Originally Posted by Turbinator
Exactly my point, this shows you haven't fully understood what I am trying to ask here.
I asking what is better, a team with great chemistry (and very limited number of superstars) or a team with great players (and very limited chemistry). In this case the Aussies has both great players and chemistry vs. a team with ONLY great players.
Umm... I answered that question in my first post. Must I clarify further?
is always better than a superstar XI.
^ An exact quote from my first post...
Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."