He didn't get a second life. He looked like getting out at the beginning of his innings but he never actually gave an opportunity.What does that have to do with anything?
Doesn't change the fact that after he was settled the bowlers looked clueless as to where to bowl to him. Even Nannes, who had such a great first spell, was smacked by Rohit in his second spell.Doesn't change the fact that he looked clueless at the crease attempting wild slogs that would have flown into the sky had he got hold of 'em.
All I'm saying here is that there is no need to take away credit from the player just because he is Rohit Sharma or because he was scratchy at the beginning of his innings. He looked outclassed at the beginning, there's no doubt about it. But he wasn't given a lucky reprieve--he didn't give the Aussies a single half-chance to get him out. And once he got in, he played the bowlers with more ease than any of our top order batsmen. The only problem I have with your whole argument is you pretending that Sharma's innings didn't have any positives at all. He had a poor start, but he more than made up for it.
sohum added 0 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...
The whole thing is over, but you are still hanging around the World Twenty20 forum. Hypocritical much?The whole thing is over, and they are still posting here