trueOriginally Posted by Dravid
trueOriginally Posted by Dravid
My general feeling with the tournaments is that the consistent sides will win through the preliminaries and anything can happen from there. South Africa have disintegrated at the last couple of world cups when it has come to the crunch, the Klusener/Donald mix up and then the misunderstanding of the duckworth lewis charts eliminating them last time around, but after Australia I would say that they are the second most consistent side going around in ODI cricket, afterall they did level Australia's mark of consecutive one day victories last year. The VB series I have just dismissed because of their injuries, they ended up down to a third string bowling attack in the finish.Originally Posted by Slow Love™
They did it in '96, too. Won every one of their group games extremely comfortably, and then crashed against an inconsistent West Indian side they were heavily backed to beat. Ultimately though, like you said, it's not unpredictable for them to top one of the groups.Originally Posted by Great Birtannia
Just one small gripe - not to take away from SAF's achievement last year, but they didn't level Australia's ODI record. Reporting was actually really sloppy on this, and many journos seemed to think they hit 20 victories in a row, and only just missed out on the record after being beaten by India. But in fact there was a tie and two no-results in the streak, which was more an unbeaten streak, if you like. I think they got 13 wins on the trot all up.
"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
SA were clearly the best team in both the 96 and 99 world cups and had the best group of players on the field. They really should have won both world cups if it werent for their choking in the big games. I guess that was one of the disadvantages of the 96 wc format, the knockout stages happened way too early, and you really only needed one bad day to lose to a team that was significantly worse than you. As such in 2003, i dont think anyone could complain about SA not going through, they didnt really deserve to duckworth lewis or not.Originally Posted by Slow Love™
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Pakistan had an excellent team in 99 as well and probaly along with SA the best 2 teams.
Pakistan's bowling attack was really good. The 2 W's, Shoaib and Saqlain and Razzaq was pretty good bowler back than.
They probaly should've won that world cup but like SA choked at the big stage.
Nice prediction.Originally Posted by Laurrz
to be fair i think australia had the best team in 99! they won I think, and they also won about 7 in a row when their backs were to the wall.Originally Posted by tooextracool
WCC - Manager of Warwickshire
Firstly Australia didnt win 7 in a row in that world cup. That is a misconception. The Aus-SA semifinal was a tie, they didnt win that game. They won 5 in a row(1 against bangladesh and another against zimbabwe).Originally Posted by Slats4ever
As for Australia being the better side, i think if you made a direct comparison, you'd see that SA had far and away the better players. SA were batting all the way down to number 9 or 10(Boucher was coming in at 9), while Australia were batting down to 7(really 6 if you consider that moody was down at 7). Kallis back then was in his prime with the ball and averaging over 40 with the bat, Klusener was the player of the tournament, Cronje and Kirsten were both averaging 40, Rhodes was as brilliant as he always has been, and Gibbs, Cullinan, Boucher and Pollock are hardly bad players either.
Bar Mark Waugh and Bevan most of the Australian batsmen were averaging in the mid to low 30s, some like Martyn and moody were averaging in the 20s at the time.
The bowling was a little bit more even with Mcgrath, Warne and Fleming matching Pollock, Donald and Elworthy, but Reiffel was at the fag end of his career and was definetly no where near the class of Kallis and Klusener.
Fielding wise SA were by far the better team.
Cronje was easily a better captain than Waugh especially with Bob Woolmer by his side.
Looking at their respective records going into the tournament, SA were easily the better side.
Theres absolutely no way anyone can claim with a straight face that Australia had the better players. No one matched the SA side in terms of the quality of their players and the depth of batting, bowling, fielding and number of all rounders.
South Africa entered the World Cup in 1999 with the Champions Trophy under their belts. And I think player for player they had a superior squad to Australia's.
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."
okay then wise guy, surely if they were the far superior team they would've made the final and won it. australia > south africa. plain and simple.Originally Posted by tooextracool
because the best team does not always win a tournament? Theres a reason why the WI won the ICC championships last time. All you need is one bad day and you're out. Its the same in a sport like tennis, the best player doesnt always win grandslams, unless you're roger federer and the difference between you and the rest of the players is vast. SA outperformed every other team from 95-00, their record in ODIs is peerless.Originally Posted by sideshowtim
Australia had a consistently superior record to South Africa in head to head ODIs in that period though, particularly in knockout matches. SA may have had better players in a head-to-head matchup, but there's no doubt that Australia had better players in pressure situations, and I think you underrate the leadership of Waugh compared to Cronje, given the impact that his leadership had in those two crucial matches in the '99 WC.
Warne, Bevan and Steve Waugh thrived under pressure in a huge way, while a handful of South African players really came apart pretty badly. Being the better side isn't just about consistently performing against all opposition, it's about performing when it counts and winning key matches.
edit: Incidentally, Ponting also averaged 40 odd going into that WC. More than Mark Waugh, in fact.
Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 05-11-2006 at 07:51 PM.
It's cold on the outside they say
But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze
yea thats true, Australia beat South Africa in the 98 VB series & 4-3 in a ODI seires during that 96-99 period even though the Saffies probably had a better ODI team on paper.
Last edited by aussie; 05-11-2006 at 08:47 PM.
Consistently superior head to head record? Between 95 and 00, SA had a 14-10 record against Australia and that includes a complete thrashing of them in the titan cup in 96/97 as well as complete dominance over them in the C & U series in 97/98(until the finals).Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
No SA were never the best team under pressure, particularly when it came to semi finals and finals but anyone can see that they had a far superior ODI record than Australia during that period against all nations and that they consistently had a much better XI on the field than Australia. As far as leadership is concerned, its blatantly obvious to anyone that Cronje was streets ahead of Steve Waugh in terms of leadership, match fixing or not.
SA might not have had the best record against Australia in tournament finals, but that doesnt however mean that they werent winning ODI series and finals otherwise. they still won the trophy in sharjah in 96 against India and Pakistant(walked all over them), the centenary trophy in kenya with SL and Pak in 96, the standard bank series with India and Zim in 97, the wills quadrangular tournament with pak, sl and WI in 97/98, the standard bank series with pak and SL in 98, the mini world cup in 98 and the standard bank series with England and zim in 99/00. They'd also beaten plenty of other teams in bilateral series in the meantime. To say that they werent better than Australia as a team because they didnt beat them in crunch games is pushing it IMO because they were definetly winning tournaments against other teams.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
Yes Australia had about 3 good batsmen-M. Waugh, Bevan and Ponting. Steve Waugh was acceptable, as was gilchrist and the rest werent even established batsmen in the side(Lehmann, martyn, blewett, divenuto,law, moody, julian or even mark taylor and whoever else it was that was playing at the time). Compare this with SA who had Kirsten, Cronje, Klusener, Rhodes, Kallis all of whom were averaging 40 or thereabouts. Then there was also Cullinan,mcmillan Pollock and Boucher all of whom were extremely effective players despite what their average suggests.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
Last edited by tooextracool; 05-11-2006 at 09:00 PM.
Yes and SA knocked them out of the titan cup in 96 as well as beat them 2-1 immediately after losing cronje(in the heat of the entire match fixing scandal) in 00. point being?Originally Posted by aussie
Last edited by tooextracool; 05-11-2006 at 09:09 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)