No Asians ?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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).
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=t...ields=viewtype

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.

Fair enough about the 14-10 record, but as I said, in crunch games Australia always came out on top. As you say, in the 97/98 tri-series SA won most of the preliminary matches but were beaten in the finals, and lost from winning positions twice in a row in the 99 WC (yes, the second one was a tie). They maintained an impressive record in the less important matches against Australia, but never won the significant ones.

And again, you're seriously underrating Waugh's impact in those encounters. Whether you think Cronje is a superior tactical captain or not, Waugh had a significant impact in both the 99 WC matches while Cronje did not (a duck in both games, in fact). In fact, Waugh also had a big impact in the deciding C&U series final. Leadership is about more than field placings, and Waugh came through in a big way in those pressure games, despite being a fairly mediocre ODI batsman in many other cases.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

That's more or less right, I was just pointing out that Ponting also had a good average at the time. I think Gilchrist was more than "acceptable" as an ODI batsman, and his opening partnership with Mark Waugh was crucial to Australia's success in ODIs in the late 90s, but generally speaking the side relied on consistency from a few batsmen and occasional contributions from a few others, and SA had a much more consistent batting lineup.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Fair enough about the 14-10 record, but as I said, in crunch games Australia always came out on top. As you say, in the 97/98 tri-series SA won most of the preliminary matches but were beaten in the finals, and lost from winning positions twice in a row in the 99 WC (yes, the second one was a tie). They maintained an impressive record in the less important matches against Australia, but never won the significant ones.

Except as i said earlier, the whole game of cricket does not revolve around Australia. England won the Ashes, and India beat Australia 2-1 and drew 1-1 in Australia in 03/04. Neither of those accomplishments made either team the best in the world, because it is performance against all teams that matters not just Australia. As ive shown you even if you were to look at the head to head record against Australia, SA came out on top. Whether or not SA lost crunch games to Australia is rather irrelevant and you are really clutching at straws if you think otherwise, because they were still winning tournaments and beating everyone including Australia quite comfortably for the most part. They had the better players than every other team in the world.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

And again, you're seriously underrating Waugh's impact in those encounters. Whether you think Cronje is a superior tactical captain or not, Waugh had a significant impact in both the 99 WC matches while Cronje did not (a duck in both games, in fact). In fact, Waugh also had a big impact in the deciding C&U series final. Leadership is about more than field placings, and Waugh came through in a big way in those pressure games, despite being a fairly mediocre ODI batsman in many other cases..

Waugh was a decent captain alright, but he was nowhere near the same class as Cronje. Cronje was a great leader as well as a great tactician. It might have affected his batting a bit, but he was still a much better captain than Waugh.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

That's more or less right, I was just pointing out that Ponting also had a good average at the time. I think Gilchrist was more than "acceptable" as an ODI batsman, and his opening partnership with Mark Waugh was crucial to Australia's success in ODIs in the late 90s, but generally speaking the side relied on consistency from a few batsmen and occasional contributions from a few others, and SA had a much more consistent batting lineup.

You have to be kidding if you think Gilchrist is or was a very good batsman. His record is extremely good only if you consider that hes a wicket keeper, but averaging in the low 30s which he has been for most of his career(even now if you remove his record against bangladesh and zimbabwe) and hes only about as good as Sehwag. Unless of course you think Sehwag is brilliant as well.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Somehow managed to post a lengthy reply to that and then had it disappear a couple of minutes after posting. I'll try again later when the site is working properly.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Except as i said earlier, the whole game of cricket does not revolve around Australia. England won the Ashes, and India beat Australia 2-1 and drew 1-1 in Australia in 03/04. Neither of those accomplishments made either team the best in the world, because it is performance against all teams that matters not just Australia. As ive shown you even if you were to look at the head to head record against Australia, SA came out on top. Whether or not SA lost crunch games to Australia is rather irrelevant and you are really clutching at straws if you think otherwise, because they were still winning tournaments and beating everyone including Australia quite comfortably for the most part. They had the better players than every other team in the world.

Right, but we're comparing South Africa and Australia directly. The fact is, Australia also beat most other sides in the period leading up to the 99 World Cup. After the 96/97 C&U Series where Mark Taylor was dropped as captain, Australia lost a series against England, lost in the final of the Coca-Cola cup to India and lost early in the Wills Cup. South Africa lost a home series against Australia and the finals of the next C&U Series, and lost in a triangular series with India and England. Aside from that, both teams beat most other opposition and were clearly the best sides in the entire gap between World Cups. So yes, comparing their head to head records is the best way to compare the teams, unlike say comparing India and Australia in that way between 2001 and 2004.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Waugh was a decent captain alright, but he was nowhere near the same class as Cronje. Cronje was a great leader as well as a great tactician. It might have affected his batting a bit, but he was still a much better captain than Waugh.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that (aside from the "nowhere near" part), but Waugh was certainly a great leader under pressure, and it's no coincidence that in those key matches against South Africa (who I'm sure we can agree were Australia's biggest threat) he played crucial roles every time, while Cronje certainly didn't.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

You have to be kidding if you think Gilchrist is or was a very good batsman. His record is extremely good only if you consider that hes a wicket keeper, but averaging in the low 30s which he has been for most of his career(even now if you remove his record against bangladesh and zimbabwe) and hes only about as good as Sehwag. Unless of course you think Sehwag is brilliant as well.

I'd love to hear how they are comparable. Gilchrist averages a shade under 36 when you remove the minnows from his record, compared to Sehwag's 31.38 after the same process. Gilchrist also scores more centuries per match and wins far more games for his side. And while Gilchrist isn't an all-time great in ODIs or anything as a batsman alone, he's most certainly a "good" batsman. Gilchrist has the 61st highest average in ODI history, which might not sound like much, but it places him in the top 20 or so among openers in the history of the format, which combined with a fair ability to make big scores and a superb strike rate certainly make him a "good" batsman.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Right, but we're comparing South Africa and Australia directly. The fact is, Australia also beat most other sides in the period leading up to the 99 World Cup. After the 96/97 C&U Series where Mark Taylor was dropped as captain, Australia lost a series against England, lost in the final of the Coca-Cola cup to India and lost early in the Wills Cup. South Africa lost a home series against Australia and the finals of the next C&U Series, and lost in a triangular series with India and England. Aside from that, both teams beat most other opposition and were clearly the best sides in the entire gap between World Cups. So yes, comparing their head to head records is the best way to compare the teams, unlike say comparing India and Australia in that way between 2001 and 2004.

Firstly the gap between Australia and SA was large enough. SA won a staggering 74% of their games from 95 until 2000(Which by the way is only marginally worse than Australias ODI record from 2000 until now) while Australia won 60% of their games in the same period. thats a difference of 14% which is a large enough gap to suggest that one team was clearly better than the other. Even if you were to look at their records from 97 until the world cup(Since you seem to think that the Australian side got better after taylor dropped the captaincy), the record is still 73-60 in SAs favor:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=t...ields=viewtype
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=t...ields=viewtype
Add that to their overall superior head to head record against Australia, you really are clutching at straws by looking at head to heads between the 2 teams in tournament finals.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that (aside from the "nowhere near" part), but Waugh was certainly a great leader under pressure, and it's no coincidence that in those key matches against South Africa (who I'm sure we can agree were Australia's biggest threat) he played crucial roles every time, while Cronje certainly didn't.

No im not saying Waugh was a useless captain, he just wasnt as good as Cronje.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I'd love to hear how they are comparable. Gilchrist averages a shade under 36 when you remove the minnows from his record, compared to Sehwag's 31.38 after the same process. Gilchrist also scores more centuries per match and wins far more games for his side. And while Gilchrist isn't an all-time great in ODIs or anything as a batsman alone, he's most certainly a "good" batsman. Gilchrist has the 61st highest average in ODI history, which might not sound like much, but it places him in the top 20 or so among openers in the history of the format, which combined with a fair ability to make big scores and a superb strike rate certainly make him a "good" batsman.

except that for most of the 90s and early 2000s he was averaging in the low 30s?
Id also be willing to bet that more than at least 60-70% of the 60 batsmen that are on that list ahead of him were openers or batted in the top 3. To be amongst the top 40 top order batsmen in the history of ODI cricket isnt much of an accomplishment IMO, not especially when you consider that his record has improved dramatically only after pitches have gotten flatter.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Firstly the gap between Australia and SA was large enough. SA won a staggering 74% of their games from 95 until 2000(Which by the way is only marginally worse than Australias ODI record from 2000 until now) while Australia won 60% of their games in the same period. thats a difference of 14% which is a large enough gap to suggest that one team was clearly better than the other. Even if you were to look at their records from 97 until the world cup(Since you seem to think that the Australian side got better after taylor dropped the captaincy), the record is still 73-60 in SAs favor:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=t...ields=viewtype
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=t...ields=viewtype
Add that to their overall superior head to head record against Australia, you really are clutching at straws by looking at head to heads between the 2 teams in tournament finals.

Tournament finals are the games you have to win, it's as simple as that. When it comes down to it, South Africa had not one but two clear chances to beat Australia in the '99 WC and failed from a winning position in both games. If they were the better side in the manner that you suggest, one struggles to wonder how, at full strength and in top form, they failed to win either match. South Africa had a very good ODI side in the period in question, and their inability to get over the line against Australia in key matches is the only major blemish on their record, and if it wasn't for that they certainly would have won at least one world cup. However, it happened enough times that I don't think it was a co-incidence, and there's certainly no excuses for the fact that they lost twice in a row to Australia in key matches in that World Cup.

Originally Posted by tooextracool

except that for most of the 90s and early 2000s he was averaging in the low 30s?
Id also be willing to bet that more than at least 60-70% of the 60 batsmen that are on that list ahead of him were openers or batted in the top 3. To be amongst the top 40 top order batsmen in the history of ODI cricket isnt much of an accomplishment IMO, not especially when you consider that his record has improved dramatically only after pitches have gotten flatter.

Actually, I said top 20 for a reason, though I was talking about openers only. I looked through the list, and Gilchrist was around 19th among batsmen who had opened in half their ODI innings or more, and a couple of places lower if you include occasional openers. That includes players like Graeme Smith and Marcus Trescothick incidentally, who I certainly wouldn't say are clearly better ODI openers than Gilchrist. Either way, he's in the top 20, and if that doesn't make him a good ODI batsman your standards are absurdly high. Some other "good" ODI batsmen he has a better average than are Arjuna Rantunga, Jonty Rhodes, Nathan Astle and Andy Flower, and he's only fractionally behind the likes of Graeme Hick and Mohammad Azharuddin. Needless to say, he also has a better scoring rate than any of them by a fair margin while maintaining a similar average, which is obviously a major strength in ODIs, and he's maintained his success over a pretty lengthy career.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Tournament finals are the games you have to win, it's as simple as that. When it comes down to it, South Africa had not one but two clear chances to beat Australia in the '99 WC and failed from a winning position in both games. South Africa had a very good ODI side in the period in question, and their inability to get over the line against Australia in key matches is the only major blemish on their record, and if it wasn't for that they certainly would have won at least one world cup. However, it happened enough times that I don't think it was a co-incidence, and there's certainly no excuses for the fact that they lost twice in a row to Australia in key matches in that World Cup.

Look ive already admitted that SA choked fairly often against Australia and anyone can see that they should have dominated Australia more often than they did. However not tournament finals and SFs against one team does not make them worse, not while they were winning tournaments otherwise. Nothing changes the fact that SA were the toughest team to beat, and that they were the best team of the tournament in both the 96 and 99 versions of the wc and if it werent for 1-2 games here and there they would have won both world cups.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

If they were the better side in the manner that you suggest, one struggles to wonder how, at full strength and in top form, they failed to win either match.

That argument is equivalent to saying something like a batsman cannot be great no matter what he achieved over his career because one bowler constantly had the wood over him. Or perhaps what might be more representative for you, an aussie, i could say that Australia werent a better test team than india until 2004 merely because of the fact that they couldnt beat india in india despite being in winning positions in both lost tests in 2001.
The irony of it all is that had Hershelle Gibbs taken that catch, which IMO he did take anyways but only lost it while throwing it up in the air, Australia wouldnt have made the semi final and SA would have won the world cup and who knows what might have happened after that.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Actually, I said top 20 for a reason, though I was talking about openers only. I looked through the list, and Gilchrist was around 19th among batsmen who had opened in half their ODI innings or more, and a couple of places lower if you include occasional openers. That includes players like Graeme Smith and Marcus Trescothick incidentally, who I certainly wouldn't say are clearly better ODI openers than Gilchrist. Either way, he's in the top 20, and if that doesn't make him a good ODI batsman your standards are absurdly high. Some other "good" ODI batsmen he has a better average than are Arjuna Rantunga, Jonty Rhodes, Nathan Astle and Andy Flower, and he's only fractionally behind the likes of Graeme Hick and Mohammad Azharuddin. Needless to say, he also has a better scoring rate than any of them by a fair margin while maintaining a similar average, which is obviously a major strength in ODIs, and he's maintained his success over a pretty lengthy career.

Firstly no matter how much you rate Gilchrist now, you cannot deny that back in the late 90s his record was not as good as it is now and he wasnt considered by anybody to be very good anyways. Not as a batsman at least.
Secondly as i mentioned earlier, he has benefitted from a period of flatter pitches and poorer bowling standards and its representative in his average which has gone up since.
Thirdly, the likes of Arjuna Ranatunga, Jonty Rhodes and Andy Flower were all clearly better players than Gilchrist but were stuck batting in the middle order where it is much harder to get a good bat in and often had to come in the slog overs and effectively throw their wickets away. Not to mention that 2 out of those 3 were stuck for most of their careers playing for largely inferior teams while also having to play against better quality bowlers.
Averages say a lot of things, but in Gilchrists case they overrate his ability as a player. Hes been extremely inconsistent over his ODI career and hes more or less almost always struggled against the better ODI bowling attacks, while cashing in on the rubbish bowling attacks of his day.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

blah blah blah

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

You know id much prefer if you'd at least argue my point instead of coming up with rather immature and ridiculous posts like that which waste both my time and yours. People like you seem to think my opinions on players are outrageous, yet how often have i ever been wrong?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

In my opinion, you bend the truth to suit your opinions. You may not be wrong, per se, but you're not often right either.

I also don't care about what you have to say in reply, and won't be replying to whatever sarcastic comeback you have, so you may want to just not get the last word, for once.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

You know id much prefer if you'd at least argue my point instead of coming up with rather immature and ridiculous posts like that which waste both my time and yours. People like you seem to think my opinions on players are outrageous, yet how often have i ever been wrong?

Oh come on. I've got respect for your views on cricket, but you've been wrong plenty of times, even just on issues I've discussed with you. Shane Watson as an ODI player, say? Panesar being a far worse bowler than Giles? I'd say we were both wrong about Damien Martyn having a good Ashes last year, and so on.

[Jono]

Let's not forget Kasprowicz being a better ODI bowler than Lee.

The thing about you TEC is you're right most of the time because you're educated regarding the game, but the sheer arrogance you personify your views with, and your tendency to just forget issues you were wrong about, or simply deny that you were wrong in the first place is a real turn off. Its hard to debate with you when you do that.

[Slow Love™]

TEC was probably right about the man for man comparison between Australia and South Africa back then. It's that intangible mental ability to go over the top and excel in the crunches vs fading off or having brain explosions that divided the teams when it came to the big games, which he did acknowledge.

I don't know what he was talking about viz-a-viz Gilchrist though, 'cause I think people did rate him back then, and his stats haven't moved that much, particularly in the opening slot.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Oh come on. I've got respect for your views on cricket, but you've been wrong plenty of times, even just on issues I've discussed with you. Shane Watson as an ODI player, say? Panesar being a far worse bowler than Giles? I'd say we were both wrong about Damien Martyn having a good Ashes last year, and so on.

Ive been wrong on a few occasions in the past, ive never denied it.
However i never once claimed that Watson was a useless ODI 'player' or ever once stated anything along the lines of his batting not being international class, nor for that matter did i ever claim that he could not become a good ODI bowler- infact i once mentioned that he could if he improved his accuracy. However that is besides the point because Watson is hardly a 'good' ODI bowler yet anyways. My main gripe has always been that his bowling isnt good enough to be test standard or for him to be considered an all rounder, and he needs to make serious improvements before he can be. So Watson if anything has been a case of me being right rather than wrong.
As far as Martyn is concerned, how on earth anyone can expect me to predict a loss of form is beyond me. One also has to consider the fact that he was unlucky all series -suffered several poor decisions, run-outs and a ball that rolled along the floor from Harmison. The fact that he was also one of the few Aussies whose technique wasnt worked out in that series should be taken note off. If you want to look at successful series predictions(even though im not really big on them cause everyone undergoes a loss of form once in a while), i was the one who predicted that both Martyn and Katich would have successful series in India in 04/05 and they were both amongst the top averages of the series.
As far as Panesar is concerned, yes i'll admit that i didnt quite get that one right, but i must also state that i never once questioned his place in the side. I wasnt quite expecting him to come on leaps and bounds in the manner in which he has in less than a year,and the fact that he did so bears testiment to the amount of effort hes put into improving his game. I do recommend though that you watch highlights of his bowling in the series in India and compare it with the bowling in Pakistan, and you can clearly see why i said what i said as he is infinetly better in terms of using flight and drift now than what he was back then.
I do remember other occasions when i was wrong. I have no problem in admitting that i was wrong in calling for Tresco's place in the side and he proved exactly why in the last year and a half although i still cant quite figure out how he managed to do so. I dont however change my idea that he is an overrated FTB.
I will also admit that my prediction about Gilchrist not getting a single score past 50 on the last tour of SL was also wrong- He got past 50 once in 6 innings and went on to score a big century.
And i will also admit that ive been wrong about Mccullum who i predicted big things for but is yet to fulfil any of it.
However on the other side i would also like to remind you that i was also the only person who was raving about Simon Jones all the way from 2004 onwards(while everyone was calling for his head and demanding for Anderson and Tremlett to be in the side), and it gave me great pleasure to watch him destroy the Aussies and fulfill his potential. I was also the person(amongst a few others) who predicted that Hayden would struggle against seam and swing in England and i was right once again. I also said that Bracken and Pathan were both ordinary bowlers that werent test class(while everyone else thought otherwise) and both have turned out to be exactly that. I was right when i said that Dhoni would not be a test class batsman, and thats turned out to be the case as well. Yours truly also predicted without having watched Shaun Tait bowl a ball in test match cricket that he would fall short of the required standard. My point is that ive been right far far more often than i have been wrong.
I've been on the boards for some 2.5 years now and therefore am already a senior member. While i certainly enjoy debating and arguing with you and while i think you have come on in your opinions of the game since you first came on here i certainly dont appreciate it when random members like dontcloseyoureyes and certain others seem to think they can just come on here and try to make it look like as though im a troll on the forums without even having the decency to argue my point.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Jono

Let's not forget Kasprowicz being a better ODI bowler than Lee.

Was i really?
Even if you were to include his last series(Despite the fact that he was clearly an inferior bowler in that series) his record from 2003 onwards is still better than Lee's record at any period of his career
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...ields=viewtype

Just because he and Gillespie both inexplicably lost their bowling form before the Ashes, it does not in any sense mean that i was wrong about it, because whether you like it or not, even now those sorts of performances warrant inclusion over Lee. However even during the Natwest series i had called for Lee's inclusing over Kaspa because it was quite clear that he wasnt bowling as well as he can and hes never quite been the same bowler since.