Who is Mr World Cup?

[IndianByHeart]

Viv Richards!!

As for tendulkar, he played some great knocks, but his performance in knock out matches wasn't impressive.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Martin Crowe anyone?
(a one-legged Martin Crowe)

 

[Perm]

Martin Crowe anyone?
(a one-legged Martin Crowe)

Had one great tournament in 1992 but other than that, the other 2 World Cup's he played in were quite average by his standards.

 

[nightprowler10]

It was a tough between Viv and Wasim, and I went for Wasim.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Had one great tournament in 1992 but other than that, the other 2 World Cup's he played in were quite average by his standards.

Yip, but still, having that one great tournament is better than alot of good tournaments.

Anyways, i voted for Sir Viv

 

[Richard]

What r u on?

His 120 n.o. at Leeds (one of the greatest innings in history) was the sole reason Oz even hap an opportunity to win in '99

Bull****.

Only reason he scored more than 56 was because Herschelle decided to celebrate early. It's utterly ludicrous to say that that was one of the greatest knocks in ODI history.

And Waugh's WC in general was pretty ordinary.

 

[social]

Bull****.

Only reason he scored more than 56 was because Herschelle decided to celebrate early. It's utterly ludicrous to say that that was one of the greatest knocks in ODI history.

And Waugh's WC in general was pretty ordinary.

Dont be naive, Richard

After early defeats, Oz had to win seven consecutive matches to win WC '99 - one defeat and we were gone

Waugh single-handedly brought Australia back from the dead in this match, played a vital knock in the tied semi and was the best captain in the tournament by a mile.

No doubt you prefer a chanceless knock by some Kenyan in the round-robin matches but I prefer winners and so does history

 

[Richard]

And I prefer winners who have won not winners who've had something handed to them on a plate.

Had Gibbs held that catch, you would have been gone. No disputes over that. That, not Stephen Waugh's batting, is what you owe the 1999 WC to.

 

[social]

And I prefer winners who have won not winners who've had something handed to them on a plate.

Had Gibbs held that catch, you would have been gone. No disputes over that. That, not Stephen Waugh's batting, is what you owe the 1999 WC to.

That's the essence of cricket - bowlers bowl, batsmen bat, fielders field, captains captain

Whichever team performs all of those elements the best usually wins

If u dont like the system, watch another sport

And btw, when Gibbs dropped the catch, Australia were still in the **** and it took a fantastic 64* from Waugh to see us through

 

[Richard]

Where did I say (or not say where applicable) any of that?

 

[social]

Where did I say (or not say where applicable) any of that?

Unfortunately, your whole first chance theory contradicts it by implying that discounts should be applied to any batsman who offers a catch

That is, was and always will be utter nonsense

 

[Richard]

My first-chance theory pertains to precisely none of the above.

My first-chance theory is exclusively about batting. It's not about team performance and winning\losing.

 

[social]

My first-chance theory pertains to precisely none of the above.

My first-chance theory is exclusively about batting. It's not about team performance and winning\losing.

Sorry, but you cant have it both ways.

Your theory implies that Waugh scored 56 in that match.

If that were the case, someone else would've won the World Cup!

 

[Richard]

My theory applies nothing of the sort. For all we know, someone else could have come in and won that game for Aus. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The first-chance theory is about nought but judgement of the Waugh innings. However, it's pretty reasonable to say that had Gibbs taken that catch, Australia wouldn't have won the Cup.

That fact means that that Stephen Waugh innings is nowhere near as good as it's oft painted.

 

[pup11]

Sachin has to be the undisputed choice here, he always seems to come up with his best for the world cup.

 

[ColdSnow]

And I prefer winners who have won not winners who've had something handed to them on a plate.

Had Gibbs held that catch, you would have been gone. No disputes over that. That, not Stephen Waugh's batting, is what you owe the 1999 WC to.

Wrong way to look because gibbs and SA were not good enough to hold on to that catch. Instead of looking at it as batter's mistake, should look at it as fielders mistake. thanks.

 

[Richard]

Err, how about looking at it as both (which is what it was)?

And really, how ridiculous to say that because Gibbs was too early with the celebration (not that he wasn't good enough to take the catch) that means the entire SA team wasn't good enough.

 

[ColdSnow]

Err, how about looking at it as both (which is what it was)?

And really, how ridiculous to say that because Gibbs was too early with the celebration (not that he wasn't good enough to take the catch) that means the entire SA team wasn't good enough.

Ofcourse I look at it as both. But you seem to think that a chance completely takes away the greatness of an innings. It does not.

Being a team game, every person's mistake reflects on the team.

Another thing is that as per your thinking, batters should not play aerial shots at all, because every aerial shot is a potential chance (if fielders were placed there. Will you say that the fielding team gifted a batter his aerial runs by not placing fielders there?).

And yet another point...there are different roles batters play in a team. For example, lets take dravid and flintoff. Dravid's role may to play an anchor role. This role does not warrant him to take many chances and his scoring rate will also be low. Flintoff might be expected to swing quite a bit, thus increasing the number of chances he gives. But at the same time, his scoring rate may be high.

 

[Jono]

Sachin's been the best WC player I've seen, but it does make sense that one should win the World Cup to be "Mr. World Cup".

I'll go Wasim Akram.

 

[Richard]

Ofcourse I look at it as both. But you seem to think that a chance completely takes away the greatness of an innings. It does not.

Of course it does. No truly great innings can be one that involved a let-off. It must be played due to the batsman's skill alone.

Another thing is that as per your thinking, batters should not play aerial shots at all, because every aerial shot is a potential chance (if fielders were placed there. Will you say that the fielding team gifted a batter his aerial runs by not placing fielders there?).

Err... no? There are a million arial shots played into gaps.

Also - fielders aren't 10 feet tall.

And yet another point...there are different roles batters play in a team. For example, lets take dravid and flintoff. Dravid's role may to play an anchor role. This role does not warrant him to take many chances and his scoring rate will also be low. Flintoff might be expected to swing quite a bit, thus increasing the number of chances he gives. But at the same time, his scoring rate may be high.

Exactly - and that means Flintoff is a much, much lesser batsman than Dravid. Because Flintoff is one of the large majority in that when he gives a chance, it gets caught (there have been 2 notable innings to except to that rule).