Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Which is the 2nd best ODI side (behind Oz)?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • NZ

    13 34.21%
  • India

    11 28.95%
  • South Africa

    11 28.95%
  • Bangladesh (have bullied the other sides at home)

    2 5.26%
  • Other (please name)

    1 2.63%
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 235
Like Tree106Likes

Thread: 2nd best ODI side?

  1. #151
    Cricketer Of The Year Black_Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    TEF
    Posts
    9,290
    I don't think KV actually watches a lot of cricket.

    There are a huge number of question marks about this Aussie side. They may be world champions. They may be mediocre. Given their history you'd tend to side with the "world champions" possibility, but there is a very real chance that Aussie could be seriously exposed in this series, as they were in the ODI series. We don't really know how good Starc is in Tests. We don't really know if Steve Smith can cope with lateral movement. There's frankly a lot of things we don't know, and I'm looking forward to finding out.
    Ok we have to be clear what we're talking about here.

    Question marks of Aussie test side. Correct. Agreed. No issues there.

    Question marks over Aussie ODI side (and this is a thread about ODI sides) - I don't think there are any questions marks there. They are clearly the best side and losing 1 series comprising of 3 ODIs does not in any way change that. They have clearly been, over the last 2-3 years, a dominant ODI side in all conditions. I think the last time they lost was in India Oct 2013.



    Since then

    Won in UAE
    Lost Tri series in Zimbabwe against South Africa
    Thrashed South Africa 4-1 at home
    Thrashed India and England at home
    Won World Cup
    Won in England
    Won against India
    Lost to New Zealand 1-2. You're reading far too much into a three match series.

    The problems that the Aussie top order faces against lateral movement whether seam or spin don't play that big a role in LO cricket. Firstly bowlers bowl in short spells and the field placings and context of the game is totally different. You won't have 3 slips, gully and point.


    The two formats are very very different. Cricket is a bit more complicated sport than Rugby or Boxing and I am not sure you're entirely aware of that.
    Last edited by Black_Warrior; 09-02-2016 at 05:27 AM.
    NZTailender likes this.
    "This is a clash of strategy. And of methods, culture and politics. This is a new-era rivalry. Not as ancient as the Ashes, or as passionate as India-Pakistan. Two countries that are so different, yet share rampant egotism, high self-opinion and a belief that being born in their country is superior to other births. This brings together a belligerent bunch of brats, bullies and braggers."- Jarrod Kimber

  2. #152
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinzan View Post
    Just you're overstating it, they could have so easily won that game and the series yesterday and then they'd be one of the few teams to beat NZ at home in recent times. Only SA have done it in the last 4 years or so. All this when they're missing arguably their 2 best ODI cricketers in Starc and Faulkner and anyone could see they should have selected Khawaja in the first game.
    They could also have lost the series 3-0, in fact it took a career-high innings from a No. 8 batsman to prevent this. I don't agree with the "Team A would have been better if players X, Y and Z weren't injured" argument because cricket is as much a test of depth as anything. I didn't blame the loss in the second ODI on not having Taylor and Southee, for example.

    As for selecting Khawaja, I fail to see how massive selection blunders correlate with being the No. 1 team. I'd argue that not knowing Khawaja was first choice is evidence for my contention that the Aussie team is in a general state of disarray and their "world champions" tag is an artifact of history.

  3. #153
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Warrior View Post
    The problems that the Aussie top order faces against lateral movement whether seam or spin don't play that big a role in LO cricket..
    This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.

    The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).

    If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

    Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

    I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.

  4. #154
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    For the record, this is what an Aussie side looks like when it's clearly No. 1:

    9 February 2005: 3 of the top 7 ranked ODI batsmen (Gilchrist, Ponting and Clarke) and 3 of the top 6 ranked bowlers (McGrath, Gillespie and Lee).

    THAT is a No. 1 side. Not 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20.


  5. #155
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    International 12th Man TNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.

    The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).

    If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

    Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

    I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.
    So you dismiss the ranking system that puts Australia at number 1 and to prove NZ are the better team you use the player rankings to show that the rankings don't provide a true picture.
    NZTailender likes this.
    If you nick it walk

  6. #156
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    International 12th Man TNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    For the record, this is what an Aussie side looks like when it's clearly No. 1:

    9 February 2005: 3 of the top 7 ranked ODI batsmen (Gilchrist, Ponting and Clarke) and 3 of the top 6 ranked bowlers (McGrath, Gillespie and Lee).

    THAT is a No. 1 side. Not 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20.
    So SA are the number one ODI team, three ODI batsmen in the top ten, two of the top three. Three of the top six bowlers in ODI's.

    SA are clearly the top ODI team.

  7. #157
    Cricketer Of The Year Black_Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    TEF
    Posts
    9,290
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    This is just silly. I just watched three games in which lateral movement wrecked the Aussie top order three times. Had there been a three match series on Aussie roads I have little doubt that Aussie would have beaten us comfortably.
    And I saw two games where New Zealand collapsed from great positions to settle for below par scores in their own home conditions against a bowling side that is not even known for great seam or swing credentials.


    The team that worn the World Cup no longer has Clarke, Watson, Johnson or Haddin. Take all that experience out and this is what you're left with: Aussie has 1 batsman ranked in the top 12 in ODIs (compared to NZ's 3) and 1 bowler ranked in the top 20 (compared to NZ's 3).
    And none of them had much of a contribution in that World Cup

    MOM - Faulkner
    MOS - Starc

    The key players were Warner, Smith, Maxwell along with those. You can sort of make a case for MJ but that's it.


    If you have 1 batsman in the top 12 and 1 bowler in the top 20 you are not the No. 1 team, even if a team of mostly different players won a World Cup a year ago.

    Behind Starc, the highest ranked Aussie bowler is Faulkner at 28th. You just cannot tell me that that's worthy of a No. 1 team, when NZ has Boult, Henry and McClenaghan all in the top 20.

    I'm being fair about this and I'll tell you why. Half of the All Blacks retired after the 2015 RWC. If we lose the Rugby Championship I'll happily accept we are no longer the No. 1 team in the world.
    This is a classic case of wrong reading of data. I think you will have a lot in common with Moores.

    Yes Starc is the only bowler ranked in top 10. Despite that this team is winning pretty much against everyone. You know what that tells me? It tells me what I already argued in the previous page - about the depth and quality of the bench strength. You need to have a bulk of performances and games to break into top 20. Guys like Hastings and Richardson haven't played as much to break into the rankings but are still contributing towards series wins despite lacking in experience.

    You take out Boult and Henry
    You take out Morkel and Rabada
    You take out Ashwin and Shami

    Then have a look at the difference in how those teams perform as opposed to how Australia are performing. Twice they restricted New Zealand to below par scores, 4 times they restricted the mighty Indian batting line up to below par scores.
    Last edited by Black_Warrior; 09-02-2016 at 06:38 AM.
    zorax and NZTailender like this.

  8. #158
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    So you dismiss the ranking system that puts Australia at number 1 and to prove NZ are the better team you use the player rankings to show that the rankings don't provide a true picture.
    Yes. I did this because the ranking system that puts Aussie at No. 1 includes a number of historical factors that I don't consider relevant, such as the impact of Clarke, Johnson, Watson and Haddin winning games for them. The player rankings tell you more about how good the players in the team right now are. And my verdict is that they are unproven.

  9. #159
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Warrior View Post
    Yes Starc is the only bowler ranked in top 10. Despite that this team is winning pretty much against everyone. You know what that tells me? It tells me what I already argued in the previous page - about the depth and quality of the bench strength. You need to have a bulk of performances and games to break into top 20. Guys like Hastings and Richardson haven't played as much to break into the rankings but are still contributing towards series wins despite lacking in experience.

    You take out Boult and Henry
    You take out Morkel and Rabada
    You take out Ashwin and Shami

    Then have a look at the difference in how those teams perform as opposed to how Australia are performing. Twice they restricted New Zealand to below par scores, 4 times they restricted the mighty Indian batting line up to below par scores.
    I am certain the new Aussie bowlers are going to climb the rankings rapidly, especially Hastings who I thought was excellent throughout the Chappell-Hadlee series. But as of now they are unproven. Richardson and Boland might turn out to be no good at all. Zampa is a total unknown at international level. Even Josh Hazlewood has fewer wickets than Steve Smith, so he's hardly proven himself either.

    They bowled well against us - but they still comfortably lost the series. That one point weighs 100x more heavy than what Michael Clarke did 3 years ago.

  10. #160
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    55,828
    Clarke barely played ODIs in the last few years of his career. Watson hasn't retired last I'd checked, Johnson was rested half the time, and Haddin didn't that play that much either. This idea that they were integral to our success in the last two years above Starc, Smith, Faulkner etc is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    I am certain the new Aussie bowlers are going to climb the rankings rapidly, especially Hastings who I thought was excellent throughout the Chappell-Hadlee series. But as of now they are unproven. Richardson and Boland might turn out to be no good at all. Zampa is a total unknown at international level. Even Josh Hazlewood has fewer wickets than Steve Smith, so he's hardly proven himself either.

    They bowled well against us - but they still comfortably lost the series. That one point weighs 100x more heavy than what Michael Clarke did 3 years ago.
    Wait more than a day before starting with the revisionism k
    citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?

    those nights were on fire
    we couldn't get higher
    we didn't know that we had it all
    but no one warns you before the fall

  11. #161
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    International 12th Man TNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    Yes. I did this because the ranking system that puts Aussie at No. 1 includes a number of historical factors that I don't consider relevant, such as the impact of Clarke, Johnson, Watson and Haddin winning games for them. The player rankings tell you more about how good the players in the team right now are. And my verdict is that they are unproven.
    So in your mind SA have to be the undisputed number one team.

  12. #162
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    So in your mind SA have to be the undisputed number one team.
    I wouldn't say undisputed, as they are currently getting thumped by England. But the player rankings tell me they're a good side.

    At the end of the 2019 CWC though, SA will go through what Aussie just went through in cricket and NZ in rugby, i.e. half of the top team will retire. After that who knows what they'll be like.

  13. #163
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Clarke barely played ODIs in the last few years of his career. Watson hasn't retired last I'd checked, Johnson was rested half the time, and Haddin didn't that play that much either. This idea that they were integral to our success in the last two years above Starc, Smith, Faulkner etc is silly.

    Wait more than a day before starting with the revisionism k
    Steve Smith averages 40 in ODIs. If he is integral to Aussie success then Aussie can't be that good.

    Also, Clarke won you the Cricket World Cup. In 4 of the last 5 ODI matches Aussie has played against NZ the Aussie top order has disintegrated. The 5th match was the CWC final and it was because of Michael Clarke playing a great, if typical, innings. The guy averaged 45 in ODIs, losing him is massive.

    About revisionism. A 159 run win is an annihilation, a 55 run win is a comfortable win, and a 4 wicket loss that required the opposition No. 8 to get a career high score is a narrow to comfortable loss. That averages out to a comfortable series win.

  14. #164
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    63,251
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    They could also have lost the series 3-0, in fact it took a career-high innings from a No. 8 batsman to prevent this.
    You do realise that that sort of thing is why they're far and away the best side around don't you? When the chips are down they have more players who can step up and win the game for them.
    NZTailender likes this.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  15. #165
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    55,828
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    Steve Smith averages 40 in ODIs. If he is integral to Aussie success then Aussie can't be that good.
    He won us a series in UAE, he was vital to the 4-1 win over SA, he was by some distance our best batsman in the WC and critical to both the QF and semi-final wins.

    If you actually paid any attention, you'd know that Smith has a large proportion of his matches well in the past, where he was a much lesser player and batting 6-7 as an allrounder. Since coming back in the side at the end of 2014 he has been by a distance our best batsman in ODIs.

    Also, Clarke won you the Cricket World Cup. In 4 of the last 5 ODI matches Aussie has played against NZ the Aussie top order has disintegrated. The 5th match was the CWC final and it was because of Michael Clarke playing a great, if typical, innings.
    We had to make 186 and Smith scored a 50 anyway.

    The guy averaged 45 in ODIs, losing him is massive.
    He barely played in the last two years ffs. How are you not getting this?

    About revisionism. A 159 run win is an annihilation, a 55 run win is a comfortable win, and a 4 wicket loss that required the opposition No. 8 to get a career high score is a narrow to comfortable loss. That averages out to a comfortable series win.
    I doubt anyone else watching yesterday's game described that match as "comfortable". The end was fast, but it was a tight game throughout.
    OverratedSanity likes this.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The side that never was???
    By JBMAC in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 28-10-2012, 07:28 AM
  2. Best side?
    By morgieb in forum Season 1 Archive
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 20-04-2012, 12:23 AM
  3. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 22-03-2005, 03:22 PM
  4. My Side
    By superkingdave in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 16-02-2005, 04:52 PM
  5. Your Side.....
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-06-2002, 09:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •