World Cups or Test Series Victories?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have confused you with a typo - the first WC2003 was meant to be WC99. Shortly to be corrected.

In that case, I agree.

 

[marc71178]

For mine South Africa should have won WC92, WC96 and definately WC99.

WC 92 they were in a terrible position and outplayed in the semi's

Can't remember what happened in 96

99, they did definitely blow it though.

 

[marc71178]

So that's why Bangladesh have lost their last 40-odd ODIs, then?

I said "just about any"

Seriously, though, in ODIs the better side wins more often than not; in Tests the better side wins more often than not but even more so.

Almost all the middle sides have win-loss percentages around 50-50 - are you telling me that is because they're all equal then?

 

[Richard]

WC 92 they were in a terrible position and outplayed in the semi's

Can't remember what happened in 96

99, they did definitely blow it though.

Which was the 26-off-1-ball game? I though that was '92.
Or was that not a knockout game, was it part of that brilliant round-robin phrase?
In '96, if I remember rightly, they contrived to lose to West Indies.
In '99, hindsight suggests, it took just Allan Donald to make a louder call and Klusener to hit the ball past the infield next ball, and they'd have won the Cup.

 

[Richard]

I said "just about any"




Almost all the middle sides have win-loss percentages around 50-50 - are you telling me that is because they're all equal then?

No, it's because most of them are appallingly inconsistent. Three years ago there were some superb teams around; now there have been plenty of losses due to retirements. Poor selection has weakened most teams further.

 

[marc71178]

Which was the 26-off-1-ball game? I though that was '92.

It was.

They were outplayed throughout that game (nobody mentions the extreme measures they went to in ending 5 overs short of the quota when England's batsmen were clobbering them)