Each nation's best & worst World Cup teams

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah 99 Pakistan was a superb team, especially the bowling... Wasim, Shoaib, and Saqlain all pretty much at their best around that time.

Hilarious that they still managed to lose to a subpar India anyway.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I actually think NZ's 2003 side was better than the 99, 07 and 11 teams and possibly 1992 even though we didn't make the semis in 03.

Psychologically we were stronger than the Aussies and Indians (having destroyed them previously - with Bond in particular having a hold over them) and if we'd snuck a win over Australia like we did this time we could have really pushed them in the tournament. Unfortunately the top order batting fell away when it was most needed with Astle (perhaps our best ODI bat pre-Williamson) struggling and we missed a semi by not going to Kenya.

New Zealand Squad | ICC World Cup, 2002/03 | Cricket Squads | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Other than javed miandad who else was really good in 1992? Inzi was better in 1999 so was moin khan and ijaz ahmed. Saeed anwar didn't play 1992 But was present in 1999.

3 of the 5 highest scores in 92 were made by Pakistanis:

Rameez Raja Pakistan 119* 155 16 0 New Zealand AMI Stadium, Christchurch, New Zealand
Andy Flower Zimbabwe 115* 152 8 1 Sri Lanka Pukekura Park, New Plymouth, New Zealand
Aamer Sohail Pakistan 114 136 12 0 Zimbabwe Bellerive Oval, Hobart, Tasmania
Phil Simmons West Indies 110 125 9 2 Sri Lanka Berri Oval, Berri, South Australia
Rameez Raja Pakistan 102* 158 4 0 West Indies Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Martin Crowe New Zealand 100 134 11 0 Australia Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
David Boon Australia 100 133 11 0 New Zealand Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
David Boon Australia 100 147 8 0 West Indies Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Desmond Haynes West Indies 93* 144 7 3 Pakistan Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Mohammad Azharuddin India 93 102 10 0 Australia Brisbane Cricket Ground, Woolloongabba, Queensland

Wikipedia


These days internet forums would explode if century makers scored runs that slowly!

Someone might be an annoying commentator but Rameez averaged 58 in that tournament, Sohail did a job and Imran scored important runs in big games

 

[hendrix]

I wonder if:
- James Franklin/Jacob Oram was given the same license Corey Anderson has now
- Chris Cairns/Bond/Nash/whoever told to attack
- Vettori given the role of drying up the runs as he always has
- McCullum given the same role Ronchi has now
- Flem and Styris doing Williamson and Taylor
- Astle and anyone doing McCullum and Guptill

Some of those past NZ teams could have competed with this one.

 

[weldone]

I wonder if:
- James Franklin/Jacob Oram was given the same license Corey Anderson has now
- Chris Cairns/Bond/Nash/whoever told to attack
- Vettori given the role of drying up the runs as he always has
- McCullum given the same role Ronchi has now
- Flem and Styris doing Williamson and Taylor
- Astle and anyone doing McCullum and Guptill

Some of those past NZ teams could have competed with this one.

Flem wasn't good enough to do Williamson.

 

[weldone]

3 of the 5 highest scores in 92 were made by Pakistanis:

Rameez Raja Pakistan 119* 155 16 0 New Zealand AMI Stadium, Christchurch, New Zealand
Andy Flower Zimbabwe 115* 152 8 1 Sri Lanka Pukekura Park, New Plymouth, New Zealand
Aamer Sohail Pakistan 114 136 12 0 Zimbabwe Bellerive Oval, Hobart, Tasmania
Phil Simmons West Indies 110 125 9 2 Sri Lanka Berri Oval, Berri, South Australia
Rameez Raja Pakistan 102* 158 4 0 West Indies Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Martin Crowe New Zealand 100 134 11 0 Australia Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
David Boon Australia 100 133 11 0 New Zealand Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
David Boon Australia 100 147 8 0 West Indies Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Desmond Haynes West Indies 93* 144 7 3 Pakistan Melbourne Cricket Ground, Victoria
Mohammad Azharuddin India 93 102 10 0 Australia Brisbane Cricket Ground, Woolloongabba, Queensland

Wikipedia


These days internet forums would explode if century makers scored runs that slowly!

Someone might be an annoying commentator but Rameez averaged 58 in that tournament, Sohail did a job and Imran scored important runs in big games

Yes, they were all in good form. Miandad was obviously a ODI master, Rameez was in the form of his life, Inzy emerged as a big impact player in big matches, Imran did a great milking job at no. 3 and even Aamer played well.

Pak batsmen were in good nick in '87 too (not sure about the World Cup, but they were in prime form just before the cup).

I'm not undermining the batting of '99, but '87 and '92 were good sides batting-wise.

 

[smash84]

Yes, they were all in good form. Miandad was obviously a ODI master, Rameez was in the form of his life, Inzy emerged as a big impact player in big matches, Imran did a great milking job at no. 3 and even Aamer played well.

Pak batsmen were in good nick in '87 too (not sure about the World Cup, but they were in prime form just before the cup).

I'm not undermining the batting of '99, but '87 and '92 were good sides batting-wise.

yeah but even then man to man the batsmen in 1992 are just better odi batsmen except Miandad who is greater than everybody else. That there really is no way you can rate the batting of 1992 > batting of 1999

Javed > Inzi
Inzi 1999 > Inzi 1992
Ijaz Ahmed 1999 > Ijaz Ahmed 1992
Saeed Anwar > Ramiz Raja (all day any day)
Amir Sohail > Wajahatullah Wasti
Azhar Mahmood > Zahid Fazal, Iqbal Sikander,
Imran > Abdur Razzaq
Moin Khan 1999 > Moin Khan 1992

No conclusive way to say batting is better in 1992

 

[Flem274*]

I wonder if:
- James Franklin/Jacob Oram was given the same license Corey Anderson has now
- Chris Cairns/Bond/Nash/whoever told to attack
- Vettori given the role of drying up the runs as he always has
- McCullum given the same role Ronchi has now
- Flem and Styris doing Williamson and Taylor
- Astle and anyone doing McCullum and Guptill

Some of those past NZ teams could have competed with this one.

Oram was, Franklin wasn't good enough to be consistent. he would randomly make a few scores then go back to looking like a rabbit in the headlights (though usually when elevated above #7).
-Cairns and Bond did, Nash just wasn't a good ODI bowler
-McCullum is our best ODI keeper bat and pretty much did do the Ronchi role. Was seriously good at bringing chases home.
-Fleming underachieved, but switching between opener and #3 probably didn't help. Styris is a rich man's Elliott. Was fantastic at controlling the game during the middle overs then becoming icing at the end.
-Astle is our best ODI opener ever and did have that license.

 

[hendrix]

Well for the under-achievers there (massively Franklin, slightly Fleming, and slightly Astle IMO) I do think there's a clear case of part of their failure being down to ill-defined roles. Franklin in particular. It could just be that he was ****e but whenever I watched him I got the biggest sense that he had no idea what he was actually supposed to be doing.

I do believe he was talented.

 

[Zinzan]

Styris is a rich man's Elliott. Was fantastic at controlling the game during the middle overs then becoming icing at the end.
.

Yup, well said. Styris > Elliott is every aspect of the game.

Styris & Oram are two of the most underrated ODI players we're had. Franklin shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those two. He was only ever any use to us when the games was virtually lost & the pressure was off, suddenly he'd look a million dollars.

 

[hendrix]

Yup, well said. Styris > Elliott is every aspect of the game.

Styris & Oram are two of the most underrated ODI players we're had. Franklin shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those two. He was only ever any use to us when the games was virtually lost & the pressure was off, suddenly he'd look a million dollars.

I agree that in particular Styris was superb - I actually think he should have played Test cricket far longer.

But you're missing my point; I'm asking the question whether part of Franklin's underperformance had to do with lack of defined roles that seem so clear in today's team. I do believe Franklin could have been a gifted 6-7 at certain points in his career with the right guidelines.

Basically; are we maximising our players' potential now more than we were then?

I think the answer is yes. Obviously we also have some better players - but I can't actually say that Southee-Boult-Milne-Vettori is better than Bond-Mills-Oram-Vettori-Styris (they must've played together, surely?).

Or this one:
Mills
Bond
Cairns
Oram
Vettori

I suppose the major difference is that the players couldn't stay on the park.

 

[Zinzan]

I agree that in particular Styris was superb - I actually think he should have played Test cricket far longer.

But you're missing my point; I'm asking the question whether part of Franklin's underperformance had to do with lack of defined roles that seem so clear in today's team. I do believe Franklin could have been a gifted 6-7 at certain points in his career with the right guidelines.

Basically; are we maximising our players' potential now more than we were then?

I think the answer is yes. Obviously we also have some better players - but I can't actually say that Southee-Boult-Milne-Vettori is better than Bond-Mills-Oram-Vettori-Styris (they must've played together, surely?).

Or this one:
Mills
Bond
Cairns
Oram
Vettori

I suppose the major difference is that the players couldn't stay on the park.

I was really responding to Flem's post in isolation there. I had a mate the other day trying to tell me Elliott was like Styris & thought Flem summed it up perfectly in saying he's a poor-mans Styris (well vice versa).

 

[Flem274*]

yup and that's not a knock on elliott either. he's quality but scotty's early years as a bowler throw off the cricinfo profile judges perception of how good he was, both statistically and through watching. when you remove those four years spent as a bowling allrounder the batting average jumps to 36 which is good for his era. 92 wickets @ 34 during that period isn't bad either.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

yup and that's not a knock on elliott either. he's quality but scotty's early years as a bowler throw off the cricinfo profile judges perception of how good he was, both statistically and through watching. when you remove those four years spent as a bowling allrounder the batting average jumps to 36 which is good for his era. 92 wickets @ 34 during that period isn't bad either.

his 110kph cutters were a blight on the game, but damn were they effective.