Lance Klusener- contender for greatest ODI allrounder- or at least all-time XI?

[Jungle Jumbo]

The wierd thing about Klusener is that his form disappeared very quickly. He's been playing for Northants for a couple of seasons now, but I never switch the TV on thinking, 'Klusener's playing, this could be carnage'. He receives very little media attention - perhaps justified by his fairly average figures - given that England would have killed for a player of his calibre over the last 15 years.

 

[Ikki]

Pretty hard to say that Warne would have made an impact on the Pakistan performance in the final.

Huh? I am not talking about the final. I am saying had Warne not turned the semi against the Saffies on it's head that S.Africa probably would have went on and won it.

 

[Ikki]

Even with Warne, if it wasn't for an inability to run the most vital single of the whole SA team's lives, they'd still have reached the final - and thus, on the presumption that Pakistan would've gone to pieces the way they did against Aus, won it.

If it wasn't for Warne it would have never even got that close. They were scoring at 4 runs an over and had almost 50 runs - chasing 213 - for no wickets. Warne comes on and takes 4/5 top order batsmen for chips.

 

[Richard]

The wierd thing about Klusener is that his form disappeared very quickly. He's been playing for Northants for a couple of seasons now, but I never switch the TV on thinking, 'Klusener's playing, this could be carnage'. He receives very little media attention - perhaps justified by his fairly average figures - given that England would have killed for a player of his calibre over the last 15 years.

Klusener's batting has been as good as ever for pretty well all the counties he's played for, in both forms of the game. Really surprises me how little attention he's got.

As I say, it's his bowling that's fallen away as he's gotten older. He was never quite the same after the ankle injury in 1998, but he was still a good front-liner for a time. Since about 2005 or so, he just hasn't bowled very well.

 

[Richard]

If it wasn't for Warne it would have never even got that close. They were scoring at 4 runs an over and had almost 50 runs - chasing 213 - for no wickets. Warne comes on and takes 4/5 top order batsmen for chips.

Yeah, obviously so, but even despite this they'd still basically got their foot on the line, before the mix-up cost everything.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Klusener's batting has been as good as ever for pretty well all the counties he's played for, in both forms of the game. Really surprises me how little attention he's got.

As I say, it's his bowling that's fallen away as he's gotten older. He was never quite the same after the ankle injury in 1998, but he was still a good front-liner for a time. Since about 2005 or so, he just hasn't bowled very well.

Just checked out his batting for the recent season - stunning in the Championship. I think the fact I didn't realise that goes a long way to showing the lack of media attention he receives. If you look through his one-day stats over the past few seasons, he's barely played a big innings though. It would appear he's batting too low: number seven is fine for South Africa, but he's wasted down there in county cricket. Should be a number three or four.

 

[NUFAN]

Huh? I am not talking about the final. I am saying had Warne not turned the semi against the Saffies on it's head that S.Africa probably would have went on and won it.

You claimed that without Shane Warne, South Africa would have won the World Cup.

I just pointed out that they would have faced a Pakistan side and could have easily lost the final against them.

 

[Ikki]

You claimed that without Shane Warne, South Africa would have won the World Cup.

I just pointed out that they would have faced a Pakistan side and could have easily lost the final against them.

I'm sure it is a possibility, but whether they could have easily done so? I disagree. S.Africa were more than a match for the Aussies themselves (probably had a better side) and I think would have done as well as the Aussies, who thrashed Pakistan in that final.

 

[tooextracool]

You claimed that without Shane Warne, South Africa would have won the World Cup.

I just pointed out that they would have faced a Pakistan side and could have easily lost the final against them.

SA were easily the best team in that world cup. Hands down IMO. Pakistan werent even a patch on them. I guess you could also say the same about SA in the 96 world cup. However, sometimes the best teams dont win the world cup (as we see so very often in the footy world cup, i mean italy? world champions? come on) and thats just the way it is. I think the only team that could have beaten SA in that world cup was Australia and thats because when it comes down to rising to the big occasion, Australia have always been head and shoulders above every other team. However, if we were to look at the overall team performance during that tournament, Australia were probably number 3 rather than number 1.

 

[NUFAN]

SA were easily the best team in that world cup. Hands down IMO. Pakistan werent even a patch on them. I guess you could also say the same about SA in the 96 world cup. However, sometimes the best teams dont win the world cup (as we see so very often in the footy world cup, i mean italy? world champions? come on) and thats just the way it is. I think the only team that could have beaten SA in that world cup was Australia and thats because when it comes down to rising to the big occasion, Australia have always been head and shoulders above every other team. However, if we were to look at the overall team performance during that tournament, Australia were probably number 3 rather than number 1.

I agree with you.

South Africa were great however Pakistan were dominant too except for the final and the game against Bangladesh.

Pakistan were terrific in that semi final against a very capable New Zealand side and I'm sure in the end a Pakistan vs South Africa was pretty much even money on who would win.

 

[krkode]

I agree with you.

South Africa were great however Pakistan were dominant too except for the final and the game against Bangladesh.

Pakistan were terrific in that semi final against a very capable New Zealand side and I'm sure in the end a Pakistan vs South Africa was pretty much even money on who would win.

They lost to India too. Venkatesh Prasad, I believe it was, put up a superb bowling performance. But yeah, Pakistan were no slouches during that World Cup. I even recall them beating Aus in the group stages and if I remember right, Australia barely made it to the super six and with 0 points too.

But like was mentioned before, if I had to put money on a team rising to the occasion when the chips are down, it'd be Australia.

 

[Precambrian]

They lost to India too. Venkatesh Prasad, I believe it was, put up a superb bowling performance. But yeah, Pakistan were no slouches during that World Cup. I even recall them beating Aus in the group stages and if I remember right, Australia barely made it to the super six and with 0 points too.

But like was mentioned before, if I had to put money on a team rising to the occasion when the chips are down, it'd be Australia.

Yeah ol' Venky who always came good when the opposition was Pakistan.

 

[gwo]

They lost to India too. Venkatesh Prasad, I believe it was, put up a superb bowling performance. But yeah, Pakistan were no slouches during that World Cup. I even recall them beating Aus in the group stages and if I remember right, Australia barely made it to the super six and with 0 points too.

But like was mentioned before, if I had to put money on a team rising to the occasion when the chips are down, it'd be Australia.

Yep.

Australia scrapped through 99 WC.

 

[G.I.Joe]

SA were easily the best team in that world cup. Hands down IMO. Pakistan werent even a patch on them. I guess you could also say the same about SA in the 96 world cup. However, sometimes the best teams dont win the world cup (as we see so very often in the footy world cup, i mean italy? world champions? come on) and thats just the way it is. I think the only team that could have beaten SA in that world cup was Australia and thats because when it comes down to rising to the big occasion, Australia have always been head and shoulders above every other team. However, if we were to look at the overall team performance during that tournament, Australia were probably number 3 rather than number 1.

Yeah, I seem to remember Pakistan going through a torrid period against SA around that time too. SA had beaten Pakistan for 13 straight ODIs or something.