They were fairly rubbish IMO. They didn't seem to participate in any of the tri-series cups that were ubiquitous around that time, and they were crap in World Cups as well after '92.
Both only played 98-2000. Strang also retired in 2001, so maybe 2002 is a bit late. Neither their nor Englands win ratios change very much for 98-2000 though.
So my memory is right that South Africa were the best team in that period even though Australia won 99 world cup. It's only after that somewhat surprise win that Australia started growing stronger, becoming almost invincible by the next world cup.
There's a lot of truth to this. Symonds and Lee came in well before Ponting took over, but Symonds didn't become any good until 2003 and reportedly a big part of that was him being backed by Ponting. Martyn was also quite regular under Waugh but him moving to no. 4 just before Ponting took over helped him. Hussey didn't come in until 2005/06 either when Aus were already pretty unbeatable.
Sanath is better bat and better bowler than Carl.
Other reason may be Zim played a lot against SL, pak and Ind, who used to steam roll them. Noe that they did the same to England as well. Most likely, the difference of win ratios are due to difference in oppositions.
They had a massive issue playing SL in SL, as did we had playing n SAF. 96-98 period SL were as good or even better than SAF.
Bond on ability, Lee on career.
Hard to argue that, but it was more a comment on how Hooper is roughly equal to Waugh & Ranatunga in ODIs in my opinion.
Against Australia they went 11-7 during that time as well. And that includes three losses on the trot in the lead up to the 99 semi final.
