Best ODI XI You Have Seen

[pasag]

Do they have another trophy at the WC for the best team on paper.

Maybe they should give a trophy to the team that didnt win but was the best team.

Let them keep the receipt.

 

[Uppercut]

The best Australian ODI side I ever saw wasn't half bad either:
M Waugh
Gilchrist
Ponting
Bevan
S Waugh
Lehmann
Martyn
Warne
B Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

(I'm fairly sure that appeared together once or twice in 2000/01)

Australia's 2007 World Cup team:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Watson
Hogg
Bracken
Tait
McGrath

Those are some crazy teams.

Then you have the side from the Champions Trophy the previous year:

Gilchrist
Watson
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey
Hogg
Bracken
Lee
McGrath

A fully fit Australian side could have had something along the lines of:

Hayden
Gilchrist
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Hussey
Watson
Warne
Bracken
Lee
McGrath

Give or take a Martyn, Clarke or Watto.. I can't really conceive of a better lineup than that. Nine of the eleven are genuine ODI greats IMO.

 

[The Sean]

Nah, I don't see how anyone could claim Australia outplayed Pakistan - Pakistan had the better side, and simply imploded.

Both South Africa and Pakistan were better sides than Australia in 1999 (2002/03 and 2007 are completely irrelevant to 1999 in case anyone should be unaware) and merely missed crucial moments - South Africa the case of one delivery, Pakistan the case of one innings.

But Rich, you always say that. We’ve had this discussion before - every single time Australia ever wiped the floor with someone (usually South Africa) yet again, it’s because that other team just happened to fall apart when they played Australia. You never, ever seem to think it was because Australia were flat out better. Over and over again. Year after year.

 

[GIMH]

Burgey and Turbinator frontrunners for Post of the Year imo.

Haha, agree on both counts, both absolute diamonds, and I'm no lover of Aussie cricket

That's assuming the Turb post you're talking about is the one about people trashing ODIs

Seriously Burgey, top stuff, your best post that didn't mention mints for sure

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, agree on both counts, both absolute diamonds, and I'm no lover of Aussie cricket

That's assuming the Turb post you're talking about is the one about people trashing ODIs

Seriously Burgey, top stuff, your best post that didn't mention mints for sure

Haha, yeah. Thats the one.

 

[Richard]

A tournament is that, it involves knockouts and the one who remains undefeated in those is crowned the winner. Australia did it and hence deserved the trophy.

No-one has said they didn't deserve the trophy. All that's been said is that they weren't the best side in the tournament.

The best side in the tournament and the one that desrvedly wins a competition involving knockouts isn't neccessarily the same thing and it's IMO laughable to suggest it is.

 

[Richard]

In a tournament you can play handsomely and thrash all comers in the prelimenary stages, it means absolutely nothing if you can't do it in the pressure situation of a semi final or a final.

It doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all, else no-one would even bother watching preliminary matches. The knockout matches are

Also anyone contending that South Africa in 1999 "couldn't do it in the pressure situation of a semi-final" is stretching credulity. One player ****ed-up one delivery - that isn't akin to the entire team falling-apart as happened in with Pakistan in the final.

 

[Richard]

But Rich, you always say that. We’ve had this discussion before - every single time Australia ever wiped the floor with someone (usually South Africa) yet again, it’s because that other team just happened to fall apart when they played Australia. You never, ever seem to think it was because Australia were flat out better. Over and over again. Year after year.

In the case of the 1999 World Cup you can't even claim Australia were better, because South Africa had indeed had the better of them with similar teams in recent years. South Africa were the better side, they didn't fall apart and Australia didn't wipe the floor with them - the two played-out two incredibly close matches, both of which either side could easily have won. Then at the last minute, one SAfrican player made a crucial mistake.

The comparison you make with previous instances isn't entirely a valid one. There are a fair few things that are different to when I've said what you mention I've said.

 

[Richard]

Seriously Burgey, top stuff, your best post that didn't mention mints for sure

I'm not really sure it was TBH. It was a post that drew parrallels between a lot of things which were completely irrelevant to one-another.

A bit like when Fuller tried to claim I rated Craig White a better bowler than Glenn McGrath because I said in one thread that he could do things with the ball that McGrath couldn't, praised White in another thread, and talked McGrath down a little in another.

Most of the stuff ol' CB moaned about - if it was even stuff which had been said, which some of it wasn't - related to Test cricket, and this thread's content is entirely centred around ODIs. Then there's the fact that he essentially said that Australia's 2002/03 and 2007 WC victories meant something as to how strong their side or anyone else's was in 1999.

It's fair enough to be annoyed about some of the stuff concerned (and if some of the imagined stuff had actually been said it certainly would be), but much of it was needless thread-crossing.

 

[GIMH]

Meh, I disagree, but it's all opinion hey

 

[zaremba]

Mate, it's ****ing true. Go and add up all the threads and posts that have been made on here in recent times about how every component of those Australian sides is bettered by at least one, and usually more, of their opponents, and so help me, it's a miracle they won the lucky door prize at the post-match function.

It's almost as if people don't like Australians. I mean... how could it possibly be???

 

[GIMH]

 

[Furball]

It doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all, else no-one would even bother watching preliminary matches. The knockout matches are

Also anyone contending that South Africa in 1999 "couldn't do it in the pressure situation of a semi-final" is stretching credulity. One player ****ed-up one delivery - that isn't akin to the entire team falling-apart as happened in with Pakistan in the final.

No, but at the same time great teams, in any sport, win the important matches when it matters most.

That South Africa might have been the better side immediately before the World Cup and played better during the World Cup and ran Australia close in 2 games ultimately counts for nothing.

Same way as in the Premiership, Arsenal play the best football of the title contenders. However, in their two home games against Man Utd and Chelsea they've been beaten heavily. You'd be hard pressed to win an argument if you claimed that Arsenal are the best side in England - because they patently aren't.

Granted, World Cups are knockout, and a bit of luck on the day can go a long way. Australia winning the first games vs South Africa in 99 might have come down to luck. However, when an event keeps repeating itself over and over - as Australian supremacy over South Africa did in the 90s, particularly in the Test arena - it boils down to something more than good fortune.

 

[silentstriker]

I actually watched the 2003 WC final, and really, I was telling my family who had all gathered for the final how India had no shot whatsoever. They all got pissed, and I quietly made a lot money betting against all of them. I think I made like $700 from $20 bets with everyone....

Best part was I didn't particularly care, so I would cheer on the Aussies everytime they made runs and make fun of the Indian seam bowling. No one liked me when they scored 350+.

Good times. Hard to go past the 2003 WC Aussie side.

 

[Cruxdude]

Mate, it's ****ing true. Go and add up all the threads and posts that have been made on here in recent times about how every component of those Australian sides is bettered by at least one, and usually more, of their opponents, and so help me, it's a miracle they won the lucky door prize at the post-match function.

Ya for almost every component of Australia we can find an arguably better player but unfortunately they all do not play for the same team. Australia was a team made up of guys who were all competing to be the best in whatever they do. That makes up a world beating team. It is just that there are players who can be argued to be better than the corresponding Australian player.

 

[Streetwise]

Ya for almost every component of Australia we can find an arguably better player but unfortunately they all do not play for the same team. Australia was a team made up of guys who were all competing to be the best in whatever they do. That makes up a world beating team. It is just that there are players who can be argued to be better than the corresponding Australian player.

They did try that with the world XI against Australia but they got smashed which didnt prove the point people hoped.

The funny thing is Australia loose all the "if" games but win all the real games and its the "if" games that drags down their abilities.

 

[Cruxdude]

They did try that with the world XI against Australia but they got smashed which didnt prove the point people hoped.

The funny thing is Australia loose all the "if" games but win all the real games and its the "if" games that drags down their abilities.

That is also the reason the IPL teams didn't reach the finals of the CL. You can't make a team in a few days.

Australia has been the allround perfect team for most of the last 2 decades and it shows in their results but that shouldn't stop people from saying

Sachin > Ponting
Murali > Warne
Ambrose > McGrath
Donald > Gillespie

 

[Streetwise]

That is also the reason the IPL teams didn't reach the finals of the CL. You can't make a team in a few days.

Australia has been the allround perfect team for most of the last 2 decades and it shows in their results but that shouldn't stop people from saying

Sachin > Ponting
Murali > Warne
Ambrose > McGrath
Donald > Gillespie

And nor should it stop people from saying

Sachin< Ponting
Murali < Warne
Ambrose < McGrath
Donald > Gillespie (I'm not gunna touch this one.)

Pointless arguements dont you think, its just as pointless to say Ponting is better than Tendulkar as it is to say Tendulkar is better than Ponting.

 

[Cruxdude]

And nor should it stop people from saying

Sachin< Ponting
Murali < Warne
Ambrose < McGrath
Donald > Gillespie (I'm not gunna touch this one.)

Pointless arguements dont you think, its just as pointless to say Ponting is better than Tendulkar as it is to say Tendulkar is better than Ponting.

Yeah true. We all know how good a team Australia was (notice was ). Claiming there are players better than those in the Australian team is not wrong and the original post makes no sense.

 

[Zinzan]

Pointless arguements dont you think, its just as pointless to say Ponting is better than Tendulkar as it is to say Tendulkar is better than Ponting.

Beautifully summed up tbh