Best ODI XI You Have Seen

[Burgey]

It's almost as if people don't like Australians. I mean... how could it possibly be???

I know. Hard to believe, isn't it?

 

[slippyslip]

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.

Thats like saying if Andy Roddick thrashes all the low ranked players in the early rounds in a Grand Slam but loses Federer in the final where he implodes in a tie breaker he's a better player than Federer?

I have one question for you, Richard, why do you bother?

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Another interesting example is Robin Söderling's run at the French Open last year. Federer was very shaky in the early rounds and in real trouble against the likes of Haas and Acasuso whilst Söderling was on fire and beat the likes of Nadal and Davydenko. Then he imploded in the final.

I think you'd struggle to find any one that would say that Söderling was the best player at the 2009 French Open.

At the end of the day, I can't see how someone who romps it through in the group stages and gets beaten when it really matters could be called the best performed team of the tournament. You can win all you like against lesser players in less intense situations, but unless you do it when it counts it means jack ****.

 

[Ikki]

The funny thing is Australia loose all the "if" games but win all the real games and its the "if" games that drags down their abilities.

ROFL...easily my favourite poster ATM.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I actually watched the 2003 WC final, and really, I was telling my family who had all gathered for the final how India had no shot whatsoever. They all got pissed, and I quietly made a lot money betting against all of them. I think I made like $700 from $20 bets with everyone....

Best part was I didn't particularly care, so I would cheer on the Aussies everytime they made runs and make fun of the Indian seam bowling. No one liked me when they scored 350+.

Good times. Hard to go past the 2003 WC Aussie side.

Haha, the 2003 WC was on during my final year. I remember watching the semifinal against Kenya dead drunk. Mates arranged for a big screen at their place. I had a feeling India wasn't going to win, and passed. Had to endure a couple of days cold shouldering for being a traitorous fool. Needless to say, there was no mention of the final when we met the day after

 

[Streetwise]

meh

 

[wpdavid]

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.

Footy fans amongst us will agree with that and quote the WCs of 1954, 1974 and 1982 at you. Still sulking about the last two, actually.

However, whether that applies to SA in 1999 is debateable. They did lose three games in the tournament, when all said & done. And, man for man, could you really argue that they were better than the Australians? I couldn't. Fine bowling attack, for sure, but the batting wasn't world class, for all the rescue acts that Klusener sometimes produced to pull matches out of the fire. Looking at the semifinal, it wasn't only about that run-out. People seem to have forgotten Warne's tremendous spell that turned what should have been a cake-walk into something more challenging. His presence alone gives Aus the edge, for me, given the closeness of the rest of the sides.

 

[Riggins]

Another interesting example is Robin Söderling's run at the French Open last year. Federer was very shaky in the early rounds and in real trouble against the likes of Haas and Acasuso whilst Söderling was on fire and beat the likes of Nadal and Davydenko. Then he imploded in the final.

I think you'd struggle to find any one that would say that Söderling was the best player at the 2009 French Open.

At the end of the day, I can't see how someone who romps it through in the group stages and gets beaten when it really matters could be called the best performed team of the tournament. You can win all you like against lesser players in less intense situations, but unless you do it when it counts it means jack ****.

Brilliant post right there

 

[Furball]

Footy fans amongst us will agree with that and quote the WCs of 1954, 1974 and 1982 at you. Still sulking about the last two, actually.

1974 is a terrible example to use.

What's been lost in the mists of time as the romanticism and legend of totalvoetbal has grown is that the West German side of the era was a damn fine side. As well as winning the World Cup in 1974, they were European Champions in 1972 and runners up in 1976. Bayern Munich won the European Cup 3 times in a row between 1974 and 1976. Their side contained Franz Beckenbauer, 2nd only to Cryuff in terms of footballing genius in the early 70s, the best striker of the era in Gerd Muller (68 goals in 62 games for West Germany) and terrific players like Gunter Netzer.

Sure, the Dutch side of the era was a smashing side, but it's not like they somehow contrived to lose against a vastly inferior opponent, like Hungary had done in 1954.

 

[wpdavid]

1974 is a terrible example to use.

What's been lost in the mists of time as the romanticism and legend of totalvoetbal has grown is that the West German side of the era was a damn fine side. As well as winning the World Cup in 1974, they were European Champions in 1972 and runners up in 1976. Bayern Munich won the European Cup 3 times in a row between 1974 and 1976. Their side contained Franz Beckenbauer, 2nd only to Cryuff in terms of footballing genius in the early 70s, the best striker of the era in Gerd Muller (68 goals in 62 games for West Germany) and terrific players like Gunter Netzer.

Sure, the Dutch side of the era was a smashing side, but it's not like they somehow contrived to lose against a vastly inferior opponent, like Hungary had done in 1954.

Of course WG were a fine side in 1974 - I wasn't saying otherwise. Not that Netzer played in 1974, but that's a minor point. btw Ajax also won the European Cup 3 times in a row between 1971 & 1973, but that's probably a minor point too, tbf. All I am saying that, imo, the football produced by Holland in WC 1974 was superior to almost anything I've seen in 40 years of watching the game and that the German win, on home soil, and owing much to Holzenbein's ludicrous diving, doesn't alter that view.

All that being said, I can understand the alternative view that the Dutch ability to lose tournaments that they should have won through complacency (1974) or stupidity (1976) may in many people's eyes render them a lesser team that the Germans. Whether that makes my origonal point 'terrible' is, I guess, in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Richard]

No, but at the same time great teams, in any sport, win the important matches when it matters most.

That South Africa might have been the better side immediately before the World Cup and played better during the World Cup and ran Australia close in 2 games ultimately counts for nothing.

Of course it doesn't count for nothing. The 1999 World Cup is rightly remembered as a terrific tournament - you think all of that is based on the semi-finals (one of which was a thriller, one of which was a rank one-sided let-down) and the let-down of a final? Of course it wasn't - most of the best cricket in the 1999 WC came in the group stages.

Don't confuse what matters to who emerges victorious with what matters at all. The preliminary stages of a World Cup might not play a particularly large part in who emerges victorious, but it sure as hell plays a huge part in how good the tournament is. Thus, it's of great relevance, and whether anyone likes it or not, and whether it makes any difference to who won, precious few would deny that South Africa were the best team in the 1999 WC.

 

[Richard]

Thats like saying if Andy Roddick thrashes all the low ranked players in the early rounds in a Grand Slam but loses Federer in the final where he implodes in a tie breaker he's a better player than Federer?

No, it doesn't. It means he's played better throughout the Grand Slam tournament in question. If Federer does what Roddick did that tournament then wins the final in grandstand fashion more often, that makes Federer the better player.

One tournament does not make a career.

I have one question for you, Richard, why do you bother?

In attempts to correct rank ill-informed nonsense.

 

[Richard]

ROFL...easily my favourite poster ATM.

Such a shame you guys never encountered Scallywag... we'd have The Ultimate Cringeworthy Australian Hometown Biased Threesome.

 

[slippyslip]

No, it doesn't. It means he's played better throughout the Grand Slam tournament in question. If Federer does what Roddick did that tournament then wins the final in grandstand fashion more often, that makes Federer the better player.

One tournament does not make a career.

In attempts to correct rank ill-informed nonsense.

This from a guy claiming Robin Soderling is a better player than Federer.

I could print out your posts and fertilise the Simpson Desert with them.

 

[Furball]

No, it doesn't. It means he's played better throughout the Grand Slam tournament in question. If Federer does what Roddick did that tournament then wins the final in grandstand fashion more often, that makes Federer the better player.

One tournament does not make a career.

In attempts to correct rank ill-informed nonsense.

What seperates the great from the good is the ability to win when it matters most.

 

[Richard]

This from a guy claiming Robin Soderling is a better player than Federer.

Err... no, it isn't. The post you quoted was from me, and the person claiming Soderling > Federer, well, I don't know who that is, because I've not read that claim be made on CW.

I could print out your posts and fertilise the Simpson Desert with them.

No, you couldn't.

 

[Richard]

What seperates the great from the good is the ability to win when it matters most.

And what separates the good from the not-so-good is the ability to win rather than lose.

 

[SJS]

1. Greenidge
2. Haynes
3. Richards
4. Kallicharan
5. Lloyd (Captain)
6. King
7. Murray (Keeper)
8. Roberts
9. Garner
10. Holding
11. Croft

Thats the West Indies side which won the 1979 world cup. The same 11 played throughout the tournament. There have been few better sides than that if any in either form of the game.

 

[Uppercut]

That attack is just sick. Would be interesting to see if anyone could make the nuclear-warhead all-pace attack work today.

 

[SJS]

that attack is just sick. Would be interesting to see if anyone could make the nuclear-warhead all-pace attack work today.

What !!!!!