• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank the WC Winning Sides

S

Socerer 01

International Captain
Fuller Pilch said:
Apologies. Mark Wood and Liam Plunkett were actually really good now I think about it.
Click to expand...
Plunkett was probably the best middle overs pace bowler in that world cup cycle, not replacing him properly was one of the reasons why their odi side went to **** in the last world cup. was also the best English bowler in the final imo, the way he was discarded after the final felt super shitty
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
capt_Luffy said:
2007
2003
1979
2011
1975
2015
2019
1999
1996
2023
1992
1987
1983
Click to expand...
2011 is a bit too high imo, arguably the same goes for 1996 and maybe 99

1983 should also be higher, it was an upset win but they were a very handy side as proven by them winning another trophy in 1985. them being last doesnt feel right as does 1992 being so low
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Fuller Pilch said:
And 2019 seems very high considering they didn't win the final and lacked any elite pace bowlers until Archer was drafted in at the 11th hour.
Click to expand...
I mean, Archer was part of the team that WON the World Cup. That he was drafted in at the 11th hour doesn’t seem relevant to the question.

If you’re ranking based on the tournament solely then Archer being a late entrant doesn’t matter. And if you’re ranking them on the four year cycle then the method of victory in the final doesn’t really matter either. You can’t have both.
 
Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Vice-Captain
GIMH said:
I mean, Archer was part of the team that WON the World Cup. That he was drafted in at the 11th hour doesn’t seem relevant to the question.

If you’re ranking based on the tournament solely then Archer being a late entrant doesn’t matter. And if you’re ranking them on the four year cycle then the method of victory in the final doesn’t really matter either. You can’t have both.
Click to expand...
It's a shame how injuries have ruined his career, Archer's ODI record is insane..
42 wickets in 21 matches @21.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Socerer 01 said:
2011 is a bit too high imo, arguably the same goes for 1996 and maybe 99

1983 should also be higher, it was an upset win but they were a very handy side as proven by them winning another trophy in 1985. them being last doesnt feel right as does 1992 being so low
Click to expand...
The 1985 side was largely different from the 83 side; which really only had Kapil Dev as an ODI great. 85 side won on Srikkanth, Shastri and especially Azhar and Shivaramakrishnan; while 83 won on the pacers (who tbt were mediocre at best), Yashpaal Sharma and especially Mohinder Amarnath (the MoS, but ove whole career was quite a shitty ODI cricketer). Given the difference in quality between them and the 1983 WI, an the question being compared to other teams they defeated, they are easily the worst.
The only teams lower than 96 and 99 are all relatively weak. 92 Pak was in shambles (though looks much better in retrospect), 87 Australia was mid and boring, and 2023 Aussies are on par with SL 96 and Aus 99, but were far off India. Same for 2011 really, 2015 Aus are close but I think India was better and 75 WI are hard to judge it being the first ever WC.
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
SA and Pakistan were better teams imo.
Click to expand...
capt_Luffy said:
After England 2019, none of the winning teams were the best team in the tournament.
Click to expand...
I mean, them not being the best teams in their particular tournament shouldn’t have an impact on this particular ranking imo. They still won regardless and it should be their relative strengths compared to the others here, not in their own tournament.
 
srbhkshk

srbhkshk

International Captain
Coronis said:
I mean, them not being the best teams in their particular tournament shouldn’t have an impact on this particular ranking imo. They still won regardless and it should be their relative strengths compared to the others here, not in their own tournament.
Click to expand...
I believe the question is strength relative to their times, not relative to the other teams here.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
I mean, them not being the best teams in their particular tournament shouldn’t have an impact on this particular ranking imo. They still won regardless and it should be their relative strengths compared to the others here, not in their own tournament.
Click to expand...
The question asked was compared to other teams in the tournament, as it was relative to their times. Otherwise, only 99 Australia gets switched with 19 Eng and the rest of the list remains the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top