Blaze 18
Banned
Nah. They are a formidable side with or without Watson (it's stronger with Watson, obviously). Besides, every side becomes weaker when you take out its best player.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Australia is still number one - haters can rightfully ask why.
- Thread starter Burgey
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Course it should ffs. It's the world championship. How can you win the world championship at a sport and not be number one in it? Be like Spain not being ranked one after the football WC. India in a similar position - were there or thereabouts pre-tourney and then won the biggest event in the sport, and the only one in the format which everyone really cares about.No one (except maybe Burgey?) is arguing that winning the WC should automatically make you #1. Just that the WC matches should be weighted more-so than the dead rubber 7th match of England vs. Australia where Australia are already 5-1 up
robelinda
International Vice-Captain
I dunno, remember the 92 world cup? Pakistan win, but then were utterly abysmal for the next 2 years. No way were they the number one team in ODI for anything longer than the period between the WC final and their next match a few months later, they came back to Australia in the same year and were horrible. Great team, no. Great team if Imran is captain, yes.
tooextracool
International Coach
The only way Clarke is close to being near an all time Aus XI is if you discount all cricket played by Australia before 2010. And Ponting at 36 wouldnt be fit to carry the drinks for that side.
tooextracool
International Coach
I see your argument, but the format of this world cup hardly lends itself any credibility for crowning someone undisputed world #1. India made it through to the QFs winning as many as 1 game against a top 8 nation. The point is not that I dont think India are the number one team in the world, because they are. But lets not kid ourself that this world cup had a huge say in that. End of the day any team that got on a role for 3 games in a row could very well have won that tournament and that essentially could have been even if they hadnt bothered to turn up until the QFs.
As much as the ICC deserves to be blasted for the 2015 world cup format, I think because of the format, the team that wins that will be able to come out of that tournament as the undisputed world champions.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hmm.. in 2007, SA got to the semis beating only one half-decent side in SL (not counting England and WI who were totally dire). That sort of thing can happen in any one-off tournament.
Spark
Global Moderator
It should have been quite clear that I meant ODIs...
tooextracool
International Coach
Not sure what your point is here. South Africa were a pretty poor side in the 2007 tournament but I'd like to hear which other team that didnt make the semis was better? Only 3 teams turned up that tournament, 2 made the final, and the other in NZ made the semi final. Like or hate the 2007 format, the bottom line is that the best team jumped through all the hoops required to be considered the best in the world, and SA jumped through all the hoops required to suggest that they were in the top 4.
tooextracool
International Coach
I am talking about ODIs. Have you ever watched Matthew Hayden, Mark Waugh, Dean Jones, Michael Bevan, Darren Lehman, Andrew Symonds, Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting bat?
Lets not kid ourselves. Clarke is a little bit above average, there is no chance in hell he's an all time ODI great.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But, how is it more acceptable for a side to scrape through to the SFs on the back of unconvincing results (and go on to win) than just to the QFs like in this WC? Bottom line is you have to raise your performance at some stage when it matters, if you can do that you have as good a chance as anybody to take home the Cup (see Pakistan in '92).
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
I wouldn't pick him myself but he's not entirely below consideration now that he's stopped scoring at a snail's pace. Or at least by the end of his career won't be anyway. Besides which your post about "discounting cricket before 2010" makes no sense. Surely you meant discounting 08/09 only.
tooextracool
International Coach
tooextracool
International Coach
I meant that the only way Clarke would make an all time XI was if Australia had never played a game before 2010.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, you said it was only this year's format that could have resulted in an undeserving World No. 1. I said that's not necessarily the case, it could have happened in 2007 also (for now, let's disregard the fact that SA were actually No. 1 in the middle of the tournament based on their previous consistency) and people have already cited the '92 tournament, which was the closest thing to a league format a WC has ever had. The nature of a tournament that comes along once in every four years, is that it's all about peaking at that moment. The same thing will happen in 2015 again if there isn't a runaway No. 1 and winner like Australia in their peak years.
tooextracool
International Coach
I think the point I am getting at is that every game needs to be relevant in a world cup. What I am not a fan off is the idea that a team can get a free pass for most of the tournament and show up in the QFs. The 92 and 07 world cup did that because the teams that took it easy at the start of the tournament got eliminated.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I understand the criticism that this tournament did not have enough games (would have been even fewer if England hadn't lost to the minnows) with a whole lot riding on them because of the big groups. But, basically, when designing a format, there is a tradeoff in the number of games you can guarantee will be high-stakes ones and the number that are likely to be relevant. In this WC, they were basically guaranteed 7 all-or-nothing games. In previous editions, they designed it with multiple group stages etc. and 3 knockout games, which in theory should have produced more virtual knockout games, but in reality it didn't happen because of early upsets, teams not showing up etc. At the end of the day, there's no silver bullet format that's guaranteed to produce an exciting tournament, it all depends on how closely the teams are matched and the quality of cricket they are able to produce. Sometimes, external factors like the order of scheduling also comes into it.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
What about the All Blacks - pretty much the best team in World Rugby for god knows how long now but when did they last win the World Cup?
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah I know. So at the conclusion of those WCs, how can they be ranked one?
I'm not saying the winners hang on to the ranking for four years, I'm saying that on the heels of the WC, the rankings should reflect the fact that India, who were there or thereabouts before it, are now number one.
It's not like Ireland got up and won the WC, and came from 12th or whatever in the rankings beforehand. India was in the top two or three sides going in iirc.