World News

‘It wasn’t a 117 wicket’: Rohit Sharma’s direct take on India’s dismal show in 2nd ODI

India were beaten by Australia in the second ODI encounter©AFP

Indian cricket team skipper Rohit Sharma has expressed his disappointment and said the wicket wasn’t bad enough for his team to lose 10 wickets for 117 in the second ODI match against Australia in Visakhapatnam on Sunday. Virat Kohli and Axar Patel were the only two Indian batters to break the 25-run mark as Mitchell Starc went wild for Australia with a brilliant five-wicket run. Rohit regretted the way the Indian batters offered their wickets on a not-so-dangerous surface and pointed out how the dismissal of himself and Shubman Gill put the hosts in a difficult position in the early overs.

“If you lose a game it’s just disappointing. We didn’t apply ourselves with the bat. Didn’t put enough runs on the board. It wasn’t a 117 wicket. We kept losing wickets and that didn’t get us the points we wanted. Once we lost Shubman in the first round, Virat and I got 30-35 points quickly. But then I lost my wicket and we We lost, we lost a few wickets back to back. It put us on the defensive. It’s always difficult to come back from this situation,” Rohit said after the game.

Rohit also praised Mitchell Starc as well as the Australian duo of Travis Head and Mitchell Marsh who scored in their 50s to guide the visitors to a comfortable 10 wicket win.

“Today was not the day for us. Starc is a quality bowler. He did it for Australia with the new ball. He continued bowling to his strength. Swinged the new ball and removed the strange ball. Left the batters guessing. Marsh must be one of the best players when it comes to power hitting. He supports himself to do it from time to time. Definitely in the top 3 and 4 in terms of power shots,” the Indian skipper explained when asked about Australia’s performance on Sunday.

Topics discussed in this article


Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.
Back to top button