-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Rank the ODI playing nations in order of historical greatness
- Thread starter Lillian Thomson
- Start date
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Goes to show how dominant West Indies were in the glory days.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Are you 100% on those stats? I'm very surprised that NZ have such a bad record vs Aus compared to England.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
It's quite scary that we made three of the first five World Cup Finals and the semifinal in the other two. Then got left behind as the game changed.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Aus bash both at home, Aus only bash NZ away (31-20 in NZ, to 30-29 in England). Explains most of the difference.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Australia - it's obvious
West Indies - their period from the start to around 1996 is just too good to ignore. Maybe missed a few world cups at the end of it - but were continously dishing it out to everyone in all bi/tri-lateral series.
South Africa - Might edge out Windies in period since 1996 but just have this nice knack of losing any big series to lose credit.
India - A lot of credit since 2000ish - perhaps should be higher because historically, they made it into a huge big massive enormous thing because of their ODI mad fans
SriLanka - maybe deserve a higher impact as they made the fast scoring change - but **** off Ranatunga
Pakistan - various good periods, but meh
England - probably should be lower than New Zealand, but they made this version of the game, like they made T20
NewZealand - little brother is always a try hard
Zimbabwe - put in a good showing for a while there
Bangladesh - probably doing enough lately to soon have it over Zimbabwe
West Indies - their period from the start to around 1996 is just too good to ignore. Maybe missed a few world cups at the end of it - but were continously dishing it out to everyone in all bi/tri-lateral series.
South Africa - Might edge out Windies in period since 1996 but just have this nice knack of losing any big series to lose credit.
India - A lot of credit since 2000ish - perhaps should be higher because historically, they made it into a huge big massive enormous thing because of their ODI mad fans
SriLanka - maybe deserve a higher impact as they made the fast scoring change - but **** off Ranatunga
Pakistan - various good periods, but meh
England - probably should be lower than New Zealand, but they made this version of the game, like they made T20
NewZealand - little brother is always a try hard
Zimbabwe - put in a good showing for a while there
Bangladesh - probably doing enough lately to soon have it over Zimbabwe
smash84
The Tiger King
I can't believe people ranking SL above Pakistan, and in some cases India. It's ridiculous. Pakistan have been total ****e for the last decade or so but still were competitive with Sri Lanka and over the course of their histories its not even a comparison.
And India are easily the second best ODI side after Aus. Their record in the last 15 years is excellent and there is a strong argument for them to be the best ODI side after their WC 2007 debacle. One expects India to do well in ODI tournaments and they come through on expectations most of the times. Putting them below SL is just silly.
And India are easily the second best ODI side after Aus. Their record in the last 15 years is excellent and there is a strong argument for them to be the best ODI side after their WC 2007 debacle. One expects India to do well in ODI tournaments and they come through on expectations most of the times. Putting them below SL is just silly.
Last edited:
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I rate India below Sri Lanka because for the 20 years between 1996 and 2016 Sri Lanka were consistently better against Australia than India.
India have been better against Sri Lanka than most teams so I can understand why an Indian might form the view that India was better.
Sri Lanka were a minnow until the mid 90s though so I can understand people rating pre-90s cricket higher.
India have been better against Sri Lanka than most teams so I can understand why an Indian might form the view that India was better.
Sri Lanka were a minnow until the mid 90s though so I can understand people rating pre-90s cricket higher.
smash84
The Tiger King
Can you also understand why a pakistani might for the same opinion?
randycricfreak
State Vice-Captain
Australia
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
India
SouthAfrica
West Indies
England
Bangladesh
Bangladesh can perhaps overcome England if they manage a SF spot in 2019, unless otherwise England wins the WC.I would like to rank SA above India, but India have done alright in WCs compared to SA, Pakistan has been better than India, when Sachin was the lone warrior for them, in the 90s.Sri Lanka gets the edge for their amazing ICC WC successes. And historically for what they have done overall.Australia were mosnters
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
India
SouthAfrica
West Indies
England
Bangladesh
Bangladesh can perhaps overcome England if they manage a SF spot in 2019, unless otherwise England wins the WC.I would like to rank SA above India, but India have done alright in WCs compared to SA, Pakistan has been better than India, when Sachin was the lone warrior for them, in the 90s.Sri Lanka gets the edge for their amazing ICC WC successes. And historically for what they have done overall.Australia were mosnters
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
That's bull. It's quite dire to link someone's opinion to their nationality or anything else about them. This forum is supposed to be better than that.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I don't think he did that. The way I read it he just meant someone might be more conversant with their own country's results. Not everyone goes to Stats guru to form their opinion.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
How on Earth are Netherlands and Scotland ahead of Kenya, in a historical ranking of ODI cricket? They haven't even won a single World Cup match or beaten 5 of the ten full ICC members at least once.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Kenya has been so so bad outside their peak
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
A peak that lasted 10 years and has yet to be matched in ODIs by associates