• 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.

The Best Team from the Group Stage

D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Shri said:
No ****. We are stuck with England. ****s should have stuck with the red kit.
Click to expand...
You replace Raina with Root and gain a decent pace attack courtesy of Afghanistan (plus a Sanga). Suck it up, princess! :ph34r:
 
S

Sarun

U19 Debutant
Or just pick Indian players for Team Blue as they are on 100% record so far and have bowled out everyone so far too! Surely they can beat up some cobbled up chancers!:ph34r:
 
sunilreddy

sunilreddy

Banned
Mccullum (NZ)
Tillakaratne Dilshan (SL)
Kumar Sangakkara + (SL)
Sean Williams (Ban)
AB de Villiers * (SA)
Glenn Maxwell (Aus)
Corey Anderson (NZ)
Daniel Vettori (NZ)
Mitchell Starc (Aus)
Trent Boult (NZ)
Mohammad Shami (Ind)
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
So TMS picked their team of the Tournament today - seemed OK to me.

McCullum (c)
Guptill
Sangakkara (wk)
Smith
De Villiers
Maxwell
Anderson
Vettori
Starc
Boult
Morkel
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's amazing to me how none of our players really had a tournament they could call truly outstanding enough to be considered for the team of the tournament yet most of them chipped in at some stage or the other to ensure we were the 3rd best team in the WC.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
OverratedSanity said:
It's amazing to me how none of our players really had a tournament they could call truly outstanding enough to be considered for the team of the tournament yet most of them chipped in at some stage or the other to ensure we were the 3rd best team in the WC.
Click to expand...
inb4 NZ
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
OverratedSanity said:
Nah Boult's been incredible throughout.
Click to expand...
Nah I just meant India had been a great example of the tired NZ stereotype despite not actually having a team anyone would describe in that way at all. I wasn't referencing the current NZ side which, even though they'll probably get described as such by lazy journos, just doesn't fit that at all either in team composition or actual WC performance.

Was probably a poor use of "inb4" tbf.
 
Last edited:
NasserFan207

NasserFan207

International Vice-Captain
OverratedSanity said:
It's amazing to me how none of our players really had a tournament they could call truly outstanding enough to be considered for the team of the tournament yet most of them chipped in at some stage or the other to ensure we were the 3rd best team in the WC.
Click to expand...
They also kinda coasted through the group stages. While they played well, they weren't ever truly tested. SA underperformed hard against them, and against every other side India were clear favorites anyway.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
I don't get the justification for how SA are actually a good ODI outfit when they lost 3 of 4 (5 if we're stretching it hugely) matches against half decent opposition. Actually turning up and playing well is the most important part of being a good side. They got to the semis but had a fairly dire campaign IMO and while having great individual talent aren't a particularly good ODI side as most SA posters have agreed pre-WC.

Either you believe the whole nonsense regarding them choking every match they lose or you believe they actually aren't a particularly good side. You can't have both. So which one is it?
 
NasserFan207

NasserFan207

International Vice-Captain
Teja. said:
I don't get the justification for how SA are actually a good ODI outfit when they lost 3 of 4 (5 if we're stretching it hugely) matches against half decent opposition. Actually turning up and playing well is the most important part of being a good side. They got to the semis but had a fairly dire campaign IMO and while having great individual talent aren't a particularly good ODI side as most SA posters have agreed pre-WC.

Either you believe the whole nonsense regarding them choking every match they lose or you believe they actually aren't a particularly good side. You can't have both. So which one is it?
Click to expand...
They are clearly a good side. England had a 'dire campaign'. Not sure wtf you are talking about.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
NasserFan207 said:
They are clearly a good side. England had a 'dire campaign'. Not sure wtf you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Competent sides they faced: Pakistan, India, West Indies, Sri Lanka, NZ

Matches they won: 2

Dire is a relative term here considering how hyped up they were.

Serious question: What other sides would you grant the same liberty of under performance by a good side if they were given a huge thrashing by India and let Pakistan defend 220?

It just annoys me that SA are never a side which is bad, it just plays badly often. I mean what is the difference?
 
Contra

Contra

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah SA were always playing more on what they could potentially do rather than why they eventually did. I just couldn't believe SA were genuinely relying on JP/AB as their 5th bowlers in a WC. I also think its a bit silly to say India weren't tested, apart from the UAE game we were made to work in just about every game. Fact of the matter is Australia are just ridiculously good and powerful playing in Australia and this particular Aussie line up is scary good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top