Best ODI XI You Have Seen

[DaRick]

Good on you for saying it. Overall, agree with your main point around the way in which the forum's developed in recent times, hardly worth even expressing a contrary view these days unless you want 15 posters jumping all over you as opposed to the 1-1 debates that used to take place. Thought I was the only one to notice this tbh.

Heh, you should hear me talk about politics. That gets people going...

You also have people like duffer accuse you of TRULLIN LOLZ!!!1

 

[Burgey]

Find Burgey's comment on Pollock/Donald v McGrath/Gillespie pretty silly tbh

I would definitely rate Pollock/Donald higher, and to say it's "laughable" to do so, is, well, laughable.

I know. The way they trod all over that mediocre Aussie top and middle order...

Amazing really, wasn't it?

 

[NZTailender]

On paper, New Zealand's Best XI imo, a one off.

Marshall the obvious weakpoint, whilst Cairns was close to the end of his career.


Love Burgeys rant. Have to agree, actually.

 

[The Sean]

I wub Burgey.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Australia's 2007 World Cup team:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Watson
Hogg
Bracken
Tait
McGrath

 

[NZTailender]

Australia's 2007 World Cup team:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Watson
Hogg
Bracken
Tait
McGrath

That's actually pretty awesome.

 

[morgieb]

That's actually pretty awesome.

Indeed, Hoggy the only weak link and he's still pretty good. Even scarier was that Midge was on the bench and Lee was injured.

 

[pasag]

Indeed, Hoggy the only weak link and he's still pretty good. Even scarier was that Midge was on the bench and Lee was injured.

Hogg is nowhere near a weak link and was in fact one of the real strengths of that side.

 

[Richard]

**** I love all this. Been watching this develop for months, and now's as good a time as any to vent.

Really, it's a wonder Australia won anything this past decade and a half, isn't it? In fact, it's the single longest fluking of sporting success in history.

It must be, because there are so many threads on here which clearly establish the following:

- Hayden was crap
- Langer was a misfit opener
- Slater and Taylor weren't as good as openers from other teams, especially Atherton, who was just unlucky he kept nicking to 1st slip for toffee
- Ponting's over-rated, always has been, can't play spin or seam
- the middle order was dross compared with other teams, because blokes like Martyn, M Waugh, Boon, Hussey etc weren't that good, while apparently Cronje, Ganguly, Thorpe et al were ****ing Bradman incarnate - always got the job done much better than their Aussie counterparts, never **** themselves over a bouncer and always relished the really hard going.
- Steve Waugh's captaincy wasn't that great, he only won because he had Warne and McGrath, likewise Taylor for that matter.
- Gilchrist only peaked for 18 months - and anyway, there are 3 or 4 other contemporary keeper-batsmen who are better than him, especially Andy Flower (ffs!); and because Healy's a **** commentator, he couldn't keep or bat either
- Warne wasn't great when he really needed to be - he couldn't bowl out India in India, so apparently he's ******** too, despite being one of the reasons Taylor and Waugh's captaincy didn't have to be that good..
- McGrath and Gillespie wasn't as good a combo as any of Ambrose-Walsh, Wasim-Waqar, Donald-Pollock (most laughably) or anyone else for that matter. Hell, Heath Streak and David Brain had more to offer you'd think, let alone the might of Gough and Caddick and Dominic Cork; or Irfan Pathan, Ajit Agarkar and Zaheer Khan. Funny how McGrath-Gillespie as a combo kept winning though - hope they've each bought lottery tickets, there can be no other explanation.
- The support bowling was just terrible - MacGill, Lee, Kaspa, Bichel and whoever else was picked - a complete bunch of 'tards really. Didn't move it, couldn't bowl blokes out at all. Lucky to be on the same field as their international counterparts from the other much better (though always mightily unlucky) teams.
- The ODi outfit that hasn't lost a match at a WC for more than a decade (a deacde FFS!!) really isn't that flash either. Just don't compare to the great sides like SA in 99 that won **** all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Australian ODI side that's won the past 3 WCs, 2 CTs (and was also in the 96 WC final btw) was lucky to beat time with a stick. Pathetic. Can't believe how lucky they were. Biased umpiring also clearly played a part.

Next up, the proof that Australia was rightfully 7th in the test rankings for the past 15 years. It's all there, when you really analyse things.

Dire.

Strange post, TBH. How many of the old s had you had there?

 

[Richard]

Fix'd.

Nah, I don't see how anyone could claim Australia outplayed Pakistan - Pakistan had the better side, and simply imploded.

Both South Africa and Pakistan were better sides than Australia in 1999 (2002/03 and 2007 are completely irrelevant to 1999 in case anyone should be unaware) and merely missed crucial moments - South Africa the case of one delivery, Pakistan the case of one innings.

 

[gwo]

It's a backhanded compliment in a way, you look back at the Pakistan and South Africa sides in 1999 and think "how did neither of them win the World Cup?"

Bull ****ing **** it is.

A compliment would be saying Australia 1999 / 2003 / 2007 was the best team ever.

A back handed compliment is **** how did SA1999 somehow end up not winning a WC (which somehow seems to have been missed up to this point, rather it's "oh but for a run out they would have won it" or "they are the best ODI XI i have seen")

farkkkkkk

 

[Sir Alex]

Mate, it's ****ing true. Go and add up all the threads and posts that have been made on here in recent times about how every component of those Australian sides is bettered by at least one, and usually more, of their opponents, and so help me, it's a miracle they won the lucky door prize at the post-match function.

You didn't read my post

 

[stephen]

Nah, I don't see how anyone could claim Australia outplayed Pakistan - Pakistan had the better side, and simply imploded.

Both South Africa and Pakistan were better sides than Australia in 1999 (2002/03 and 2007 are completely irrelevant to 1999 in case anyone should be unaware) and merely missed crucial moments - South Africa the case of one delivery, Pakistan the case of one innings.

Dire post Richard, even by your standards.

A big part of cricket is handling the mental aspect of the game. Australia did that vs Pakistan in '99, they did it vs South Africa in '99, they did it vs India in '03 and they did it vs Sri Lanka in '07.

The thing about sport is that it's not played on paper. That is why England won the '05 Ashes. That's why Australia won the '88 world cup. That's why Bangladesh beat Australia in an ODI. It's why sometimes Lara was dismissed for 12 and sometimes he didn't get out after making 300+. And it's why the English tail enders could survive at Cardiff.

There can be no doubt that Australia won the key moments in the last three world cups. If they didn't, they would not have won.

It's like when people pile crap onto James Hopes because he bowls 15 kms slower than most other bowlers. He might not be the next McGrath, but he's a damn good performer who is a big part of a winning culture.

In tennis you can win more points and lose a match. Should we change the rules to award the match to the person who has won more points? No of course not. We should reward the person who was best able to win the mental battle and take the big moments. The big moments are the things that count the most.

This mentality is why Australians have been winning for so long in cricket.

 

[Richard]

A big part of cricket is handling the mental aspect of the game.

And? How precisely does that change the fact that the Australians were for most of the 1999 WC tournament inferior to both the Pakistanis and South Africans?

Winning the big moments (or, in SA and Pak's case, losing them) only counts for so much. It does not undo an entire tournament's worth of cricket. I've never once said Australia weren't worthy winners in 1999, because they were; they just weren't the best side in the tournament.

 

[stephen]

And? How precisely does that change the fact that the Australians were for most of the 1999 WC tournament inferior to both the Pakistanis and South Africans?

Winning the big moments (or, in SA and Pak's case, losing them) only counts for so much. It does not undo an entire tournament's worth of cricket. I've never once said Australia weren't worthy winners in 1999, because they were; they just weren't the best side in the tournament.

But they were the best side in the tournament. They beat and tied South Africa and beat Pakistan in the three games that counted the most. A tournament is not about who looks the best or who plays the best in the group stages. A tournament is about who wins the key matches. Saying that Australia were not the best team in a tournament that they won just meaks me

 

[Richard]

No, who is the best team in a tournament is about who plays best throughout the tournament.

Who wins a tournament is generally (though not always) about who wins the big matches.

Idealistic attitudes might paint that whoever wins is a worthy winner, but I don't remotely agree with that and never will.

 

[Sir Alex]

And? How precisely does that change the fact that the Australians were for most of the 1999 WC tournament inferior to both the Pakistanis and South Africans?

Winning the big moments (or, in SA and Pak's case, losing them) only counts for so much. It does not undo an entire tournament's worth of cricket. I've never once said Australia weren't worthy winners in 1999, because they were; they just weren't the best side in the tournament.

A tournament is that, it involves knockouts and the one who remains undefeated in those is crowned the winner. Australia did it and hence deserved the trophy.

 

[Streetwise]

Do they have another trophy at the WC for the best team on paper.

Maybe they should give a trophy to the team that didnt win but was the best team.

 

[Furball]

No, who is the best team in a tournament is about who plays best throughout the tournament.

Who wins a tournament is generally (though not always) about who wins the big matches.

Idealistic attitudes might paint that whoever wins is a worthy winner, but I don't remotely agree with that and never will.

In a tournament you can play handsomely and thrash all comers in the prelimenary stages, it means absolutely nothing if you can't do it in the pressure situation of a semi final or a final.

 

[Streetwise]

In a tournament you can play handsomely and thrash all comers in the prelimenary stages, it means absolutely nothing if you can't do it in the pressure situation of a semi final or a final.

You obviously havent watched a decent amount of cricket.