)
Nah. Richards was better. Dilshan, Starc, Murali, Yuvraj, Kapil, Akram, Gilchrist, Klusener, Shakib are as good as him.
How? Murali has a similar record in the WCs in the same era and he played for a significantly weaker team.
We weren't a weak team back then , during Murali's era we won 1 World Cup and made 2 World Cup finals out of 5 tournaments.
I never said Sril Lanka was a weak team. But compared to McGrath's Australia it was a significantly weaker team. SL 3-4 great players while that Australia had 9-10 great players. In that Australian team even players like Hogg and Tait who only became part of the team because of injuries or suspension were among the best performers in the WC.
This only proves my point.
You do know that he wasn't even the highest wicket taker for Australia in 99 and 03?
Nobody would disagree that Sri Lanka is a weaker team than Australia, but we aren't comparing teams, we are comparing World Class players who improved their teams immensely.
Starc has a way better record than McGrath in World Cups and that too in a far better bowling era.
Not as successful
Highest wicket taker in both editions he has better with a significantly better average than McGrath. If anything he is more impressive than McGrath.
Rather be one of the leading players that helped the team to 3 World Cup wins
Starc would have also done that if he was part of that team instead of Mcgrath.
He would be playing with Mcgrath, there is no way he would have played instead of Mcgrath in Tests or ODI cricket. Besides would have , could have , should have, SA should have reached atleast a final with the talent they had but they didn't.
Maybe he went a long way to making them a significantly better team.
hahahaha
Wow getting Tendulkar wicket in the final. Must be really big task. Surely nobody else has done that. He always had a knack for going big at big moments.
