Extraordinary Australia silence India: World Cup final review

81 All Out  > Conversation, Listen, Preview/Review >  Extraordinary Australia silence India: World Cup final review
Extraordinary Australia silence India: World Cup final review

We review Australia’s incredible win over India in the World Cup final.

Talking points: 

  • Australia’s remarkable achievement – and this triumph in comparison to their previous World Cup wins
  • Rohit Sharma’s approach at the start of the innings
  • Virat Kohli and the ability to strike at six an over on any pitch
  • The slowdown in the middle overs against fine Australian bowling
  • Cummins, Hazlewood and their brilliant variations
  • Shami opening the bowling instead of Siraj
  • Bumrah’s beauty to dismiss Steve Smith
  • Travis Head’s unforgettable assault


Siddhartha Vaidyanathan (@sidvee)

Mahesh Sethuraman (@cornerd)

Ashoka (@ABVan)

Kartikeya Date (@cricketingview) | Substack | ESPNcricinfo



  • Great final caps Australia’s greatest year – Kartikeya Date – Cricketingview
  • Watch out for Shami when he’s running in like a horse – Bharat Arun – ESPNcricinfo
  • Advance Australia, inevitably – Osman Samiuddin – ESPNcricinfo
  • Krishnamachari Srikkanth’s analysis of the final – YouTube
  • Buy War Minus the Shooting by Mike Marqusee – Amazon
  • War Minus the Shooting – Revisiting the 1996 World Cup through a classic book – 81allout podcast
  • Buy Cricket Beyond the Bazaar by Mike Coward – Amazon


Lead image from here.

9 thoughts on “Extraordinary Australia silence India: World Cup final review”

  1. Nice discussion but I feel you are too dismissive of Australia raising their level in higher stakes games. This side had a very mediocre bilateral record and were clearly behind Eng, NZ, SA and India last few years.
    I completely disagree with you saying South Africa could have won. There is absolutely no chance they would have held their nerve against India in such a huge stadium . As an Indian fan I knew deep down Australia is the only team with the chance of beating India and every other team would have folded.
    We cannot rationalize by saying they have great players because they have been struggling in bilaterals for a long time. They truly played out of their skins in the final with perfectly executed strategies to each batsman despite on paper being huge underdogs. No other team would have risen to the occasion against this Indian side.
    On paper this Aus is a mid table team and it showed in their recent results yet to comfortably beat the strongest Indian side ever is only because they have the mentality to execute under pressure . None of their players had an exceptional tournament and multiple other teams led them in some stats or the other yet I knew they were the only team India would have to worry about.

    1. We discussed that in the preview – Australia’s approach to bilaterals is very different from other sides. They experiment a lot in those games and make sure they get their combination right in the global tournaments. They have been doing this for many years now. THis is not a mid table side at all. They are an exceptional side that played brilliantly to win 9 games in a row. They raised their game after losing the first two matches (and even in that league match v India, they could have had a chance if Marsh had caught Kohli).

      1. They are no more exceptional than SA,NZ or ENG on paper , let alone India. Don’t act like they were better on paper than the other sides. And yet there is no chance in hell any other team could have beaten India in this tournament. You can’t brush that under the carpet. Tell me on paper what makes this team any better than the top 5?

        1. This is a tournament where Test quality bowling attacks have done well. Australia are already better than England in that regard. And Hazlewood, Cummins and Starc have more experience and are better suited to these conditions than the NZ bowlers. SA were the one team to have a comparable attack. But SA don’t have as strong a batting as Aus.

          1. Well Cummins, Hazlewood and Starc all had horrible tournaments in the group stages before turning it on in the knockouts in the way only Australia can. SA batting is way stronger than Aus both on paper and on actual performances in the group stage. Aus scraped through multiple matches in the group stage and never looked anywhere near their best but raised their level when it mattered. Cummins ODI record is a tier below Siraj, let alone Shami or Bumrah but he bowled the match of his life in the final. Both Cummins and Starc were averaging in the 40s before the knockouts. Not acknowledging all this is very dishonest and misleading. Australia didn’t win because they are a great team, they are a great team because they found a way to win despite everything.

          2. The three took 47 wickets in the tournament. Hazlewood’s economy is < 5. Cummmins' ER is < 6. They are very good bowlers. Zampa had a good tournament. Yes, they have bad days but no way is Australia winning 9 in a row if they were average. They are a great team. Full stop. Yes, they beat a more favored team in the final. And yes, they played better in the final than they have in some games in the tournament. On that we agree. But they raised their game repeatedly through the World Cup - first after the big defeat v SA and later in games v SL (SL 125/0), England and Pakistan. And of course Afg and the semi-final. Their ability to win 9 in a row is not something to be taken lightly. Thanks for engaging.

  2. Oh dear, a lot of sour grapes here gentlemen. I love listening to your show, but it seemed to me that your arguments were ‘India were unlucky, which happens’ and it is rubbish that Australia is good at winning trophies, they lose lots also. So, having won 46% of the World Cups that have happened is not a trend?
    The reality is that Australia, across many sports, have a mindset (call it arrogance) that they can beat anyone and have the capacity to. Cummins’ decision to bat was a symbol of that – he would have been crucified in Australia had India gone out and scored 320 after that call, but he believed, deeply, in his team and its ability to beat the greatest India team (greatest ever team?) and showed that with his decision. You can also argue that India was the best team at the World Cup, which no one would disagree with, but as you said, the trophy cabinet is very empty.

  3. They scraped by Pak, NZ and were damn lucky to barely escape against Afg. Starc and Cummins both averaged above 40 and Hazlewood above 30 . Logically SA was far superior to them yet everyone knew Aus would have the edge in the knockouts and was the only team that could beat India. If you can’t take into account the intangibles they have then you are no better than a machine, incapable of analyzing beyond stats and on paper quality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.