Final.

[pup11]

I won't rate the Lankans as the no. 2 side in the world on just the basis of this tournament, ok they did well recently in odi's in England and New Zealand, but they would have to be a lot more consistent to be rated as the no. 2 side in the world.

 

[pasag]

Well done Australia on defeating the worst team to ever make a World Cup final. Well done to Sri Lanka for making the final (in somewhat Bradbury-like circumstances).

Harsh, very harsh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wost team? how? Sri Lanka game more of a fight than india and pakistan in 03 and 99.

I didn't say worst performance. I said worst team. Probably a tad harsh, but I don't really rate the current Sri Lankan side that highly. The fact that they made the final and are one of the best ODI sides currently really says a lot more for the inept management and selection of some of the other sides than any particular brilliance from them.

 

[pasag]

Anyways, I was just thinking (while CW was offline for like 6 hours ) that this tournament win from Australia is even more amazing since we lost our best ODI bowler, Lee, right before the Cup. I remember when that happened there was quite abit of talk that without Lee and the strength of the SA and our already seemingly dire attack, we'd never ever be able to do it. The way Australia was able to overcome that with Tait is what made this win ever more special.

 

[Alysum]

Anyways, I was just thinking (while CW was offline for like 6 hours ) that this tournament win from Australia is even more amazing since we lost our best ODI bowler, Lee, right before the Cup. I remember when that happened there was quite abit of talk that without Lee and the strength of the SA and our already seemingly dire attack, we'd never ever be able to do it. The way Australia was able to overcome that with Tait is what made this win ever more special.

just like 03 without Warne (and later Gillespie)

 

[pup11]

Yup, i think it is special effort from the Aussies to win this WC without Lee, and more than just winning the WC its the manner in which they have won the WC thats more impressive.



This is the most comprehensive WC winning campaign by any team in the history of the game, not only did the Aussies win all their games but they weren't even tested in a single game (or lets say they never allowed any team to test them).

 

[Swervy]

I didn't say worst performance. I said worst team. Probably a tad harsh, but I don't really rate the current Sri Lankan side that highly. The fact that they made the final and are one of the best ODI sides currently really says a lot more for the inept management and selection of some of the other sides than any particular brilliance from them.

Just cannot agree with this in the slightest. As far as I can tell, the top 4 teams in ODI cricket at the moment is about as strong as it has ever been, and its fair to say that Sri lanka are second of those 4...and I would also say that Sri lanka this time round are probably tha most other teams that have ever got to the final...including the SL team that won it in 96

 

[cover drive man]

Well done Australia.

 

[chaminda_00]

I didn't say worst performance. I said worst team. Probably a tad harsh, but I don't really rate the current Sri Lankan side that highly. The fact that they made the final and are one of the best ODI sides currently really says a lot more for the inept management and selection of some of the other sides than any particular brilliance from them.

Most Sri Lankan would say this side overall is better then the 96 side. Even though guys like Arnold, Dilshan, Fernando and Tharanga might not be that great yet (in Tharanga case) they are still better then Mahanama, Tillkarnatne (at that stage) and Wickramasinghe. And all three batsmen above were a lot more consistent then Kulawitharana, maybe not as damaging but more consistant.

Really i think your looking at the dominance of the Australian team and just putting down the ability of the other teams due their dominance. As others have pointed out the top probably as strong as its been for a while, but this Australian team are just that much better.

 

[Benny2k1]

I didn't say worst performance. I said worst team. Probably a tad harsh, but I don't really rate the current Sri Lankan side that highly. The fact that they made the final and are one of the best ODI sides currently really says a lot more for the inept management and selection of some of the other sides than any particular brilliance from them.

Jayasuria (
Murali
Vaas
Malinga
Sangakkara

I wish we (England) were that bad

 

[Prince EWS]

Jayasuria (
Murali
Vaas
Malinga
Sangakkara

I wish we (England) were that bad

England are much, much worse actually. No hiding that fact. As much as I don't rate Sri Lanka very highly at the moment - I really don't rate anyone very highly at the moment, in comparison to say.. four years ago.

 

[Johnners]

Gilly!! What a star, once again he produces when it matter most, and people begin to question his place in the team. I'm saddened by the fact that i somehow managed to fall asleep about half an hour before play eventually started, and only woke-up to see the last few balls of his innings before he was dismissed

It was great to see McGrath doing out a deserved winner, and the fact that he managed to take out the Man of the Series award, in a tournament that imo was batsmen dominant, is quite simply amazing, and it examplifies just how brilliant he has been during his entire career.

It will take some performance if this Australian teams domination of a World Cup is ever matched, or bettered, and i honestly can't see it happening for a long, long, long time.

CARN AUSTRALIA!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chaminda_00]

England are much, much worse actually. No hiding that fact. As much as I don't rate Sri Lanka very highly at the moment - I really don't rate anyone very highly at the moment, in comparison to say.. four years ago.

Were they really that great four years, that Indian side was nothing special. Sri Lanka and Kenya were the other teams to make the semi finals. If you were talking about 99 when the South African gave it a big push and Pakistan had a brillant bowling attack, you might have a point.

 

[Beleg]

Congragulations to the Australians on winning the world cup.

Too bad the rain spoiled what was blossoming to be an extremely interesting game.

Just cannot agree with this in the slightest. As far as I can tell, the top 4 teams in ODI cricket at the moment is about as strong as it has ever been, and its fair to say that Sri lanka are second of those 4...and I would also say that Sri lanka this time round are probably tha most other teams that have ever got to the final...including the SL team that won it in 96

I would pretty much agree with this.

 

[Prince EWS]

Were they really that great four years, that Indian side was nothing special. Sri Lanka and Kenya were the other teams to make the semi finals. If you were talking about 99 when the South African gave it a big push and Pakistan had a brillant bowling attack, you might have a point.

I wasn't talking about World Cup performances - I was talking about how good sides were in general. Four years ago, Pakistan were most certainly declining, so I might stretch it to 6 or 7 (although I was hesistant to put a number like that in because I was only a casual follower of cricket until about 2002 or 2003.)

I may be wrong really, but I generally think teams are a significantly worse now than they were a few years back. I don't really think Sri Lanka have a side that should have resulted in a WC final appearance (don't get me wrong - their performances in the tournament most certainly made them worthy of it - I just don't think their team overall is THAT good) and when a team with a player pool as low as New Zealand and a team in the dire, dire form South Africa showed make the semi finals, I think we have problems. England, West Indies, India and Pakistan basically put up no competition whatsoever which is perhaps where my gripe lies. I'd love to see, for example, a team play as well as Sri Lanka did and finish fourth - having the final we saw as the semi-final. Whether that standard of cricket actually ever happened or I'm just looking to the immediate past with rose-coloured glasses is definitely up for debate - but in reality I think I'm just disappointed at what England, Pakistan and India offered up.

 

[andyc]

Malinga out!

Nobody cares!

Nobody can see!

This is ****ing stupid!

Hahaha. Best post.

 

[pasag]

Hahaha. Best post.

Yeah I watched the game for a second time on the highlights today with the hindsight of what was going on. On the one hand it was really comical but on the other hand it was one of the most absurd and ridiculous things in sport, perhaps with the exception of Sirengate and Ovalgate, I've ever seen. And that's on a repeat viewing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, love Jamee's post too. Cracker.

Totally disagree with EWS too. The current SL side is comfortably better than the '96 team, and probably better than India in 2003 as well. Obviously miles and miles ahead in the bowling department, though behind in the batting.

A quality team even in historical terms IMO, as are South Africa and probably New Zealand too at the moment. It's a strong period for ODI cricket, but there are a number of pretty disappointing ODI teams at the moment, and obviously Australia are in a different league.

 

[James]

NZ a quality team currently? I read somewhere that Fleming rated the 2003 and 1999 WC teams as stronger teams but the 2007 version a more prepared team.

Australia are just awsome at the moment, they really are so far in front. Congrats on a Champs Trophy, Ashes and WC win!

 

[chaminda_00]

I wasn't talking about World Cup performances - I was talking about how good sides were in general. Four years ago, Pakistan were most certainly declining, so I might stretch it to 6 or 7 (although I was hesistant to put a number like that in because I was only a casual follower of cricket until about 2002 or 2003.)

I may be wrong really, but I generally think teams are a significantly worse now than they were a few years back. I don't really think Sri Lanka have a side that should have resulted in a WC final appearance (don't get me wrong - their performances in the tournament most certainly made them worthy of it - I just don't think their team overall is THAT good) and when a team with a player pool as low as New Zealand and a team in the dire, dire form South Africa showed make the semi finals, I think we have problems. England, West Indies, India and Pakistan basically put up no competition whatsoever which is perhaps where my gripe lies. I'd love to see, for example, a team play as well as Sri Lanka did and finish fourth - having the final we saw as the semi-final. Whether that standard of cricket actually ever happened or I'm just looking to the immediate past with rose-coloured glasses is definitely up for debate - but in reality I think I'm just disappointed at what England, Pakistan and India offered up.

2003 was a while ago, but from memory most of sides were probably worse then what the sides were in this tournment. Sri Lanka played worse then what they did in '99 but made the semis, they were far better in this World Cup. NZ seemed far more consistant in this World Cup then in '03. Boycott played a big part but Pakistan, South Africa, England and West Indies all failed to make the Super Six. Really the teams were worse in standard in the last World Cup then this one. The difference was Australia wasn't as diminate so they look as bad.