hence very hard to hit sixes as well. There would not have been enough pace on the ball for the pacers meaning we would have to nudge the ball around. this would have never gotten us 166 in 20 overs.

[Jersey #10]

i agree we most likely wouldn't have chased 280/300' date=' but we could have chased a reduced target in 20 overs though.[/quote'] its not possible after rain dude. Plus it's not like we were playing our T20 squad. Don't forget that we were playing Sachin, Dravid and Dhoni. these three don't match t20 requirements. They are too slow. 166 in 120 balls is not a small target to start off with. If you remember, T20 squads have batsmen till number 8 or 9 because every one is supposed to come out and do some hard hitting. There is more chances of losing wickets in these 20 overs and India could have only afforded to lose upto 4 wickets. 166 in 120 balls was a big target for 6 batsmen.