Were India lucky to lose toss in the limited overs series against England ?

[stevewittry]

Well, this might sound a bit anti-climax. Many would have felt England were lucky to win the toss 7 out of 8 times in the limited overs series.

However, contrary to this I felt otherwise and that England made the wrong choice of fielding first every single time they won the toss.

Batting second was a major disadvantage due to score board pressure and deteriorating pitch if the side batting first posted a decent total as India managed to do for the most times.

Imagine if England had batted first on winning the toss. There would have been no score board pressure and England with their power hitting would have posted 400+ on ODIs and 240+ on T20s batting first every single time. India with their limited power hitting abilities and a long tail would have struggled to match or go anywhere near these totals.

I must therefore say that it was a strategic miscalculation on the part of England to field first and India being the beneficiaries of this.

Rest would have been 4-1 T20s and 3-0 ODIs if not for this decision.

Your thoughts.

 

[WengerOut]

Stopped reading after "deteriorating pitch "

 

[BreadPakoda]

England with their power hitting would have posted 400+ on ODIs and 240+ on T20s batting first every single time. India with their limited power hitting abilities and a long tail would have struggled to match or go anywhere near these totals.

Agree.

Also feel that the T20I where England made 164/6 batting first after losing the toss - had they won the toss and bowled first, India with their limited power power hitting abilities and a long tail would have scored about 150ish. England with their power hitting would have chased that in 10 overs.

Basically, India was lucky to win the toss they won and lose the tosses they lost.

 

[rhony]

Well, this might sound a bit anti-climax. Many would have felt England were lucky to win the toss 7 out of 8 times in the limited overs series.

However, contrary to this I felt otherwise and that England made the wrong choice of fielding first every single time they won the toss.

Batting second was a major disadvantage due to score board pressure and deteriorating pitch if the side batting first posted a decent total as India managed to do for the most times.

Imagine if England had batted first on winning the toss. There would have been no score board pressure and England with their power hitting would have posted 400+ on ODIs and 240+ on T20s batting first every single time. India with their limited power hitting abilities and a long tail would have struggled to match or go anywhere near these totals.

I must therefore say that it was a strategic miscalculation on the part of England to field first and India being the beneficiaries of this.

Rest would have been 4-1 T20s and 3-0 ODIs if not for this decision.

Your thoughts.

Great post. Why stop at 400s. If top 5 score 100s, its 500 right there. Also, with dew coming in later, it's a great time to bowl. The wet ball would just slide off the bat like a bar of soap.

 

[jiduguravindra]

Stopped reading after "deteriorating pitch "

Under lights, dew coming in best time to bat and he is taking about deteriorating pitches. Lol

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Lol. The best time to bat would be the 2and half of the 2nd innings. It's incredibly difficult to stop the batters after that. The pitch becomes an blitzkrieg of a belter.

 

[stevewittry]

Agree.

Also feel that the T20I where England made 164/6 batting first after losing the toss - had they won the toss and bowled first, India with their limited power power hitting abilities and a long tail would have scored about 150ish. England with their power hitting would have chased that in 10 overs.

Basically, India was lucky to win the toss they won and lose the tosses they lost.

That one game was an aberration that usually happens in shorter formats. Under normal circumstances, England would regularly amass 240+ in T20s and 400+ in ODIs batting first against depleted Indian bowling and on such pitches.

 

[stevewittry]

Under lights, dew coming in best time to bat and he is taking about deteriorating pitches. Lol

India didn't have quality spinners to exploit any turn that was on offer. We have witnessed how deadly Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid was in the first half. Quality Indian spinners in the second half would have made batting even more difficult for England chasing.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

India were lucky England decided to slit their wrists in the 1st ODI. How a team goes from 169-2 in 22 overs to 251 all-out is beyond me.

Today India were simply the better team. Has nothing to do with the toss. India outplayed England and held their nerve during the critical moments to get over the line.

 

[Bengaluru]

That one game was an aberration that usually happens in shorter formats. Under normal circumstances, England would regularly amass 240+ in T20s and 400+ in ODIs batting first against depleted Indian bowling and on such pitches.

England has only scored 240+ on one occasion (241) in T20s so far in their history and have crossed 200 only 10 times. India on the other hand has a 240+ score 3 times (260 highest) and crossed 200 18 times. Similarly, India has 1 more 400+ score than England in ODIs. Next.

 

[Romali_rotti]

To answer the OP : NO

ENG were lucky the Indian umpires were playing for them by giving bumped catches and not giving out run outs etc.

 

[Stumper]

yes we were, their bowlers were bowling with a plan but we had bowling machines without brain... so yes we got lucky.. and also runs against wood, archer stokes(ATG allrounder by some) does not count.. but runs against our bowling machine does