Australia won the toss and decided to bowl first in the Cricket World Cup final against India at Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad.
The decision has divided opinions between past greats, especially with India skipper Rohit Sharma telling Ravi Shastri he would have batted first anyway.
Australia had struggled chasing a total in the lead-up to the World Cup, a record made worse by a dismal performance against South Africa in their second match of the tournament, when they bowled first.
Watch, Stream & Catch Up with Australia’s Home of Cricket on 7plus >>
But they turned it around with two thrilling chases in a row against Afghanistan and Bangladesh to round out the group stage, followed by another one to beat the Proteas in the semi-final.
Former Aussie batter Mark Waugh identified two reasons why Cummins may have chosen to bowl.
“The first reason is they’re not sure how the pitch is going to play, and often if that’s the case you tend to bowl first,” he said.
“And the dew factor; that’s a bit part of the game — if it does start to dew up at night then that’s going to help the Australians.”
But he admitted it was dangerous.
“It’s risky. Personally, in a big game, I prefer runs on the board, than (to) defend them. It could be pretty hot as well — it’s not easy if you’re on the field for 50 overs then you’ve got to go straight out and bat,” he added.
“Those are the factors against Australia, but they would have done their homework, they must know the dew’s coming in.”
Former Aussie keeper Brad Haddin was stunned.
“I’m shocked. I thought the Australians would have batted first, put runs on the board in the final, then let the game pan out from there,” he said.
“Rohit Sharma’s obviously read the conditions a lot different to what we did. I thought Australia would have batted first.”
But experienced cricket mind Kerry O’Keefe wasn’t as surprised.
“No, not really, because (in) game 42, Afghanistan won the toss on this pitch, batted, got 244. South Africa (captain) Temba Bavuma said, ‘We’d have chased anyway’, (and) the pitch was better for chasing. So, the recent past history at Ahmedabad is: it’s not so bad chasing,” he noted.
Former India batter Sanjay Manjrekar agreed.
“Excellent decision by Australia, and one of the reasons they (have been) world champs is because they know their stuff,” Manjrekar said.
“On this pitch, bowling first, the seamers will get some movement; the off-cutters and stuff off the pitch, there will be lateral movement. And if you’ve some good spinners, they’ll get some turn as well.
“Good decision. I think it’s a very, very sensible, smart call.”
Earlier, Cummins curiously noted some misgivings he had with the all-important surface.
Cummins was frustrated when he inspected the pitch with officials, which is reportedly very rough and crude at each end with huge patches in front of the creases, yet like concrete in the middle.
“I’m not a great pitch reader, but it looks pretty firm,” Cummins told media after the inspection.
“It’s only just been watered, so we’ll give it 24 hours to have another look. But it looks like pretty good.”
While that was Cummins’ diplomatic take, it was a different scenario behind the scenes.
He reportedly raised the issue with ground staff, who started rolling the deck immediately.
Veteran cricket writer Bharat Sundaresan said the Australians were “bracing for a trial by spin with concerns over the five-metre patches in front of the creases”.
“But they’re preferring to not react with alarm, especially with India’s bowlers having taken the pitch out of the equation often in (this year’s World Cup),” he said.
Sundaresan, who writes for cricbuzz.com, also said the pitch had a very unusual appearance.
“Never used this description for a pitch before, but the surface that’ll be used for the World Cup final has a very ‘pistachio and almond flavour’ colour to it from afar,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
“The verdict was that these patches on both sides of the pitch had not been watered, or not to the same extent, anyway as the centre of the wicket,” Sundaresan wrote.
“Leaving the Aussie camp quite convinced that the spinners would come into play a lot more than they have on a number of pitches seen during the tournament, and from early in the piece too.”
News Corp sports journalist Daniel Cherny said the curator had been bouncing a ball at either end.
“One end had been bouncing higher than the other, they then rolled the bouncier end,” Cherny said on X.
– With Cameron Noakes
If you’d like to view this content, please adjust your .
To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.